Prosecutor story takes an ironic twist

March 14, 2007

In 2001, then-Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) had the opportunity to recommend a U.S. Attorney for the Chicago area. As TP noted, Karl Rove apparently urged him to “choose a U.S. Attorney who he believed would be lenient in probing state corruption.”

According to Fitzgerald, who was determined to bring in a prosecutor from outside the state, Rove “just said we don’t want you going outside the state. We don’t want to be moving U.S. attorneys around.”

Fitzgerald said he believes Rove was trying to influence the selection in reaction to pressure from Rep. Dennis Hastert, then speaker of the House, and allies of then-Gov. George Ryan, who knew Fitzgerald was seeking someone from outside Illinois to attack political corruption.

Fitzgerald said he announced his choice, Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation), a New Yorker, on May 13, a Mother’s Day Sunday, to pre-empt any opposition.

A year or so later, according to Peter Fitzgerald, Rove “said to me that Fitzgerald appointment got great headlines for you, but it ticked off the base.” Peter Fitzgerald said he believes the “base” was Illinois Republican insiders upset at the prosecutor’s assault on corruption.

There’s a degree of comedy to the whole thing. Rove wanted a prosecutor who wouldn’t take corruption too seriously, the senator ended up tapping Patrick Fitzgerald, and the U.S. Attorney ended up pursuing Rove’s White House.

I’d just add that, as I recall from the time, there was a fairly significant public fight over this in Illinois. Then-Speaker Hastert (R) was worried about corruption scandals in Springfield and how high corruption into then-Gov. George Ryan’s (R) administration they might would go. Hastert hoped an in-state Republican prosecutor would be susceptible to political pressure, and Ryan could avoid indictment.

Sen. Fitzgerald didn’t play along, Patrick Fitzgerald came to Chicago, Ryan was convicted, and the prosecutor was ultimately brought to DC to investigate a little matter about the White House exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

Funny how things work out sometimes.

In case you need further ammo to take to the wingnutz:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html

WaPo chat with Stuart Gerson, Bush 1 appointee and acting AG when Clinton replaced all the USAs. Money quote:

Gerson: …It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing…

  • How much ya wanna bet that the RW and their ilk will use Patrick Fitzgerald to prop up their ridiculous arguement…

    It will go something like this:

    “If we were firing US Attorneys for being anti-republican….why didnt we fire Patrick Fitzgerald???”…

    watch

  • Well then Rove was right and the Senator screwed up. I wonder how many other times they actually took Rove’s “advice”. O, the corruption we’ll never hear about.

  • You’re right, there was a huge kerfuffle in Illinois over this. To me, the Plame issue is an incidental bonus to Fitzgerald’s appointment.

    He’s done a great job chasing corruption on both sides of the aisle in his new state.

  • Lib4, firing Fitzgerald immediately after the Libby conviction might have been too on the nose for even this Administration.

    I expected it would happen in about a year.

  • and maybe if we’re lucky, during that year he’ll be able to go after karl rove. wouldn’t that be an interesting twist to end this story……….

  • I have been doing some research on this. From this Duke Law paper, some background on the Clinton firing of U.S. Attorneys

    Such conflict is evident in the recent uncertainty over whether sitting U.S. Attorneys should offer to resign to give newly elected presidents the chance to replace them. Before Bill Clinton’s election, presidents expected that such resignations would be offered. After Clinton’s inauguration, several sitting U.S. Attorneys balked at offering to resign their posts once the Senate confirmed Janet Reno as President Clinton’s Attorney General. After becoming Attorney General, Reno had made what she thought was the routine request that sitting U.S. Attorneys submit their resignations to her, so she could consider whether to reappoint them. She did not expect negative backlash because similar requests had been made by her predecessors in the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations and honored by previous U.S. Attorneys. Their refusals to tender their resignations embarrassed Reno, and, in fact, the desire to cause Reno embarrassment may have been the impetus for the refusals.

    Also, some more background on the Justice Department Clinton inherited from a critique of a CNN story:

    [CNN reported] “For the last decade, the Justice Department was an ideological warehouse for conservative thinkers. At the same time, Justice became a political arm of the White House…The Department of Justice will always reflect the policy priorities of a President, but the Reagan-Bush Department went further, undermining laws the administration opposed.”

    So when a few United States Attoneries refused to submit their resignation as was customary, AG Reno responded by getting rid of all of them at once instead of the usual gradual replacement.

  • Lib4 and Doubtful —

    Fitzgerald didn’t restrict his corruption investigations/prosecutions to Republicans in Illinois, he also aggressively went after Democrats in Mayor Daley’s administration here in Chicago, successfully prosecuting numerous officials/employees.

  • JenK, I’m well aware of that.

    I’m not sure how that means he is free of political retribution from the Administration since he was integral to having a member of it convicted.

    My point was just that the retribution couldn’t be so close to the conviction.

  • Setting aside the irony here, Rove’s attempt to influence the Illinois Senator’s choice for US Attorney points out exactly why the current prosecutor purge matters. The administration’s willingness to use the judicial system for political ends, be it to avoid embarrassment or to embarrass the opposition, is a perversion of justice.

  • “choose a U.S. Attorney who he believed would be lenient in probing state corruption.”

    Translation: Look, our bunch is a load of crooks. Please hire someone who is just as crooked.

    Q. What is the difference between Rove and a Mafia Don?
    A. ….Um…Oh! You might actually want to spend time with a Don.

    Then-Speaker Hastert (R) was worried about corruption scandals in Springfield

    Dennys was worried about corruption in the state? You mean he actually understand what corruption MEANS?
    Do you sometimes wonder if the ReThuglicans are trying to do us in via irony poisoning?

    • Comments are closed.