Opposition to King Holiday in 1983 Led by Wisconsin, Rep. Sensenbrenner and Deep South

Dr. King is still reviled in Republican
circles, and other white supremacists.

Madison, Wisconsin—President Reagan signed the Rev. King Holiday bill, (H.R. 3706 (1983)), into law on November 2, 1983.

But getting King's birthday through congress as a legal national holiday was a difficult legislative project.

Lots of hate and lots of opposition from white racists, many of whom reside in small Wisconsin municipalities.

Worth recalling this weekend is who led the opposition to King's message of peace, equality and social justice.

Six members of Congress serving today—Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa); Richard Shelby (R-Alabama); John McCain (R-Arizona); Orrin Hatch (R-Utah); and United States Reps Hal Rogers (R-Kentucky) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)—remain what is left of the congressional opposition who worked against Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, (Mal Contends), (Washington Post).

All six were reelected in 2016, and all six represent very white and safe Republican jurisdictions today.

From the 1983 vote establishing King's holiday, the Congressional record reveals familiar Republican names who were loyal members of the opposition to King: Reps Tom Petri, (R-Fond du Lac), Toby Roth, (R-Green Bay), and James Sensenbrenner (R-Whitefish Bay), (Gov Track).

Racism is the legacy of cowardly souls like Petri, Roth and Sensenbrenner.

Change in America comes from the people.

Unfortunately for us in Wisconsin, Reps. like Tom Petri, Toby Roth, and James Sensenbrenner work for hateful, white people, a pursuit taken up by Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Sean Duffy, and Ron Johnson today.

What do these people really have against King? See the photo above-right and check the color of King's hair and skin.

Black as midnight.

Brennan Center Grades Obama: Mixed

The Brennan Center for Justice has issued a report card on the Obama's administration first 100 days. In sum, the administration's grades are decidedly mixed.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to redistricting reform, from access to the courts to presidential power in the fight against terrorism.

We Can Be Together

We Can Be Together!

Dr. King Weekend Begins Now

U2 Pride (in the Name of Love)

Listening to the words of King and millions who worked with him for civil rights, peace and social justice, one can see the moral bankruptcy and sickness of the WMC, and today's Republican Party.

Inspiring today, the civil rights movement lives on.



- Martin Luther King "I have a dream"

- Martin Luther King, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

- Martin Luther King, Jr.'s last speech

- Robert Kennedy speech on death of Martin Luther King, Jr.

See also The American Civil Rights Movement, A Call to Halt Its Vengeance for a discussion of radical pacifism.

Dr. King Weekend Begins Now

U2 Pride (in the Name of Love)

Listening to the words of King and millions who worked with him for civil rights, peace and social justice, one can see the moral bankruptcy and sickness of the WMC, today's Republican Party and corporate talking heads.

Inspiring today, the civil rights movement lives on.

- Martin Luther King "I have a dream"

- Martin Luther King, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

- Martin Luther King, Jr.'s last speech

- Robert Kennedy speech on death of Martin Luther King, Jr.

See also The American Civil Rights Movement, A Call to Halt Its Vengeance for a discussion of radical pacifism.

Obama Speech Draws Raves

Via PocketNines at Kos

Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial:
With his brilliant speech on race relations yesterday at the National Constitution Center, Barack Obama showed why his campaign for president has the aura of a mission.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial:
As an example of contemporary oratory, it was stunning. As political rhetoric, it was designed to do far more than damage control and, in the end, distilled the essence of his candidacy.

New York Times Editorial:
We can’t know how effective Mr. Obama’s words will be with those who will not draw the distinctions between faith and politics that he drew, or who will reject his frank talk about race. What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.

Los Angeles Times Editorial:
No single speech will recalibrate America's consideration of race and politics, but we are closer today, thanks to this remarkable address, to facing our history and perfecting our nation.

Dallas Morning News Editorial:
Has any major U.S. politician in modern times ever given a speech about race in America as unflinching, human and ultimately hopeful as the one Barack Obama delivered yesterday? ...

It was possibly the most important major speech on race in America since Dr. King died, and it probably saved Mr. Obama's candidacy. If, in the end, Barack Obama does not win the nomination, let it never be said that he did not serve his country.

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial:
So Obama, in that exceptional way he has of brushing aside polemics, stepped up to a podium in Philadelphia and challenged us to see all the shades of gray, to embrace our greater and shared humanity.

It was a moving moment in American history to hear a man who could be president dissect the rancorous matter of race with such candor, and it called to mind other piercing addresses by the likes of FDR, Kennedy and King.

Sacramento Bee Editorial:
This was not a campaign speech; it was Barack Obama speaking to the ages. Clearly, he has thought about this issue for a very long time. Americans can learn from him, no matter what course the campaign may take.

Boston Globe Editorial:
... Obama took the opportunity to engage the question of race in America, starting a bold, uncomfortably honest conversation. He asked Americans to talk openly about the deep wells of anger and resentment over racism, discrimination, and affirmative action. It's a call to break out of the country's racial stalemate and finally reach a new national understanding.

Seattle Times Editorial:
In the annals of American history, a watershed moment should come from "A More Perfect Union," Sen. Barack Obama's powerful speech linking 221 years of race relations.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial:
On Tuesday morning, at a moment of maximum peril to his own ambitions, Sen. Barack Obama delivered not just a speech, but an extraordinary gift to America: A way to transcend racial divisions and political cynicism and set about the task of forming a more perfect union.

The 45-minute address, delivered to an audience of 200 elected officials and religious leaders at Philadelphia's Constitution Center, would have been remarkable under any circumstances. Under the circumstances that beset the senator from Illinois, it was the equivalent of a World Series walk-off grand-slam home run, a singular moment in the history of American political rhetoric.

Houston Chronicle Editorial:
Obama, confronted with flaws in his own church "family," passes these tests. His thoughtful exploration of those flaws certainly was good for his campaign. But by fully and realistically exploring and discussing the hard topic of race, Obama did more. He showed deep understanding of this complex culture, and faith in the strength of the national family.

Newsday Editorial:
The complex calculus of racial animus in this nation is real. And it is powerful. And, as Obama said, "to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." This nation needs to bridge that chasm. One speech won't do it. Nor will one candidacy. But it would help if we stop using race as a political cudgel.

Newark Star-Ledger Editorial:
This was not a speech written by a political spinmeister just back from taking the pulse of the latest focus group. It was the heartfelt speech of a man who has spent a good part of his life thinking about what it means to be an American.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Editorial:
When we think of words in politics or governance that had to be said, we think of the Gettysburg Address or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's admonition that all we had to fear was "fear itself." And now we think of Obama's speech on race - words that sorely needed saying.

San Jose Mercury-News Editorial:
If Obama is, as we hope, the leader who can draw people across political divides to create real change and a renewed optimism in America, then confronting race head-on was inevitable. Perhaps Pastor Wright did us all a favor.

The Oregonian Editorial::
But every American, young and old, should hear this speech. Obama certainly isn't a post-racial candidate, if there is such a thing, and he didn't claim to be one Tuesday. But he did offer an inspiring vision of a nation where unity eclipses division, and where the identity we cherish most is the one we all share: American.

Des Moines Register Editorial:
His speech was frank and honest. And it offered hope that by confronting the racial resentments that continue to divide us, this nation can move forward toward becoming a more tolerant and understanding place.

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Editorial:
Then again, Obama has already astounded conventional wisdom with the progress he's made in this year's presidential campaign. For the nation's sake, hope that America's conscience was at least pricked to want to do better.

Kansas City Star Editorial:
It would have been politically expedient for Obama to disown Wright totally. But in a reflection of his own integrity, Obama said Wright was instrumental in the development of his faith and had other virtues that his critics were ignoring.

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post:
Yesterday morning, in what may be remembered as a landmark speech regardless of who becomes the next president, Obama established new parameters for a dialogue on race in America that might actually lead somewhere -- that might break out of the sour stasis of grievance and countergrievance, of insensitivity and hypersensitivity, of mutual mistrust.

Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish:
I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.

Courtland Milloy, Washington Post
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who co-chairs the Maryland for Obama campaign, hit the nail on the head when he told me: "Obama has the ability to elevate our thinking beyond the chicken-yard scratching and biting. He calls on us to soar like eagles. And if he can't always take you there, he can sure dare you to go."

David Corn, MotherJones.com:
With this address, Obama was trying to show the nation a pathway to a society free of racial gridlock and denial. Moreover, he declared that bridging the very real racial divide of today is essential to forging the popular coalition necessary to transform America into a society with a universal and effective health care system, an education system that serves poor and rich children, and an economy that yields a decent-paying jobs for all. Obama was not playing the race card. He was shooting the moon.

John Dickerson, Slate:
Can you give a State of the Union address before you're president? Barack Obama talked about race in America for 45 minutes in a nearly 5,000-word speech. That was longer than some of the annual presidential addresses, and though, yes, those speeches tend to cover more topics, this one felt like it addressed the actual state of our union more than those dreary January list readings presidents are obligated to perform.

Janny Scott, New York Times:
Yet the speech was also hopeful, patriotic, quintessentially American — delivered against a blue backdrop and a phalanx of stars and stripes. Mr. Obama invoked the fundamental values of equality of opportunity, fairness, social justice. He confronted race head-on, then reached beyond it to talk sympathetically about the experiences of the white working class and the plight of workers stripped of jobs and pensions.

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek:
In introducing the speech, Harris Wofford, the former senator from Pennsylvania, hinted at the historic weight that hung over the occasion. Wofford, a friend of Martin Luther King Jr.'s and a onetime adviser to President John F. Kennedy, recalled a White House conversation with King, after Kennedy had informed King that there would be no quick vote on the sweeping civil rights legislation pending. "Martin turned to me and said, 'I had hoped we at long last had a president who had the intelligence to understand this problem and the political skill to solve it and the moral passion to see it through. I'm convinced ... that he has got the intelligence and the skill. We'll have to see if he has the passion'."
Wofford suggested that Obama did in fact possess all three qualities. The critics, reporters, cable commentators—and ultimately the voters—will all be weighing that assertion in the aftermath of the most personal and extensive discussion of the legacy of slavery made by any major American politician in memory. For the moment, Obama gave them much more to talk about than the sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

Jim Mitchell, Dallas Morning News:
Politicians rarely achieve such a depth of humanity, in part because they're captive to narrow life experiences, rigid ideology or consultants. It's one thing to know intellectually that race is still a factor in American life and how it polls. It's quite another to eloquently express the profound stain of past racial injustices without being trite, hostile or unabashedly partisan.

Jon Robin Baitz, Huffington Post:
Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama's glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of "what is is"), those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama's magisterial speech today. A speech in which he distanced himself from a flawed father figure, Reverend Wright, and did so with almost Shakespearian dignity and honor.

Happy Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

[Editor's Note: And a hearty Happy Birthday to my mother today, an Irish, black-taxi-riding woman from Georgia who remains committed to treating all human beings as human beings and is a true inspiration to justice. Anita sees hope in human kindness small and large, and is a big Obama fan. Peace.]

Update: Barack Obama on King (nice)

- Martin Luther King, Jr.'s last speech

From TalkLeft

by Jeralyn

I hope we all take a few minutes today to reacquaint ourselves with the extraordinary wisdom, vision and passion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Some of my favorites:

- A one-minute video that features excerpts from Dr. King's 1967 speech, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence , April 4, 1967, Riverside Church, New York City, amidst images of King, Vietnam, Bush, Iraq and more.

- Letter From Birmingham Jail (pdf), April 16, 1963

- I've Been to the Mountaintop: April 3, 1968. Dr. King's last speech, the day before his assassination, in support of the striking Memphis sanitation workers.

- The I Have a Dream Speech

###

Cap. Times Calls for Ziegler Resignation

The Capital Times became the first daily newspaper to call for the resignation of Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Annette Ziegler.

We can expect more calls for Ziegler's resignation to follow in the coming months.

Ziegler, elected in the spring of 2007, was hit with denunciations for her conduct as a Washington County judge during her successful campaign that drew little attention from Wisconsin voters.

Ziegler, in violation of Wisconsin judicial conflict of interest rules, presided over dozens of cases in which her family had a financial interest, and failed to disclose to the litigants the conflicts in each case.

Now, Ziegler, awaiting discipline for her conduct on the bench as a county judge, is taking criticism for refusing to recuse herself, as a current Supreme Court justice, from a case that is a high priority of the corporate lobbying group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, that spent over $2 million (surpassing the amount spent by Ziegler’s campaign) to elect Ziegler to her current judgeship.

Excerpts from the editorial:

Scandal-plagued Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler has refused to recuse herself from deliberations on a tax case that is a top priority of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the corporate lobbying group that spent more than $2 million to aid her election bid earlier this year.

In so doing, she has confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that she lacks not just the integrity but the judgment that must always be required of a jurist.

Ziegler does not merely refuse to embrace even the most basic standards of legal ethics. Her actions of recent days indicate that she does not even understand those standards.

It is for this reason that Ziegler must leave the Supreme Court bench. ...

As a national watchdog on judicial ethics issues, James Sample, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, has observed, "The argument could certainly be made that it would be reasonable to question her impartiality (in this case)."

But we don't have to take Sample's word for it. Ziegler has effectively admitted the conflict.

Early in November, the justice disclosed in a letter to lawyers representing the parties involved in the case that WMC had been a key supporter of her campaign. But the letter from Ziegler, whose shamelessness has extended to openly lying to the voters of Wisconsin about the facts of her ethical abuses, also informed the lawyers that she intended to participate in deliberations regarding the tax case.

That combination of an admission of a conflict and a refusal to recuse is what disqualifies Ziegler from further service on the court. And if she does not recognize that fact, then the other justices must speak up to assert a basic standard of judicial responsibility. ...

It does not matter what the court decides in this specific case. The damage runs deeper. When a justice admits to a conflict in a case and then goes ahead and participates in deliberations regarding that case, the whole matter of the high court's legitimacy as a fair arbiter of legal disputes is called into question. ...

Should the Supreme Court, as widely expected, not expel Ziegler (and Ziegler’s resignation is possible, but not likely), the perceived integrity and impartiality of the judiciary will sink to the level of the most cynical of politicians.

Should Wisconsin citizens then decide that Ziegler's current term (set to expire on July 31, 2017) is too long to bear, a citizen recall requiring over 500,000 signatures in a given 60-day period is the only recourse to rid our state of this disgrace to the cause of judicial integrity.

###

Ziegler’s Corruption Ought to Disqualify Her

Update III: SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.

A. SCR 60.03(1) states: "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

That's cited from a decision (March 22, 2004) of the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee (OPINION 03-1) deciding that "a judge (is) required, after a contested election, to recuse himself or herself from contested matters involving a former campaign manager," for "a reasonable period of time."

Surely, Ziegler's conflicts, her pattern of conflicts, are much more serious and cause much more damage in not avoiding the "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," promoting the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Update II: Hearing ended.

Update: Cory Liebmann live-blogging the Judicial Conduct Panel hearing.

Dee J. Hall, reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal, must have looked long and far to find a source willing to knock down criticism of Justice Annette Ziegler’s presiding over numerous cases in which Ziegler had a clear financial interest, violative of Wisconsin conflict of interest rules.

Hall has been skillfully covering the case for the State Journal, and in Sunday’s piece she found an authoritative source who well represents the character of Ziegler’s dismissive attitude toward the public interest: Herbert Kritzer, a former UW Law School professor now teaching at William Mitchell School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Kritzer’s quote is incredible: “I would describe the misconduct as significant in the sense that it raises some questions about Justice Ziegler’s judgment. … But I wouldn’t call it serious, in the sense that I think it extremely unlikely that it had any actual impact on any decisions then-Judge Ziegler made.”

The Judicial Conduct Panel now investigating Ziegler will hold a hearing today (Monday, November 19) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will ultimately decide the fate of Ziegler, disciplining one of its own members for the first time in state history.

As the State Journal’s Hall points out, “The disciplinary options available to the court include reprimand, censure, suspension, and expulsion.”

But what has Wisconsin jurists appalled is Ziegler and Kritzer’s blasé mindset toward the conflict-of-interest rules (State Code of Judicial Conduct and its enforcers) that guide Wisconsin judges.

The rules exist to assure the public and all parties involved in litigation that Wisconsin judges hearing cases will be impartial, neutral, and fair in all facets of a given legal case, meaning that a judge is to be regarded as an utterly objective entity who will base decisions upon the law and nothing else.

“You won’t hear many attorneys saying this out loud (on the record), but this professor (Kritzer) is nuts. It doesn’t matter how she (Ziegler) ruled. She had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose it. That’s unforgivable,” one jurist commented. “For a law professor to say that (presiding over cases in which one has a conflict of interests) is not serious is ridiculous. It’s always serious, and it always matters that even if circumstances exist that would only lead to a perception of a conflict of interest, perception is vitally important so people know their judges are not corrupt.”

Public interest groups agree.

One such group, One Wisconsin Now maintains a website detailing the “(Judicial Conduct) panel’s requests with links to the documents and information sought … .”

Reads the website: “Newly elected Justice Annette Ziegler has the dubious distinction of being the first sitting Justice on Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court to find herself in the middle of an ethics investigation. She is also likely to be the first Justice to force her own colleagues on the high court to discipline her for her ethical lapses. She is accused of violating SCR Chapter 60, Code of Conduct pursuant to Section 757.81(4)(a) of the (Wisconsin) Statutes.”

Wisconsin citizens elected Ziegler after these conflicts of interests and Ziegler's lies about them on the campaign trail were widely disclosed.

But it’s up to jurists, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to see that Ziegler, surely a demonstrably corrupt judge to any objective observer, is not allowed to continue serving on the state’s highest court.

Many Wisconsin attorneys expect the Court—declining in the academic quality of its opinions and ascending in it partisanship—to issue a slap on the wrist.
###

Norman Mailer Dies: His Writing Added Truth and Vigor

"America is a hurricane, and the only people who do not hear the sound are those fortunate if incredibly stupid and smug White Protestants who live in the center, in the serene eye of the big wind."
- Norman Mailer [Advertisements for Myself (1959)]

For millions of Iraqis, Mailer's observation ought to include every passively compliant American citizen, not just WASPs.

Peace and justice writer Norman Mailer died at 84 early today.

I'll have a drink to him today. I'll do something towards justice for him in my life.

And I'll never forget his The Armies of the Night, Mailer's brilliant and good-humored account of the 1967 March on the Pentagon that brought to the fore the obscene, bullshit Vietnam War. Mailer's portrayal of peace lovers is loving, funny and insightful, just like the man.

Whenever someone like Mailer dies, and we lost some brilliant and generous minds these past few months, I think of George W. Bush and how much I despise the lying bastard and his bullshit wars that none of us can ever do enough to resist and reverse.

- The Nation: Norman Mailer--The Good Father (Katrina vanden Heuvel)

- The Nation: Norman Mailer Brawled With Bush to the Bitter End (by John Nichols)

- The Independent: The electric-haired gladiator of American letters (by David Usborne)

- The New York Times' CHARLES McGRATH on Mailer

- Irish Times on Mailer

- The Guardian, Norman Mailer: Death of an Icon

- Reuters: Mailer -- Towering Figure of U.S. Literature

- Time: Why Norman Mailer Mattered (by RICHARD LACAYO)

- Telegraph (UK): Tributes pour in for Norman Mailer (by Philip Sherwell in New York and Julie Henry)

- Chicago Tribune: A tough-nosed novelist (by Julia Keller)

- Paul Krassner: Remembering Norman Mailer

Mailer despised lies about War: The intrinsic lie of governments through history. To honor Mailer's passing: Robert Parry's Bush Favorite Lie.
###

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.

###

The Reluctantly Corrupt U.S. Atty from Wisconsin

by Michael Leon

Madison, Wisconsin—U.S. Atty Steven Biskupic enjoyed an excellent reputation in Wisconsin as a professional, non-political prosecutor.

Biskupic had been a federal prosecutor for some 13 years before his appointment by Pres. Bush as the U.S. Atty for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in 2002.

When the Karl Rove-politicized U.S. attys. story broke nationally, several democrats behind the scenes here noted that Biskupic was the consummate pro and that the Rove/Bush political machinations likely did not extend into the office of this public servant.

"I don't believe for a second (Biskupic) has any tie to Karl Rove-type stuff. In fact, Biskupic was one of the folks the red meat Republicans were mad at," e-mailed one liberal activist with a long history of scrutinizing Biskupic’s career.

Indeed, Biskupic’s refusal to bring “voter fraud” charges in Milwaukee stemming from allegations made in the 2004 presidential election drew the ire of republican activists, and cemented his first-rate reputation among many liberals in the legal community, further dispelling the notion pushed by some that Biskupic is a Rovian hack.

That’s all changed now.

With the extraordinary dismissal by a federal appeals court of a case on April 6 (mere hours after oral arguments) of Georgia Thompson (a state civil servant) on fraud charges, the government’s unfounded indictment (“beyond thin," said federal Appeals Judge Diane Wood) has raised questions of why the case was brought in the first place, the 2006 guilty trial verdict notwithstanding.

Was Biskupic’s prosecution (featured prominently in the 2006 republican gubernatorial campaign) the work of another "loyal Bushie…," asked Joshua Micah Marshall (and much of the liberal blogosphere), engaging in partisan conduct of his office?

“I can tell you that from our perspective (the Thompson prosecution) was not, but that is as far as I'm going to go," said Michelle Jacobs of Biskupic’s office in a denial noted for its weakness and ambiguity.

But at this point it appears to be likely that Biskupic at least sipped from Rove’s kool-aid, though reluctantly, and Biskupic has denied it.

Biskupic the Reluctant

One aspect about Biskupic that everyone agrees on is that the man is no lightweight.

So why would Biskupic prosecute and appeal a case so glaringly weak that it was all but laughed out of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago?

Biskupic is certainly smart enough to know the lack of merits of the case. Was he hoping to wash his sullied hands of the matter by the predictable dismissal by the 7th circuit?

Would Biskupic have brought a case with the same fact base against someone in a republican office in an election year?

That seems improbable.

If that were so, then Biskupic committed an “act done with intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others...” (Black’s Law definition of corruption).

“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,” said Thompson’s attorney, Stephen Hurley, reached by phone this morning. “And not having any proof, I am reluctant to follow in the government’s footsteps.”

Georgia Thompson might not care; she has her hands full dealing with the aftermath that has taken a devastating toll on her.

But the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary committees now have another aspect of the U.S. attys’ scandal to investigate. Does everything that Bush and Rove touch turn to cow dung?

Link for audio of oral arguments from Georgia Thompson's appeal before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
###