WJC: The false statement of fact [contained in Gableman's teevee ad] is that something that Louis Butler did during the course of his representation of Reuben Lee Mitchell allowed Mitchell to offend again. And that is demonstrably false.Compare and contrast:
WPRI: The ad ... accus[es] Butler of freeing his client so he could then go on to molest another child.Yes, that is precisely what the WJC contends. That is exactly the "statement" the WJC argues the teevee ad contains. And that accusation is indeed demonstrably false. And Gableman knew it.
Case closed: thanks for coming out.
The WPRI blog post is comically rife with baseless innuendo and general idiocy. For example:
Liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson waited a full 110 seconds before interrupting WJC executive director James C. Alexander’s opening statement ... *She didn't interrupt Mr. Alexander at all. The WJC's counsel had just finished reading aloud a complete paragraph from his prepared opening remarks and in fact was in the process of silently turning a page to the next one when the Chief Justice inquired of him:
Are we looking at this language [in the teevee ad] from the viewpoint of the speaker, and what the speaker's intent was, and what the speaker did, or are we looking at it from the listener's?A crucial point. Once again, according to WPRI, it's the former:
WPRI: The ad ... accus[es] Butler of freeing his client so he could then go on to molest another child.The WPRI describes itself as a "think tank." Good work.
* To be sure, Alexander was interrupted repeatedly by "conservative" Justice Patience Roggensack, but apparently those interruptions were deemed unworthy of notice by the "nonpartisan" tank-thinkers.
(Of course it's ludicrous to criticize any of the justices for interrogating either attorney. That's what they're all there for.)