September 26, 2010

Wisconsin AG debate shaping up to be a doozy

One thing that might be said for Democrat Scott Hassett, who is challenging the incumbent Republican Wisconsin attorney general J.B. Van Hollen in the November election, is that he is not timid:

Van Hollen Launches Statewide "Blame Victims First" Tour (.pdf)

Hassett's campaign also called controversial Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth Kratz an "admitted sexual predator" — which I'm not certain is an entirely supportable characterization at this point — and that Van Hollen let the said admitted sexual predator "walk free."

Then there are the guns and the gays and the Commerce Clause.

Scott Hassett and J.B. Van Hollen meet for un petit dejeuner du midi on Thursday, October 7 at the new Marquette University law school, an encounter moderated by the eminently capable Mike Gousha.


Free Lunch said...

I wish we could conclude that this is a political thing rather than a lawyer thing. Notice how all the rules are stacked to protect lawyers against publicity?

Mind you, I'm not complaining that Scott Hassett has found something to complain about. It is a legitimate complaint, but it's also one that he will need to consider if he becomes AG. Shouldn't lawyers who are accused of criminal or ethical violations have to put up with the same publicity that everyone else has to put up with? Why are they special?

Grant said...

the rules are stacked to protect lawyers against publicity

But this saga probably hasn't been too pleasant for Kratz' victim either.

Contra that Rose guy, it was the initial sitting on hands that is stirring up the "lynch mob."

MSNDem said...

@Free Lunch is absolutely right - this is totally political. Kratz repeatedly sexually harassed a woman, essentially stalking her via text message. Last time I checked, sexual harassment was/is a crime...and using the power of one's office to solicit sexual favors from a victim certainly constitutes misconduct in office (also criminal on last check).

Yet Van Hollen's short-lived investigation concluded Kratz did nothing criminal. And the Lawyer Regulation Office took the AG's lead in concluding the same. Both let Kratz off the hook when there was obvious criminal malfeasance at play.

If this were Joe Six-Pack on the street sexually harassing a random woman, would he have been treated with such finely bleached kid gloves? My guess is no.

illusory tenant said...

The other allegation involving a suggestion that the DA sought to use the governor's pardon power to solicit sexual favors is also a very serious one.

proud progressive said...

In terms of how the rules are stacked against publicity. I am going out on a limb, that if this DA was a well known democrat, JB would of found a way to give it plenty of publicity.