No Easy Answers

Thursday, March 22, 2007

The Potemkin Prosecution (Part Two)

The licensed manager of an investment fund is approached by three men, representing American Trade Industries Inc. The men offer the fund manager a deal that promises 10% per month return, where the invested money is always in the control of the investor, and the deal is overseen by the Federal Reserve. Now that's a good deal.

But it's a deal too good to be true, and is in fact a scam.

However, it's a scam that this fund manager isn't aware of, and she signs on to the tune of over 20 million dollars. About half a year later, the liquidity of the fund she manages comes under the scrutiny of the Security and Exchange Commission. She seeks the return of the money she invested, but does not get an accounting, bank statements or a "refund." She seeks help from the United States Secret Service.

The Secret Service is aware of this sort of scam, and requests her assistance in obtaining evidence against the men who represent American Trade Industries Inc. She has conversations with all three of the men who made the initial pitch, and all three of them give false accounting for the whereabouts of her money.

The Secret Service prepares a criminal complaint with the assistance of the US Attorney's Office of the Northern District of Illinois, charging each of the three men with wire fraud. The Secret Service files the criminal complaint in the federal district court, and each of the three men is arrested. The Assistant US Attorney assigned to handle the case against the three men is Jacqueline Stern.

About four months later, charges are dismissed against one of the three men who represent American Trade Industries Inc. -- remember, he personally made a false accounting to the investor.

From this fact pattern, was there a botched investigation? Was there a meritless charge against an innocent person? If the charge was without merit, who is to blame for that? The Secret Service or the US Attorney's office? If the US Attorney's Office perpetrated the meritless charge, do you blame Stern or her boss? Or even beyond that, her boss's boss?

If your answer was "Patrick J. Fitzgerald is to blame for whatever went wrong," you have company.

The Potemkin Prosecution (Part One) - By Clarice Feldman

The news for Fitzgerald got worse last week, as he was forced to drop a high profile prosecution of a prominent businessman with an impeccable record whom he had wrongfully charged with criminal conduct

Yep. That's the ticket. From the facts above, Ms. Feldman blames Patrick Fitzgerald.

The blame is assigned via the same kind of illogic, over-active imagination and tinfoil that the left uses to blame President Bush for "whatever." No matter how wacky the connection from evidence to conclusion, the response to inconvenient background facts is to stubbornly defend the fiction with smoke, mirrors and additional misrepresentation.

To be fair, Ms. Feldman didn't arrive at the original prejudiced leap without prompting. Tom Maguire's Anyone Can Make A Mistake was the germ that set the Potemkin Prosecution (Part One) in motion, and the conclusions asserted therein are repeated (and bought by gullible suckers) to this very day.

Next installment, we look for evidence of involvement of the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, with the inadvertent production of documents to a district court in the Northern District of Texas. Oh wait, there is no such evidence. Well, not unless you want the answer to be "Patrick J. Fitzgerald is to blame for all that went wrong." Just utter "Holy Land," and all errors converge on Fitzgerald.

That is, they do if you have Fitzgerald Derangement Syndrome.

Folks, be careful about believing what you read. It's a jungle out there, and all sides are engaged in "all's fair" publishing -- where accuracy does not matter and dishonesty is a virtue.

Ms. Feldman defends the accuracy and fairness of her article in March 22nd comments here: JustOneMinute: Open Thread Tuesday, I Guess - March 20, 2007

Litigation Release No. 19589 / March 3, 2006

SEC Charges Hedge Fund for Being Duped
By Colin Dodds - March 9, 2006

SEC Sues Hedge Fund for Investment in Another Fund
By Chris Clair - March 13, 2006

Defrauded Manager Settles with SEC
By Susan L. Barreto - June 12, 2006

Litigation Release No. 19985 / January 31, 2007

There's a pattern emerging with Clarice. She's not as smart as one gets an initial impression of. She will cite details and have snappy answers. But when you dig into things, there are often logical flaws. And wrong details. In addition, she does not seem to disaggregate issues well, and argues more for what "side" she likes than honest analysis.
She pulls facts, linkage and inference out of thin air, dresses them up, and deliberately misleads her readers for political effect. "Advocacy."
There are mirror images of misleading advocacy masquerading as "fact-based" on all sides of the political spectrum.
In September of last year, I asked the Department of Justice to look into several actions of Patrick Fitzgerald in connection with the Libby case suggesting that on their face this conduct seemed unethical. To the best of my knowledge that investigation is continuing.
Clarice Feldman
The Fitzgerald cover-up
American Thinker 4/4/07
sorry, forgot the link

The Fitzgerald cover-up
American Thinker 4/4/07
"perfectly innocent". As if she can prove that. What a hyperbolic little ninny. I bet the DOJ shitcanned her request. She's going to be out there with the Cold Fusionists and such in conspiracy land.
Heh. It's a bit of beating a dead horse, no?
Anyway, without being privy to the contents of the Fitzgerald affidavits and balance of Tatel's redacted opinion, I'm sure they containing nothing "new." Rather, more of the same -- the prosecutor thinks two witnesses (Libby and Rove) lied, and hints, as he did in FN15, that there may be evidence that would be essential to prosecute an underlying leak crime (if other elements were present).
In other words, whatever the beef against Fitzgerald is, it's would be no better fleshed out if 100% of the affidavits and opinion were to be published.
The only conceivable reason Fitzgerald is fighting public disclosure of the redacted portions of the affidavit and opinion is to cover up his own failings in an utterly outrageous prosecution of a perfectly innocent man.
There are other reasons to limit what is published, not merely "conceivable," but good. That is, there are other reasons visible to those who aren't Fitzgerald-deranged.
To the best of my knowledge that investigation is continuing.


Thought you might be interested in this this interview with Eisner from WaPo on the Niger Documents
This was news to me

And as long as I'm a bit OT and in Plame land: in one of the liveblog threads during the trial, either you (EW) or Jane vaguely hinted that there were indications that Fitz's investigation wasn't over. When pressed, you or Jane said no more could be said because the hunch was sort of based on courthouse personnel or something. Does this ring a bell with you? And if so, can you elaborate? (Or am I pulling a Libby-like memory out of my arse?)

Posted by: Jim E. | April 11, 2007 at 22:13

Jim E.

First, I called Randy Samborn to see if he'd comment about the discovere 250 emails. I gave him an out to say, "it's grand jury information, so I can't say one way or another." Which is what I thought he'd say. Instead, he said, "there's nothing public, so I can't say." Take that for what you will.

Second, there were comments dropped that said there would be good news, there might be something more. Those happened about three weeks into teh trial. Nothing ever came of them, and I beleive Fitz when he said he'd only go forward if he got more information. I think he laid some foundation in the trial, but it has yet to be seen whether he'll ever get to use it.

Posted by: emptywheel | April 11, 2007 at 22:26

The Next Hurrah 4/11/07

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   March 2009   April 2009  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?