[Rhodes22-list] USAttorneygate & the chickens & the Bush haters
Bill Effros
bill at effros.com
Thu Oct 2 17:34:23 EDT 2008
Ed,
I didn't post the site earlier because I didn't know Ben was the kind of
person who would actually follow up. I knew you would, and Brad, and
some of the others, but I assumed you had all been there and done that.
Fitzgerald and the US Dept. of Justice is surely the source, as you can
plainly see:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/
Nobody leaks anything. Fitzgerald puts people on the stand who have
agreed to testify in open court.
It's not a mystery, and it's not a close call.
The only mystery is why so few people are aware of what's going on.
Bill Effros
Tootle wrote:
> Bill:
>
> I agree with Ben that Fitzgerald probably is not the source. However, Rezko
> defence team may leak information or paperwork in the Rezko trial may give
> clues. Of course Fitzgerald would try to pressure Rezko to tell more, that
> is his job.
>
> Ben:
>
> You said Bush did not complete his obligation. I was a reserve on active
> duty. There were decisions made to offer early outs regardless of your job.
> Even pilots were offered releases from duty if you even came close to the
> minimum and wanted out. In addition once you had an exit date, you were in
> sort of limbo. Only if we went to war again would your status change. They
> did not really want pilots with exit dates flying because it used aircraft
> and time that they wanted for the guys staying.
>
> I was in no hurry and was surprised by Air Force Regulars getting out before
> me. I would suggest that Bush met the minimums and just had to call in once
> in while to a desk sargent to tell them he was calling in. Often those call
> ins were not logged. Often the sargent had no idea who was calling in. We
> were originally all volunteers and no longer needed. The faster we were
> gone, the happier they were.
>
> Then we were assigned to an inactive reserve to complete any remain
> obligation time. You were required to do nothing more than give them any
> change of addresses. The Bush haters are trying to make something out of
> nothing. Learn to accept that the Air Force is more casual than the Navy.
> Especially the reserve and National Guard components.
>
> Ask Brad how long it would take a pilot who flew an airplane over two years
> and then did not fly for several month qualified again. One check ride.
> But the case of the F-102 is agrivated where there were very few good
> aircraft.
>
> They canabalized so many F-102's that they did not have enough for one ready
> wing. I have not flown in way over 20 years as pilot. However, in an
> emergency, I bet I could still fly and make a big bump landing.
>
> I am sure if Bush backed down to a T-37 it might have taken a couple of days
> in the trainer, before the check ride. But the attitude in the Air Force
> was save that time for the career guys and new guys. And I believe their
> way was correct at the time, for the time.
>
> Ask your son if there is any drinking these days after ruff and tense days?
>
> As to needing to clean house, I have no problem with that, but I would like
> a more honest and American guy to do the house cleaning. I have personally
> known some very honest politicians; and I have backed away from others. We
> do not need Elmer Gantry. Integrity is not Obama's selling point. McCain's
> record indicates more honesty, maybe things I do not agree with, but he is
> no Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, etc. Give me an honest average man over a
> smart con man anyday.
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>
>> Bill;
>>
>> If Fitzgerald is talking about an ongoing investigation of Obama I sure
>> haven't heard about it. Federal proaecutors are not supposed to talk
>> about such pending investigations and there are serious ethical
>> considerations at stake if they do so. I think your sources ate
>> speculating about what Fitzgerald is doing. As for beneficiaries of ill
>> gotten gains being guilty of anything they have to know the they are
>> benefiting from illegal money. Lots of politicians have returned money
>> later shown to have been from improper sources.
>>
>> I have a lot of respect for Fitzgerald and find it hard to believe he
>> would jeopardize both successful prosecution of a matter or his career by
>> speaking out of school. I will check it out though.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ben C.
>>
>> Bill Effros wrote:
>>
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> Can you tell me where I can find Obama stating that Patrick Fitzgerald
>>> will not be asked to resign?
>>>
>>> Mr. Rezko complained to his trial judge that Mr. Fitzgerald was
>>> pressuring him to implicate Mr. Obama. The judge released the letter
>>> after the trial. Mr. Obama is also named as a recipient of money
>>> extorted on his behalf by Mr. Rezko in the indictment of Mr. Rezko. In
>>> a proffer Mr. Fitzgerald stated that anyone who benefits from Mr.
>>> Rezko's crimes was as guilty as the person who was convicted, and this
>>> has been the theme of the prosecution, going from one defendant to the
>>> next.
>>>
>>> People who says Mr. Fitzgerald is not investigating Mr. Obama don't know
>>> what they are talking about--Mr. Fitzgerald has been quite plain about
>>> the fact that he IS investigating Mr. Obama. The FBI has released both
>>> photographs and tapes implicating Obama in the Rezko "schemes". Mr.
>>> Fitzgerald sought and obtained permission to involve Mr. Obama in the
>>> Rezko trial, but didn't need to do so because Mr. Rezko chose not to
>>> defend himself on these matters.
>>>
>>> Several other witness who have pled guilty and been convicted of these
>>> crimes have stated that Mr. Obama is involved, and that they are
>>> prepared to testify against him. Obama's name came out on numerous
>>> occasions during the trial, and most of the guilty parties had direct
>>> illegal dealings with Mr. Obama, and are prepared to so testify.
>>>
>>> Most of this information has been reported in Main Stream Media, and the
>>> rest is available on Mr. Fitzgerald's Web Site. Follow the links to
>>> "Operation Board Games".
>>>
>>> Mr. Rezko appealed to Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzpatrick fired. Rezko
>>> was so sure he would succeed, he told other witnesses to lie to the FBI
>>> to cover his and Mr. Obama's involvement.
>>>
>>> Talk about chickens coming home to roost!
>>>
>>> Bill Effros
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bill & Rob & Ed;
>>>>
>>>> Sen Obama has already said several times, in response to questions from
>>>> various reporters that Patrick Fitzgerald's job is safe. I must say
>>>> here
>>>> that I has been my understanding that the targets of Mr Fitzgeralds
>>>> inquiries have been Mr Rezko, and people other than Obama himself. He's
>>>> very
>>>> discreet, any anybody who says they are sure he's looking at Obama (or
>>>> not)
>>>> doesn't know what they're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Bill's concern is well founded though. I was in law school when Nixon
>>>> fired
>>>> AG Richardson, then Dep AG Ruckelshaus for not firing Special Prosecutor
>>>> Cox
>>>> (Robert Bork ultimately did it). In response Nixon gave the famous "I
>>>> am
>>>> not a crook" speech, and the move to impeachment became unstoppable.
>>>>
>>>> As to Ed's point, I've said it as many different ways as I know how. If
>>>> Monica Goodling made hiring decisions at DOJ for non-political jobs
>>>> based
>>>> upon political affiliation or perceived political loyalty she broke the
>>>> law.
>>>> THAT'S WHY SHE RESIGNED IN DISGRACE. Remember?
>>>>
>>>> And if the 9 US Attorney's were fired FOR ILLEGAL REASONS like not
>>>> bringing
>>>> trumped up charges against politcal opponents of a particular US
>>>> Senator,
>>>> then that's illegal and that's why AG Mukasey had no choice but to
>>>> appoint a
>>>> special prosecutor. He's done it, because not to do it would be an
>>>> obvious
>>>> malfeasence; but he has given the Special Prosecutor an impossible 60
>>>> day
>>>> deadline to produce a report. He's done the right thing with one hand
>>>> but
>>>> ensured failure with the other hand. That's why we need a clean sweep,
>>>> a
>>>> new AG, and Truth, Justice and the American Way for all. Thank
>>>> you....thank
>>>> you very much ladies and gentlemen.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Ben C.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Effros wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> US Attorneys serve the President. They can replace them if they choose
>>>>> to do so. But that was not the issue in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue here is "Chickens come home to roost" regarding the
>>>>> replacement of US Attorneys.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I ask again,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it OK for Obama to request the resignation of a well respected US
>>>>> Attorney who is currently investigating Obama?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the perceived rules in this instance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Effros
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lowe, Rob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it "traditional" (OK, not the right word) for all the US
>>>>>> attorneys
>>>>>> to submit their resignations at the beginning of a president's new
>>>>>> term?
>>>>>> Or is it just a new president taking office? Regardless, why wouldn't
>>>>>> Fitzgerald submit his resignation along with the rest of the US
>>>>>> attorneys?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>>>>>> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Bill Effros
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:15 AM
>>>>>> To: The Rhodes 22 Email List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] USAttorneygate; the chickens come home to
>>>>>> roost
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think Obama will handle Federal Prosecutor Patrick
>>>>>> Fitzgerald
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (also on the Bush "to be fired" list -- special prosecutor in the
>>>>>> Valerie Plame CIA leak case) who is currently investigating Barack
>>>>>> Obama?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think it is is OK for Obama to fire Fitzgerald?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Effros
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brad & Anybody still paying attention;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The link to a NYTimes editorial explains in precise detail how the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> firings
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by the Bush administration of a number of federal prosecutors is a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> serious
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> matter that cried out for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> desciption of the firings being unrelated to and not he result of any
>>>>>>> performance reviews. This issue goes to the very heart of federal law
>>>>>>> enforcement, and, in my opinion, compels a change to an Obama
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> administration
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which will ensure the inquiry survives after January.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01wed1.html?hp
>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01wed1.html?hp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list