What Is Patrick Fitzgerald Trying to Hide from the Public?

[marmar]

via AlterNet:



What Is Patrick Fitzgerald Trying to Hide from the Public?

By Rory O'Connor, MediaChannel.org. Posted June 12, 2009.

Powerful prosecutor and public figure Patrick Fitzgerald has been waging a chilling private jihad aimed at "killing" a book critical of him.




Okay, so he's one of the "sexiest men alive" -- but what does Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in Chicago and Special Counsel in the CIA leak case, have against us poor, unsexy journalists? It's bad enough that Fitzie won't answer my questions: ("Rory. I just wanted to get back to you and let you know that I am going to decline to be interviewed. Thank you. Pat") It's worse that he was responsible for the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days behind bars. Now comes word that Fitzgerald, who must have too much time on his hands now that Scooter Libby has been freed and Rod Blagojevich indicted, spent much of the last year and a half going after another journalist, Peter Lance, in an attempt to kill a new edition of Lance's investigative book Triple Cross by threatening to sue both the author and his publisher for libel.

Originally published in November 2006 by Regan Books, a division of Harper_Collins, Triple Cross uncovers the story of how Al Qaeda master spy Ali Mohamed infiltrated U.S. intelligence in the years leading up to 9/11 - "and how the FBI's elite bin Laden squad failed to stop him." Among the radicals trained by Ali Mohamed --and photographed by the FBI in 1989 -- one would go on to kill Rabbi Meier Kahane in 1990; three were convicted in the World Trade Center bombing in 1994; and two (including Kahane's killer) were later convicted by then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald in 1995 in what became known as the "Day of Terror" plot to blow up the bridges and tunnels into Manhattan. The book also details how the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's offices in New York prosecuted terrorists before 9/11, including "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman, who infamously tried to blow up the World Trade Center, and others who bombed US embassies in Africa. And Lance alleges that Fitzgerald, when he was an assistant U.S. attorney in the 1990s, discounted information that may have revealed the existence of an Al Qaeda cell in New York years prior to September 11, 2001.

Fitzgerald's stab at censorship is especially chilling coming from such a powerful prosecutor. But the lawman says he has no choice, since the book, which focuses on cases Fitzgerald prosecuted as Chief of Organized Crime and Terrorism in the Southern District of New York, is "a deliberate lie masquerading as the truth" and maintains that "it defames me or casts me in a false light," as he said in one of four threatening letters sent to Lance's publisher. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/media/140613/what_is_patrick_fitzgerald_trying_to_hide_from_the_public/

[John Q. Citizen]

1. It's already been published. Fitz shoud either sue, or shut up. Instead it sound as if he prefers to

intimidate.

[MADem]

3. Apparently, the new edition has "new" accusations. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Not according to the alternet article. do you have a link? This is what the article says:

(Last four paragraphs)

But Fitzgerald is resolute, charging that Lance's claims in Triple Cross are "outrageously dishonest" and that Lance "alleged that I deliberately misled courts and the public" in ways that led to the 9/11 attacks. The book most notably accuses Fitzgerald of botching the handling of a key FBI informant who doubled as a Qaeda spy, and also suggests the prosecutor filed a false affidavit, perhaps to cover up the relationship between an FBI agent and a leading mob figure.

Lance responds by asserting that Fitzgerald is trying to "kill" his book with "baseless" allegations. "Patrick Fitzgerald accuses me of making charges in the book that I never made," he says. "At the same time, he continually fails to respond to the substantive allegations documented in 604 pages, 1,425 end notes and 32 pages of documentary appendices."

Ironically, Fitzgerald's latest and most surprising assault on the Fourth Estate may also be the best thing that ever happened to Lance and Triple Cross. "That's the ultimate irony," Lance admits. "The book wasn't reviewed by a single U.S. publication. If Fitzgerald never did anything, it would have just faded into obscurity this is the true lesson of censorship."

The new edition of Triple Cross will appear June 16 -- complete with a new introduction that's describes Fitzgerald's attempts at censorship. In the meantime, Lance is on the offensive, alerting fellow journalists, giving interviews, and readying a press conference at the National Press Club on his pub date for a full blown discussion of the Fitzgerald/censorship issue.

Peter Lance's website: www.peterlance.com

[MADem]

5. I quoted the last four paragraphs in post 2. He objects to defamation, false statements.

ON EDIT--they changed the book substantially. They spent a YEAR editing it.

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/57196/ A slightly less wingnut slanted look at this story.



And "The new edition of Triple Cross will appear June 16..."

It isn't "censorship" to say "You are LYING ABOUT ME."

All I can say is when I see REGAN, I smell shit.

His specific gripes, again (with that pesky rightwing JIHAD word center-stage):

Although undoubtedly a public figure, Fitzgerald has been waging a private jihad to get Lance's book killed. He has written repeatedly to HarperCollins - owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. - demanding it "cease publication" and "withdraw" copies of Triple Cross, which was originally published in hard cover in 2006. His first letter to the publisher alleged that "Triple Cross makes a number of statements of fact which defame me (and others) and which are easily proven to be objectively false." He asked the publisher to stop selling all hard cover copies, not to print a new paperback edition, and to acknowledge errors. His most recent letter arrived June 2. "To put it plain and simple," Fitzgerald wrote, "if in fact you publish the book this month and it defames me or casts me in a false light, HarperCollins will be sued."



Saying that Patrick Fitzgerald facilitated the actions of terrorists and to an extent was responsible for 911 is a pretty big charge. It's also a rightwing load of shit, IMO. I hope he gets himself a BIGASS payday.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. He should sue or shut up. my guess is that the reason he hasn't sued already is he has no case.

But that's just my guess.

[MADem]

8. He was waiting for the changes to be made to the text. Apparently, changes have

been made, per the article and link I provided. The lawyers were "at it" for over a year. That's what he asked for, and apparently, that is what he got. If he didn't get what he wanted, he would have sued. That ALTERNET article carries some water for the right wing. The article I provided has more context to it.

We won't know how many changes were made until the new edition comes out. What we know, though, is that a rightwing publishing house run by some of the most dispicable people in the world (Murdoch and Regan) is using the objections of Fitzgerald to sell the "revised" book--and they're claiming he is "censoring" them even after they spent fourteen months scrubbing the book, and have made changes to the text.

Someone will have to compare the two versions to see what's what. I won't buy the book though--I don't want to line the pockets of those bums.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Regan' been gone for couple of years. DU's own Paul Thompson was published by them

You can read the Timeline on Peter Lance's website and you can buy the original hardcover new or used at Amazon. Fitz apparently isn't inclined to sue Amazon.

I think Fitz should sue or shut the fuck up. Throwing around his prosecutor's weight seems cowardly to me.

I want to see Lance at the National Press Club when his book is published. That should be good.

[MADem]

10. Again, he wasn't threatening to sue for amusement. He was threatening to sue because they

were publishing LIES about him. He's not going after a payday--he's not money-oriented. He's going after a correct record.

If they did nothing wrong, why did they take over a year to go over the book, and why did they change sections of it?

They are selling this book by "suggesting"--in Faux-like innuendo--that there was censorship happening and Fitzgerald was doing it, when in actual fact, they took over a year to correct Faux-like mistakes.

He deliberately was NOT throwing his prosecutor's weight around. That's why he used a separate address (a PO box he rented) and no letterhead.

Yes, Regan is gone, she sued after being fired and got twenty five million after that OJ mess. But she brokered this book deal, and published the original, inacurrate book, and Murdoch still owns that cesspool.

I am not impressed. This sounds like the "Ann Coulter" treatment. A typical rightwing hit piece.

[MADem]

2. REGAN BOOKS? As in Judith Regan, former Faux right wing prostitute?

The one who wanted to make the massive profit off of OJ Simpson's "If I Did It?" piece of crap? The one who was fucking Bernie "I'm an Asshole" Kerik, Giuliani pal?

I have a problem with the framing of this article. Why do we have to wait till the third paragraph to get any buried meat? First paragraph--set him up. Second paragraph--knock him down. Third paragraph--state the issue, with "innuendo" on top.

Is the issue here "censorship" or "defamation" or "slander?" It's not really "censorship" if someone is lying their ass off about you, now, is it?

This is a publishing outfit run by a sleazy woman who, with her equally sleazy cop ex-boyfriend, used a respite apartment overlooking Ground Zero to fuck in. Yep, the apartment that should have been used by rescue workers grabbing a nap and a shower was instead used by Bernie Kerik and Judith Regan for extramarital fucking. Gee, what a romantic setting.

Why should I believe anything that skank has to say? Or publish?

Let's refresh our memories, here:

News Corp. Begged Regan to Lie about Kerik Affair & Withhold Information
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3606
More detail here:
http://www.talkleft.com/wireservice?articleId=12148126&channelId=1180&buyerId=talkleftcom&buid=3042

It sounds like typical rightwing crap--goading, lying, making shit up. "When did you stop beating your wife?" They have nerve to say that when someone objects to being lied about, it's "censorship." I hope Fitzgerald sues, wins, and has a payday that makes Regan's look like chump change. I also object to the article-writer's use of the word "jihad" in this article. It's cheap and suggestive--like the entire article, which sounds like it was written by some asswipe from the Weakly Standard--did some wingnut buy ALTERNET while no one was looking, or what?

Although undoubtedly a public figure, Fitzgerald has been waging a private jihad to get Lance's book killed. He has written repeatedly to HarperCollins - owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. - demanding it "cease publication" and "withdraw" copies of Triple Cross, which was originally published in hard cover in 2006. His first letter to the publisher alleged that "Triple Cross makes a number of statements of fact which defame me (and others) and which are easily proven to be objectively false." He asked the publisher to stop selling all hard cover copies, not to print a new paperback edition, and to acknowledge errors. His most recent letter arrived June 2. "To put it plain and simple," Fitzgerald wrote, "if in fact you publish the book this month and it defames me or casts me in a false light, HarperCollins will be sued."

The letters -- one of which was sent via fax from the U.S. Attorney's Office -- are unusual to say the least. "We certainly find it highly offensive that a federal prosecutor would do something like this," Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press told Newsweek.

But Fitzgerald is resolute, charging that Lance's claims in Triple Cross are "outrageously dishonest" and that Lance "alleged that I deliberately misled courts and the public" in ways that led to the 9/11 attacks. The book most notably accuses Fitzgerald of botching the handling of a key FBI informant who doubled as a Qaeda spy, and also suggests the prosecutor filed a false affidavit, perhaps to cover up the relationship between an FBI agent and a leading mob figure.

Lance responds by asserting that Fitzgerald is trying to "kill" his book with "baseless" allegations. "Patrick Fitzgerald accuses me of making charges in the book that I never made," he says. "At the same time, he continually fails to respond to the substantive allegations documented in 604 pages, 1,425 end notes and 32 pages of documentary appendices."

Ironically, Fitzgerald's latest and most surprising assault on the Fourth Estate may also be the best thing that ever happened to Lance and Triple Cross. "That's the ultimate irony," Lance admits. "The book wasn't reviewed by a single U.S. publication. If Fitzgerald never did anything, it would have just faded into obscurity this is the true lesson of censorship."

The new edition of Triple Cross will appear June 16 -- complete with a new introduction that's describes Fitzgerald's attempts at censorship. In the meantime, Lance is on the offensive, alerting fellow journalists, giving interviews, and readying a press conference at the National Press Club on his pub date for a full blown discussion of the Fitzgerald/censorship issue.

[raincity_calling]

7. another slant to story

From RawStory

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/12/fitzgerald-trying-to-censor-explosive-911-tale/

Author: Fitzgerald libel threat aimed at censoring key 9/11 tale

"The dark plots of Ali Mohamed

Ali Mohamed, according to Lance, was something of an al Qaeda super-spy who managed to work with terrorists, the Green Berets, the CIA and become an FBI informant, even while ensuring Osama bin Laden’s safe passage around the middle east. For years, Triple Cross alleges, the FBI and specifically Fitzgerald, knew about him but allowed Mohamed’s activities to continue unchecked. "

[MADem]

11. “Triple Cross has become Patrick Fitzgerald’s obsession,” he commented to Geoff Metcalf, writing for

Accuracy in Media.

Yeah, Accuracy in Media....what do we know about THEIR track record? Hint--they are batshit fucking NUTS, and Reed Irvine (the nutcase who founded it) is the most cracked nut of the lot:


At CBS's meetings, Irvine frequently denounced Walter Cronkite as a Soviet dupe. At a 1986 meeting, Irvine requested that Cronkite be removed from the CBS board of directors for allegedly supporting unilateral disarmament.<7>

AIM also famously denounced journalist Helen Marmor, who in 1983 produced a documentary for NBC concerning the Russian Orthodox Church.<8> AIM contended that "it ignored the repressive religious policies of the Soviet state."

The group denounced New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner for his reporting in January 1982 of the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador. AIM devoted an entire edition of its AIM Report to Bonner, reporting that "Mr. Bonner had been worth a division to the communists in Central America."<9> The issue included some insinuations about Bonner's political sympathies, noting that he had once worked for Ralph Nader.

In 1998, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Reed Irvine claimed there was a conspiracy within the Republican Party to "suppress investigations of Clinton administration scandals."<6> He noted, "Conspiracy is a word that has been given a very bad connotation -- it's become synonymous with 'kooky,'" he told a Post reporter.<6> "But really it has a very good connotation." In other words, he elaborated, some conspiracy theories are valid. But not Hillary Clinton's notion of a vast right-wing conspiracy. "She's kooky," he said."<6>

AIM has been critical of the United Nations and its coverage by the media. In February 2005, AIM revealed that United Nations correspondents, including a correspondent for The Nation named Ian Williams, had accepted money from the UN while covering it for their publications. AIM also revealed that the United Nations Correspondents Association may have violated immigration laws by employing the wife of Williams. Williams and The Nation denied wrongdoing. <1><2> The charges were also reported by FrontPage Magazine. The allegations concerning Williams receiving UN cash was picked up by Brit Hume and the Fox News Channel. <3>

In November 2005, AIM columnist Cliff Kincaid criticised Fox News for broadcasting a program "The Heat is On," which endorsed the view that global warming represents a serious problem (although the program was broadcast with a disclaimer). Kincaid stated that this "scandal" amounted to a "hostile takeover of Fox News" <4>.

In a December 13, 2005 column, Kincaid called for a "Quit Gay Sex" campaign to rival "Quit Smoking Campaigns" launched by certain media outlets in the United States. He contended that homosexual sex is widespread and homosexual men "simply cannot stop having homosexual sex" and that it was spreading HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.<10>


....Accuracy in Media has received a substantial amount of funding from Scaife who paid Christopher W. Ruddy to investigate allegations that President Bill Clinton was connected to the suicide of Vincent Foster.<15> AIM claims that "Foster was murdered",<16> which is contrary to three independent reports including one by Kenneth Starr<17>. AIM faults the media for not picking up on the conspiracy.<18> The organization has even gone to court for documents and recordings linked to the case.

AIM credits much of its reporting on the Foster case to Ruddy.<19> Yet, his work has been called a "hoax" and "discredited" by conservatives like Ann Coulter,<20> it was also disputed by the American Spectator, which caused Scaife to end his funding of the Arkansas Project with the publisher.<21> As CNN explained on February 28, 1997, "The report refutes claims by conservative political organizations that Foster was the victim of a murder plot and coverup," but "despite those findings, right-wing political groups have continued to allege that there was more to the death and that the president and First Lady tried to cover it up."<22>

Ruddy operates a conservative news website, NewsMax, that still claims there is a conspiracy and faults the media.<23>



Have I taken a wrong term? Are we going to buy off on this stupid Freeper Scaife/Newsmax crap? AIM is not a credible source. This whole story is vicious, Vince Foster like bullshit.