This sounds way too much like the oft-told legal horror story about Justice Taney consulting with President Buchanan before ruling on Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Justice Prosser now says he might, after all, have been at the governor's office the day after the election, but "I certainly never went beyond the reception person."
If that's true, why tell the Journal Sentinel last week, "The idea that I would go to the governor's office is just patently untrue. There is not a shred of evidence. That is pure malice."
I hope the media will hold Justice Prosser accountable and continue to investigate whether there's more to this story.
"On Wednesday, April 6, 2011, Justice Prosser was observed entering the Governor's Office late in the evening and attending a private, on-on-one [sic] meeting with Governor Scott Walker."
A lawyer (e.g., Prosser) would read this as, Walker was observed both entering the office late in the evening and observed attending a private meeting.
The complaint alleging the meeting was filed April 20, and despite having visited the governor's office, possibly on the day in question, Justice Prosser on April 21 chose these words to deny having met with the governor: "The idea that I would go to the governor's office is just patently untrue. There's not a shred of evidence. That is pure malice."
He could have said then (to the press, for the record) what he's saying now: Oh yeah, I did go to the governor's office, maybe even that day. But I didn't meet with Governor Walker. So, if I was seen there by a witness, as alleged in the complaint, that was just me getting some pens.
This sounds way too much like the oft-told legal horror story about Justice Taney consulting with President Buchanan before ruling on Dred Scott v. Sanford.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me there MAY BE an issue here.
ReplyDeleteJustice Prosser now says he might, after all, have been at the governor's office the day after the election, but "I certainly never went beyond the reception person."
If that's true, why tell the Journal Sentinel last week, "The idea that I would go to the governor's office is just patently untrue. There is not a shred of evidence. That is pure malice."
I hope the media will hold Justice Prosser accountable and continue to investigate whether there's more to this story.
But he was responding to this:
ReplyDelete"On Wednesday, April 6, 2011, Justice Prosser was observed entering the Governor's Office late in the evening and attending a private, on-on-one [sic] meeting with Governor Scott Walker."
A lawyer (e.g., Prosser) would read this as, Walker was observed both entering the office late in the evening and observed attending a private meeting.
But still...
ReplyDeleteThe complaint alleging the meeting was filed April 20, and despite having visited the governor's office, possibly on the day in question, Justice Prosser on April 21 chose these words to deny having met with the governor: "The idea that I would go to the governor's office is just patently untrue. There's not a shred of evidence. That is pure malice."
He could have said then (to the press, for the record) what he's saying now: Oh yeah, I did go to the governor's office, maybe even that day. But I didn't meet with Governor Walker. So, if I was seen there by a witness, as alleged in the complaint, that was just me getting some pens.