But Gableman argues the ad was true because it did not explicitly say that Butler's actions caused Mitchell's release. He can't control how viewers might interpret his ads, his lawyers have argued.By the same reasoning, it's perfectly acceptable to imply that your opponent has sex with barnyard animals. You're just not responsible for the implication. Sounds like a real winner of an argument to me.
And eminently becoming to a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice.
* According to Marquette law professor Richard Esenberg.