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...
Dept. of Justice turns a blind eye for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, and against the First Amendment
The Entire Staff of Writers, IllinoisPayToPlay
When U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald attacked Peter Lance, and his book Triple Cross, from the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, he crossed a dangerous line.
A line that, as Americans, we must not allow our government to cross.
That line protects our First Amendment Right of Speech, and prevents government censorship.
View Peter Lance talk about his book Triple Cross here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Triple
"Peter Lance filed a complaint with the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) asking for an investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald on June 13th, 2009.
He Fed Ex'd copies of the letter to both A.G. Holder and Mary Patrice Brown, then Acting Counsel of the OPR. Lance never received a response from either of them."
You can read the formal complaint filed with the OPR here:
When the Dept. of Justice's (DoJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) ignored that Fitzgerald abused his power as U.S Attorney in his attempt to censor a book containing material he disliked. An act that violated the Constitution
The clear message was sent that, Holder's Dept. of Justice doesn't respect the First Amendment. That should chill us all, and make us wonder: What other parts of the Constitution are they ignoring?
At IP2P, we believe the issue of government censorship is of such great importance that we urge all Americans who treasure their God-given right to freedom of speech to let the DoJ know how you feel.
And when you get no satisfaction from the OPR, consider contacting your member of Congress.
Mary Patrice Brown, and the OPR, have been asked to comment on this question: "Why was no investigation into U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's disturbing conduct ever initiated?"
So far, there's been no response.
As this story develops, ask yourself: Do I want the government deciding what I can and cannot read?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was right when he said this about Ali Mohamed: “This is the most dangerous man I have ever met. We cannot let this man out on the street.”
However, we believe that, in hindsight, Fitzgerald proved more dangerous than Ali Mohamed.
In-fact, Patrick Fitzgerald may be remembered by history as being a danger to the American way-of-life - depending, of course, on who writes the history of this alarming era.
We hear you thinking, "Why that's nuts!" Really?
It's not nuts when you examine the chain-of-events set off by Fitzgerald's willing incompetence, and wonder what this era would have been like had he'd done the right thing.
So let's play...What if?
What if Patrick Fitzgerald had had Ali Mohammed arrested - the person he described as "...the most dangerous man I have ever met. We cannot let this man out on the street.”.
Would 9-11 have happened?
Would we have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Would we have given up so many of our liberties under the guise of being more secure?
Would our financial institutions and the USD be eroding?
What if Patrick Fitzgerald had not been appointed U.S. Attorney of the Northern Dist. of Illinois?
Would John Chase have been instructed to call Rod Blagojevich and warn him that the feds were recording him?
Would Jesse Jackson, Jr. have been arrested for trying to buy the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barrack Obama?
Would Barrack Obama have been elected President without the help and protection of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald?
We agree with Patrick Fitzgerald's assertion that Ali Mohammed was dangerous, and should not have remained a free man. (Did we ever find out why Mohamed remained free?)
If he had been arrested, would we have children being groped at airports by TSA agents? Would we have warrantless wiretaps underway, or drones flying overhead? Would there be American citizens on the President's kill list?
We think there's a good chance all that might not have happened. And, consequently, we nominate Patrick Fitzgerald as America's "Most Dangerous Man."
To be continued.........
At IP2P, we've addressed several articles about Patrick Fitzgerald's idea of truth.
However, the piece that may prove to be our most important chronicle is ahead. It involves a book titled Triple Cross.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's attack on investigative reporter and novelist Peter Lance, and his book Triple Cross, was Fitzgerald's war against the truth.
The Department of Justice declared war against the First Amendment when it allowed Fitzgerald to conduct his war on Lance, and on the publisher of his book, from within the U.S. Attorneys Office in Chicago.
Read about Fitzgerald's Attempts to silence Lance here:
Triple Cross is a must read for anyone who wants a truthful look at our government's actions, and lack of actions, that led to 9-11.
And, perhaps equally important, Triple Cross revealed that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the man touted as the most likely candidate to replace FBI director Robert Mueller, has no problem employing Gestapo tactics on citizens who tell the truth about his, or his accomplices', actions in a significant cover-up.
In Triple Cross you can learn, thanks to old-fashion investigative work done by Peter Lance, the truth about Patrick Fitzgerald. He is no Elliot Ness. And the thought of Patrick Fitzgerald ever becoming FBI Director should alarm all freedom-loving Americans.
Lance's work is a road map to understanding how we've come to a point in American history where the Justice Department routinely tramples on our constitutional rights, and now insists that it is within the President's power to kill American citizen's without due process.
Learn more from Peter Lance here: http://peterlance.com/wordpress/
More ahead on this.