Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
On September 23, 2014 U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon announced the arrest and indictment of Chicago immigration attorney Robert W. DeKelaita, 51, of Glenview, IL and contract interpreter Adam Benjamin, 61, of Skokie, IL.
Well, as it turns out, Benjamin is much more than just an interpreter who happens to speak Assyrian.
Adam Benjamin is in fact Dr. Adam Z. Benjamin, the former head of the Assyrian Democratic Movement (ADM) of North America.
But when the spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office, Randall Samborn, was asked to confirm the identity of the man Fardon had just indicted, Samborn's response was: "Why do you persist on asking me questions that you know I can't answer?"
To put this in perspective:
The U.S. Attorney's Office apparently now believes that asking them to properly identify individuals that they have arrested, indicted, and named in their own press release is something that the media should know not to ask them to do.
Wow! Take a moment to ponder that bit of brilliance.
Moving on, now the question is: Why did the feds not want the public to know the true identity of Adam Benjamin?
Could it be because Benjamin had access to the White House?
Also keep in mind that the ADM political party that Benjamin was in charge of in America was lead by Yonadam Kanna overseas in Iraq.
Maybe Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase can shed some light on this subject for us.
Does anyone know where Chase has disappeared to?
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "John Chase" <JChase@tribune.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:29:35 AM
Subject: RE: Assyrian Community-Robert Dekelaita
Thanks (name redacted). Yes, somebody else told me about Mr. Dekelaita. I will check into that.
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Chase, John
Subject: Assyrian Community-Robert Dekelaita
Robert Dekelaita is a immigration attorney that is a close associate of Dr. Michael and is very active in the Assyrian community.
Law office of Robert Dekelaita 6600 N. Lincoln Ave.
Suite 200 Lincolnwood, IL 60712
To: Jason Meisner
Sent: October 4, 2014 at 6:30 PM
Subject: Feds knew about crooked Chicago Immigration Attorney in 2003
You missed a great deal of important facts in your reporting of the DeKelaita scandal.
Don't you think the people of Chicago deserve a better effort from you?
Feds knew about crooked Chicago Immigration Attorney
Do you think Nadhmi Auchi figures into any of this?
Let's not forget that the Iraqi billionaire claims to be a Chaldean Christian.
Much more to come...
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Recently Chicago immigration attorney Robert W. DeKelaita was arrested for committing numerous felonies over the course of 11 years
Now, thanks to Barbara Hollingsworth of CNSNews.com we know that federal authorities have known for over a decade that DeKelaita was committing asylum fraud.
Hollingsworth uncovered documents that reveal that DeKelaita's acts of fraud were exposed in federal court in 2003.
Why wasn't he arrested then?
Immigration Lawyer Indicted 11 Years After Iraqi Client Admitted Asylum Fraud
By Barbara Hollingsworth
(CNSNews.com) – A prominent Chicago-area immigration lawyer was indicted last month for immigration fraud , 11 years after an illegal alien from Iraq who entered the U.S. via Mexico told federal authorities that he had advised his former client to lie on his asylum application.
Robert DeKelaita, of Glenview, Illinois, described in 2008 as one of a “handful of immigration lawyers who specialize in representing Iraqi Christians,” was accused of “submitting falsely created affidavits, baptismal certificates, [and] identity documents” on asylum forms he submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) between 2000 and 2011.
He also allegedly coached his clients to lie about their past when they were interviewed by federal immigration officials.
The phony identity information included “false names, false religions, false dates of travel, false dates of entry into the United States, false dates of birth, and false family history,” according to the Sept. 23 indictment.
DeKelaita also allegedly “wrote and created false asylum statements detailing non-existent accounts of purported religious persecution, including fictitious accounts of rape and murder, and attached these statements to the [CIS] Form I-589 he submitted on behalf of his clients,” the indictment further charged.
U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon of the Northern District of Illinois charged DeKelaita with one count of conspiracy to commit immigration and naturalization fraud, three counts of immigration fraud, and three counts of suborning perjury.
His translator, Adam Benjamin, was also indicted for allegedly “mistranslat[ing] answers given by the clients and add[ing] testimony not actually stated by the clients during the course of the asylum interviews.”
CNSNews.com asked Assistant U.S. Attorney for Public Information Randall Samborn whether any of DeKelaita’s clients who submitted falsified asylum applications have also been arrested or indicted for immigration fraud.
“Not to my knowledge, no,” he replied, adding that there were currently no plans to do so.
CNSNews.com asked Samborn if one of the individuals identified in the indictment only as “Y.L.” was Yousif Lazar, a native of Iraq and resident of Farmington Hills, Michigan, who entered the U.S. illegally via Mexico “on May 20, 1999 without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer,” according to an August 14, 2007 ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“No comment,” he replied.
CNSNews.com asked why it took 11 years to arrest DeKelaita when, according to court documents, Lazar testified at his 2003 asylum hearing that “he lied upon the advice of his former counsel, DeKelaita.”
“You’re asking questions beyond the four corners of the indictment and I’m not going to comment on anything that’s not in the public record,” Samborn replied.
CNSNews.com asked if DeKelaita had been creating false identities for his clients.
“He used various false information, but did not specifically create false identities,” Samborn replied. “The indictment itself refers to individuals by initials on whose behalf he submitted false information, but not necessarily to create a fictitious person, as opposed to giving false information on actual individuals,” he explained.
Under federal law, foreigners seeking asylum in the United States must provide proof that they suffered persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, or had a well-founded fear of persecution” if they returned to their home country. After asylum is granted, they are eligible to seek lawful permanent residency or naturalized U.S. citizenship.
In 2007, the appellate court denied Lazar’s petition to reverse a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision that he was ineligible for asylum because he had falsely claimed he was detained and beaten by officials loyal to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
“What he did not know is the Government had evidence that would demonstrate that his application was fake, phony and fraudulent,” the appellate court noted.
Confronted by evidence that he had lied on his asylum application, Lazar admitted that “he was in Greece for at least a part of the period in which he claimed to have been in Baghdad,” where he applied for refugee status in 1992. He also admitted that upon advice of his former counsel, DeKelaita, he lied that he had been arrested and detained in Baghdad in 1997 to “improve his chances for obtaining asylum.”
Another client, identified only as “M.J.”, was also allegedly coached by DeKelaita to commit perjury during an asylum interview. She falsely told federal immigration officers that Islamic extremists had threatened to kidnap and kill her husband and daughter, according to the indictment.
“Client H.A.” also falsely claimed that his father had been executed, his house in Iraq had been burned down by Muslim extremists, and his brother’s name had been “put on an elimination list,” the government charged.
Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The indictment also seeks an additional $60,000 forfeiture of attorney’s fees from DeKelaita if he is convicted.
Now that we know the feds were fully aware of DeKelaita's criminal activity way back in 2003, we have to ask:
Why did the feds allow DeKelaita to continue to break U.S. immigration laws?
Why arrest him now after turning a blind eye for 11 years?
And why are there "no plans" to arrest any of DeKelaita’s clients who submitted falsified asylum applications?
We hope to bring you the answers to those and many other related questions very soon.
Did I mention that Robert DeKelaita is a close associate of Tony Rezko's pal, Dr. Ronald Michael?
More to come...
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-chief
Was former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald displaying his intellectual shortcomings or was he just being duplicitous when he was given the opportunity to deny that he was the one who ultimately warned Governor Rod Blagojevich that he was recording Blago's phone conversations?
In a recent phone call Fitzgerald was asked directly:
"Do you deny that the U.S. Attorney's Office had communications with the Chicago Tribune about the Blagojevich case on Dec. 4, 2008?"
Fitzgerald's response: "I'm not denying it and I'm not not denying it."
Really, Patrick? "Not not denying it"?
You either deny it or you don't.
And for the record, you did "not deny" communicating with the Chicago Tribune before you decided to "not not deny" communicating with them.
What's next, Patrick? Are you and former White House counsel Greg Craig, who is now your law partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, going to do Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first" routine for us?
And by the way is "not not" the kind of nonsense you teach the students at the University of Chicago Law School in your capacity as a Feirson Distinguished Lecturer?
If so, they will never be able to practice law anywhere but Chicago.
To: Sarah Galer
Cc: amgardn, andaws
Sent: March 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Feirson Distinguished Lecturer
Ms. Sarah Galer
Please inform Patrick Fitzgerald that the Office of Professional Responsibility and the U.S. Inspector Generals Office would be who conducts an investigation of a U.S. Attorney.
I would have thought a "Feirson Distinguished Lecturer" would know that.
< name redacted >
p.s. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald's 1st lecture could be on this very subject.
To: Patrick Fitzgerald
Cc: Aaron Goldstein , Sheldon Sorosky
Sent: 2013-03-29 02:46:11 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald
Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald
You are on the record claiming that you do not know who would investigate the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the leaks to John Chase and the Chicago Tribune.
Do you agree, there should be an investigation?
< name redacted >
Sent: 2013-03-27 09:34:58 GMT
Subject: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald
Ms. Sarah Galer
The fact that the University of Chicago Law School is welcoming former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to be part of your schools program. And, that your showering him with accolades at a time that he is embroiled in controversy. Leads me to believe that you might not be aware of just how serious this may ultimately be for your institutions reputation.
Are you aware of the following?
And, if so, have you done due diligence?
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald “Most Dangerous Man”
Why no Grand Jury? Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase involved in a crime. AGAIN!
< name redacted >
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald named Feirson Distinguished Lecturer
In Fitzgerald's defense, there is the distinct possibility that he really is this stupid. And let's face it, if he truly is mentally challenged, how would he know unless someone told him?
After all, the media does nothing but tell Fitzgerald how wonderfully smart he is.
In fact, the fawning Chicago media actually remained silent as Fitzgerald declared during a press conference about the Blagojevich case that the leaks to the Tribune "might have come from his office so he could not investigate them," and that he "had no idea who would investigate".
Wow! Can you believe that?
Amazingly, no one in the adoring mainstream media insisted that Fitzgerald explain those ridiculously stupid statements.
Well, Patrick, IP2P has news for you: you're not as bright as the media has led you to believe.
And now that it appears that Blagojevich will get out of prison soon, we insist that you explain your asinine statements about the leaks from your office to the Chicago Tribune.
And while you're at it, Fitz, you also need to explain to the public why you buried irrefutable evidence that:
(A) Sibel Edmonds gave you in the Plamegate scandal;
(B) John A. Shaw gave you in the Nadhmi Auchi scandal; and
(C) I, Ernie Souchak, gave you in the Blagojevich scandal.
Not to mention the well-documented burying of evidence you did in the Southern District of New York.
To be continued...
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
On December 4, 2008 Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase called Governor Rod Blagojevich's press secretary, Lucio Guerrero, and informed him that the feds were recording the governor's conversations.
Question: Why did John Chase make that phone call?
Answer: Because U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wanted him to!
That's right. Fitzgerald used Chase to warn Blagojevich that the federal government was listening to his every word.
Question: Why would Fitzgerald derail his own investigation by revealing the wiretap?
Answer: To save him from having to arrest the co-chair of Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Now that we know these facts, it is easy to understand why the spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Randall Samborn, could not answer this simple question:
Did John Chase or anyone at the Chicago Tribune talk to anyone at the U.S. Attorney's Office about the Blagojevich wiretap on December 4, 2008 before he made the phone call to Lucio Guerrero?
Samborn's response: "No comment."
Well, if the U.S. Attorney's Office cannot answer "no" to that simple question - the answer is obviously "yes".
So on Dec. 9, 2008 during his press conference on Blago's arrest when Fitzgerald publicly thanked the Tribune for its cooperation in the Blagojevich investigation, he was essentially thanking the Trib for warning Blagojevich that the feds had a wiretap on him.
Remember this days from now when the three-judge panel in the Seventh Circuit Appellate Court tells us that Blagojevich's selling of Obama's Senate seat was just "political horse-trading".
That is exactly what they are going to say when they dismiss 12 of the 18 charges that sent Blago to prison for 14 years.
Keep this in mind: had Fitzgerald not told the Tribune to make that infamous phone call that shut down his own wiretap, Blago would have been caught red-handed selling a U.S. Senate seat and Jesse Jackson, Jr. would have been caught red-handed buying a U.S. Senate seat.
Both Blago and Jackson would now be singing like canaries... and that, as we all know, is the way to fight corruption in Chicago.
Obviously that did not happen.
Instead of fighting corruption, you could say that Fitzgerald's participation in this "political crime spree" would make Eliot Ness roll over in his grave.
Meanwhile, Tribune employees John Chase and Jeff Coen do a spot-on impression of deer caught in headlights when you ask them the simplest of questions pertaining to the events that unfolded on Dec. 4, 2008.
They, like the deer that freeze in the middle of the road when headlights hit them, are about to be run over. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
The Chicago Tribune is at it again - reporting what it knows to be a blatant lie for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago.
The lie this time involves the Tribune's reporting on habitual criminal and former Rezko mole John Thomas' most recent arrest for fraud. And the underreported story of the premature termination of his probation for a previous fraud conviction.
The Tribune was fully aware that in 2010, John Thomas was sentenced to three years probation for crimes he committed in New York. And the Trib also knew that in 2011, Thomas petitioned the court to terminate his probation after only one year.
Here's the catch: Thomas' probation was officially "terminated without objection".
In other words, the U.S. Attorney's Office was perfectly fine with Thomas being released from probation after serving only one year of his three-year sentence.
However, now the Tribune and the U.S. Attorney's Office want you to believe his probation "expired":
"Federal prosecutors alleged that Thomas began scheming in the Riverdale deal just months after his probation for the New York conviction expired." read more...
So after virtually ignoring the fact that Thomas was given a gift of three years probation instead of five years in prison for his crimes...
And then completely ignoring the fact that the feds gave Thomas another gift by allowing his probation to be "terminated without objection" after only one year...
Enabling the Village of Riverdale to gift Thomas hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's dollars...
The Tribune now wants to sell us the blatant lie that Thomas' probation "expired".
Wow! That's brass.
And let's not forget that the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Tribune have a well documented history of telling lies when it comes to John Thomas.
----- Forwarded Message -----
To: "jskass" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 6:42:03 PM
Subject: Chicago Tribune - John Thomas
To whom it may concern
John Thomas was a mole for the FBI in the case in Illinois against Tony Rezko and others. The Chicago Tribune was aware of the fact and chose not to write a story about him at the behest of Patrick Fitzgerald (U.S Attorney Northern Dist IL). The Tribune eventually wrote a story about John Thomas, however the story they wrote was not accurate. My source at the Chicago Tribune claims that when Patrick Fiztgerald asked the Chicago Tribune to sit on the Thomas story, claiming it could put his life in danger, the Chicago Tribune refused. The Chicago Tribune told Mr Fitzgerald that they were going to run the story anyway. It was only when Patrick Fitzgerald told the Chicago Tribune that if they ran the story that it would affect the Presidential election did the Chicago Tribune agree not to run the story. My source at the Chicago Tribune confirmed this meant Obama. My source also informed me of other information that would be of interest to the people of Illinois that was not being reported in the Chicago Tribune.
The source at the Tribune referred to in the email has since been revealed to have been John Chase.
Truth is - the Tribune and the U.S. Attorney's Office are working their own con.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Question: What is the American Thinker trying to hide by taking down articles it published years ago?
Answer: The truth about former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
Recently, former FBI mole and convicted felon John Thomas was arrested for stealing money from Illinois taxpayers.
The only reason that Thomas was able to abscond with taxpayer money this time was because he was no longer on probation.
And the reason he was no longer on probation was because the U.S. Attorneys Office allowed his three-year probation for previous financial crimes to be abruptly terminated after just one year.
As luck would have it for Thomas, the premature termination of his probation came just in time for him to be awarded a multi-million dollar taxpayer funded development contract from the Village of Riverdale, Illinois.
And as anyone with a brain could have predicted, Thomas stole that money too.
Let's hear it for Fitzgerald and his crack team of crime fighters at the U.S. Attorney's Office Northern Dist. Illinois for that brilliant bit of law enforcement.
So now ask yourself this:
Question: Why would the American Thinker remove the following article from its website after two years just right after it became known why Thomas' probation was terminated two years early?
January 12, 2012
Patrick Fitzgerald's Rezko Mole Probation Sentence Terminated Early
By Lee Cary & Marty Watters
The New York felon who U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wired against Chicago's Tony Rezko got three years probation that ended two years early.
To refresh your memory concerning the mole named John Thomas: in the late 1990s, Bernard T. Barton, Jr. had a billboard business in New York where he rented space on billboards he didn't own or operate. That's illegal.
He defrauded customers out of $350,000, and he used his father's Social Security number to get an American Express business account, where he charged $140,000. Facing a significant jail sentence, he offered to work for the feds. They agreed. His sentence was delayed for about a decade while he cooperated with the FBI.
In 2000, he moved to Chicago, where he became "John Thomas," working undercover for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office.
He eventually became a close business associate of Tony Rezko.
On May 4, 2007, Thomas' undercover identity was revealed by Thomas A. Corfman, a former reporter for the Chicago Tribune, in an article in Crain's ChicagoBusiness.com.Corfman, who had recently rejoined Crain's, wrote:
"A former New Yorker has been conducting an undercover sting investigation for federal prosecutors while working in the Chicago commercial real estate industry, according to sources familiar with the investigation and documents in the man's own federal criminal fraud case."
The next day, May 5, 2007, Tribune staff reporter David Jackson followed up with an article that reported further on Thomas' undercover activities. Wonder how the Trib could be so quick to follow up on Corfman's outing of Thomas? Here's how:
The Trib had known of Thomas' mole role for a year. In his May 5 piece, Jackson reported:
"When a Tribune reporter discovered that Thomas was acting as a federal operative in May 2006, U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald took the unusual step of asking senior editors at the paper to refrain from publishing a report that would expose the ongoing probe. Fitzgerald offered no specifics but said an article would derail an important investigation and put people in serious danger of harm."
By the way, there's no indication that Fitzgerald, who knew the identity of the leaker of Valerie Plame's alleged identity as a CIA operative before he began his investigation, ever went after the leaker who outed Thomas to the Trib in 2006. If breaking Thomas' cover in 2006 could have put people in "serious danger," why wouldn't it have done so in 2007?
Back to the narrative:
On February 8, 2008, the Chicago Sun Times reported (emphasis in original):
"For the first time, the FBI "mole" who's expected to be a key prosecution witness against indicted developer and political fund-raiser Tony Rezko is talking. ...
Sources said Thomas also logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov. Blagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Blagojevich and Obama were among the many politicians for whom Rezko raised campaign cash. Neither has been charged with any wrongdoing. ...
Sources said Thomas helped investigators build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru's Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005. ...
Sources said the government had him wear a hidden wire to record conversations with a Chicago alderman -- but that he did not record Blagojevich or Obama."
Despite the Sun-Times' prediction, Thomas was not called to testify at Tony Rezko's trial. He was the Silent Mole.
On June 23, 2010, writing for ChicagoRealEstateDaily.com, Corfman, still keeping tabs on Thomas-Barton, reported:
"U.S. District Court Judge Elaine Bucklo on Monday gave three years probation to Mr. Thomas, who was indicted under the name Bernard T. Barton Jr., court records show.
Mr. Thomas pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, which carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison."
In a January 3, 2012 email, Randall Samborn, spokesperson for Fitzgerald's office, stated that Thomas' three-year probation was terminated in June 2011, after one year. The silent Mole is now completely free.
Today, John Thomas is a commercial real estate broker in Chicago.
Meanwhile, a government motion that describes Thomas' undercover activities is sealed. According to Samborn, that's not unusual when records contain "information about non-public law enforcement matters."
There's no indication that the Trib, which went to great lengths to get the sealed divorce records of Jack and Jeri Ryan opened in 2004, against both Ryans' wishes, shows any interest in getting Thomas' sealed file opened.
Ryan was the initial GOP candidate in the race against Barack Obama for a U.S. Senate seat representing Illinois -- that is, until his divorce file was pried opened by efforts led by the Trib, where David Axelrod was once the youngest political editor ever.
Here's a final head-scratcher:
Way back on February 22, 2002, Corfman, then a reporter for the Tribune, in an article focused on Donald Trump's efforts to retain a firm to "handle leasing for his proposed mixed-use skyscraper on the riverfront site of the Chicago Sun Times," wrote:
"John Thomas, a partner in Chicago-based Carnegie Realty Partners, and a Carnegie employee, Louis Giordano of New York, were arrested last year in connection with an alleged fraud scheme that took place over five years in New York[.] ...
Thomas and Giordano are free on bond, according to court records. The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York would not comment on the case."
What? Rezko let someone whom the Trib had reported as having been arrested in New York in the early 2000s, who then resurfaced in Chicago, get close to him? Didn't Tony read the papers? And where is there any mention of Thomas's real name -- Bernard T. Barton, Jr.? Wouldn't that name, and not "John Thomas," have been in his New York criminal records?
The more we know about the Rezko Mole, the more we realize that there's a lot we don't know.
Answer: Because influential friends of the American Thinker now fear that articles like that will lead to the public knowing what Fitzgerald was really doing in Chicago. And just how cozy his relationship with the George W. Bush administration really was.
Much more to come...
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase went on record saying that the reason he made the late night phone call warning Rod Blagojevich that federal agents were recording him was because he "did not want to get scooped on the story".
Chase's ridiculous statement made it very clear that he was not expecting to be asked any common sense follow-up questions.
Big mistake, John!
Keep in mind that the Tribune had been cooperating for 2 months with U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office and had agreed not to run a story about the wiretap on Blagojevich.
But when Chase was asked what happened on Dec. 4, 2008 for the Tribune to abruptly change from cooperating with the feds to exposing their wiretap, he was at a loss to give a coherent answer.
Chase was then asked if he or anyone else at the Tribune called Patrick Fitzgerald or anyone else at the U.S. Attorney's Office to let them know that the Tribune was going to expose their wiretap that night?
He was stumped, and refused to answer this simple yes or no question.
Here is why Chase could not answer that particular question.
If Chase had called Patrick Fitzgerald and informed him that the Tribune was now going to expose the feds' wiretap on Blago, wouldn't Fitz try to convince the Trib to wait just one more day?
After all, Blagojevich's brother, Robert, was scheduled to meet with Raghuveer Nayak, Jesse Jackson Jr's money man, to discuss the terms of Jackson's purchase of Barack Obama's U.S Senate seat the very next day.
Blagojevich and Jackson would both have been caught red-handed if Chase had not made that call warning Blago.
On the other hand, if Chase had not called the prosecutors office Fitzgerald would have been justifiably furious at the Tribune for derailing the biggest case of his career.
Instead, Fitzgerald thanked the Tribune for its cooperation, and later gave Chase and Jeff Coen access to the sealed wiretap tapes and transcripts even though the two Trib reporters blew his wiretap out of the water.
All indications are that Fitzgerald was quite OK with Chase warning Blago that night. But obviously Chase can't tell us that.
Even more telling: Chase did not deny that he knew Robert Blagojevich and Nayak were going to meet the next day before he made that late night phone call.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Chase is having a difficult time keeping track of his lies. In his book, "Golden", he contradicts himself by saying that he was chosen by Tribune editors to make the phone call to Blago.
So which is it, John?
(A) make the call to inform Blago that the feds' were recording him because you wanted to be remembered as the reporter who blew Fitzgerald's case?
(B) make the call because your editors who had been cooperating with Fitzgerald told you to?
It's the simple questions that often prove to be the most difficult for liars to answer.
When Chicago Sun Times reporter Natasha Korecki was asked why she was not asking these questions, she replied: "No reporter wants to make another reporter look bad."
Even when it means not reporting the truth.
Wow! "Only in Chicago."
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Chicago Sun Times reporter Natasha Korecki has just completely surrendered any integrity she had left as a journalist to the man who once predicted she would sell her soul: Rod Blagojevich.
The Sun Times' latest and perhaps most transparently blatant maneuver to help pave the way for Blago's imminent premature release from prison was penned by Korecki and published in Politico Magazine.
Letter From Chicago
Will Rod Be Spared?
Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is in jail, but maybe not for long.
By NATASHA KORECKI
July 01, 2014
It was a warm spring day in Chicago’s Lincoln Square neighborhood in 2008 and I was heading with family to one of my favorite brunch places, Café Selmarie, on a Sunday. Walking directly in my path was then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, one of his daughters a few paces in front of him. His security in tow, the second-term governor of Illinois walked with purpose through the section of town teeming with yuppies and young families. His head held high, Blagojevich was wearing a dark Polo shirt and a broad smile.
I hesitated before approaching him, then thought: He’s right here, I have to do it.
He cheerfully greeted me when I approached, not realizing who I was.
The federal criminal trial of his former friend, top adviser and fundraiser Tony Rezko, was to begin the next day. Rezko was facing wire fraud and money laundering charges that included allegations that he used his clout as a Blagojevich adviser in various kickback schemes. I happened to be covering the trial for the Chicago Sun-Times. Did the governor have any comment?
Blagojevich’s face turned cold.
His security guard intervened, telling me to take my questions to the press office. Then, in typical Blagojevich fashion, he brushed his security aside, dramatically stepping forward and declaring he would handle this.
Blagojevich stared right at me.
“Good luck keeping your integrity in your profession,” he said in a tone thick with condescension. Then, pausing for effect: “Really, good luck.”
The announcement of Blago's release must be very close at hand for the Sun Times to have arranged to have Korecki submit her latest drivel on the subject of Blago directly to a national publication in Washington DC. read by the political elite.
The main purpose of Korecki's article, titled "Letter From Chicago" is simply to inform them and us that the announcement of Blago's early release from prison is coming very soon.
And that Korecki will be doing the follow-up propaganda interviews and articles to smooth Blago's release over with the commoners.
Therefore positioning Korecki to be the person who helps assimilate Blago back into public life.
Here's how she'll do it: by conducting rehearsed interviews, carefully avoiding any questions that would risk exposing the truth about the extent of the corruption in Illinois, and the deal Blago made for his freedom.
Nothing new, just "The Chicago Way".
We've seen it before with her colleagues Michael Sneed and Lynn Sweet.
Now it's Korecki's turn to carry the water and control the message by conveying a false narrative to the gullible masses.
However, in this case, IP2P is exclusively aware of some comments that Korecki made during the course of the Blago trials that are going to be very problematic for her and the Chicago Sun Times.
Let's see how deep a hole Natasha wants to dig for herself.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Fox News contributor and author Judith Miller recently confessed that Dick Armitage was not the person who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA, and that "a lot of people" in Washington knew this.
Miller went on to say that she was going to tell the story of what really happened during the Plamegate scandal her way in a book due out this spring.
Keep in mind that at that time, Miller had not planned to make a confession about Plamegate. When she realized what she had done, she immediately contacted Scooter Libby in hopes that he could do damage control.
Anyone want to guess what happened next?
Suddenly, with absolutly no warning and no explanation, the release of Miller's book was canceled.
Ouch. It's gotta hurt when you write your memoir and you can't release it because of your own big mouth.
Now Miller is refusing to answer any questions about Plamegate or the cancellation of her eagerly awaited book.
And she's not alone.
Her publisher, Simon & Schuster, and Fox News are also refusing to answer any questions.
The good news: former CIA attorney John Rizzo's recent willingness to discuss Plamegate and his acknowledgment that it was a CIA disinformation campaign could very well make hearing Miller's version of events unnecessary.
We'll see, won't we?
In any case, it might be a good time for you to consider another career change, Judith.
Just a suggestion.
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Former acting general counsel for the CIA, John Rizzo, was recently provided articles from IP2P that state clearly and unequivocally that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, and he was asked to comment on them.
After reading these reports, Rizzo conveyed his compliments, adding that "Mr. Souchak is obviously a good, dogged reporter".
So not only did Rizzo not dispute my reports that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, he actually praised me for them.
Thank you, John.
Now we're getting somewhere. Valerie Plame, it's your turn to tell the truth.
Please start by explaining your relationship with Marc Grossman, the man who really exposed your cover, Brewster Jennings & Associates, as a CIA front.
And while you're at it, Valerie, why don't you tell everyone exactly what your husband, Joe Wilson, was doing for the American Turkish Council.
And I am sure that your adoring fans would also love to hear why you're actively campaigning to elect Hillary Clinton president after she appointed Marc Grossman special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2011.
Remember it was Grossman that got caught on a FBI wiretap peddling nuclear secrets on the black market that ultimately wound up in Pakistan.
Or was that sanctioned by the CIA as well?
What say you, Valerie? You were supposed to be watching out for that kind of activity, weren't you?
In any case the good news is that we can now once and for all dispense with the ridiculous notion that Dick Armitage was the person who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA.
The Armitage cover story was so easily disputed that it was downright embarrassing for us as a nation to have swallowed such a feeble lie.
And best of all, now that John Rizzo has confirmed for us that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, will someone please lower the curtain on the nauseating "Valerie Plame Show"?