The timing of Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference and arrest of ‘Hot Rod’ Blagojevich has been questioned. i.e. why would he go public now when it is not clear if Blagojevich has committed a crime yet with regard to Obama’s Senate seat? Wouldn’t it have been better for him to have waited for a transaction to have occurred? Then ‘Hot Rod’ would have been caught red-handed, or so this line of thinking goes.
The answer, I believe, is job security.
When Bill Clinton first came to the White House in 1992, one of his first acts was to fire all 93 US Attorneys. It has been speculated (by Dick Morris, who used to work for him) that his real reason for doing so was to replace Charles Banks, the Attorney who was investigating Whitewater at the time. The other 92 bodies were merely collateral damage that Clinton was willing to tolerate in order to cover up his real intentions.
Now that Fitzgerald has gone public with the Blago affair, it would be very difficult for Obama to fire Fitzgerald, even if he pulled a Clinton and fired everybody. Blago is front-page news and axing Fitzgerald at this point would look very suspicious.
Of course, we have no idea what exactly Barack Obama’s relationship with Blagojevich really is. Perhaps the MSM is actually right in its constant intonations of Obama’s innocence, in which case the Blago scandal doesn’t matter one way or another to him. While I think conservatives who automatically assume the worst about Obama in the absence of concrete evidence aren’t doing our cause a service, I personally find it very hard to believe that he could be completely innocent growing up with the Chicago political machine like he did.
I believe the right approach is to be agnostic and curious. And to lambaste the MSM for their gullibility and utter lack of curiosity about any possible connection between the two men, especially when they were so eager to disseminate every wild rumor about Sarah Palin, no matter how irrelevant and absurd it was.