Brian Blanchard: the Prosecutor without a Conscience
Last week Scott Jensen and Sherry Schultz went on trial for using state resources for political purposes. Their attorneys argue that the laws regarding political activity are unclear and often contradictory.
Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard says that argument is ridiculous, pointing to a few vaguely worded statues that reference the term “political” but fail to define it. After all, Blanchard’s star witness, Lyndee Wall Woodliff says she knew almost immediately that her work at the Republican Assembly Caucus violated the law, even though she's not a lawyer and she’d never read the statutes.
That’s why I almost choked when I read this motion that was filed by attorneys for former State Senator Brian Burke. The filing discusses how Blanchard admitted that he, his wife Mary, and other members of his campaign violated 11.36 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes when they sought and received political services for his campaign from the Wisconsin Democratic Caucus.
So what explanation did Blanchard offer for this illegal behavior?
In both public statements and courtroom testimony during a September 17, 2002 John Doe hearing, the Blanchards claim to have been unaware that the SDC was a public organization and that its staff members were public employees.
Imagine that. An attorney from the state’s second largest county didn’t know that the Senate Democrat Caucus was a public organization, and that therefore soliciting and accepting political services from ADC was, apparently, against the law.
Well, Lyndee knew. She knew right away. And she was just a high school graduate who grew up on a farm in Lancaster, not a highly educated attorney from Quarles and Brady whose offices were located one floor below the SDC for the three years prior to his campaign for District Attorney.
Oh yeah, and Scott McCormick who served as Blanchard’s campaign manager in 2000 also served as treasurer of Independent Citizens for Democracy, the independent expenditure group that helped send Chuck Chvala to jail.
Of course Blanchard got cozy with Chuck when he wanted his help:
Two days after the Chvala event, Gussert wrote the memo to Chvala and Weix, reciting Mary Blanchard’s laundry list of requests. One week after that, Mr. Blanchard made a contribution to Senator Chvala’s campaign. According to the Wisconsin Cooperative Campaign Finance Database, this is the only political contribution Mr. Blanchard has made.
Andy Gussert was the former SDC Director who also managed Jim Doyle’s 1998 campaign for Attorney General. Remember the 9 1/2 page Gap? Well here’s another section of Gussert testimony we missed:
Gussert testified that Mr. Blanchard would call him on his state telephone line during work hours. Gussert testified he told Mr. Blanchard that “this is my government number or this is my office number, we should talk on my cell phone.”
Pages 13 and 14 of the motion offer additional evidence that Blanchard knew the SDC was in fact a public organization. So either Blanchard knew what he was doing was illegal and didn’t care, or he knew the SDC was a public organization, but didn’t believe it was illegal for SDC to provide political services to him upon request.
Either way, he’s both a coward and hypocrite for prosecuting Scott Jensen and Sherry Schultz.
5 Comments:
But Scott Jensen is still guilty, right?
Please don’t settle for a simple look at the evils of those who engage in feuding. Take a cue from the Bard of Avon who observed that people who actively engage in feuding die, people who condone feuding suffer, and people who claim that they do not approve of feuding but who lack the courage or strength to actively oppose or stop it also pay the price for their folly. Romeo and Juliet die for their rashness. The Montagues lose two family members for their feuding, as do the Capulets. Even the Prince suffers the loss of family members because, he says, he ignored the wrongdoing. All are punished. Similarly, in Julius Caesar, an even-handed justice is meted out to a number of people who fail to live up to an appropriate standard of loyalty to others.
Shakespeare does not leave the theme of loyalty to simplistic cause and effect. His treatment is more complicated than maxims such as: "if you act out of self-interest, you will suffer for it. Look carefully at Calpurnia and Portia. Both women are unceasingly loyal to their husbands. For all their unswerving loyalty to others, though, they pay the same price as their husbands—they too end up dead. Why? Their mistake, perhaps, is not that of egocentrism or but of ill-judgment. By supporting their husbands' folly, they support their husbands' evil deeds.
Shakespeare gives us, in Julius Caesar, a study of the ramifications of a variety of failures to remain true and honorable, and by the end, all are, indeed, punished.
Molliemous, huh?
do you have a subject matter for your post? Something specific to tie these thoughts to? The Bard kept these things clear - who he was talking about, when, for what reason. It helps the audience so much. You might want to try it.
You're all so tiring. Where was your Blanchard bashing when Burke and Chuckles were on the pikes?
Remember the Greek fable of diogenes? Diogenes spent his days walking the streets of Athens, with a lighted lantern -- looking for an honest man!
He never found one!
Even Ivory soap is only 99 and 99/100's pure
molliemous has a point-- that Burke was also used by the "prosecutor without a conscience". What is amazing is that the dems are so afraid of Blanchard that not one of them has the courage to say any of these wild prosecutions are wrong. All of these prosecutions are political slamming by Madison types.
Keep up the great blog Deb.
Post a Comment
<< Home