Wow, is Steven Biskupic getting hammered. By far the strongest condemnation was done by Adam Cohen in a New York Times column on Monday. His most powerful question is why did the Georgia Thompson case, which originated in Madison, get bumped to the Milwaukee district?
The case was centered in Madison, in the western federal district of Wisconsin, yet the U.S. attorney there, Stephen Sinnott, did not prosecute it. Why? Sinnott says the case could have been pursued in either district, but adds that he had no problems with Biskupic’s handling of it. “I was aware of what he was doing and I concurred,” Sinnott says.
The decision to prosecute in Milwaukee had to be approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. This presented a conflict for any district judges who knew fellow Judge Lynn Adelman, whose relatives own Adelman Travel, which had gotten a state contract after making campaign donations to Gov. Jim Doyle. Biskupic got permission from the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute in Milwaukee so long as he didn’t create a potential judicial conflict by going after Adelman Travel. In theory, Sinnott could pursue any action related to that company. But why pursue the case in such a circumscribed manner?
This scenario will be seized on by those convinced Biskupic was getting instructions from the U.S. Department of Justice. Biskupic, however, continues to deny any political pressure, even as Congress has demanded all e-mail related to this.
In truth, there are many kinds of pressures on a prosecutor. Part of his or her role is to assure the community that justice is being done. After the Republican Party hammered the idea of voter fraud in Milwaukee, and this was amplified by talk radio, the Journal Sentinel did countless front-page stories on the issue, convincing many people the system was dirty. Biskupic and then-District Attorney E. Michael McCann stepped forward to investigate and Biskupic announced he had found no conspiracy. This was a great service to the community.
Similarly, Biskupic stepped forward after lots of talk radio squawking and front-page Journal Sentinel stories about “Travelgate.” No doubt Biskupic wanted to flip Thompson and get her to rat out the Doyle administration, but Thompson didn’t know anything. Biskupic should have backed off once that became clear, but he was getting reinforcement from some Democrats.
Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager joined Biskupic in investigating this case. Her top aide Dan Bach repeatedly noted this was a “joint state and federal investigation,” and seemed to do everything possible to embarrass Doyle. Last week, the JS published a letter by Bach declaring “this case was handled by professional, career prosecutors … in as fair, thoughtful and apolitical fashion as any I have witnessed.” It’s well known, of course, that Lautenschlager and Doyle were enemies.
More reinforcement came from U.S. Magistrate Patricia Gorence. Gorence had the opportunity to throw out the Thompson case before it went to trial and didn’t. And she happens to be the sister-in-law of Dan Bach, which has some tongues clucking. But Gorence also worked as an assistant attorney general for Doyle in the 1990s, and has a reputation for siding with the government. “I expected to lose in front of her,” says Stephen Hurley, Thompson’s attorney. “Gorence comes from a law enforcement background.”
More reinforcement came from the jury, whose members may well have been influenced by talk radio and all the JS headlines, in finding Thompson guilty on such thin evidence.
Would a Madison jury have been as quick to rush to judgment? “The only person in the courtroom who was more shocked by the verdict than me was Steve Biskupic,” Hurley asserts. Biskupic says only that he was surprised at how fast the jury returned the verdict.
Finally, there was the Doyle administration, which hung Thompson out to dry when Biskupic went after her. Thompson, a low-level civil service employee, was unused to the media spotlight and made a couple misstatements that killed her at the trial.
Clearly Biskupic erred badly. It may turn out he was leaned on by the White House. But the list of those who abetted and reinforced his overaggressive behavior is not as short or simple as Democrats would have you believe.
Why Barrett Endorsed Obama
On Saturday, Mayor Tom Barrett announced he was endorsing Barack Obama for president. Why? Obama can “really add excitement and create hope in this country.” Later, Barrett told the media that Obama, coming from Chicago, would not turn his back on the cities, and would give the mayor a partner in fighting illegal handguns, upgrading the schools, and helping people find family-supporting jobs.
Hmm. Isn’t Hillary Clinton from Chicago? Isn’t she just as likely to agree with Barrett on these same issues? And wouldn’t the first woman president give us just as much hope and excitement as the first black prez?
I’m inclined to agree with Sheriff David Clarke, who accused Barrett of attempting “to score political points with black voters.”
Barrett, in fact, has surveyed voters to see how he would fare against a number of black opponents, including Clarke. Ever since defeating Marvin Pratt in 2004, the mayor has looked for opportunities to assuage the feelings of black voters who supported his opponent. Endorsing Obama is a great way to do that.
Clarke’s entire diatribe on Barrett, by the way, was posted on radio talker Charlie Sykes’ Web Site. Just how often does Clarke e-mail Sykes, one wonders.
If Obama crashes, Clarke writes, Barrett can always switch to Clinton “in a well-disguised flip-flop.” Isn’t it more likely Barrett will simply endorse the Democrat who wins the nomination? That’s not a flip-flop. That’s what every Democrat does, except, of course, a phony one like Clarke.
It’s a “misguided focus” for a mayor to take time out to endorse someone for president “when Milwaukee’s homicide rate is running well ahead of last year.” I’m just guessing, but could that endorsement have taken more than an hour of the mayor’s time? Did it take any longer for Clarke to e-mail Sykes?
Clarke, of course, ran a distant third in the 2004 race for mayor and squeaked to re-election as sheriff in 2006 over Vince Bobot, a hardly formidable challenger. Clarke’s huffing and puffing has become increasingly irrelevant, despite his frequent promotion by talk radio. But he does look good in a cowboy hat.
The Tribune Looks at Milwaukee’s Central City
“Milwaukee fights a wave of violence,” a front-page Chicago Tribune story announced. The story noted the rise in violent crime in Milwaukee compared to other Midwest cities, but perhaps its strongest information described the texture of life in the city’s poorest zip code, 53206.
The story cited a new University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment & Training Institute study showing two-thirds of men in their 30s living in this ZIP code have been imprisoned. Just 4 percent of the neighborhood’s ex-cons have a driver’s license. Half of the employed families in the neighborhood live below the poverty line, the study’s author Lois Quinn estimated. Alderman Ashanti Hamilton said he moved into a troubled block in his district to try and understand the problem, and the move contributed to the breakup of his marriage.
Fascinating stuff, and surely of interest for Milwaukee readers.
I’ll be on vacation next week.
And check on Ann Christenson’sDish on Dining.
