Fitzgerald to Obama: Not So Fast

Thanks for the take KT. I your guess about the reasoning is the most likely.
.
Although I must say your headline tricked me into thinking this would be more “questions and concerns” from MS.

The real question is how fast and how far the media will use this statement to bolster their meme that Obama has something to hide. I mean can’t you just hear Joe Scarborough now? “Well obviously Fitzgerald doesn’t want them to release the evidence because they are still investigating Rahm Emanuel”
.
I say it takes all of 2 hours before that card gets played on FoxNews.
.
We are officially in bizarro world

PNNTO
.
Cue that post from Scherer in 5…4…3…2

Its on CNN right now.

I’m told it turned out to be “pretty milquetoast stuff.
**
It’s been pretty clear to most people, I think, that there’s no there there, but people like Scherer and Juan Williams and Joe Scarborough are desperate to gin it up into a scandal, so the transition team had to waste a lot of time trying to prove a negative.
**
and what sg said

If Obama wants to release information and Fitz wants him to hold off, can we now politely ask the people who’ve been fervently trying to pretend that Obama has been hiding something to STFU?

I want two things for Christmas:
A big ol’ “F–k You!” to Michael Scherer for his breathless coverage of why Obama hadn’t explained himself, and at least one blog post on the Senate Armed Services Committee report that traces prisoner abuse to Bush and the gang.

Your predicted meme is on CNN SG?

On que Rick Sanchez is framing it as something bad because they used the word “innappropriate”. Damm I could have sworn that would mean that everything was above board. And of course the washington flack is pushing the whole “there are still questions that are going to be hanging over them” meme

Jim, FL- Juan Williams is pushing that stuff? Pathetic.

Insanity.

And TIME, do you want me to buy the Cartier or the Blackberry? Can’t be both.

Karen – I’m baffled why the MSM (the theoretically Obamaphile MSM) has been willing to question Obama’s conduct, but has had no stories that I can think of that question the Republicans’ conduct: “Republicans trying to take Obama down a notch with scurrilous accusations.” This would be a story for which there is actual evidence, as opposed to the stories implicating Obama in shady business over this.

Your headline implies that Obama was trying to get away with something, and Fitzgerald put a stop to it, in comparison to the headline over at Talking Points Memo: At Fitzgerald’s Request, Obama Team Delays Release Of Blago Review

And this isn’t going away. Either the Fitzgerald request will be omitted from discussion, or, as others have pointed out, the blathering heads on cable news will breathlessly speculate as to why Fitzgerald wants the report delayed: because, NO DOUBT, Obama is involved.

Cliff says:

at least one blog post on the Senate Armed Services Committee report that traces prisoner abuse to Bush and the gang.

Good luck with that.

Coffee – I can’t stand it. These people might be more of a challenge to my will to charity now than they were during the Bush years.

@pourmecoffee
You’ll recall that the top source on your insanity link is the same gentleman who first claimed knowlege of the Michelle Obama ‘Whitey” tape. As soon as that turns up, I will reconsider his reliability as a source. Until then………

Someone notify Rick Sanchez on CNN that the delay is because Fitz wants it. The “no inappropriate discussion” line made him think there may have been discussions. Well, no sh#$, Sherlock. It would have been bizarre if there hadn’t been any discussions. He wonders what PEBO’s definition of “inappropriate”. Start the witch hunt.

Jay did a great job on MSNBC right now. Nora tried to rag on Obama re “is this transparent to delay, blah, blah, blah”. Jay responded that the delay was at the request of Fitzgerald’s office and that if the Obama camp doesn’t want to impede the US Attorney office’s investigation then they would do what was requested and hold off on the release until next week.

Thank you, Jay. Nice job but, damn, isn’t it pathetic how both Rick and Nora tried to turn it into something bad re Obama. Just report the facts, please.

Once again, good job!

Anyone catch Mika and Joe acting the fools this morning? Manufacturing scandal seems to be cable news’ main function.

My cable contract can’t end soon enough (next month).

Is Carney already flacking? Even by the standards of the various and interchangeable animated department store mannequins who anchor MSNBC between Scarborough and Tweety, Norah O’Donnell is an idiot.
**
Jim, FL- Juan Williams is pushing that stuff? Pathetic.
Yup, on NPR with Scott Simon, who seems to have a hard on against Obama, too.

Shorter wingnuts.

I saw this on Marc Ambinder and he says, “Obama will be on vacation that week and away from the prying eyes of press cameras.”

For pete’s sake, are some of these folks asking us to believe that a Republican AG would try and save Obama from embarrasment? Surely Fitzgerald’s bosses would be eager to get some dirt on Obama out there if there was any.

BTW, Juan Williams was pushing this story hard on Fox News Sunday’s panel discussion too.

He seemed very hard on Obama during the election. I’m not sure if he wants to prove he isn’t in the tank for Obama because he is black or what, but he really went overboard during the election. Williams kept talking about how Obama never called on the black community to be responsible when in fact Obama gave numerous speeches on this.

lest we forget, the information that would be released by Obama would be spun to make team Obama look innocent regardless of whether there is something there or not.

Its also interesting to note how team Obama appears to “limit” the question — its about ” a review of Transition staff contacts” — but not everyone who works for Obama is part of the “Transition staff”… and the capital T Transition staff didn’t exist until after the election (a possibly crucial distinction, given reports of Rahm’s discussions pre-election).

Making Rahm his CoS was a huge mistake — Rahm has always been about selling the Democratic Party to the highest bidder, and any illusion that anyone might have had about Obama feeling beholden to all of those “small contributors” should have been shattered when Rahm was pretty much put in charge of everything. Its tough to believe that Obama is as pure as the driven snow when Rahm is his CoS (let alone his campaign co-chair, JJ Jr.’s, own ethical question marks….)

I saw this on Marc Ambinder and he says, “Obama will be on vacation that week and away from the prying eyes of press cameras.”
**
Fiendishly clever of Obama to plan a vacation in Hawaii at the totally random and unrelated-to-anything time of the last two weeks of December, one month before he takes on the world’s most full time job. No one would ever go to Hawaii at Christmastime, especially if they were born there and have family and friends, without some hidden ulterior motive. Marc Ambinder is a brilliant and insightful person, and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.

I just posted to my blog about this memo and how the pundits are/will spin/ning it.
.
plukasiak, you are kinda in guilty until proven innocent mode today aren’t you? I guess its not just the MSM who has tried and convicted Obama over this.

Jim Foolish Literalist
.
EXACTLY
.
The word innappropriate must not mean what it used to mean. At least if you are watching CNN right now.

OT-
Hey sgw, Nate’s thrown you a bone about filibusters:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/is-60-votes-overrated.html

lest we forget, the information that would be released by Obama would be spun to make team Obama look innocent regardless of whether there is something there or not.

And let’s, while we’re at it, pre-spin the release of said information. So even if it irrefutably proves that the members of his transition staff had no inappropriate contact with Blags and Co., we can just conclude “Well, what else would Obama release?”

Damned if you don’t release the report when the media thinks it should be, damned if you choose to release it when the Attorney General requests, and damned no matter what, because, of course, it’s going to be shaded in such a way to make Obama look the best.

And therefore, there must be something wrong with it.

Joe B
.
Thanks, Ill be posting on that in JUST a minute but it only confirms what I had already been saying.

ctvoter – there’s a reason Christmas isn’t my favorite holiday. But a man can dream, can’t he?
.
So KT, which one of you has the balls to write about the Senate report?

Cliff, care to re-phrase that?

Also, from Joey B’s link:
B.R. raises several interesting points, but they ultimately point back to one thing: Harry Reid has been exceptionally ineffective as the Democrats’ majority leader.
.
THANK YOU NATE SILVER.

Joe B – why? Would you prefer I say cojones?

Joe B
.
Done

After watching the breathless speculation over what role Obama and his aides had in the Blago scandal, I’m left with only one question:

Can you get a job in cable news if you’re only *partially* retarded, or do you in fact have to have the full lobotomy?

And yes, I know comparing the mouthbreathers of Morning Joe and CNN’s dolts like John King to people who are actual mentally retarded is an insult to the mentally retarded. My apologies.

Fitzgerald to the Yapping Poodles of the Press: STFU

Noron, Mika and Joe Scar are now three useful idiots for the bogus oppo to Obama. I think Fitz’s request has taken the wind out of their sails. Don’t worry : the above and assorted gasbags will not stop speculating. Meanwhile let us move on. It will be thrilling to see Jay become a “Spokesman for a Dem VP”!!!

The roll out went well enough. Obama handled the few Blago questions well, although the press gave him a major break by not pressing the issue further. Mainly, did Obama and his team delay after being approached by Fitzgerald, or was it vice versa?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

[...] He was going to release the results of an internal report that showed that no one had anything inappropriate to do with corrupt Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, but U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked him not to. [Huffington Post, Time] [...]

Up yonder a ways, kathy said: I’m baffled why the MSM (the theoretically Obamaphile MSM) has been willing to question Obama’s conduct, but has had no stories that I can think of that question the Republicans’ conduct: “Republicans trying to take Obama down a notch with scurrilous accusations.” This would be a story for which there is actual evidence, as opposed to the stories implicating Obama in shady business over this.
.
Just thought that needed to be repeated.

Glenn Greenwald makes a point worth making (h/t sully:
.
Just ponder the uproar if, in any other country, the political parties joined together and issued a report documenting that the country’s President and highest aides were directly responsible for war crimes and widespread detainee abuse and death. Compare the inevitable reaction to such an event if it happened in another country to what happens in the U.S. when such an event occurs — a virtual media blackout, ongoing fixations by political journalists with petty scandals, and an undisturbed consensus that, no matter what else is true, high-level American political figures (as opposed to powerless low-level functionaries) must never be held accountable for their crimes.
.
And sully himself is in full outrage:
.
Let’s be absolutely clear what this means: When we saw an image of Lynndie England pulling a naked prisoner around on a leash, we assumed at the time that she improvised this, or was some kind of "bad apple." This is and was a conscious lie to the Congress, and to the American people, and to the world. The person who authorized the use of nudity and leashes on prisoners was not Lynndie England or any of the other grunts thrown to the wolves. The man who authorized the technique shown below is the president of the United States:
.
You know, I’ve been thinking about this all day. Lynndie grew up one county away from where I live. It was just pure chance that she was in a unit assigned to the prison. She could have been one of my neighbor’s kids. Or yours. She was put in a position where the command structure told her to participate in torture. The torture she participated in was directly approved by George W. Bush. And when the outside world found out about it, HE threw her to the wolves. She is in prison and he is not. And the media is talking about ANYTHING BUT THIS REPORT!
.
In the meantime, the media is damaging our new president with baseless innuendo. What digby said:
.
The problem for Obama in this is the distraction, of course, and a gradual erosion of respect and the presumption of good faith among the American people, even if they approve of the job he’s doing. Even if they see through all the media braying, people eventually get tired of this stuff and the psychological response among a good many of them, in my observation, is to begin to blame the victim. Over time, it weakens the president and makes even his supporters tire of having to defend him. And in the long term, many people subconsciously internalize the derisive criticism and without even realizing it become reflexively hostile. It can ruin a presidency without the president’s approval numbers ever going much below 50%. I’ve seen it happen before my very eyes.

Yes, wv. Thanks for posting that. And it starts with even well-meaning journos like Karen writing headlines like “Fitzgerald to Obama: Not So Fast” or like Jitendra Joshi of AFP writing headlines like “Obama Chief Of Staff Linked To Blagojevich Horse-Trading -Reports” or like Tribune’s Mark Silva being manipulated into posting, for free, an RNC smear ad against Obama. (And then you have outright patsies like Scherer who are willingly manipulated by the right into doing the same thing.
.
I’ll repost this from Democratic Strategist:

The major problem is not that the reporters are deliberately promoting Republican talking points. Rather it is that skilled (and, in fact, even utterly mediocre) PR operatives can almost effortlessly manipulate the coverage of a “scandal” by understanding the medias’ three-step process.
.
1. During the first 24-72 hours of a breaking story reporters and analysts are in a desperate life or death competition to inflate the importance of a “scandal” and make it as big as story as possible. (After all, nobody gets a Pulitzer or a raise for a story titled “XYZ scandal of limited importance”). Conversely, there is no penalty or downside cost to reporters and analysts for engaging in baseless speculation (In fact, if salaries were actually reduced based on the number of a reporter or analysts’ idle speculations that turned out to be groundless, the practice would quickly disappear).
.
2. Once the “story” is established as “news”, dramatic statements by leading Republicans or simply growing media or internet discussion of the “story” become themselves officially more “News” – justifying another set of headlines and TV teasers saying “back in a moment with new information on this breaking story.”
.
3. After the “big news” phase has passed, there is no tradition in American journalism or other effective pressure on journalists that will lead them to produce follow-up stories that correct the false impressions generated during the initial frenzy. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a follow-up news story – in the same front page position and the same headline size as the original stories that says, for example, “Obama emerges unscathed from Blagojevich affair – no evidence of personal involvement found”. The media simply do not consider themselves obligated or responsible for producing news stories like this in the aftermath of a media feeding frenzy. Correcting a false impression is not a “big news” story like the original misleading version.
.
The result of these three factors is a systematic, inherent bias that even the most clumsy partisan PR operatives can manipulate to their advantage.

.
Our job is to assertively call them on it, every time. INSIST that they adhere to at least minimum standards. Call them on it when they get it wrong, when they write inflammatory headlines like that above, and insist upon clear corrections.
.

James in Los Angeles, thanks for the service you just provided. This should be emailed to every news outlet.
I think journalists who engage in character assasination should be held accountable when their idle spectulation leads to smearing someone’s character and it proves false.
It’s sloppy, misleading, damaging and just plain wrong.

“James in Los Angeles, thanks for the service you just provided. This should be emailed to every news outlet.”

Excellent points, but I don’t think the news media can be shamed into acting like real journalists.

james: After the “big news” phase has passed, there is no tradition in American journalism or other effective pressure on journalists that will lead them to produce follow-up stories that correct the false impressions generated during the initial frenzy. Even if there were such a tradition, the damage is done when the first story is posted, and the drip drip drip of doubt is started.
.
What we have had now for better than a week is stories with sentences that include these words: Obama scandal corruption Blago. It will produce the same effect as: 9-11 wmd iraq al-qaeda.
.
Somebody way up top, probably sgw, said the story should be the repugs pushing the false story. And it should be, because that is the actual national scandal. But the msm will never do that story. Ever.
.
Just as there is no post here at the Swamp about the torture report.

From a commenter at Balloon Juice:
.
John King is from Idaho, which makes me wonder if he has ever had a tryst with Larry Craig, who is also from Idaho. Don’t you see the obvious connection? They are both from Idaho, just like Obama and Balgojevich are BOTH FROM CHICAGO. It is right there in front of your eyes, folks! Will John King be able to prove he has never had sex with Larry Craig in a bathroom stall? We need answers!