There’s something rotten in Wisconsin

For a couple of months, the prosecutor purge scandal has produced a series of disconcerting questions, but the one simmering just below the surface has been about the U.S. Attorneys who weren’t fired. If eight were fired for failing to politicize their offices, what did the other 85 do to keep their jobs?

There are plenty of questionable instances of prosecutors filing dubious cases before last year’s midterm elections, but following up on an item from last week, a case in Wisconsin is quickly becoming the controversy to watch.

A quick summary for those just joining us. Last year, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D), was in the midst of a tough re-election fight. Around the same time as the Republicans picked Doyle’s challenger, U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic brought charges against a top official in Doyle’s administration, accusing the state purchasing supervisor of corruption. Last Thursday, federal judges rejected Biskupic’s case with almost unprecedented speed, assailing the charges and concluding that “the evidence is beyond thin.”

Since then, we’ve learned quite a bit. Over the weekend, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Milwaukee denied that the prosecution was politically motivated, but in less than categorical terms: “I can tell you that from our perspective it was not, but that is as far as I’m going to go.” Anyone persuaded by that?

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s Daniel Bice fleshed out the broader dynamic in more detail, explaining the role politics may have played in Wisconsin.

For weeks, it was unclear who whined to the White House last year that not enough voter fraud cases were being prosecuted in Milwaukee. Now we know.

The state Republican Party went straight to the top in its efforts to make voter fraud an issue in Wisconsin.

Sources tell No Quarter that Rick Wiley, then the executive director of the state GOP, directed a staffer in 2005 to prepare a 30-page report on election abuses in Wisconsin so Wiley could pass it along to a top White House official.

That document, entitled “Fraud in Wisconsin 2004: A Timeline/Summary,” turned up last week in the horde of White House and U.S. Justice Department records released by the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

“The report was prepared for Karl Rove,” said a source with knowledge of the situation. “Rick wanted it so he could give it to Karl Rove.”

Let’s unpack this a bit.

In 2004, Republicans in Wisconsin alleged that John Kerry won thanks to widespread “voter fraud.” In 2005, Biskupic completed a review and said there was no evidence to support the claims, much to the chagrin on local Republican activists who wanted him to take action. Biskupic’s report, of course, wasn’t good enough for the state GOP, which contacted Rove directly, insisting that there was campaign corruption going on in Wisconsin, which the White House should take seriously.

What happened next? Well, that’s a little fuzzy at this point, but about six months later, Biskupic brought fairly ridiculous charges against Doyle’s state purchasing supervisor, much to the delight of local Republicans who used the case in campaign attack ads in the gubernatorial race.

Was Biskupic pressured to bring the case? At this point, we don’t know, but the other question to ponder is whether Biskupic was on the chopping block at the time he brought the beyond-thin charges. We know which eight U.S. Attorneys were purged, but the Justice Department has refused to acknowledge which other federal prosecutors were considered for dismissal — and how they managed to keep their jobs.

In other words — and this is just speculation, based on what we’ve seen — Biskupic’s job could have been on the line when he needlessly brought corruption charges against an innocent state official during a competitive gubernatorial campaign. Sometimes, people make unwise decisions when they think they might get fired.

These questions are just now starting to percolate. Today, the New York Times editorial board focuses in on the controversy in Wisconsin, suggesting that it belongs on the list of things to investigate, which “keeps growing.”

Stay tuned.

In a nutshell, the “list of things to investigate” really doesn’t keep growing. The “list of nails in the coffin of Karl Rove,” however, does. One can only wonder if there is precedent for overturning a Presidential pardon—becaus e come January 2009, that’s the only way these people will ever be brought to justice….

  • I love this scandal, and the broader USA/DoJ scandal, but I do think the Dems have a bit of a problem of riches that is very related to yesterday’s Discussion Group issue. Many commentators expressed that the D Leaders’ talking points were fine, but we needed to find a way to ensure they were heard, that the message on Iraq funding got through to the masses.

    I think that one way you get a message through – “Dems are fully funding troops and then some!” – is by unwavering focus, and massive reptetition.

    But how do you do that when there is legitimately so much going on? Which line of attack do you hone in on to the exclusion of others? The anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and how little good has happened since? The USA/DoJ scandal (and all of its subparts)? The GSA Hatch Act violation? The vile “recess” appointments? The RNC e-mail system scandal? Theology trumping science at key health and safety agencies? The administrations’ clueless handling of Iran? Gas prices? Anti-environmentalism? The TSA Watch list? Where do you begin, and at the expense of what other story? And that only looks at the lame duck President — dont we really want to spend at least some of our time pre-emptively pounding on those who would serve the next 4 or 8 years?

    I have scandal fatigue and its only Monday morning!

  • NPR this morning did a reasonably complete rundown of the current scandals, but failed to mention that they all involve Republicans. They were just “political scandals”.

    Our liberal media at work.

  • Zeitgeist raises an excellent issue (@ 2): But how do you do that when there is legitimately so much going on? Which line of attack do you hone in on to the exclusion of others?

    I think it comes down to whether Americans are ready to face up to the Big Lie — the lie so big that everyday people refuse to believe because they can’t comprehend that anyone has the audacity to tell it. What is the Big Lie? Radical elements withing the Republican party are effectively staging a coup before our very eyes as they try to affect the permanent control they’ve openly talked about.

    They’ve been able to move on so many fronts because we keep scratching our heads (judiciously studying their new realities, to borrow a phrase) and wondering how they could do this. Doesn’t matter, they’re doing it.

    So to answer the question of how to keep up, Dems might try casting individual scandals and outrages not as isolated events but as proof of the larger whole. I don’t know if the public is ready or not, but if you wait too long it becomes a moot point. I think we have 2 years to get the message out, but it’ll take a decade or two to correct.

  • Beneath all this Wisconson scandal rubble is an innocent person who was just recently freed after spending four months in prison for a crime she never committed so the Republicans could play their politics. None of us should forget the fact that destroying our lives is an acceptable price for the political games these Republicans play. Dead soldiers? So what! Innocent Americans in jail? So what! We must never forget that in Rovian politics the destruction of each of our lives offers them unique political opportunities. That is what’s at stake with the outcome of the ’08 elections.

  • Thanks for the excellent reminder, petorado. It is too easy to get caught up in the politics and forget the real people – like the 14 innocents who were killed at a Baghdad market in retaliation for McCain using it as a political prop.

  • Which line of attack do you hone in on to the exclusion of others?

    [Zeitgeist]

    When it comes to scandals with which to beat their opponents the Democratic party is suffering an embarrassment of riches.
    I just hope some of the Dems have read The Art of War (BushBrat certainly hasn’t):

    22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

    OK, the Democrats are dealing with an opponent who puts the C in Choleric. Also PsyChotic and he’s certainly getting irritated. ShrubBuster also perceives the Dems as weak because his head is stuck up his arse and his arse is stuck in 2004. Check off 22 as done.

    23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.

    So far, so good. The Deciderator is used to barking some orders and then back to Crawford for another fun filled frolic down on the ranch. Not so much now that Congress is no longer obedient. In addition, his forces are starting to get a bit tattered around the edges. Libby is done, Rumsfilled out, Goner is in worse shape than T. Schiavo. A lot of people would be happy to see Rove clad in tar and feathers. And has anyone heard from Rice lately?
    I’d say half of 23 is done.

    24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

    The draft-dodging drunk is never prepared for an attack (See Sept. 11th) so any obstruction to his imperial will takes him by surprise and it will continue to surprise him. Appear where you aren’t expected? How about as a majority in both Houses of the Senate?

    25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

    Quick, make more popcorn!

    Remember, for every BushLicking Administrative Lackey there is a Senate committee that can make his life hell. The DoJy antics of Goner and pals is just the one we’re hearing the most about.

  • Don’t forget the fearless US Attorney for NJ, Chris Christy. He continuously leaked word of a corruption investigation of Senator Menendez during the lead-up to the election. It was apparantly dropped on 8 November.

  • The very fact that Rove was involved says all that needs to be said. Rove is Bush’s top political advisor. Why on God’s green Earth would complaints about a US attorney – any US attorney be channeled through the office of the President’s top political advisor, if the subject wasn’t raw politics?
    Legit complaints would go to DOJ, not the President’s top political advisor. It’s like taking a complaint with the CDC before the NTSB.

    Repubs can try and spin this to their heart’s content. They won’t be able to spin away the stench.

  • Footnote to tAiO #8 (I just hope some of the Dems have read The Art of War (BushBrat certainly hasn’t)). Premier Hu from China gave him (BushBrat) a copy when he visited last summer. [That doesn’t mean he (BushBrat) read it, of course.]

  • JoeW #10: “But there’s not a shred of real evidence of anything improper having occurred.” Now is there?

    Somewhere among all this is the search for the incontrovertible crime. Till that can be held up and easily proved beyond reasonable doubt, Zeitgeist’s embarrassment of scandal riches must keep on growing.

    A scandal is not a substitute for a conviction, but it signifies the probability of a crime. Knowing there is a crime is not a substitute for proving there is a crime.

    We know we are seeing signatures of a myriad crimes and misdemeanors, but until that one precious irrefutable grain of inculpating truth is sifted from the dust and chaff of lies, the nightmare will not end. This is why the process seems so tortuous, attenuated and intricate. But I believe we can really trust the guys who have been voted in to clear out the Aegean stables. I’m not really so sure how important the media is in all of this. I mean it’s great television, better than your average soap, but whatever spin or distortion gets put on it for your microwave watcher may not greatly affect the final outcome.

  • Comments are closed.