Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Yawn

Posted in:

Illinois

* Is anyone except for the most extreme Obama bashers even remotely surprised by this?

Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago who brought criminal fraud charges against Rod Blagojevich, will be staying in his job in the Obama administration, even though he was appointed to the position by President George W. Bush.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees. The normal practice, when there’s a change of political parties in the White House, is for the incoming administration to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys with appointees from the new president’s party. For now, the Obama administration has asked the current Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys to remain in their posts while it considers how many to retain.

But Fitzgerald will not be asked to move on. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has recommended that Eric Holder, the new attorney general, keep Fitzgerald. That suggestion was “positively received,” according to officials at the Justice Department and Sen. Durbin’s office.

The tinfoil hat types who insisted that Obama would can Fitzgerald failed to make any sort of credible case. Axing Fitz would’ve created a gigantic media firestorm, whether it was the president’s perogative or not. Also, keeping Fitzgerald in place makes extra sure that most everybody in Chicago will try to behave themselves. Blagojevich apparently couldn’t contain himself, but that’s because he is totally goofy.

* Related…

* Kelly pleads not guilty

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 11:58 am

Comments

So far,Fitzgerald hasn’t gone after the real powers in northern Illinois:unless you believe Robert Sorich is the one running things in northern part of Illinois.Whether Fitzgerald stays or goes isn’t going to affect corruption in Illinois no matter what the media claims.

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:07 pm
I don’t have a tinfoil cap but until Blago was arrested I was concerned that Obama would renege on his promise to keep Fitzgerald just as Obama reneged on public financing and town hall meetings (two other reform ideas).

Comment by chimack Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:07 pm
Rich, your naivete astounds me. This is just a part of the master Combine scheme.

Obama lulls Fitz into a false sense of security by keeping him in his job prosecuting Illinois Democrats and Republicans. Then, um, well, pretty soon, in a devious twist, Obama, he, he goes and uh…..

We’re still working on that part.

Love,

The Combine

cc: John Kass

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:10 pm
HILARIOUS wordslinger.

chimack — it sounds like you’re donning tinfoil body armor. Obama didn’t ‘renege’ on either public financing or town hall meetings. PS: The election is over. John McCain has moved on…why can’t his followers?

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:17 pm
It’s a victory for sunshine. It’s only because of the intense focus that Fitz is still around.

It’s easy for those on the sidelines to now scoff with 20/20 hindsight about how Fitz was never in danger of being canned.

But for crying out loud, let’s not forget there was sworn testimony during Rezko’s trial about efforts from big-wig Dems and Repubs to replace Fitz.

And don’t forget how the Bush Administration had something of a scandal on its hands a couple of years back with Hastert buddy Karl Rove and others being accused of trying to get rid of certain U.S. Attorneys.

Fitz will stay and that’s good. But it’s not from lack of trying to replace him.

So let’s stock up on tin foil. It seems to be working. Black helicopters too. Let’s hope there’s some funds in the stimulus.

Comment by GOP'er Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:24 pm
Goper, I the problem wasn’t asking for resignations, all presidents do after a transition from other party rule, the problem with Bush, was that he did it because they wouldn’t prosecute Democrats just before elections.

Comment by Ken Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:32 pm
Didn’t Obama give his commitment during an interview with Sun-Times editorial staff last year to keep Fitzgerald in the job? That was before Rezko’s conviction, but the promise was recorded for posterity. Barry would have had a tough time explaining that one.

Comment by Interested Observer Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:32 pm
===It’s easy for those on the sidelines to now scoff with 20/20 hindsight about how Fitz was never in danger of being canned.===

Right on cue, the tinfoil hatters take credit.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:33 pm
Wanna get rid of Fitz? Have someone offer him a job in the private sector with an extraordinary salary.

Fitz resigns, citing his desire to spend time with his family and pursue other options in the private sector.

Obama is off the hook. QED.

That’s how you get rid of Fitz.

Comment by Leroy Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:38 pm
Kelly not guilty? Oh, c’mon now…what’s his attorney’s strategy?

Comment by Anonymous45 Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:38 pm
{The normal practice, when there’s a change of political parties in the White House, is for the incoming administration to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys with appointees from the new president’s party.}

Shouldn’t the normal practice be only to fill a vacancy which results from retirement, disability, death or removal for cause, through appointment with the most qualified attorney based on a combination of education, experience, and temprament?

Why should the practice require placement with appointees from either the old, or the new president’s party?

Justice is supposed to be blind; is it not? So why should the party of the President play a role in this process at all?

I’d be far more impressed if Obama simply established that policy now going forward, and only remove people from positions for cause, rather than by consideration of the political party of the person occupying the position.

Now that would be change we could believe in. The more things change however; the more they remain the same.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:38 pm
When could the Previous contain himself?

Comment by Express Yourself Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:39 pm
===Shouldn’t the normal practice be only to fill a vacancy which results from retirement, disability, death or removal for cause====

You’d want them appointed for life? That’s a bit extreme.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:44 pm
never thought they would take the job away from him. still think they will promote him or offer him something else he wants when it opens up. like nyc or fbi. he’s bigger than us.

Comment by Amy Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:45 pm
Ken, actually new presidents DON’T typically ask for the resignations of all the sitting U.S. Attorneys.

Recall that when Bill Clinton did it right after his 1993 swearing in, it was a HUGE dust up. It was a huge story precisely because it wasn’t the norm.

Comment by GOP'er Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:46 pm
===Ken, actually new presidents DON’T typically ask for the resignations of all the sitting U.S. Attorneys.===

Mostly wrong…

===Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.===

The propaganda about this particular issue is intense and extreme in its falsity.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:56 pm
That’s how you get rid of Fitz.

Fitz could walk away at any time to a job of his choosing. Believe it or not, there are some people for who money is not their primary motivator.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 12:57 pm
Leroy, you don’t think that occurred to those who wanted to get rid of him years ago — and that they had the means to do so?

My guess is that Fitz could have long ago had a corner office in any white stocking law firm in Chicago, New York or Washington, if that’s what he wanted.

Fitz became untouchable for the Bush Administration when he was named special prosecutor in the Plame Affair. He’s always been untouchable for Obama.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:03 pm
As a lawyer I’ve been through four Presidential changes-of-party (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush) and the US Attorneys typically are asked to send in their resignations, most (but not all) of which are accepted. I have to wonder how long Fitzgerald wants to stay as Chicago USA - usually four years is enough for anyone, and he’ll be going on 8 years there. There are a number of Democratic lawyers who have lobbied Sen. Durbin for the job. But for political reasons, Pres. Obama can’t fire Fitzgerald now. After the Blago indictment/conviction, I would think Fitzgerald will voluntarily leave. That would make everyone happy politically.

Comment by Legaleagle Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:23 pm
{You’d want them appointed for life? That’s a bit extreme.}

No I’d want them to be able to administer justice free from political influence or patronage; and only allow removal for cause. This would create a greater opportunity for equal justice under the law.

Why should this position be a political appointment? It shouldn’t! It is by tradition or custom; not by law. The opportunity is there to change the custom. The first person that changes it gets the credit for doing so because it is the right thing to do.Those that continue the practice would get the credit also.

The person that does not do the right thing when given the opportunity to do so, is simply perceived like everyone else.

Like I said before; the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:28 pm
===Why should this position be a political appointment? ===

Then what about the US Attorney General? After all, the US Attorneys report to the US AG. For that matter, why should the FBI director not be appointed until he/she decides to step down?

We live in a Republic. That means politics.

Also, when I asked if you wanted them appointed for life you said “No” and then said you’d want them appointed until they were removed for cause. That is appointment for life.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:34 pm
Who cares? He’s just another federal bureaucrat who spends most of his time looking out the window. He’s been at the trough for almost 9 years. Its time to let someone else have a sip.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:34 pm
“The propaganda about this particular issue is intense and extreme in its falsity.”

Yes, I know. It’s sad.

There’s a big difference between asking for all the resignations on day one of a new administration, and replacing folks in the normal course of business.

The fact is most U.S. Attorneys don’t complete a four year term, no matter when they come in. The average lifespan is much shorter. They typically get their dance cards punched and move on to other opportunies.

But most presidents have NOT required all the resignations from the start.

Geez, can anyone on this blog even Google?

Comment by GOP'er Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:37 pm
GOP’er, first of all, Clinton didn’t ask for the resignations on Day One.

Secondly, GWBush asked for the resignations over the first few months of his first term. Reagan did much the same.

Can you Google?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:39 pm
Quinn,

Allowing the US Attorneys to be removed only for cause is essentially the same as a lifetime appointment.

Besides, who would get to decide what cause is? You would expose the US Attorneys to much more meddling.

Comment by The Teddster Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:39 pm
{Then what about the US Attorney General? After all, the US Attorneys report to the US AG. For that matter, why should the FBI director not be appointed until he/she decides to step down?}

Those are executive level appointments and should serve at the pleasure of the President, in the same way other cabinet members do.

{We live in a Republic. That means politics.}

That does not mean that politics should directly impact everything; but especially not the administration of federal justice across the Republic. The people charged with that responsibility should be free from political influence.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:41 pm
There is obviously no way we’re ever gonna agree to your thumbsucking ideas, so move along. Besides, it’s off topic and is a non-state issue.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:45 pm
There appears to be two kinds of US Attorney’s. The kind like Fitzgerald and Patrick Collins who seem to believe in what they are doing and try to stop crime even after they have left office.

Then there are the kind like Thompson, Web, Valukas and Lazar’s who were more interested in cashing in on the experience.

I think the citizens are better served by the former than the latter. Hopefully, Fitzgerald has trained some pretty competent assistants who can carry on even when he leaves.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:49 pm
Facts ma’am just the facts.

Well, Ryan was running for governor and Fitz helped him out by vouching for him.

Yes.

Then Ryan drops out of the rerun because his name is mud and then Fitz starts going out after him.

And.

Well, Blago wins the first time and decides to do it his way instead of the Combine’s way.

Why the conflict?

Tax money is the mother’s milk of the Combine.

I’m still with you.

Then, Blago beats the Combine Queen and Fitz fires it up.

So what are you saying?

Fitz couldn’t have played it any different if he was the kingpin of the Combine.

Very sound analysis ma’am.

Comment by True Observer Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:53 pm
Good God, TO, I hope that was a joke.

Seriously. Please confirm.

First of all, Fitz didn’t vouch for George. The previous USA said Ryan wasn’t a target. After that, everything goes right downhill in your argument.

But I’m sure it was a joke, because if it wasn’t you should seek immediate mental help.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 1:55 pm
I suppose Bill Cellini is controlling BO’s every move, through Ray LaHood, too.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:04 pm
Actually, a certain person who loves his conspiracy theories has already published that very claim, Six.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:05 pm
“Then, Blago beats the Combine Queen and Fitz fires it up.

So what are you saying?”

What a beautiful mind.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:10 pm
Quinn

You think Robert Kennedy could have gone after segregation in the South with holdovers? If you do you need to go back and read some history.

The fact is U.S. Attorneys don’t just prosecute corruption, they implement the policy of the President, whether its on civil rights, drug policy, immigration or corporate misconduct. You need people committed to those policies to carry them out, whether they are Democratic or Republican administrations.

Comment by Pete Giangreco Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:17 pm
- - - John McCain has moved on…why can’t his followers? - - -

They are just emulating the Gore and Kerry followers after those elections. Imitation after all, is a form of flattery.

So, but for an intense media backlash, Fitzgerald would have been replaced through normal politics? Why do I find that process less than satisfying?

Change means moving away from the old way of doing things. If keeping Fitzgerald is an example of change, then my kudos to Obama. If it is being done only to avoid nasty publicity, then that is something else.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:34 pm
===So, but for an intense media backlash, Fitzgerald would have been replaced through normal politics? ===

Read everything I wrote. That’s only part of it, as far as I can tell anyway.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:39 pm
This Just In;

The Joint Committee on Government Reform, will convene to meet on the following topic:

Topic 3: Campaign Reform

• Contribution from state contractors, appointees
• Judicial rates
• Contribution limits
• Public finance

Sure and begorrah don’t you know that the proposed meting date is none other than; DRUM ROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL,

You guessed it; none other than March 17

They should get lots of good input on judicial rates; because everyone there will be “sober as a judge”.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:41 pm
Rich, in fairness, I know several republicans who thought Obama would replace Fitzgerald UNTIL the Blago indictment, after which they said it would be impossible for him to do so. Also, a “tin hat” might argue that if Obama ultimately fires too many of the GOP-appointed assistant attorneys, it’s a backdoor way to pressure Fitzgerald to resign. (Imagine if somebody forced you to hire me as your right-hand-man, you’d be out of blogging within a week )

Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 5:01 pm
= whether it was the president’s perogative or not. =

Rich,

This is another fairly common spelling error. It should actually be prerogative.

Keep up the great work at TCFB!

Comment by SpellChecker Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 5:29 pm
Thank God for Obama. Fritz has much work in the near future. Along with the Gov trial he needs to come to IDOT & OBWD and check the supportive contracts that wasted millions of dollars.

Comment by honesty in government Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 5:59 pm
lcd, in fairness, you’re a nitwit. The POTUS doesn’t hire and especially, fire, AUSAs.

And what’s wrong with you, Bill? Get whistled in?

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 6:32 pm
lol Word, are you the all powerful “faceless GOP”, too?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 7:12 pm
Bill, I can’t tell if you have a twisted sense of humor or are just twisted. Mazeltov, brother.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 8:23 pm
–Actually, a certain person who loves his conspiracy theories has already published that very claim, Six.–

And he’s going to have a helluva time filling that column with Fast Eddie in the can.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 8:27 pm
Rich, forgive me, but I’m fascinated by the confusion in this thread.

It’s been a practice since Jefferson replaced Adams to ask for the resignations of all presidential appointees. The president then accepts them at his pleasure. That includes U.S. Attorneys, but not assistants. It’s also been a common practice for presidents elected to a second term to do the same.

The esteemed, if not curiously incurious, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois was an assistant in Springfield under the administrations of both Bush I and Clinton before getting the big job under Bush II.

Folks, pick up a book every once in a while.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 8:45 pm
Pete Giangreco wrote:
=”The fact is U.S. Attorneys don’t just prosecute corruption, they implement the policy of the President, whether its on civil rights, drug policy, immigration or corporate misconduct. You need people committed to those policies to carry them out, whether they are Democratic or Republican administrations.=

Pete, was Fitz carrying out Bush’s or Obama’s policies when he arrested Blago? Re-indicted Kelly?

Just curious.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 8:48 pm
AA-always curious.

Rarely curiously incurious. Lol, word.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 8:50 pm
==Pete, was Fitz carrying out Bush’s or Obama’s policies when he arrested Blago? Re-indicted Kelly?==

AA, LOL. And I would add, jailed Ryan and Rezko. Fitz has been quite the curious Lone Wolf, hasn’t he?

The story that I’ve heard from those who claim to be tight with Pete Fitz is that Pat Fitz really wanted the job because it was so target-rich. The dude just loves to prosecute. Illinois must have looked like the prosecutorial equivalent of Como de Lago.

Let’s face it, he’s a legend already — he makes Elliott Ness look like Barney Fife (sorry, Bill).

And I don’t think he’s grabbed the top prize yet. Maybe Rod can help with that, maybe not. The family has always been big on buffers, as Willie Cicci would say. But you know he’s in sights.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 9:18 pm
Fitz is indeed in a “target-rich environment,” as Maverick told Goose when they walked in the bar in “Top Gun.”

I about tossed in my Cheerios earlier today with the Marin item about why Billy is out and the alleged reason. Not buying it and can’t believe she did.

The “confluence of events,” as the pundits say, over the next few years if Chicago gets the Olympics will push it over the top if nothing else does.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 10:04 pm