A reader, Kristen Atlee, has sent me an email with what I believe is a very, very good point about Patrick Fitzgerald, who in many circles is wrongly receiving praise for his current prosecution of Illinois’ governor:

I know you’ve been critical of U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, and I was wondering what your response was to his — what I consider — shocking abuse of power in the Blagojevich case. Specifically, I’m referring to Fitzgerald’s demand that the Illinois House “limit” its impeachment inquiry lest it interfere with his sacrosanct investigation.

It’s a sad sign of American decline when an appointed federal prosecutor can overrule an elected state legislature on a matter of state interest. If you remember the various accounts of Watergate, special prosecutor Leon Jaworski went out of his way not to interfere with the U.S. House’s impeachment of Richard Nixon. Jaworski understood that removing Nixon from office was the top priority. He also knew that indicting Nixon in office would only make the president dig in his heels and fight to retain his office at all costs. Mr. Fitzgerald never learned this lesson.

Indeed, I agree with Kristen wholeheartedly, and should have spoken out sooner. In my view, Fitzgerald is a worse offender than the man he has indicted, for Fitzgerald has used his official position to launch abusive prosecutions and to make public statements about guilt and innocence that prosecutors are ethically and legally bound NOT to make.

Prosecutors are not supposed to make public statements that would be regarded as inflammatory, and his statement about “Lincoln turning over in his grave” certainly crosses that line. (Michael Nifong was disbarred in part because of his public statements that he made early in the Duke Lacrosse Case.)

Unfortunately, in the past couple of decades, federal prosecutors have become bigger players because federal criminal “law” has grown like a huge cancer cell. Today, about any crime has an element that can be federalized, which gives federal prosecutors enormous power, given that federal criminal law is so nebulous that it is almost impossible for prosecutors to lose their cases, no matter how weak (or non-existent) their case may be.

The Blago case is one that is particularly disturbing to me. I am not sure what real crimes the governor committed, other than telling people that he wanted more money. After all, Elliot Spitzer made millions in campaign cash by shaking down Wall Street firms with the infamous (and unconstitutional) Martin Act in tow.

I know that my comments will not make me popular with some libertarians or the “good government” crowd, but being that I think there is no such thing as “good government,” I really don’t care.