PDA

View Full Version : A New US Attorney Scandal: It Gets Worse


Puppycow
16th April 2007, 08:36 PM
There is another US Attorney Scandal (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/opinion/16mon4.html?em&ex=1176868800&en=efd9b9bf9c922d42&ei=5087%0A) and this one is even worse. This Attorney (who was not fired) basically railroaded an innocent woman into prison to smear a Democratic governor. It sounds too bad to be true, but there it is:

Members of Congress should ask whether it was by coincidence or design that Steven Biskupic, the United States attorney in Milwaukee, turned a flimsy case into a campaign issue that nearly helped Republicans win a pivotal governor’s race.
There was good reason for the appeals court to be shocked. Ms. Thompson, a 56-year-old single woman, seems to have lost her home and spent four months in prison simply for doing her job. Ms. Thompson, who spent years in the travel industry before becoming a state employee, was responsible for putting the state’s travel account up for competitive bid. Mr. Biskupic claimed that she awarded the contract to an agency called Adelman Travel because its C.E.O. contributed to Mr. Doyle’s campaign.
To charge her, Mr. Biskupic had to look past a mountain of evidence of innocence. Ms. Thompson was not a Doyle partisan. She was a civil servant, hired by a Republican governor, with no identifiable interest in politics. She was only one member of a seven-person committee that evaluated the bidders. She was not even aware of the Adelman campaign contributions. She also had a good explanation for her choice: of the 10 travel agencies that competed, Adelman submitted the lowest-cost bid.
While Ms. Thompson did her job conscientiously, that is less clear of Mr. Biskupic. The decision to award the contract — the supposed crime — occurred in Madison, in the jurisdiction of Wisconsin’s other United States attorney. But for reasons that are hard to understand, the Milwaukee-based Mr. Biskupic swept in and took the case.
While he was investigating, in the fall of 2005, Mr. Biskupic informed the media. Justice Department guidelines say federal prosecutors can publicly discuss investigations before an indictment only under extraordinary circumstances. This case hardly met that test.
The prosecution proceeded on a schedule that worked out perfectly for the Republican candidate for governor. Mr. Biskupic announced Ms. Thompson’s indictment in January 2006. She went to trial that summer, and was sentenced in late September, weeks before the election. Mr. Biskupic insisted in July, as he vowed to continue the investigation, that “the review is not going to be tied to the political calendar.”
But the Thompson case was “the No. 1 issue” in the governor’s race, says the Wisconsin Democratic Party chairman, Joe Wineke. In a barrage of commercials, Mr. Doyle’s opponents created an organizational chart that linked Ms. Thompson — misleadingly called a “Doyle aide” — to the governor. Ms. Thompson appeared in an unflattering picture, stamped “guilty,” and in another ad, her name was put on a graphic of jail-cell doors slamming shut.
Is there any depth that this administration will not sink to in order to smear and harass its political opponents?

Tony
16th April 2007, 11:05 PM
My question is, how many more acts of Soviet style corruption like this have to occur before the republican party is regarded as a criminal organization?

Schneibster
16th April 2007, 11:20 PM
Is there any depth that this administration will not sink to in order to smear and harass its political opponents?Based on the evidence, apparently not. Next?

LawnOven
17th April 2007, 01:21 AM
I am curious why they thought they would be able to cover this up at all. With so many people involved and in the know, some of them being the 'victims' one would think the smart thing to do would be to come clean. It seems that it is well know that the president doesn't necessarily surround himself with the smartest and craftiest people, but more often the most loyal. You would need a whole lot of sly dogs to keep something like this buried.

Definitely an argument against complex ongoing conspiracy theories. And these were the guys that were supposed to have orchestrated the biggest cover up/act of treason in history? :)

Schneibster
17th April 2007, 01:30 AM
I've been saying that for several years and have yet to have seen any of the idiots agree that they are incompetent.

LawnOven
17th April 2007, 01:45 AM
Haha, well I suppose there is that study which showed that the more incompetent someone is, the less likely they are to be aware of that fact. I think that the incompetence level could be easily evaluated at this point. Maybe bush does some things right, but he always seems to get the things which most matter wrong. This administration has definitely made some big 'mistakes' intentional and unintentional.

Schneibster
17th April 2007, 01:52 AM
Hmm, the "them" might have been unclear in referent. By "them" I meant those who think there is some giant conspiracy theory by the administration.

OTOH, I have to admit the truth of that study; I've seen the paper for myself. Part of the problem is that they're more interested in getting and keeping political power and money than they are in, you know, doing the right thing. They think somehow that getting and keeping political power and money is what it's all about. I think that's the root of the incompetence.

LawnOven
17th April 2007, 02:08 AM
Haha, Ah, now I understand. Yes I find 9/11 conspiracies offensive on, several levels, one of them is "on an intellectual".

a_unique_person
17th April 2007, 06:08 AM
This reminds me of those Hollywood films where the act of government/business corruption that involves some innocent person is found out by the press and printed. Big smiles, all is resolved for the good guy. Play strings, end of film, run credits.

Yep, that's exactly what happens, nothing. *credits*

frank462
17th April 2007, 06:10 AM
My question is, how many more acts of Soviet style corruption like this have to occur before the republican party is regarded as a criminal organization?


You are living in "Fantasy Land" if you think the republican party is the only politcal party to deal in corruption. Both parties are corrupt as hell. And every election day the American people "think" they have a choice. Yea right!

ponderingturtle
17th April 2007, 07:12 AM
Based on the evidence, apparently not. Next?

So when USA ruin the lives of innocent people, they are just doing their job then? Why was he not fired for gross incompetence when the others where fired for political reasons

ponderingturtle
17th April 2007, 07:16 AM
You are living in "Fantasy Land" if you think the republican party is the only politcal party to deal in corruption. Both parties are corrupt as hell. And every election day the American people "think" they have a choice. Yea right!

There does seem to be a difference in the sort of corruption, at least of late. Recently the democratic party has not had many scandals that they seemed to be targeting people and such to gain political power instead of personal money.

Major elements in the republican party where interested in turning the country into a one party state, what do you think a permenant republican majority is after all?

fishbob
17th April 2007, 08:58 AM
Haha, well I suppose there is that study which showed that the more incompetent someone is, the less likely they are to be aware of that fact.


Why, yes there is.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf)

fishbob
17th April 2007, 08:59 AM
You are living in "Fantasy Land" if you think the republican party is the only politcal party to deal in corruption. Both parties are corrupt as hell. And every election day the American people "think" they have a choice. Yea right!

Yeah, but the Republicans are actually organized.

Beerina
17th April 2007, 09:01 AM
I would like to know "the rest of the story" -- the wikipedia page (for what it's worth) points out that the jurors remain confident in their verdict, and another district attorney, a Democrat, could find no political motivation behind it.

Puppycow
17th April 2007, 08:24 PM
This reminds me of those Hollywood films where the act of government/business corruption that involves some innocent person is found out by the press and printed. Big smiles, all is resolved for the good guy. Play strings, end of film, run credits.

Yep, that's exactly what happens, nothing. *credits*

Yeah, I also thought that this could be a good movie. Ever see "The Hurricane"?

I would like to know "the rest of the story" -- the wikipedia page (for what it's worth) points out that the jurors remain confident in their verdict, and another district attorney, a Democrat, could find no political motivation behind it.
I'm sure there is another perspective, but the version in this article is pretty damning.

corplinx
17th April 2007, 08:52 PM
Just reading what you quoted, I am extremely skeptical of the "mountains" of evidence showing this person was innocent, since she was convicted. (im not saying innocent people dont get wrongly convicted, just that it isnt likely)

Also, are we really claiming that this US Attorney trumped us this charge to benefit a gubernatorial race? Who here wants to go on the record and claim this CT is the case?

I'm open to the idea that this woman was wrongly imprisoned, but something more than a NY Times Op-Ed and a conspiracy theory is need to get my attention to look at it more.