Comments on Mitt Romney’s Criticism of Patrick Fitzgerald Robust at Illinois Review

Here are the comments to my story,

Mitt Romney Disses Patrick Fitzgerald Again, This Time in Chicago,

which I posted on Illinois Review, as well as on McHenry County Blog:

Tell Romney to quit picking on the only man in Illinois (Patrick Fitzgerald)who understands right from wrong.

Why doesn’t Romney just go back to the state he came from and go donate ANOTHER

10 thousand dollars to another RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL group like he has done so many times before!

Good Bye MITT. Don’t let the door hit you in the behind!

Should Gay Couples Raise Children? Mitt Romney Says “That’s Fine”

What MITT won’t do for votes!!!

It looks like Romney’s willingness to say anything was on display today!! AGAIN!!
Posted by: Rosanna Pulido | Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 09:07 PM

I will not vote for Romney I know that for sure. I will listen to what the other canidates have to say but mitt can write off Illinois as far as Im concerned Fitzgerald has done a great job and I hope he gets to gov elvis very soon.
Posted by: fed up | Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 09:27 PM

Since all have the major GOP candidates have said the same thing about Fitzy, that leaves the above 2 posters voting for Hillary.
Posted by: Jason | Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 09:55 PM

“So, Illinois voters, has Patrick Fitzgerald done enough good in Illinois to stimulate a backlash against Romney’s criticism?”

No. I feel like everyone is speaking Greek when it comes to Fitzgerald. Someone please tell me exactly what this putz has done to deserve all this bipartisan praise?

Crook County continues to be run like a street gang, last I checked.
Posted by: | Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 10:05 PM

I’m negatively impressed by Romney over these remarks and will definitely not vote for him or support him.

What has he done? A lot more than his predecessor, who announced a few days before the 1998 election that George Ryan was not under investigation for the corruption uncovered in the Willis case.
Posted by: TheReallyRightGuy | Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 10:37 PM

I blame the Peter Fitzgerald thing on bad advice from KJ.

Romney is still an amazing candidate.

Strong. New. Leadership.
Posted by: Battletoad | Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Battletoad —

So you admit that Bob the Shill-Lander is still a major force in tha Mittster’s campaign. That will continue after the convention. I see no reformers in Illinois standing behind the Mittster.

Now, about the Scooter.

Granted he is one of those faceless functionaries relied on by clever guys such as the VEEP. He was deep inside the misuse of intelligence information which was at its rotten worst has caused us uncounted casualties in Iraq.. Between Scooter, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Feith, they misused intel collection, and intel production trying without success (other than from unreliable single HUMINT sources.)

Let him serve his time without pardon.
Posted by: pete speer | Friday, June 15, 2007 at 08:55 AM

i am not a romney partisan, but i was privileged to see him yesterday.
in a room of about 30 or so activists, he made the point quite clearly that his criticism is of fitzgerald’s decision to conduct an investigation after learning — in the first week of his d.c. appointment — from deputy secretary of state richard armitage that he, richard armitage, was the person who disclosed valerie plame’s name and relationship to amb. joseph wilson to sun-times columnist robert novak.

as each of us knows, fitzgerald told armitage to remain silent, and he then conducted essentially a perjury trap investigation.

romney criticizes that act of prosecutorial discretion by fitzgerald.

romney declined to criticize fitzgerald’s record here. if he called for fitzgerald’s resignation, i missed it.

as one who has praised fitzgerald continuously on tv or radio or at speaking engagements whenever i have had the chance — and in person at his city club appearance several years ago — and thanked god above for peter appointing him over all of the objections and pressures he was under at the time, and who thanks god today that somehow he has remained in place as u.s. atty. here to act as he has and prosecute who he will, i too think fitzgerald’s choice and subsequent actions in the plame matter, up to and including his sentencing memo to the judge, are examples of horrid prosecutorial judgment.

i don’t know how to explain it, because apart from the plame matter i think patrick fitzgerald has compiled a phenomenal record both in nyc and here. it just was not his assignment.

but fitzgerald’s mistake was very serious. he left broken careers, ruined reputations, lost opportunities, wasted time, abandoned customs, drained bank accounts, enriched white collar defense attorneys… and for what? over what?

one may agree with or disagree with mitt romney. one may like or dislike him. one may work for him, or work against him and for one of his opponents. that is known as primary politics, and all of it is terrific.

but i have yet to hear a single illinois conservative say that fitzgerald was correct in his armitage choice.

and as much as we want fitzgerald to remain indefinitely and keep cleaning up illinois government and politics — which i do — i think all of us also deeply oppose the idea of an errant and unaccountable federal prosecutor charging off wherever the day takes him.fitzgerald blew the call. romney is right to call him on it. one may even say — without being a romney partisan — that romney is showing a bit of courage in standing up on the point while campaigning here.

by the way, did anyone read newt’s op-ed in the FT about sarkozy?

chris robling
Posted by: chris robling | Friday, June 15, 2007 at 09:19 AM


I was thinking that there were more like 100 people in the room.
Good points though.
Posted by: Jason | Friday, June 15, 2007 at 09:59 AM

dear all,

i am sure jason has a better handle on size of crowd than i do. i bet his number is more accurate than mine.



Posted by: chris robling | Friday, June 15, 2007 at 02:16 PM

It was about 100 people cramped into the smallest, hotest room at the Hilton. All in all, it was a great event.

Posted by: Chris McNeil | Friday, June 15, 2007 at 02:33 PM

I’ll have to disagree with Chris. This Illinois conservative, lifelong Republican, will not be voting for Mitt Romney, especially given the continued tirade over Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of the CIA case. If Libby was leaking information about Valerie Plame to reporters, it doesn’t matter if Armitage was doing it, too. Libby was leaking to reporters before Novak’s column was written, and since he and the others in the administration state there was no conspiracy – he could not have known that Armitage had told Novak (or Woodward). Libby, therefore, was responsible for his own actions, i.e. leaking info about Plame to reporters. The jury convicted him for lying about it and obstructing justice. Libby had already made false statements to the FBI before Fitzgerald was even assigned to the case.

Misconduct would have been to not prosecute the case, in the same manner that it was wrong for Governor Ryan to try to impede the investigation in his own mess.

We cannot reclaim leadership in our state and the nation if we tolerate people who are corrupt or trying to cover up corruption because they are one of “our guys”.

It’s time to clean house, and a big THANK YOU to Patrick Fitzgerald for taking on a tough and enduring task.

Posted by: Kay
| Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 08:36 AM

The Plame/Wilson factoid is the least of all the sins committed in the same of attempting to justify the war based on WMD.

The original data came from a single HUMINT source passed on by Italian intelligence. The documentation — contracts, et all was second hand until well into the matter the CIA obtained the originals, which technical analysis revealed to be forgeries.

As Rumsfeld and Feith did by crushing dissent in the DOD intelligence agencies so also did Chaney and the Scooter do with respect to the CIA.

Why did the Italians not use their direct contact with the CIA but rather go through an unreliable cut out?

We don’t know yet, but I would suggest that extremely high level intergovernmental communications was used to release this dreck — on the Bush-Chaney-Berlescone level. And why was that? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: pete speer | Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *