Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Flacks for US Atty Biskupic

Madison, Wisconsin—The opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that explained the freeing of the innocent state worker Georgia Thompson is being used by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel to provide political cover for US Atty Biskupic.

The Journal-Sentinel editorial, “Mistakes aren't crimes” (April 24, 2007), seized a slender reed at the end of the 14-page opinion that was also used by Biskupic in his own audacious public relations move after the written opinion was issued April 20.

Reads Biskupic’s statement on the Court’s opinion: “We are studying the decision to determine its impact on other cases. Meanwhile, given the initial rhetoric surrounding the result, we are heartened that the opinion notes the good faith legal difference inherent in the case.”

Biskupic and the Journal-Sentinel both attempt to declare Biskupic’s good-faith intentions in bringing the prosecution, called “preposterous” in the opinion, by citing one paragraph criticizing the ambiguity of the parts of the federal statute used by Biskupic.

"Sections 666 and 1346 have an open-ended quality that makes it possible for prosecutors to believe, and public employees to deny, that a crime has occurred, and for both sides to act in good faith with support in the case law."
- 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook

Reads the contorted Journal-Sentinel editorial:

“Let's translate: Biskupic was not out of bounds to believe that a crime had been committed. But the court respectfully disagrees - in language in this written decision far more tempered than that which occurred during oral arguments. But disagree the higher court does, even in writing. On the whole, ‘beyond thin’ as a description of the evidence still holds up, it says.”

Not out of bounds?

That’s disingenuous.

And if Biskupic and Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editoral board are truly convinced of Biskupic’s good faith intentions, they would not have to quote so selectively from the opinion.

Rule of Lenity

The opinion’s notes that this “open-ended quality” and “(h)aziness” of the statute should never be used by prosecutors to bring creative and novel prosecutions, per the “Rule of Lenity.”

The Rule of Lenity, as Judge Easterbrook notes, is the judicial doctrine that “ambiguity in criminal legislation be read against the prosecutor, lest the judiciary create, in common-law fashion, offenses that have never received legislative approbation ….”

Let’s translate.

Prosecutors should not invent crimes by stretching laws to the breaking point so they can bring prosecutions under our laws that were not made to ban imaginary crimes dreamed up by creative prosecutors—or in Biskupic’s case, a corrupt prosecutor seeking the favor of Karl Rove.

Prosecutorial Discretion

But we do have a check on hazy, open-ended laws, so that prosecutions of innocents never have to reach an appeals court.

It’s called “prosecutorial discretion,” but it’s in short supply nowadays, and Biskupic is not alone in his refusal to exercise it (liberals especially like to use the prosecutors’ office as vehicles for their political careers, too often excluding prosecutorial discretion in the conduct of their offices).

As discussed in an address, The Federal Prosecutor, by the great jurist Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), prosecutorial discretion—measured and well-considered decision-making by the prosecutor on whom he or she is going to prosecute—requires that that prosecutors “select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.”

Jackson notes that a “sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims ... .”

When Biskupic (still) defends his prosecution against the innocent Thompson by noting he was able to convince a jury and two trial judges of his view of the charges, he misses Jackson’s point that Biskupic should exercise prosecutorial discretion precisely because the prosecutor’s office is immensely powerful and persuasive, and that “the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

Thompson and Biskupic’s current voting-fraud prosecution victims would agree.

Concludes the Journal-Sentinel editorial: “Thompson very correctly returns to a state job with the same pay and about $67,000 in back pay. It doesn't seem enough.”

They have that part right.

Robert Jackson and Prosecutorial Discretion

by Michael Leon

Madison, Wisconsin—The life of Robert Houghwout Jackson (1892-1954) is many things.
Scholar and jurist, public servant, humanity’s chief advocate at Nuremberg (1945-46), US Supreme Court Justice (1941–1954), and Brown v. Board of Education’s champion (his Brown opinion drafts were more confrontational and scholarly, reflecting the man’s moral outrage and intellect), Jackson’s like is difficult to locate among contemporary jurists.

As the Bush administration has turned the Department of Justice into a political operation of the White House, and liberal district attorneys around the country (including Wisconsin, see Brian Blanchard, for example) engage in frenzied quests to prove their tough-on-crime bone fides in furtherance of political careers, Jackson, as the US Attorney General (1940-41), speaks to us today with urgency.

The Federal Prosecutor

On April 1, 1940, Attorney General Jackson gave a speech to the serving US Attys, offering his views on ethical conduct by prosecutors.

Entitled The Federal Prosecutor, the speech continues to inspire and instruct.

Some edifying passages:

- “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

- “Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. … Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character, … he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just.”

- “What every prosecutor is practically required to do it to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain (emphasis mine).”

- “A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”

US Atty Steven Biskupic (the reluctant Bushie) should read Jackson’s views and live them, if he refuses to resign.

As for Dane County D.A. Brian Blanchard (he a liberal consultant to Biskupic in the Georgia Thompson disgrace), he ought to consider pausing from his frenetic political career and read Jackson’s The Federal Prosecutor.

Couldn’t hurt.

###

US Atty Biskupic Should Resign

Madison, Wisconsin—“Let’s not make a federal case out of it.”

That’s a rejoinder declaring an issue to be unimportant, and, consequently, to be accorded minor attention equal to its diminished significance.

US Atty Steven Biskupic is in charge of making federal cases for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Biskupic, in fact, is the most powerful law enforcement officer in this district, with authority over the FBI and all federal law enforcement agencies.

He has the power — just through investigating a single citizen — to render financial ruin, among other havoc that a federal prosecution can inflict upon a family.

Granted such vast, discretionary authority, it is a truism that this office should adhere to a heightened code of ethics and accountability.

The office ought to be impartial, non-partisan, and fact-based in all facets of its individual prosecutions, and in its deciding which cases to prosecute.

Too often Steven Biskupic has failed to be impartial, non-partisan, and fact-based.

Instead, he has chosen to pursue the narrow, partisan agenda of Karl Rove and George Bush, joining these reckless and anti-democratic forces, and in so doing has betrayed the citizens residing in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Biskupic is a corrupt public official and ought to resign.

Georgia Thompson

Tomorrow Georgia Thompson is back at her old job as a state purchasing supervisor.

But the costs of the Biskupic prosecution against her have been grave—loss of Thompson’s home, her retirement savings, and the psychological damage inflicted while facing the machinery of an unfeeling prosecution determined to injure.

On April 20, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (that in an extraordinary event 15 days earlier had ordered Thompson freed because it found her clearly innocent and Biskupic’s office wanted her kept jailed pending appeal, calling the prosecution’s evidence “beyond thin”) issued its written opinion by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook.

The 14-page opinion skewers Biskupic’s prosecution as:

- An obvious logical error, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, (after this, therefore on account of this) (p.3)

- Violating the Rule of Lenity, the clear judicial doctrine that “ambiguity in criminal legislation be read against the prosecution” (pp 7,8)

- “… implausible” (p. 10)

- “ … preposterous” (p. 11)

And on and on, the opinion is a devastating commentary on the office that made the novel and implausible Thompson case.

So why, during an election year, did Biskupic insist on this case that predictably became a major Republican campaign issue?

Biskupic’s office said only the “facts” drove the prosecution, an utterly discredited statement.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have written Attorney General Gonzales demanding all documents related to the Georgia Thompson case.

Republican members of the Committee declined to ask for the Thompson documents.

Voter fraud prosecutions

I’ll borrow from Dan Bice, “In all, (Biskupic’s office) indicted 14 individuals for either being a felon on probation or parole who voted in November 2004 or for voting twice in that contest. All but one of those charged with felonies were African-American, and all were Milwaukee residents.”

The prosecutions fit precisely the concerns of the Wisconsin Republican party expressed in its 30-page report on Wisconsin voter fraud prepared for Karl Rove, though Biskupic concluded himself after the 2004 election that widespread voter fraud is not a serious problem.

Nevertheless, the victims of Biskupic’s subsequent voter fraud prosecutions include Kimberly Prude, imprisoned because she voted once while on probation.

At a Prude hearing, Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said, “I find this whole prosecution mysterious...I don't know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.”

Why the Prosecutions

Biskupic was on a list of US Attys to be fired.

But Biskupic says it was “never communicated to me” that his job could have been in jeopardy.

So why did veteran prosecutor Steven Biskupic (who has a lot of liberal friends I would note) marry Karl Rove’s machine and his partisan recklessness, defiling his office?

That’s a question a lot of people here are asking. The best his defenders can come up with is that Biskupic did not become a Karl Rove tool, but rather reacted to the Milwaukee media and talk radio buzz.

That’s not displaying a commitment to being impartial and fact-based.

But for the victims of his prosecution it’s less important why, and more important that Biskupic did commit these prosecutorial misdeeds.

I’ll borrow from F. Scott Fitzgerald: "They were careless people, (Steven Biskupic and Karl Rove) — they smashed up things … then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

Appeals courts and lawyers have to clean up after Biskupic and Rove, while ordinary people struggle to put their lives back together.

As for Biskupic, he should never again be allowed to serve in public office, and should resign effective immediately.
###

Coming Sunday - Why Biskupic Should Resign

Steven Biskupic, the United States attorney in Milwaukee for the Eastern Distict of Wisconsin, should resign. Read here Sunday.
###

Senate Panel on DoJ Oversight

It’s Over: Yuck

From CNN, one prominent Republican described Senators’ questioning Gonzales as “clubbing a baby seal”—that would be a lying, weasel-like baby seal.
###

- Reconvening at 2:30 central -

Need to log off to attend to pressing needs; recommend TPMuckraker and C-span 3 to keep abreast. But a parting comment on this shameful and lying performance by the AG:

This wasn’t Eddie Haskell lying to Mrs. Cleaver about the real intentions of Wallace and Eddie to sneak off to a party to chase girls.

Today’s testimony is about the fundamental corruption of the federal Department of Justice.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did nothing to restore confidence in his administration of the DoJ, quite the opposite.

The perhaps 30-so far uses of the phrases “not recall” and “not recollect” do nothing but to call into question the man’s fitness.

As for US Atty Steven Biskupic, whether his decision-making on the Georgia Thompson prosecution and numerous voter fraud prosecutions cases took place via the heat of Milwaukee media — as some perceptive bloggers and Dem Chair Joe Wineke have noticed — is immaterial.

They were bogus prosecutions, and they were consonant with Karl Rove’s plan to corrupt the judiciary and consolidate Republican power.

Biskupic should follow in Gonzales’ footsteps out the door.
###

11:48:43 AM
Katherine M. Skiba at Journal Sentinel on Biskupic

"Can you understand why many citizens of my state question whether the U.S. attorney in Milwaukee could have brought that (Thompson) case for political reasons?" Feingold asked.

Gonzales did not answer directly. He noted Biskupic made the charging decision in consultation with a then-Democratic Wisconsin attorney general and Democratic local prosecutor.

11:39:07 AM
Lunch until 2:00 Eastern

“Liar, liar, liar, liar…,” yells crowd.

Josh Marshall:

“Sen. Feingold (D-WI) had one of the clearest and most damning exchanges with AG Gonzales earlier this morning. He made a clear and devastating point. The AG says not he's really aware of what input, advice and views went into compiling the list of fired US Attorneys. He fired the US Attorneys based on that list. But he's certain that no improper motives went into the compilation of the list, even though he's not aware of how the list was assembled or why different people's names were put on it. That's a logical contradiction.“

Thanks Josh, missed most of Russ' questioning.

11:33:59 AM
Did you have conversation w/ Karl Rove?

Rove said something about “voter fraud”.

11:30:48 AM
Richard J. Durbin (D-ILLINOIS) asks about high-profile US Atty Patrick Fitzgerald. There was an evaluation made about Fitz. — “has not distinguished himself…”

“I don’t recall seeing (evaluations about Fitz),” though AG thinks Fitz is “outstanding.”

More “I don’t recall…”

11:27:18 AM
Sen. Graham: “Most of this is a stretch.” But Graham says it’s a “personality” conflict thing, no mention of political, electoral considerations.

11:22:47 AM
Sen. Graham asks about change in appt. of US Atty per Patriot Act, but response by AG is intellible.

Also, the decision to replace US Attys was based on "trust" of AG staff.

11:17:48 AM
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SOUTH CAROLINA) up.

11:15:47 AM
Schumer reads the “run out the clock” e-mail RE: US Atty in Arkansas replacement; shows e-mail as a placard.

AG says he did not like the firing plan. Who is running the department, asks Schumer. More “do not recall…”

Schumer says AG’s response “defies credulity…”

11:11:09 AM
Schumer reads the words of Sen Pryor (Arkansas).

“The AG lied to me…”

11:09:51 AM
It’s Schumer time. US Atty Carol Lam heard nothing about alleged immigration concerns RE firing, says Schumer.

AG says that, “I believe” that she “had knowledge” and “interest” of administration about immigration concerns.

AG looks foolish and weak in response, “We should have done a better job in communicating with Ms. Lam.”

10:58:19 AM
Sessions “troubled” by lack of recollection by AG.

10:54:39 AM
Sen. Sessions now. Skip it. AG has “no recollection” of meeting RE Sampson and US Atty firing list.

10:52:36 AM
Russ presses on after-the-fact justifications for US Atty firings.

10:51:08 AM
AG: “Wants to get to bottom of this.” The firing list.

10:48:37 AM
Here’s Sen Russ Feingold.

10:37:47 AM
Sen. John Cornyn tosses long, softball question bringing up Clinton’s replacement of US Attys at beginning of his administration.

AG remembers that one, although noting the “performance” aspect, specifically “leadership” and “management” concerns should have been more clearly communicated.

10:34:10 AM
AG says he should have advised Sampson et al better RE US Atty firing process.
10:32:32 AM
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TEXAS) begins.

10:31:28 AM
Back. Leahy: “Committee will be in order.” Warns again against disruptions.

10:18:18 AM
In recess.
What a joke. But at least AG is making a complete fool of himself in public. I feel sorry for the guy.

10:14:55 AM
Sen. Schumer’s request for little use of “not recall” statements laughingly addressed in AG’s repeated use of the phrase in his testimony. No one is this dumb.

10:10:02 AM
Not keeping track of the AG’s use of the word “recall,” but it must rival the use of the word “the” or “I”. "Senator, I don't recall..." over and over.

10:07:34 AM
Feinstein: Whose idea was amendment to Patriot Act replacing US Attys without Senate conformation?

AG does not “recall.” AG has no “recollection of mechanics.” AG accepted decisions of "staff," though he did not make decisions.

10:05:03 AM
Former chief of staff Kyle “Sampson was coordinating.”

Dianne Feinstein (D-CALIFORNIA) up now.

10:03:23 AM
AG says US Attys are “accountable to president” through AG. Then why is AG so ignorant of what he knows?

9:58:27 AM
Hatch is pitiful in his bald disingenuousness. I miss Senator Brownback.

9:56:35 AM
Kohl keeps on AG about resigning should American public lose confidence in AG. Blather from AG. Kohl looks annoyed. Kohl done.
Leahy asks audience to refrain from displaying signs.

Now Orrin G. Hatch (R-UTAH)

9:50:04 AM
AG says “Other people who would have that information.” Try Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' resigned chief of staff, says AG. Kohl sounds good and determined.

9:47:22 AM
Herb Kohl (D-WISCONSIN) begins on voter fraud and public corruption, and US Atty Biskupic. "Why was he taken off the list?" AG babbles and does not "recall."

9:43:48 AM
AG blather and no follow-up from Brownback. Exchange is a joke.

9:38:43 AM
Sam Brownback (R-KANSAS) tosses lightweight questions RE each fired US Atty. AG says “close call” on one fired US Atty though he does not “recall…” Does not know much about what he knew.

9:31:41 Playing on C-span 3 now. Sen Edward M. Kennedy (D-MASS) grilling AG. AG says he had a “good process” RE US Atty evaluation. Unconvincing man.

9:05:47 AM
C-span coverage skips to US House. Cable news networks not covering. Keep you posted as possible

9:02:23 AM
AG recognizes “his limited involvement” in US Atty firings.

8:59:55 AM
AG says eight fired US attys “deserve better.” Attacks on AG’s integrity “painful.” Says he has been "forthcoming" to Jud. Comm.

AG begins his statement.

8:57:46 AM
Jeff Sessions (R-ALABAMA) AG is good person, but ability to lead DoJ is “in question.”

8:54:46 AM
Schumer: Calls for no “I don’t recall” statements from AG. Caustic and mean. Go.
- end Schumer -

8:52:46 AM
Sen. Chuck Schumer begins.

8:51:33 AM
Specter notes contradictions of Gonzales statements and other DoJ staff. Offers “opportunity” of AG to reestablish credibility, and respond to allegations of improper firing of US Atty . David C. Iglesias and others. Specter looking for “hard facts.”
Says AG has “come a good distance” from the AG’s “overblown personnel matter” op-ed.
#

4/19/2007 8:44 AM
Arlen Specter, RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA, begins.
#

4/19/2007 8:43 AM
Spilt-screen on C-span of Leahy and Gonzales. Must be humiliating to listen this opening statement.

Leahy asks for documents and sworn testimony. “If nothing to hide, the WH should stop hiding it.”

Leahy going on and on for the "facts" and the "truth," and how AG "undermines public confidence."
#
4/19/2007 8:37 AM

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair (D-Vermont): DoJ should not be a “political arm” of the White House. Confidence in DoJ should be restored.

Gonzales Appearance in One Hour

Senate Panel Convenes

4/19/2007 8:35 AM
Here goes.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair (D-Vermont) asks for no obstructions or signs and joins in the mourning the Virginia Tech killings.

Will the daylong hearing force the AG from his script, perhaps reveal some truth.?

###

You can stay here for continuous updates of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on “Department of Justice Oversight” scheduled at 9:00 a.m. (central time) today.

Gonzales leaked his prepared testimony to the Washington Post: He “will concede that the (US Atty) dismissals were badly mishandled but will continue to portray himself as only marginally involved in the details of the effort.”

Biskupic

As for the Wisconsin US Atty Steven Biskupic affair, conventional wisdom appears to be turning to the scenario that it was not Karl Rove or the Devil that made Biskupic launch the Georgia Thompson prosecution and numerous voter fraud prosecutions, but rather the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and all the Milwaukee talk radio murmur.

Count me as not caring. Nice-guy Biskupic screwed up badly, wrecked lives, and should resign now.

###

Gonzales Faces Inquiry on Biskupic and Many Issues

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Department of Justice Oversight” at 9:00 a.m. (central time) today.

You can link here at MAL Contends for continuous updates.

Gonzales is expected to face questions about several issues, some that have morphed into outright scandals, including the matter of Steven Biskupic, US Atty for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The hearing is much anticipated, and is seen by many observers as a last-ditch opportunity for Gonzales to continue as attorney general, heading what many perceive as a politicized and disingenuous US Department of Justice.

Gonzales’ answers to expected questions on the conduct of Steven Biskupic, US Atty for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, are also eagerly awaited.

Biskupic’s conduct has become of growing national interest, and has garnered harsh criticism in Wisconsin.

The criticism has centered on the Georgia Thompson prosecution and numerous voter fraud prosecutions, cases that have been disparaged as politically motivated, and of such dubious legal merit as to raise the specter of corruption in the office of this Wisconsin US Atty.

Gonzales’ appearance will be broadcast live on C-span on the internet and on television.

Update: The Nation has 10 suggested questions, including:

"Were you aware that the Republican Party of Wisconsin prepared packages of documents, including a lengthy memo outlining proposals for mounting 'voter fraud' cases in Milwaukee that were forwarded to Rove's office in 2OO5 and that Steven Biskupic, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Wisconsin who remains on the job, announced in 2OO5 the creation of a high-profile 'voter fraud' task force and mounted more than ten percent of all voter fraud cases in the nation -- despite the fact that his jurisdiction represents barely one percent of the population and despite the fact that even Biskupic would eventually acknowledge there was no serious 'voter fraud' problem there? ,

Are you aware that, on a time line paralleling the 2OO6 gubernatorial campaign in Wisconsin, Biskupic prosecuted of a state employee on charges that she directed a state contract to a donor to the campaign of Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, that Republicans and their backers mounted an expensive television ad campaign attempting to link Doyle to the woman, and that after the election was done a federal appeals court described the evidence Biskupic used in the case as 'beyond thin'"?

Update II: The New York Times suggests 12 Questions.
###

NYT Editorial on Biskupic/Thompson

Madison, WI—When observers outside Wisconsin hear of the Georgia Thompson prosecution thrown out of a federal appellate court, the reaction is indignant, often mixed in with a bit of “in Wisconsin?”

Today's editorial in the New York Times by Adam Cohen, “A Woman Wrongly Convicted and a U.S. Attorney Who Kept His Job,” is of that piece. Cohen blasts US Atty Biskupic and appears incensed by the whole affair.

Some highlights from the piece advancing the Biskupic scandal:

- “Members of Congress should ask whether it was by coincidence or design that Steven Biskupic, the United States attorney in Milwaukee, turned a flimsy case into a campaign issue that nearly helped Republicans win a pivotal governor’s race….” (Note: Congress is.)

- “There was good reason for the appeals court to be shocked.”

- “To charge her, Mr. Biskupic had to look past a mountain of evidence of innocence. Ms. Thompson was not a Doyle partisan. She was a civil servant, hired by a Republican governor, with no identifiable interest in politics.”

- “While Ms. Thompson did her job conscientiously, that is less clear of Mr. Biskupic. The decision to award the contract — the supposed crime — occurred in Madison, in the jurisdiction of Wisconsin’s other United States attorney. But for reasons that are hard to understand, the Milwaukee-based Mr. Biskupic swept in and took the case.”

- “While he was investigating, in the fall of 2005, Mr. Biskupic informed the media. Justice Department guidelines say federal prosecutors can publicly discuss investigations before an indictment only under extraordinary circumstances. This case hardly met that test.”

- “…Mr. Biskupic may have known that his bosses in Washington expected him to use his position to help Republicans win elections, and then did what they wanted.”

- “That would be ironic indeed. One of the biggest weaknesses in the case against Ms. Thompson was that to commit the crime she was charged with she had to have tried to gain personally from the contract, and there’s no credible evidence that she did. So Mr. Biskupic made the creative argument that she gained by obtaining ‘political advantage for her superiors’ and that in pleasing them she ‘enhanced job security for herself.’ Those motivations, of course, may well describe why Mr. Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson.”

Cohen’s sense of irony is shared by Thompson’s attorney, Stephen Hurley.

In early April, a couple of days after Thompson was ordered freed, Hurley said: “The great irony of the case is that having been wrongfully prosecuted for doing her job for allegedly political reasons, now the question is being asked whether the government engaged in this same behavior.”

Cohen reminds readers that an innocent woman lies beneath the political, Republican machinations that he describes.

Fortunately, for the innocent Thompson, Cohen’s sense of justice is also shared by a talented attorney and many fellow citizens—a needed check on the enormous powers of the offices of the US Attorney.

Update: The Cap. Times editor, Dave Zweifel, posts his take on the affair.
###

Biskupic the Politician Emerges - Statement Doesn't Wash

Madison, WI—Reacting to the growing pressure on his office after McClatchy Newspapers reported that US Atty Steven Biskupic’s name appeared on a US Justice Department hit list of prosecutors; Biskupic’s office released an extraordinary statement on Saturday.

The statement makes the following points, among others:

- That the career prosecutor’s much-criticized Georgia Thompson prosecution (derided as politically motivated and harshly thrown out of appellate court) included consultations with two Democratic prosecutors (former US Atty and Wis Atty Gen Peg Lautenschlager, and Dane Co DA Brian Blanchard)

- That Biskupic’s public corruption cases included Republican-affiliated defendants

- And that “(u)ntil the recent controversy surrounding the firings of eight United State Attorneys around the country, it was never communicated to me that my job could be in jeopardy or that I was considered to be disloyal to President Bush's agenda.”

The 216-word statement does nothing to quell the controversy and raises more questions about the nature of Biskupic’s office, which is sounding more and more like that of a desperate politician’s out to save his hide.

Peg-and-Brian-said-it-too

The Peg-and-Brian-said-it-too rejoinder regarding the failed Thompson prosecution is a fallacious appeal-to-authority argument that does nothing to bolster Biskupic’s case that an appellate judge said is composed of evidence called “beyond thin.”

And, anyway, the last time I checked Lautenschlager and Blanchard were not infallible prosecutors, but rather were/are both ambitious politicians and prosecutors for whom bipartisan alliances are useful.

Update: Blogger Xoff notes that :”Lautenschlager (and another democratic prosecutor Dan Bach making statements in support of Biskupic) although Democrats, were rabid enemies of Gov. Jim Doyle at the time, because Doyle had encouraged Kathleen Falk to challenge Lautenschlager in the primary. They were after Doyle, even leaking information about the investigation to the media to embarrass him.”

As for the Thompson case being thrown into the hands of Republican political operatives seeking to unseat Gov. Doyle (D-WI) in the 2006 election, we are to believe – apparently on faith – that Biskupic’s “decision to charge Thompson was based solely on the facts,” the “beyond thin” facts.

Republican-money-donating-aligned individuals

The number of Biskupic’s Republican public corruption cases increases substantially when—as opposed to the study by Shields and Cragan noting the US Attys’ investigations of “Republican officials”—Biskupic notes inclusively the “cases against individuals who donated money to Republican candidates or who were aligned with the Republican Party.”

This reminds one of the diminishing “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” charge made at the 2004 State of the Union Address.

Disloyalty to Bush never communicated to Biskupic

I ask:

- What kind of administration would even consider axing this career prosecutor selected through a bipartisan commission, if he is the apolitical man he claims?

- Why did Biskupic (as the nation's principal litigator for some one-half of Wisconsin) not publicly challenge the administration in the name of the citizens of the Eastern District of Wisconsin?

- How does Biskupic feel about his overseers at the DoJ and White House and the way they mix partisans and prosecutors?

- What about the maligned voter fraud prosecutions that happen to be consonant with Karl Rove’s attack politics?

- Doesn’t it strain credulity to believe the Biskupic’s US Atty’s office is really the equivalent of a political monastery, isolated from arguably the most politicized White House and DoJ in American history? What does “never communicated to me” mean, did he intuit?

The Biskupic statement’s obvious PR message was: Candid, impartial, non-partisan public servant.

I see a careerist either disinclined or afraid to challenge the White House publicly, and stumbling badly for fear of standing up.

Update: In "Biskupic didn't fly under Rove's radar," the Journal-Sentinel’s Daniel Bice notes that Rove certainly kept track of Biskupic.

Update II: From Jason Stein’s piece (Sunday) in the Wisconsin State Journal:

"You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be hearing the echo chamber from conservative talk radio about voter fraud and whether (prosecutors) are doing their jobs," said Joe Wineke, chairman of the state Democratic Party.

But if you live in a political monastery, as Biskupic's claims, then right-wing talk radio is another phenomenon from which Biskupic is isolated.

Update III: Talking Points Memo has the latest on US Atty for New Mexico, David Iglesias.
###

Biskupic Targeted by DoJ, Then Given Reprieve

Madison, WI—Now we know. McClatchy Newspapers reports that US Atty Biskupic "who prosecuted a state Democratic official on corruption charges during last year's heated governor's race was once targeted for firing by the Department of Justice, but given a reprieve for reasons that remain unclear ...

"Congressional investigators looking into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys saw Wisconsin prosecutor Steven M. Biskupic's name on a list of lawyers targeted for removal when they were inspecting a Justice Department document not yet made public, according to an attorney for a lawmaker involved in the investigation."

The timeframe is unclear, but something turned the DoJ around favorably on Biskupic. I'm voting for his prosecutions of voting fraud and Georgia Thompson, and an attentiveness to Republican electoral concerns.

Josh Marshall, whose Talking Points Memo has been all over the Biskupic story, says of the development, "This will be big."

Update: Today’s New York Times reports that DoJ e-mails obtained reveal the partisan nature of DoJ deliberations on which US Attys were to keep their jobs.

“Some of the new documents show the department’s acute awareness of individual United States attorneys’ political and ideological views. An undated spreadsheet attached to a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message listed the federal prosecutors who had served under President Bush along with their past work experience.

“The chart included a category for Republican Party and campaign work, showing who had been a delegate to a Republican convention or had managed a Republican political campaign. The chart had a separate category indicating who among the prosecutors was a member of the Federalist Society, a Washington-based association that serves as a talent pool for young conservatives seeking appointments in Republican administrations.”

Biskupic’s rating on the right-wing ideological chart is low, the man had something about which to be worried, were he interested in maintaining his US Atty position.

- Regards to Folkbum for deriving the chart from the US House of Rep. Comm on the Judiciary, and for his excellent piece on Biskupic. -

Update II:

Study Reveals Partisan DoJ

This has been out for awhile, but it is worth noting the politicized DoJ context in which US Atty Biskupic functions.

An ongoing study by Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan notes that “(d)ata indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.”
###

Bice Runs Data on Biskupic Prosecution

Madison, WI—Biskupic did pursue voter fraud, futilely, writes Bice in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. And he has the data on the prosecutions, and the data do not paint a flattering picture of Biskupic.

Update: Bice's work is doubly important because the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's editorial board is bending over backward to give US Atty Biskupic the benefit of the doubt. And, as their editorial notes, Biskupic does have (or had) a lot of liberal friends in the state.

But let's clear about what is being asked of Biskupic in these matters: Full cooperation from his office, the DoJ and the White House with the judiciary committees, and full production of requested documents for congressional oversight.

We have not had anything like cooperation from Biskupic's overseers, and Biskupic's prosecution-voting fraud data, and an innocent human being like Georgia Thompson, hardly argue towards giving Biskupic the benefit of the doubt.
###

Nation’s Eyes on Biskupic and Corruption

By Michael Leon

Madison, WI—Adding up Biskupic so far; he conducts a joint investigation with former Milwaukee Co. DA Michael McCann into voting fraud in 2004, and concludes there is no basis for voting irregularities and organized voting fraud.

Now, we find that despite this finding, Biskupic prosecuted vigorously, in accordance with the priorities of the Republican Party and Karl Rove (SOP for the man) and state Republican activists, and the DOJ, including in one prosecution a single occurrence of one person voting illegally once (while on probation), drawing the ire of the 7th circuit.

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.” (From the New York Times' April 12, 2007 piece on non-existent “voter fraud)

“In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting,” read the Times piece.

Not Honorable

Days prior to the 7th Circuit's Thompson decision on April 5, I asked around about Biskupic among several liberal Wisconsin attorneys and activists, and they pooh poohed the notion that Biskupic was a Rovian.

No more. Biskupic’s reputation as a public servant is shot for good.

Talking Points Memo, as usual, is hot on the trail noting just now that “House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) wrote to the chairman of the Republican National Committee today to demand White House officials' emails related to the U.S. attorney firings investigation.”

Apparently Conyers has his hands or awareness of a paper trail.

US Atty Press Release

I just did a search of press releases (using keyword “voter fraud) at the US Atty Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and came up with this one announcing that “Richard G. Frohling, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, will lead the efforts … in the connection with the Justice Department’s nationwide Election Day Program for the upcoming November 7, 2006 general elections. AUSA Frohling … is responsible for overseeing the District’s handling of complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses in consultation with Justice Department Headquarters.”

The PR reads at the bottom:

For more information contact:
Assistant United States Attorney Richard G. Frohling
Criminal Chief Paul L. Kanter
414-297-1700

I encourage that we all contact these agents of corruption, and let them know how we feel about the conduct of their office.
###

US Atty Biskupic the Machiavellian

Madison, WI—Salon’s Sidney Blumenthal casts the Biskupic/Thompson prosecution as a component of the Bush “Mayberry Machiavellis”—cut-throat, provincial, amoral ignoramuses who would not endure a classical liberal democracy to save their lives.

In Biskupic’s case, he saw the writing of the walls of Mayberry, threw away 16 years of service as a prosecutor, resulting in, as Thompson’s attorney, Stephen Hurley, told me, “The great irony of the case … having been wrongfully prosecuted for doing her job for allegedly political reasons, now the question is being asked whether (Biskupic) engaged in this same behavior.”

Update: From today New York Times' piece on non-existent “voter fraud,” specifically citing a baffling case of one citizen voting while on probation federally prosecuted by none other than US Atty Stephen Biskupic:

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.”

The Justice Department stand is backed by Republican Party and White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser. The White House has acknowledged that he relayed Republican complaints to President Bush and the Justice Department that some prosecutors were not attacking voter fraud vigorously. In speeches, Mr. Rove often mentions fraud accusations and warns of tainted elections."
###

Media Matters Rips Post and Nat. Media on Wis US Atty Coverage

By Michael Leon

Typically excellent analysis on the US Atty Biskupic/Thompson affair can be found at Media Matters.

Do not agree with all of the assertions, but Media Matters is a true resource.
###

Sen. Feingold's Statement on US Atty Flap

by Michael Leon

From Sen. Feingold's site:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the 7th Circuit Court Decision to Release Georgia Thompson and the Ongoing U.S. Attorney Investigation
April 10, 2007

“The Seventh Circuit acted decisively to correct what appears to have been a miscarriage of justice in the Georgia Thompson case. In light of ongoing concerns about the politicization of U.S. Attorneys' offices around the country, I am seeking further information from the Department of Justice on how this case and voter fraud cases after the 2004 election came about and whether there was improper political pressure to pursue them.”

The victims in this affair were not just the American public, but specifically Georgia Thompson, a profile in courage.
###

Why Only Democrats on Biskupic/Thompson Letter

by Michael Leon

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary sent a letter to Attorney Gonzalez asking for documents concerning the investigation and prosecution of the wrongfully convicted Georgia Thompson.

The prosecution is widely seen through a partisan lens, drawing democratic criticism of Stephen Biskupic, the United States Attorney based in Milwaukee, whose case was thrown out of a federal appeals court with an opinion that the evidence for the prosecution was “beyond thin.”

So, why is the Committee letter only signed by democrats?

Even Biskupic has said he welcomes an inquiry into the matter.

The lack of Republican cooperation makes their party look more interested in a cover-up than a rendering of facts.

###