[Rhodes22-list] USAttorneygate; the chickens come home to roost
Bill Effros
bill at effros.com
Thu Oct 2 20:25:01 EDT 2008
Ben,
I believe you, and I'm glad to hear you could not support a crook.
Many Obama supporters respond by saying "they're all crooks". I don't
believe that.
I began to check out Mr. Obama more than a year ago. I was astounded at
the level of corruption in Chicago and Illinois. We on the East Coast
haven't seen anything like it since the Tammany Hall Days, and despite
considering myself reasonably well informed, I was simply stunned by
what is considered "normal" politics there. I didn't think that
happened in this country anymore on such a scale.
Mr. Obama is in it up to his ears. It would be naive to think anything
else, and there is abundant evidence. People like Ted Stevens get away
with corruption for a lifetime because they are careful. Obama bellied
right up to the trough, and into the middle of an FBI operation he
should have known was in progress -- everyone else in Chicago seemed to
know.
Let me know how you evaluate the material I will point you toward. If
you think I'm not reading it right, I'd like to know.
If you think I am reading it right, I'd like to know what you think we
should do.
Even if Democratic electors win the most electoral college votes, they
are not required to cast them for a candidate whose inauguration would
create an immediate constitutional crisis.
State Democratic parties can require their electors to vote for any
individual in many states. Electors are free agents in other states.
Stay in touch,
Bill Effros
Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
> Bill;
>
> If it were reliably proved that Obama was corrupt of course it would be a
> deal breaker for me. But remember McCain has his Abramoff too.
>
> It all reminds me of the Gubernatorial race in Louisisana in the early
> ninetys. A KKK member named David Duke ran against a corrupt politician
> named Edwin Edwards. There were bumper stickers that literally said, "Vote
> for the Crook". Fortunately, in that race, the "crook" won.
>
> Best,
>
> Ben C.
>
> Bill Effros wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Ben, for following up.
>>
>> I can't find anything more recent. I'd love to know if he ever said
>> that since March -- and if MSM ever asked him. And if not, why not.
>>
>> I remind you of a widely reported speech Obama made just a few weeks
>> later:
>>
>> "Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may
>> ask? Why not join another church? ... As imperfect as he may be, he has
>> been like family to me...I can no more disown him than I can disown the
>> black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white
>> grandmother."
>>
>> Sounded, at the time, like a commitment he couldn't get out of, but we
>> all know how that one turned out.
>>
>> From the court papers I have read I can't see any way Obama stays out
>> of jail unless he can get rid of Fitzgerald.
>>
>> If I'm right, would that be a "deal-breaker" for you regarding Obama's
>> candidacy?
>>
>> Bill Effros
>>
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
>>
>>> http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/03/barack-obama-pr.html
>>> http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/03/barack-obama-pr.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill;
>>>
>>> Quick google search brought up the above on your question on where Obama
>>> said he would not fire Fitzgerald. I know there are more cites. He
>>> can't
>>> get out of that committment it seems to me.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> 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