The Defense Rests
Today Scott Jensen took the witness stand to tell his side of the story. It was nice of the Judge to let him do that since he pretty much shut down every other attempt Jensen made to put on a defense.
Jensen spent about two and a half hours on direct examination and at least three more hours on cross. If you like Scott Jensen, he was at his best, and I have to believe even a Dane County jury found him to be both likable and credible.
He answered every question he was asked without hesitation, and to Prosecutor Roy Korte’s dismay, he even answered a few questions he wished he’d been asked. He more than held his own while Korte chewed up another three hours beating his poor dead horse beyond all recognition.
Now, I know all the ankle biters out there will complain that Jensen is just a slick politician, and it’s really no surprise that he was good on the stand. Whatever.
A trial is an adversarial process, a legal war. This trial is not about right or wrong. It’s not about anything resembling clear justice, at least on the part of the prosecutors.
This trial is about politics, and Brian Blanchard’s need to mount a few Republican heads on his wall in order to counter the prosecution of Chuck Chvala and Brian Burke. Notice how Blanchard let Chvala plead to the one felony of the eighteen he was charged with that was most similar to the charges against Jensen?
Why not distinguish Chvala’s actions from the Caucus activities and acknowledge how widespread political activity had been at the Capitol? Then focus on reforming the system rather than making an example out of a handful of people.
Jensen did get a trial, though I’d be hard pressed to say it was fair. Judge Ebert did not allow witnesses to testify about customs and past practices in the capitol, or the activities of the Assembly Democratic Caucus during the very same time frame for which he is charged.
The prosecution claims those arguments are merely an attempt at jury nullification. The truth is that the state could not prove “intent to obtain a dishonest advantage” by Republicans, when the Democrats employed a nearly identical arsenal. It’s not Scott Jensen’s fault that the opposition never learned to shoot straight.
I am not defending the caucus system. Frankly the caucuses would have been near the top of my list of agencies to dump during the Kettle Commission in the early 90’s. The point is that everyone was doing it for decades, in the open without consequence, and only a handful of people are being held to account for it. Why? Because Brian Blanchard is a patsy Democratic District Attorney, and he can get away with it.
People have asked me what I think will happen when the case goes to the jury. I honestly can’t predict what twelve perfect strangers will decide, but I have no regrets about supporting Scott Jensen through this dreadful process. And I’m proud to be in the good company of Democratic State Representative Marlin Schneider, Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and Waukesha Circuit Court Judge Mac Davis who testified to Scott Jensen’s integrity today.
As for all you ankle biters: Just bite me.
20 Comments:
So then, you have no problems with putting people on the taxpayer's payroll who do no work for the taxpayers? Isn't that a theft of services question at the very least?
Jensen's answers have changed from "we never did that" to "everybody did that" to "I didn't know anybody was doing that." Open your eyes Deb and stop apologizing for the man and the system he perpetuated on the people of Wisconsin.
If I had wanted to elect a certain candidate I would have contributed directly rather than having them steal my taxes to run their campaign.
This post has been removed by the author.
Slick is a great word to describe Scot Jensen. I have not seen the testimony of Davis or Prosser but the fact that two Republican Judges with strong personal connections to Scot Jensen are testifying on Scooter's behalf is not a surprise. It does tell you how much party politics has infected our legal system.
Here's the facts about Scott Jensen:
(1) He broke the law.
(2) He directed others to break the law.
(3) He lied to prosecutors.
(4) His defense smacks the Republican principle of personal responsibility in the face ("Everyone else was doing it, so I assumed it was ok.")
And I find it interesting that Republicans like Deb (Hawley) Jordahl will put Marlin Schneider in "good company" when it's convenient for them. You're nothing but a hypocrite. But I think you should teach Scott Jensen how to blog (since he claims he didn't know he had an email address) so he can give us updates from Waupun... Martha Stewart would be a good model for him.
This post has been removed by the author.
Dear msnk,
You seem like an intelligent person. Please examine your past, review your own violations, and get off your high horse over a political enemy.
He's not an enemy - I actually admire him. But the facts can't be denied. And I agree it's a shame Shirley Krug and her minions aren't experiencing this.
But what about Sherry? I don't see many people defending her actions.
Deb, actually it was Milwaukee County assistant DA David Feiss that handled the Chvala case. However, your point about the charge most similar to Jensen's being pled guilty to by Chvala and Brian Burke (who was charged by Blanchard to get him out of the AG race - and boy did that ever work out for the Madistan 'Rats :-) is still valid.
Speaking of a "fair" trial, take a gander at 60:00-62:30 of part 2 of WisPolitics' webcast of Jensen's testimony. The jury can't even consider that Jensen did some heavy lifting to get rid of the caucuses, even offering to get rid of the ARC before the other 3, or that some Dems opposed implementation of the eventual deal between the Legislature and the Ethics/Elections Boards.
Grumps, I assume that you are against public financing of campaigns based on your initial comments. That's stealing tax dollars to run candidates' campaigns, after all.
For the record, I'm opposed to public-financed campaigns.
And if Jensen was really interested in updating the Assembly rules and eliminating the caucus (which the Democrats did oppose - I'll give you that), he could have done so before the Wisconsin State Journal came out with that story, not after. They had the majority in both houses and could have gotten it passed. And if it didn't pass, it would have still looked good for the GOP. But alas, Jensen didn't because he (and Krug) wanted to use a publicly-financed system to help them win elections.
Jensen should have followed Newt Gingrich's lead and made cleaning up the caucus mess a priority. Instead Jensen saw a system which he could leverage to the max for legislative power. Deb and Steve seemed to be Jensen Worshippers who can only defend Jensen by throwing stones at other guilty parties. The man appears to be guilty as charged and now let's hope we don't have an OJ Simpson style jury or juror muck this thing up.
Jensen worshipper? I don't even live in the same county as Scott.
I do call them as I see them, however. I find it grossly unfair that Burke got 6 months Huber law for doing what Jensen did AND soliciting campaign donations at the Capitol, Chvala got 9 months Huber law for doing this AND illegally funneling money into campaigns (while getting the extortion charges dropped), and Ellis and Krug walk away scot-free for doing at least as much as Jensen, while Jensen is looking at the max sentence at Waupun.
Don't worry, true"conservative", you'll get your conviction. The hypocritical Captain Ahab (that's right, Brian Blanchard used the services of the Senate Democratic Caucus to get his office) and the Queen of Hearts will see to that. Whether it holds up on appeal is another matter. I would call the court a kangaroo court, but then I'd be unfairly insulting the hopping marsupial from down under.
So tell me this, steve: would you feel vindicated if all of the party leaders (Krug, Ellis, Panzer, etc.) were on trial and all were convicted? Or are you just another GOP hack who finds excuses to blame other people for your own problems?
Having been at the capitol during Jensen's rise to power this is karma biting him in butt.
I believe that Jensen should be jailed the same way as Burke and Chvala was. He should lose his seat, but not spend real jail time.
I, for one, am happy this bad episode in Wisconsin politics is over.
I was actually all right with the deal that the State Ethics and Elections Boards reached with the Legislature which wiped out the caucuses in exchange for a fine. Of course, then we wouldn't have learned about Chuck Chvala's sale of the Dem votes in the Senate (of course, those charges were dropped), and Brian Burke probably would be AG (well, at least we wouldn't have had a lush crashing a state car into a ditch).
I was actually surprised that both Burke and Chvala decided to go down with felonies on the Jensen charge (meaning they can't hold office again unless pardoned) since they properly would have been filed as misdemeanors, if they should have been filed at all (something proved by the deal given to Steve Foti). On the other hand, the Dems also had more-substantial charges pending against them, and establishing that this was at most a misdemeanor would not necessarily have forced Jensen out.
steve, one again - the facts - from today's Wisconsin State Journal:
The bogus argument, being trotted out in court and at the state Capitol, goes like this:
Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard, a Democrat, is singling out Rep. Scott Jensen for prosecution because he's a Republican.
Some simple math tells you this is patently false.
Blanchard, a Democrat, filed a whopping 18 felonies against Democratic former Sen. Brian Burke of Milwaukee. The charges were related to Burke misusing state resources on his private political campaign.
Subsequently, Blanchard filed three felonies against Jensen, then the Assembly speaker, based on similar allegations.
Let's see -- 18 felonies for the Democrat versus three for the Republican.
That's hardly the makings of a partisan witch hunt for Republicans. What it suggests instead is that Blanchard is looking at the facts of each case and basing charging decisions on those facts -- not on politics.
Those charges against Brian Burke were designed to do one thing and only one thing; force Burke out of the Attorney General's race. Because Blanchard saw fit to only charge Republicans beyond Burke, despite stronger evidence of lawbreaking against the Assembly Democratic Caucus, his claims that the charges against Burke were because Burke broke the law ring hollow (remember, the retaliatory charges against Chuck Chvala came from E. Michael McCann's office, known for not charging fellow 'Rats for corruption since 1968).
Indeed, had Burke not miscalculated the DPW's aversion to a Milwaukee 'Rat succeeding Jim Doyle as AG, no 'Rat would have been charged. There would have been no reason to charge Burke to force him out of the AG's race, and without any charges against his good friend Burke, McCann would have taken the expected course and not charged Chvala.
As for the number you trotted out, how many felonies did Burke plead guilty to? One; conveniently conveniently the weakest one and the one that Jensen was charged with. How many felonies did Chvala plead guilty to? The two weakest ones, again conveniently including the one that Jensen was charged with.
Those are the facts. Now, think about this; if the case against Jensen was so damn strong, why did the judge and the prosecutor team up and go out of their way to deny Jensen any serious attempt at a defense? You, Captain Ahab and the Queen of Hearts may get your guilty verdict from the jury, but I'll put money on you losing it on appeal.
Tell me what evidence an appellate court would consider that could reverse a conviction by this court? Evidence that shows the other Caucuses were doing the same thing? Evidence that shows this is how it's been done for decades? Do those precedents justify the indisputable fact that these two defendants broke the law?
Improper conduct by both the prosecutor and the judge tends to ruin a show trial upon appeal, and there's plenty of evidence of that, from selective prosecution to the inability to mount the defense of choice. Or does that only apply in getting killers and lieberals off?
steveegg,
You ramble a lot. Let me point out that there is clear evidence of pay for play with Jensen/Foti/Schultz. Lobbyist visits Foti. Foti says I have friends that need help. Lobbyist asks what kind of help. Foti responds - money. Foti tells Lobbyist that Schultz will contact him. Lobbyist is contacted by Schultz and donates. Sounds like Play for Pay to me.
There are no grounds for appeal but let Jensen do as he will. He has the big money behind him. You know all those well funded special interests - WMC, School Choice etc. seem to be very supportive. Another question - how much did Jensen receive as personal compensation for work of the ARC? Also, is not Jensen also employed as a lobbyist for one of the special interests related to virtual schools? There just seems to be so many conflicts of interest with Jensen.
If there was "clear evidence" of pay-for-play with Jensen and company, why didn't Blanchard bring those charges? A guilty verdict on one of those would have knocked Jensen out of the Legislature as surely as a guilty verdict on any other felony, and unlike the pseudo-felony that Blanchard is using, he wouldn't have needed to resort to highly-questionable prosecutorial tactics. Oh, that's right; that "clear evidence" doesn't exist.
Post a Comment
<< Home