Chicago Tribune/Chicago Sun Times Editorials - Not distinguished, eh?

Chicago Tribune Editorial - Not distinguished, eh?
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published March 21, 2007

It's useful to know that U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago was listed among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a chart the Justice Department sent to the White House in March of 2005. That Tuesday scoop, courtesy of The Washington Post, creates some marvelous questions for members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to ask any Justice and White House officials who testify before them about the firings of other U.S. attorneys.

We've warned about the likely eagerness of certain Illinois political figures to pack Fitzgerald off to the Home for Retired Prosecutors. We don't know whether that desire to quash his assault on the Illinois culture of political sleaze had anything to do with the unflattering ranking. But we hope to learn all about the origin of that ranking now that the chart gives members of Congress good reason to ask these questions.

By the summer of 2005, rumors were rife in Washington, Chicago and Springfield that one or more influential Illinois Republicans was leaning on the White House to dump Fitzgerald, then heading the CIA leak probe. But when Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales visited Chicago on Aug. 8, 2005, he lavishly praised his lead prosecutor here--and came close to marking Fitzgerald as the most untouchable employee at Justice. "In light of [Fitzgerald's] role as special prosecutor," Gonzales told the Tribune editorial board, "if there is talk in the White House about him, that is probably not very smart. That kind of talk would be foolish. I don't think it's happening."

Fitzgerald "has my full support ... my full confidence," Gonzales said. He also said he hadn't spoken with President Bush or anyone else at the White House about Fitzgerald. He added that in a meeting that morning, he had told Fitzgerald, "You need to go where the evidence takes you" in probing public corruption in Illinois.

Those were wise words from Gonzales. He essentially repeated them on a return trip to Chicago in August 2006. And we have no reason to think they were anything but entirely honest. A White House firing of a special prosecutor then investigating the White House would have torched protests nationwide. And there is no indication in the Post's story Tuesday that Gonzales knew in 2005 of Fitzgerald's mediocre ranking in the chart sent to the White House by Kyle Sampson, who resigned as the attorney general's chief of staff. (The Post's sources said Fitzgerald was never included on later lists of U.S. attorneys targeted for removal by Sampson.)

Maybe the chart rankings were Sampson's work alone. But here are questions for Gonzales, Sampson and other administration officials:

-How did Fitzgerald--renowned (and at times honored by Justice) for prosecutions of terrorists, mobsters and thieving public officials--earn a rating of "not distinguished"?

-Did complaints from any Illinois political figure contribute to that verdict--or seek Fitzgerald's removal in any way whatsoever?

-Similarly, did any White House or other administration figure contribute to that verdict--or seek Fitzgerald's removal from Chicago?

-Was Gonzales truthful when he said in 2005 that he knew of no talk in the White House of targeting Fitzgerald for replacement here?

If we may borrow from the wisdom of Gonzales: Members of Congress, and members of the Judiciary Committees in particular--you need to go where the evidence takes you.

Chicago Sun Times Editorial - And, uh, Clarence Darrow was just 'ordinary,' right?
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
March 22, 2007


Patrick Fitzgerald certainly doesn't need us to defend him. His record as U.S. attorney speaks for itself, and even if it didn't, there are plenty of people who have worked with him over the years who will testify about his integrity and passion for justice. Still, we can't let the curious 2005 assessment of Fitzgerald by a Justice Department official -- that he was among federal prosecutors who have "not distinguished themselves" -- pass without comment.

The assessment emerged from the controversy over the Justice Department's firings of eight federal prosecutors after the 2004 elections. The firings have prompted probes from lawmakers who suspect the dismissals were politically motivated, as well as calls by Democrats and some Republicans for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to step down.

According to a Washington Post story on Tuesday, Gonzales' chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, drew up a chart in 2005 in which he ranked prosecutors in an effort to determine which of them should be removed. Fitzgerald was placed below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," the newspaper reported. That put him in a middle category: "No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively." The Justice Department said the chart by Sampson, who resigned last week amid the controversy, was not an official department position about the nation's prosecutors.

Fitzgerald, of course, remains on the job. You have to wonder what criteria were used to determine that he is undistinguished. It certainly couldn't be his record as a prosecutor, which includes high-profile probes into corruption at City Hall and state government that have snared Democrats and Republicans. Then-Sen. Peter Fitzgerald took a lot of heat from the political establishment when he made New Yorker Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) his choice for U.S. attorney in 2001, but it was one of the best things he did for the Chicago area.

Was Sampson listening to political insiders who were upset that Fitzgerald disrupted Illinois' status quo? Or was he considering Fitzgerald's role as special prosecutor in the CIA link probe, which led to the conviction of Vice President's Dick Cheney's chief of staff on perjury charges and angered many Republicans?

Although Fitzgerald wasn't fired, the assessment of him certainly lends weight to the argument that the others were fired for political reasons. As his supervisor in New York, former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, told the Post, calling the outstanding Fitzgerald mediocre "casts total doubt on the whole process."