Posted on 12/14/2008 5:53:36 PM PST by jimbo123
Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald ordered the FBI to arrest Rod Blagojevich before sunrise Tuesday in order to stop a crime from being committed. That would have been the sale of the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.
But the opposite is true: Members of Fitzgerald’s team are livid the scheme didn’t advance, at least for a little longer, according to some people close to Fitzgerald’s office. Why? Because had the plot unfolded, they might have had an opportunity most feds can only dream of: A chance to catch the sale of a Senate seat on tape, including the sellers and the buyers.
The precise timing of Tuesday’s dramatic, pre-dawn arrest was not dictated by Fitzgerald, nor was it dictated by the pace of Blagojevich’s alleged “crime spree.” It was dictated by the Chicago Tribune, according to people close to the investigation and a careful reading of the FBI’s affidavit in the case.
At Fitzgerald’s request, the paper had been holding back a story since October detailing how a confidante of Blagojevich was cooperating with his office.
Gerould Kern, the Tribune’s editor, said in a statement last week that these requests are granted in what he called isolated instances. “In each case, we strive to make the right decision as reporters and as citizens,” he said.
But editors decided to publish the story on Friday, Dec. 5, ending the Tribune’s own cooperation deal with the prosecutor.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
The ‘prosecution’ of Blago is nothing but protection for O’bummer. Fitz moved to prevent his underlings from developing a workable case, so that Blago can’t pull the rug out from under ‘the One.’ Blago walks, O’bummer moves into the Whitehouse, fires all the prosecutors that are investigating him, and they all live happily ever after. (Clinton redux)
Well obviously someone was talking to the Tribune. How convenient...
If it's true, why the bumbling-fumbling response from Team Obamessiah??
They would have had their stories straight, and not the deer in the headlights, "I better wait until I read the wire tap transcript before muttering another word" type of gameplan.
It’s no longer the Department of Justice. It is the Department of Pre-Crime.
They would have had their stories straight, and not the deer in the headlights, "I better wait until I read the wire tap transcript before muttering another word" type of gameplan.
Have they dealt with any controversy well? I believe they were going to bribe him, but on their own terms, to protect Obama.
I’m reserving judgment on this. Some unnamed associates in Fitz’s office say it’s the Tribune’s fault, and apparently leak that to Cam Simpson at the WSJ.
How on earth do we know whom to believe?
I did a bit of googling on Simpson, and found this:
http://kellyaward.com/mk_award_popup/simpson_c.html
He won an award while he was working for the Chicago Tribune, a typical hit piece on Halliburton for its sins in Iraq. Then he went to the WSJ in 2006. So, how did this story happen to get to him? Who the hell knows? But he does seem to be a typical leftist operative.
I suppose after the Tribunes let-down at the last Fitzmas (Scooter Libby) they thought it only fitting and proper to ruin ours!
Who is to be believed anymore?
That would be a first out of the Chicago Fibune, for sure.
rolling eyes!
It was the only story they had that could gin up interest to subscribe to that rag. So they ran it since they’re just about on the skids.
Protecting Obama.
I still think this investigation came to light when the incoming Justice dept was being briefed by Bush’s dept...
I’m not so sure I buy this.
The Chicago Tribune and Blogo were not on good terms at all. Blogo wanted the leadership of the Tribune fired in exchange for helping with the sale of the stadium.
Then why would the Tribune help Blogo?
There must have been some overriding pressure
I just sent the most drunken, out of control email I’ve ever sent to anyone, to the Trib. And I’m not sorry. They are absolute scum.
There's nothing inherently hack-ish of a U.S. Attorney attempting to "stop [a] crime from actually being committed." In a terrorism investigation, should the prosecutor wait until the bomb explodes? Of course not! So, in this case, which strikes at the heart of our democracy, why should we expect Fitzgerald to sit back and watch someone obtain a U.S. Senate seat through bribery/corruption?
Look, I'd like to take Obama down as much as anyone else (though, judging from the indictment, I don't think this case was ever going to lead all the way to the top), but I don't think it's worth a prosecutor sitting back and watching our democracy get bought & sold
Not to mention that, in this case, numerous crimes had already been committed.
If Obama colluded with the Chicago Tribune, it is an impeachable offense.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.