An intrepid soul has ventured bravely forth in defense of Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman's freshly minted television ad which, as has been already observed, distorts reality in several decidedly reprehensible manners.
The said brave soul, Republican consultant Brian Fraley, helpfully informs us that "Louis Butler WAS, by choice, a public defender for many years and it looks like he did help a few scumbags get off."
Yes, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was a public defender 20 years ago. Thanks for that blinding glimpse of the obvious, and also for the absurd suggestion that there's something wrong with being one (the right to criminal defense counsel is explicitly guaranteed by the United States Constitution).
So Fraley thinks "it looks like" Louis Butler had some success as an attorney. Let's hope he did! I'm not aware of anyone who attended law school with a view to being a failure.
But does Fraley have any examples? Well, no. Only the so-called example contained in Gableman's ad, a case Butler had relatively little to do with. Butler was not even the defendant's lawyer during the initial proceedings. Butler filed an appeal of the original conviction, which was his job at the time, and won on a question of whether some evidence was legally admissible at trial.
However, Butler's efforts were ultimately for naught, because although the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed the evidence in question was tainted, it found its effect on the jury was not prejudicial, and therefore upheld Reuben Lee Mitchell's conviction. That Mitchell served his initial sentence and then went on to re-offend had absolutely nothing to do with Louis Butler. Nothing.
Maybe Fraley doesn't know it, but there are laws in this country that govern what sort of testimony and evidence may be presented in court. It doesn't matter whether the defendant is an alleged child rapist or a homeless man who stole some loaves of bread from Panera's corporate headquarters. The principles are the same.
So Butler wasn't "working to put Reuben Lee Mitchell on the street," he was working to ensure another of Mitchell's constitutional rights, the one to a fair trial. Fraley and anyone else foolish enough to defend Gableman's teevee ad should take a look at the Bill of Rights sometime. They might be amazed at the number of protections that are extended to criminal defendants, let alone the panoply of more specific guarantees that arise from the Constitution's broad strokes.
And the public defender exists because the government has a lot of resources that the accused often doesn't have. The Framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, knew this. But it would be unfair to cast Brian Fraley's understanding against that of, for example, James Madison, since few minds compare favorably with the latter's.
Next, quoting from some campaign propaganda received from the lovely and talented Gableman mouthpiece Darrin Schmitz, Fraley reminds us, in yet another glaring obviousness, that the public record is "fair game" and, by golly, even Louis Butler said so himself.
Well of course the public record itself is "fair game." But is it fair game to manipulate, distort, and constructively lie about the public record itself? Wouldn't that be the polar opposite of "fair game"? Why, yes, yes it would.
And that, believe it or not, is the entire substance of professional Republican consultant Brian Fraley's defense of Michael Gableman's disgraceful attack performance. One wonders why he decided to publish it in the first place. Far from being a defense, it's more like an expression of helpless embarrassment. And if that was not the intent, it certainly is the result.
The sole saving grace is that Fraley provided his sparkling analysis for free on the internets. Because in a more professional set of circumstances, Fraley's consulting firm, The Markesan Group, advertises first and foremost "Critical Thinking" services. Apparently you have to pay him for that. I sure as hell hope it's cheap, but not quite as cheap as Gableman's electoral strategy.
One thing is undeniable: Justice Louis Butler, in his constitutionally mandated former role, was a far more effective defender of the accused than is Brian Fraley of Mike Gableman's deliberate rubbish in his own present role as lame-o Republican apologist.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Fraley. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Fraley. Sort by date Show all posts
March 16, 2008
March 19, 2008
Fraley funnies II
Observant reseacher the Brew City Brawler notes this morning that Republican consultant Brian Fraley, who famously remarked that a certain former employee of the Wisconsin State Public Defender "by choice ... help[ed] a few scumbags get off," once billed the State for more than two grand in legal fees incurred in his own defense.
Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, individual States could print their own currency but lately they raise the dough from the public. The same public, as the Brawler points out, that was paying Fraley's 70K salary when he invoiced them for his defender.
These days Brian Fraley attempts to invoice for "Critical Thinking."
Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, individual States could print their own currency but lately they raise the dough from the public. The same public, as the Brawler points out, that was paying Fraley's 70K salary when he invoiced them for his defender.
These days Brian Fraley attempts to invoice for "Critical Thinking."
June 14, 2011
Shh! Charlie Sykes and the grown-ups are speaking
Actual "conversation" from Charlie Sykes's Sunday Insight, the weekend morning teevee show that Journal Communications, Inc. foists on unsuspecting Milwaukeeans as allegedly informed political commentary:
These people have a television show.*
Then Charlie Sykes turns to WPRI "senior fellow" Christian Schneider.
And obviously none of them can explain why the court will do what.
The end.
* Then again, so does this guy.
Charlie Sykes: What will they [the Wisconsin Supreme Court] do and when will they do it?The vehemence and alacrity with which Brian "Critical Thinking" Fraley speaks of "slapping down" a State judge almost makes you want to petition the DA for an investigation into conspiracy to commit battery. You really have to see it and hear it to believe it. Or not, so stupid is it.
Brian Fraley: Because it is imperative, that Judge Sumi gets slapped down. Because she acted without legal precedent, she doesn't have jurisdiction, and it's important that it's determined throughout the State that Dane County judges can't subvert the will of the Wisconsin legislature to follow its own rules and to follow the law. [smug face]
Sykes: What will happen and when will it happen?
Fraley: Uh, it will happen soon and I think that she will be slapped down and I think the law will be enforced.
These people have a television show.*
Then Charlie Sykes turns to WPRI "senior fellow" Christian Schneider.
Sykes: What is going to happen?Then Sykes says the Supreme Court will vacate the circuit court first thing Monday morning, which was yesterday, and which it didn't, and which chances now are nil, thanks to Sykes's dear friends the WISGOP.
Schneider: The Supreme Court's gonna vacate her, uh, her, uh, Judge Sumi's ruling and, uh, the law's gonna stand.
And obviously none of them can explain why the court will do what.
The end.
* Then again, so does this guy.
March 17, 2008
Fraley funnies
I wrote about the near-pathetic adventures of Republican consultant Brian Fraley yesterday. Today, Fraley is back with more priceless consulting, accusing One Wisconsin Now of trying to "intimidate and silence" Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce because OWN's principals set up a website to monitor WMC's political activities.
Is this character for real?
Seriously, a website is going to "intimidate and silence" WMC? I can't even exchange an Al Hamilton for a roll of quarters at M&I Bank to do my laundry without a demand for ID and an account number.
Is this character for real?
Seriously, a website is going to "intimidate and silence" WMC? I can't even exchange an Al Hamilton for a roll of quarters at M&I Bank to do my laundry without a demand for ID and an account number.
March 27, 2008
Fraley funnies III
folkbum for the Win.
"Bang! Boom! Crash! Case closed! QED! Or, perhaps, ROTFLMAO."
Seems everybody knew that complaint was a POS from the get-go. Except, of course, Fraley, "Fred," and friends. Fraley charges money for "critical thinking." How come nobody's complaining about that?
Is anybody capable of engaging Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler without making a fool of themselves?
"Bang! Boom! Crash! Case closed! QED! Or, perhaps, ROTFLMAO."
Seems everybody knew that complaint was a POS from the get-go. Except, of course, Fraley, "Fred," and friends. Fraley charges money for "critical thinking." How come nobody's complaining about that?
Is anybody capable of engaging Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler without making a fool of themselves?
December 4, 2009
McIlheran turns his knob
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's resident "right-wing guy" and lately eminent dendroclimatologist Dr. Patrick McIlheran, Ph.D.:
McIlheran doesn't even know what a wide variety of climate data sets are available and therefore how closely they all agree, so instead he diligently picks through the Washington D.C. Moonie Times for regurgitated Competitive Enterprise Institute* press releases.
And then has the temerity to call this journalism.
For one thing, many of these data sets are online. For another, the CRU is in England, which is governed by different laws and where not all data are subject to the same freedom of information guidelines.
Other data sets are retained by their respective countries' meteorological services. So if the CEI is ultimately rebuffed by NASA on grounds that it filed a vexatious lawsuit, it can always turn its efforts toward Botswana (member since 1967).
McIlheran also manages to turn a lawyer at the right-wing think tank into a "researcher."
Much like a coal industry consultant was turned into Galileo.
As for the Superfreakonomics guy, he doesn't appear to be apprehending any available data either.
Incidentally this, too, is addlepated gibberish:
In the particular, celebrated example the policy veteran Fraley hasn't the foggiest notion that he's talking about, there is no decline in temperatures. There is an increase in temperatures. Or maybe Fraley has a detailed explanation for the period of discrepancy between instrument and certain proxy measurements. If he does, then he's advised to contact the editors of Nature at his earliest convenience.
And if the veteran policy analyst hurries, then he can share a teleprompter with Obama in Copenhagen next week.
* A beneficiary of Bradley Foundation money, which could in some way account for McIlheran's transparently dissembling shenanigans on the pages of the daily newspaper. Sorry, "journalism."
The British center admitted it threw out its original data on which it pinned its predictions of disaster. Other researchers, thus, cannot check the claims.Absolute nonsense. At some time during the 1980s, the CRU did not store duplicate data sets which are still available elsewhere.
McIlheran doesn't even know what a wide variety of climate data sets are available and therefore how closely they all agree, so instead he diligently picks through the Washington D.C. Moonie Times for regurgitated Competitive Enterprise Institute* press releases.
And then has the temerity to call this journalism.
For one thing, many of these data sets are online. For another, the CRU is in England, which is governed by different laws and where not all data are subject to the same freedom of information guidelines.
Other data sets are retained by their respective countries' meteorological services. So if the CEI is ultimately rebuffed by NASA on grounds that it filed a vexatious lawsuit, it can always turn its efforts toward Botswana (member since 1967).
McIlheran also manages to turn a lawyer at the right-wing think tank into a "researcher."
Much like a coal industry consultant was turned into Galileo.
As for the Superfreakonomics guy, he doesn't appear to be apprehending any available data either.
Incidentally this, too, is addlepated gibberish:
As the brewing Climategate scandal is proving, data surrounding the global warming theory was manipulated and manufactured to 'hide the decline,' in temperatures."Policy veteran" Brian Fraley (and it gets worse).
In the particular, celebrated example the policy veteran Fraley hasn't the foggiest notion that he's talking about, there is no decline in temperatures. There is an increase in temperatures. Or maybe Fraley has a detailed explanation for the period of discrepancy between instrument and certain proxy measurements. If he does, then he's advised to contact the editors of Nature at his earliest convenience.
And if the veteran policy analyst hurries, then he can share a teleprompter with Obama in Copenhagen next week.
* A beneficiary of Bradley Foundation money, which could in some way account for McIlheran's transparently dissembling shenanigans on the pages of the daily newspaper. Sorry, "journalism."
December 18, 2011
MacGyver Institute "ignores critical facts"
We asked MacGyver spokesman Brian Fraley* if he had evidence beyond the video to back the group's claim. He said he did not.What else is new.
* And Bradley Foundation "intellectual."
May 28, 2011
How Patrick McIlheran lies for the WISGOP
Perfect example right here:
But as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, both the federal Constitution and the Wisconsin constitution confer the judicial power equally to both higher and lower courts.* And as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, her ruling was directed at "the March 9, 2011 action of the Legislature's Joint Committee of Conference" and not whether the Walker administration's policy was acceptable or not.
Journal Communications, Inc.'s Patrick McIlheran is flat-out lying.
On the other hand, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which is "representing the Republicans," makes repeated explicit defenses of Republican political policy in its latest filing with the Supreme Court pursuant to its attempt to have that court legislate from the bench.
The DOJ, on behalf of Scott Walker's infamous building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch, has gone so far as to suggest that the one Dane County judge, Maryann Sumi, violated the State code of judicial ethics by responding to the DOJ's petition for a supervisory writ (it's not an appeal, as has been widely reported). Now that is remarkable.
The Supreme Court, which does indeed have superintending authority over the (lower) circuit courts, on May 4 ordered Judge Sumi to file a response to the Huebsch/DOJ petition. Yes, ordered. The DOJ suggests that Judge Sumi should have exercised her option not to respond. The Wisconsin Rules of Appellate Procedure, at Wis. Stat. § 809.51(2), allow that a respondent to a petition for supervisory writ "may file a letter stating that he or she does not intend to file a response."
In other words, a respondent is not exempt or excepted from the Supreme Court's order but may disobey an order of the Supreme Court. Respondents to petitions for a supervisory writ are not limited to "court[s] and the presiding judge[s]," but the petition may be filed against "other person[s] or bod[ies]." And clearly Judge Sumi is in a different position vis-à-vis the Supreme Court than other persons or bodies not courts and presiding judges. Yet the Wisconsin Department of Justice suggests she should have disobeyed the Supreme Court's order.
Obviously Judge Sumi did not disobey an order of the Supreme Court.
And for not disobeying the Supreme Court's order, the Department of Justice is now veiledly threatening to file a motion for recusal against Judge Sumi, despite the fact that the ultimate determination for Judge Sumi's disqualification from the case of Ozanne v. Fitzgerald resides with Judge Sumi, once again, according to the black letter State law.
So at this point the Department of Justice is merely throwing stuff against the wall to find out if any of it will stick, in the course of its "representation of the Republicans." Thus whose impartiality is under question here is pretty obvious. And it sure ain't Judge Sumi's.
All of which demonstrates at least three things: (1) the ideological zealotry of Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, (2) Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's acquiescence to Mr. St. John getting on this breakaway, and (3) the WISGOP Republicans' abject terror at attempting to have their union-busting bill passed by a non-illegal procedure.
McIlheran's bald lie is put forth in service of advertising his appearance tomorrow morning on another Journal Communications, Inc. buffoon's teevee show, Charlie Sykes's Sunday Insight [sic], which runs on Journal Communications, Inc.'s teevee station, TMJ-4. And of course Sykes is also an employee of Journal Communications, Inc.'s radio station, WTMJ.
There you have it, Journal Communications, Inc.'s corpo-blanketing of Milwaukee media with conservative Republican talking points. Because I wouldn't expect a discussion of the Rules of Appellate Procedure among Charlie Sykes and his guests tomorrow, who also include one of the most absurd conservative Republican political hacks in Wisconsin, Brian Fraley.
Roughly as absurd as the political hacks at Journal Communications, Inc.
* Matter of fact the same principle was invoked here in defense of J.B. Van Hollen, which days of defending JBVH at this space are long gone.
One Dane County judge rules that collective bargaining reform is unacceptable ...This is your Journal Communications, Inc. brand of journalism.
But as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, both the federal Constitution and the Wisconsin constitution confer the judicial power equally to both higher and lower courts.* And as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, her ruling was directed at "the March 9, 2011 action of the Legislature's Joint Committee of Conference" and not whether the Walker administration's policy was acceptable or not.
Journal Communications, Inc.'s Patrick McIlheran is flat-out lying.
On the other hand, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which is "representing the Republicans," makes repeated explicit defenses of Republican political policy in its latest filing with the Supreme Court pursuant to its attempt to have that court legislate from the bench.
The DOJ, on behalf of Scott Walker's infamous building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch, has gone so far as to suggest that the one Dane County judge, Maryann Sumi, violated the State code of judicial ethics by responding to the DOJ's petition for a supervisory writ (it's not an appeal, as has been widely reported). Now that is remarkable.
The Supreme Court, which does indeed have superintending authority over the (lower) circuit courts, on May 4 ordered Judge Sumi to file a response to the Huebsch/DOJ petition. Yes, ordered. The DOJ suggests that Judge Sumi should have exercised her option not to respond. The Wisconsin Rules of Appellate Procedure, at Wis. Stat. § 809.51(2), allow that a respondent to a petition for supervisory writ "may file a letter stating that he or she does not intend to file a response."
In other words, a respondent is not exempt or excepted from the Supreme Court's order but may disobey an order of the Supreme Court. Respondents to petitions for a supervisory writ are not limited to "court[s] and the presiding judge[s]," but the petition may be filed against "other person[s] or bod[ies]." And clearly Judge Sumi is in a different position vis-à-vis the Supreme Court than other persons or bodies not courts and presiding judges. Yet the Wisconsin Department of Justice suggests she should have disobeyed the Supreme Court's order.
Obviously Judge Sumi did not disobey an order of the Supreme Court.
And for not disobeying the Supreme Court's order, the Department of Justice is now veiledly threatening to file a motion for recusal against Judge Sumi, despite the fact that the ultimate determination for Judge Sumi's disqualification from the case of Ozanne v. Fitzgerald resides with Judge Sumi, once again, according to the black letter State law.
So at this point the Department of Justice is merely throwing stuff against the wall to find out if any of it will stick, in the course of its "representation of the Republicans." Thus whose impartiality is under question here is pretty obvious. And it sure ain't Judge Sumi's.
All of which demonstrates at least three things: (1) the ideological zealotry of Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, (2) Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's acquiescence to Mr. St. John getting on this breakaway, and (3) the WISGOP Republicans' abject terror at attempting to have their union-busting bill passed by a non-illegal procedure.
McIlheran's bald lie is put forth in service of advertising his appearance tomorrow morning on another Journal Communications, Inc. buffoon's teevee show, Charlie Sykes's Sunday Insight [sic], which runs on Journal Communications, Inc.'s teevee station, TMJ-4. And of course Sykes is also an employee of Journal Communications, Inc.'s radio station, WTMJ.
There you have it, Journal Communications, Inc.'s corpo-blanketing of Milwaukee media with conservative Republican talking points. Because I wouldn't expect a discussion of the Rules of Appellate Procedure among Charlie Sykes and his guests tomorrow, who also include one of the most absurd conservative Republican political hacks in Wisconsin, Brian Fraley.
Roughly as absurd as the political hacks at Journal Communications, Inc.
* Matter of fact the same principle was invoked here in defense of J.B. Van Hollen, which days of defending JBVH at this space are long gone.
July 21, 2008
Nobody stirs the fondue like Plaisted
"Thug" is the new N-Word.
You have to follow the links to determine the source of the controversy (James Rowen never called anybody a racist, incidentally, so why he's supposed to apologize for something he didn't say is anyone's guess) but the funniest bit so far* is critical-thinker-for-hire Brian Fraley howling about "intimidation" and vowing not to be "silenced" by phantasmagorial bugaboos.
It's a familiar refrain and a local conservative favorite.
* Next to the argumentum ad schickelgruber, of course.
Earlier: I prefer "ruffian."
You have to follow the links to determine the source of the controversy (James Rowen never called anybody a racist, incidentally, so why he's supposed to apologize for something he didn't say is anyone's guess) but the funniest bit so far* is critical-thinker-for-hire Brian Fraley howling about "intimidation" and vowing not to be "silenced" by phantasmagorial bugaboos.
It's a familiar refrain and a local conservative favorite.
* Next to the argumentum ad schickelgruber, of course.
Earlier: I prefer "ruffian."
June 9, 2008
Best of the Wisconsin Bogs
The incestuous farce known as the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's "Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" is usually good for a laugh, and this past weekend's offerings are no exception.
The J-S editorial board apparently found themselves a tough choice between professional Republican "critical thinker" Brian Fraley complaining about too many children in strollers at a Milwaukee street festival and a petulant ramble by their fellow Journal Communications employee Jeff Wagner, so they included them both.
Former federal prosecutor Wagner, as if to prove up H.L. Mencken's observation that all lawyers spend their entire careers trying to be something other than lawyers, shares a 620 AM WTMJ microphone with those other profound medium wave cogitators, Charlie Sykes and James T. "Hip Musings" Harris.
"Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" finds Wagner depicting anybody with a continued interest in the rise of State Supreme Court Justice-elect Mike Gableman as "completely unhinged."
Wagner spins furiously, fallaciously conflating the escapades of Gableman with those of Justice Annette Ziegler, whose colleagues on the court last month issued a public reprimand for ethical breaches committed while a circuit judge in Washington County.
Justice Ziegler's travails have nothing to do with Gableman, obviously, while Wagner's attempt to connect the two is pure rhetoric, and failed rhetoric at that.
Rather, the Gableman issue raised last week has to do with the refusal of a number of State officials to investigate at least 52 telephone calls Gableman made to a number of Republican apparatchiks and financial backers in April and May of 2002, while he was the District Attorney for Ashland County.
On June 12, 2002, a fundraiser was held in Cable, WI for then-Governor Scott McCallum (R), who had inherited the executive department of Wisconsin the year before, when George W. Bush selected Tommy Thompson to go to Washington and sidestep Congressional questioning into stem cell research as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Gableman "escorted" McCallum to the event and introduced the Governor just prior to sitting down at the head table with a gaggle of other Republican hotshots for a $625 dinner and photo op.
Wagner casually refers to "several" calls, which means "consisting of an indefinite number but yet not very many." Fifty-two is a pretty definite number, and it's also quite a few more than not very many. The objects of the calls are pretty definite as well:
11 to Mary Stitt
— McCallum campaign contact
10 to Laura Gralton
— McCallum contact for the June 12 event
5 to McCallum campaign HQ
2 to Wisconsin GOP HQ
5 to Johnson Timber
— CEO and president were on the June 12 committee
4 to Johnson Bank
— Regional president was on the June 12 committee
3 to Chuck Johansen
— Member of the June 12 committee
4 to Kurt Carlson
— June 12 head table grandee
9 to Vince Biskupic for State AG campaign HQ
Effective June 3, Gableman resigned as Ashland County DA and was cooling his heels in Appleton, thanks to his appointment to an administrative position by Scott McCallum, which Gableman held for about ten weeks while waiting for his next job.
Then, in August, 2002, Scott McCallum appointed Gableman circuit court judge in Burnett County, even though Gableman hadn't officially applied for the position nor was he vetted by the committee McCallum had appointed to review applicants.
But civil servant/public employee Gableman did contribute $2,500 to McCallum's campaign, half of it on June 18, 2002.
Gableman brought this scrutiny on himself and it's entirely appropriate for the people of Wisconsin to wonder — and continue to wonder — about the circumstances of Gableman's ascent to the State Supreme Court. There's nothing unhinged about such inquiries.
When questioned about the telephone calls earlier this year, Gableman said he couldn't recall the topics of conversation, but he was sure none of them were for political purposes. However, he "may have called to find out details about a visit McCallum was making to the area," according to reporter Patrick Marley.
Fifty-two times, just to make sure he didn't miss it.
What's unhinged here is credulity, which is strained well beyond the breaking point. And it sure is sad for "Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" Jeff Wagner that Gableman isn't quite out of the woods yet.
Document archive at One Wisconsin Now.
The J-S editorial board apparently found themselves a tough choice between professional Republican "critical thinker" Brian Fraley complaining about too many children in strollers at a Milwaukee street festival and a petulant ramble by their fellow Journal Communications employee Jeff Wagner, so they included them both.
Former federal prosecutor Wagner, as if to prove up H.L. Mencken's observation that all lawyers spend their entire careers trying to be something other than lawyers, shares a 620 AM WTMJ microphone with those other profound medium wave cogitators, Charlie Sykes and James T. "Hip Musings" Harris.
"Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" finds Wagner depicting anybody with a continued interest in the rise of State Supreme Court Justice-elect Mike Gableman as "completely unhinged."
Wagner spins furiously, fallaciously conflating the escapades of Gableman with those of Justice Annette Ziegler, whose colleagues on the court last month issued a public reprimand for ethical breaches committed while a circuit judge in Washington County.
Justice Ziegler's travails have nothing to do with Gableman, obviously, while Wagner's attempt to connect the two is pure rhetoric, and failed rhetoric at that.
Rather, the Gableman issue raised last week has to do with the refusal of a number of State officials to investigate at least 52 telephone calls Gableman made to a number of Republican apparatchiks and financial backers in April and May of 2002, while he was the District Attorney for Ashland County.
On June 12, 2002, a fundraiser was held in Cable, WI for then-Governor Scott McCallum (R), who had inherited the executive department of Wisconsin the year before, when George W. Bush selected Tommy Thompson to go to Washington and sidestep Congressional questioning into stem cell research as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Gableman "escorted" McCallum to the event and introduced the Governor just prior to sitting down at the head table with a gaggle of other Republican hotshots for a $625 dinner and photo op.
Wagner casually refers to "several" calls, which means "consisting of an indefinite number but yet not very many." Fifty-two is a pretty definite number, and it's also quite a few more than not very many. The objects of the calls are pretty definite as well:
11 to Mary Stitt
— McCallum campaign contact
10 to Laura Gralton
— McCallum contact for the June 12 event
5 to McCallum campaign HQ
2 to Wisconsin GOP HQ
5 to Johnson Timber
— CEO and president were on the June 12 committee
4 to Johnson Bank
— Regional president was on the June 12 committee
3 to Chuck Johansen
— Member of the June 12 committee
4 to Kurt Carlson
— June 12 head table grandee
9 to Vince Biskupic for State AG campaign HQ
Effective June 3, Gableman resigned as Ashland County DA and was cooling his heels in Appleton, thanks to his appointment to an administrative position by Scott McCallum, which Gableman held for about ten weeks while waiting for his next job.
Then, in August, 2002, Scott McCallum appointed Gableman circuit court judge in Burnett County, even though Gableman hadn't officially applied for the position nor was he vetted by the committee McCallum had appointed to review applicants.
But civil servant/public employee Gableman did contribute $2,500 to McCallum's campaign, half of it on June 18, 2002.
Gableman brought this scrutiny on himself and it's entirely appropriate for the people of Wisconsin to wonder — and continue to wonder — about the circumstances of Gableman's ascent to the State Supreme Court. There's nothing unhinged about such inquiries.
When questioned about the telephone calls earlier this year, Gableman said he couldn't recall the topics of conversation, but he was sure none of them were for political purposes. However, he "may have called to find out details about a visit McCallum was making to the area," according to reporter Patrick Marley.
Fifty-two times, just to make sure he didn't miss it.
What's unhinged here is credulity, which is strained well beyond the breaking point. And it sure is sad for "Best of the Wisconsin Blogs" Jeff Wagner that Gableman isn't quite out of the woods yet.
Document archive at One Wisconsin Now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
