What Happens to the Blagojevich Case When Obama Takes Office?
Though there's no evidence whatsoever that Obama or his staff did anything improper in the Blagojevich matter, once Obama is sworn in, there is going to be pressure on the White House and the Attorney General's office to wall themselves off from the matter. There will be calls for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. And that's not altogether unreasonable. If Obama's political appointees end up calling any of the shots in that case, it might at least create the appearance of impropriety.
Given that some Republicans are now making noise about holding up Eric Holder's confirmation, it might be wise for the Obama team to head off this issue now and have Holder announce that, once confirmed, he will designate Patrick Fitzgerald as a "Special Prosecutor" with respect to the Blagojevich case. Not only would that nip this issue in the bud, but it might well speed along Holder's confirmation. It would also underscore Obama's message that he has nothing to hide and is committed to transparency and good government.
Given that some Republicans are now making noise about holding up Eric Holder's confirmation, it might be wise for the Obama team to head off this issue now and have Holder announce that, once confirmed, he will designate Patrick Fitzgerald as a "Special Prosecutor" with respect to the Blagojevich case. Not only would that nip this issue in the bud, but it might well speed along Holder's confirmation. It would also underscore Obama's message that he has nothing to hide and is committed to transparency and good government.
posted by A.L. at 3:19 PM
14 Comments:
Or more simply, Obama can say he will retain Fitzgerald as a U.S. Attorney for the District of Northern Illinois and let him continue to do the job he has been doing. I don't see any reason to put Fitzgerald in as a "special prosecutor" since this case doesn't warrant one, nor the kind of star chamber proceedings Fitzgerald created with in the Plame fiasco. Hell, he could even cut a deal with enough Republicans in the Judiciary Committee, telling them Fitzgerald would stay on the job, so that Holder gets less of a grilling, although I don't think that would show the "hope" and "change" Obama is supposed to be about.
Yes, I'd love to see Republicans grill the hell out of Holder for his involvement in the pardons of the FALN terrorists and Marc Rich. He needs to answer for those.
I thought liberals didn't want to politicize justice. Because that's what would happen if the scenario played out as written in the post.
SteveIL,
I agree; just sticking with his promise to keep Fitz in town for this should be sufficient to avoid politicization.
He may be plodding, but he is thorough. If Blago goes to trial in a year or so, he could then let his Asst USAs take the lead. With that feather, then he could be brought to DC to deal with any other high profile prosecutions that may be needed.
That said, I don't think that AL's suggestion would politicize things, but would just complicate things that should be left to run, since they're already proceeding ahead without believable politicization claims.
I positive Obama will keep Fitzgerald in Illinois. The problem is that when Obama takes over, Fitzgerald will be reporting directly to Obama's political appointees. If no formal steps are taken to wall off Fitzgerald from the DAG, AG, and White House, there will be accusations that Obama's people are pulling the strings and micro-managing Fitzgerald. I may be simpler to just announce that Fitzgerald will be his own boss on this particular case (which is the Special Prosecutor designation means).
If no formal steps are taken to wall off Fitzgerald from the DAG, AG, and White House, there will be accusations that Obama's people are pulling the strings and micro-managing Fitzgerald.
Then Obama will have to avoid doing just that, and let Fitzgerald do what he's been doing. Fitzgerald has done fine in Chicago without being named a Special Prosecutor on the cases he's prosecuted thus far.
But as a Special Prosecutor, his 4-year case was almost a complete bust since nobody was ever prosecuted for the crime he was investigating, violating the IIPA (50 U.S.C. ยง 421); Libby was nailed because he (Libby) was stupid. Freedom of the press was sorely tested (violated as far as I'm concerned), and millions spent, and for what? Nothing.
Obama would be better off leaving Fitzgerald in place doing what he's doing to avoid any political fallout.
Unfortunately, I am sure that someone will then spin that Fitz was appointed Special Prosecutor as a payoff for not implicating Obama.
Why is this reminding me of the whole business of counsels and procounsels in the Roman Republic?
Why is this reminding me of the whole business of counsels and procounsels in the Roman Republic?
It shouldn't. Consuls and proconsuls weren't the problem in the Roman Republic. It's when the government started its theft of private land (we've seen that in the U.S. with Kelo) and allowing generals to pay for their own armies that their real problems started.
Blackwater?
Yes, Blackwater is a good example of my point about private armies. I'm no fan of mercenaries; the armed forces should always be a part of the government, which means it must be willing to fund the armed forces.
So all we now need are a decaying, far flung empire, bread and circuses, dictatorial powers for a sole leader, who, uninterested in the business of government, fiddles around while the state comes crashing down.
Uh-oh.
Well, at least it looks like we may be heading into Vespasian territory, then.
It's a tad more complicated than that. Besides, your latest historical reference is more than 150 years later in Roman history than what I'm talking about.
SteveIL,
I know, I was just hoping to be a little closer to the Good Emperors period.
BTW, have you read First Citizen, by Thomas T Thomas?
I know, I was just hoping to be a little closer to the Good Emperors period.
LOL.
No I haven't read First Citizen. After seeing the syllabus on Amazon, it sounds interesting.
There are some parallels between now and the late Roman Republic.
Politically, the nearly unanimous push for a stronger executive, the breakdown of traditional checks and balances, the military as the last respected institution of government, and the push to use the military for more functions.
Economically, our ruling class, like the Roman nobles, have figured out that they can leverage control of the government into more wealth than their share of domestic production could produce. And to be honest, our working class, like Rome's has become accustomed to a higher standard of living than is probably realistic in terms of productivity, balance of trade, or domestic revenue. In both cases, these two demands for revenue together have started a cycle, like Rome's, in which we use our military to squeeze other countries (we do this less directly than Rome, at least since the United Fruit days), so we need a bigger military to keep the lid on, so we need more revenue (lather, rinse, repeat). Late-Republican Rome had some trouble with new forms of finance leading to debt, too, tho I think not on our scale. Incidentally, the switch to a stronger executive didn't actually turn out to help with any of these problems.
But I am more strongly reminded of Rome about 400 years later, when it "fell." Actually, of course, Rome did no such thing. The Roman Empire operated out of Byzantium quite happily for a few hundred years more, and even when its ruling class was replaced, the Ottoman Empire remained incredibly powerful and wealthy for about a millennium.
What did actually happen around then was that Rome moved. That is, the smart, rich people moved. The top people had known since before the Republic fell that the real money was in the East where the trade with China was good and the local peasants weren't nearly as demanding. So over several generations, they looted the West, liquidated, transferred their businesses East, and left a gutted hulk for Odovocar and others to squabble over.
In this light, I wince when I hear about American ex-pat enclaves in Burman, Thailand, etc., where so many multinationals have set up shop that there's basically an American lifestyle. But with better access to China, and lower overhead b/c the local peasants aren't nearly as demanding.
Yet.
Things move faster these days. The locals will probably take over the multinationals and use them against us here in the West in our lifetimes. I wonder whether we will find a Charles Martel?
Crafty,
There was also the trend that the power centers that were left behind in the West were often tied to the Christian authorities, who had begun to pick up their dual spiritual/political roles as the Empire needed to reinforce its authority with the Church as a unifying force.
But my question is, does the relocation of the center have to have American ex-pats, or is it just the relocation of the financial/political center that will suffice? I don't think we can assume Americentric power will survive. I'm not horribly well read on the details of the move to Byzantium, but I believe that there was a significant capture of power by more local interests as opposed to all transplants. And, of course, the location helped support the finances of the empire for about a millenium, even as the various caliphates, and later the Ottoman Empire took the surrounding lands (which accelerated after Crusaders sacked Constantinople and broke Byzantine power).
However, which ever period we seem to be replicating, I really think that most of us don't want to be repeating some of the potentially upcoming historical reenactments. Systemic collapse is rarely pleasant.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home