Friday, February 24, 2006
Political Persecution Update
Is there some reason that we can't make a worldwide announcement that Assembly Republicans did campaign work on state time, and move on? In their filings, the Jensen defense has acknowledged that the caucus did campaign work on state time using state resources. So the entire parade of former staffers is no more relevant than the John Doe admissions we've read from Assembly Democrats.
Yes, all four caucuses -- Republican and Democrat, Senate and Assembly -- did campaign work on state time. I was under the impression we knew that already. But I suppose the jury needs to hear some of this stuff, just not about anyone other than Assembly Republicans.
As evidenced by the pathetically dishonest and weak story by Dee Hall in today's State Journal, this entire charade is meant to do nothing more than tar Jensen and embarrass Republicans. They assessed the John Doe witnesses on the basis of which of them are more likely to exaggerate roles or settle scores. And as Deb Jordahl has pointed out, they want to shock the jury with the same activities that DA Blanchard apparently deserves a pass for. The hypocrisy is hitting new levels, and I have yet to hear any of these people actually pointing the finger at Scott Jensen as the evil dark lord master of their activities. I guess the caucus directors will have to fulfill that role.
The jury should be forced to confront the truth, not just some narrowly selective version of the truth. Each of the four caucuses -- including back in the liar Mike Ellis's day -- engaged in these campaign activities. Each of those caucuses leaders directing that activity to some extent. And the vast majority of legislators simply treated the caucuses as a separate world and didn't get involved -- other than benefiting from the work. But this hater of a Judge has expressly forbidden the defense from showing the jurors all of the truth. If they knew that all four leaders and Brian Blanchard engaged in the same activity, would they be as likely to hold Jensen as the only one accountable?
Xoff and his minions will continue to chortle, and more people will confirm that the caucus did some campaign work. The Whineke's of the world will continue to try and create some mysterious connection to Green or Walker. And the ignorant jury will be shocked that the evil Republicans engaged in these activities, and will be forced to make someone pay.
So the prosecution is proving that these activities occurred, they will now have to prove that Jensen was the evil mastermind of it all. Then, they'll have to convince the jury that these activities were an illegal attempt to obtain a dishonest advantage, and that some leaders had a greater responsibility than others to understand and follow retroactive rules.
This is a travesty of justice, and Brian Blanchard is a scumbucket to have ever brought this to trial. Enjoy the show, but don't try to tell me that this trial has anything to do with justice. It has to do with making someone pay. And one guy shouldn't have to pay for what was a systemic institutional blindspot.
Comments:
<< Home
Hmmm... my reaction is that you are so right and so wrong about so many things.
You can't try a caucus, like ARC, as a person before a jury... so you either go after its leader or you go after every single person who had anything to do with it. The former was chosen (which I agree with), though I know you would have preferred the latter. I think the leaders of all 4 caucuses/parties should have been tried. In the end, we all know that at any one given time, there is one person running the show for each party in each house and that is who should be held responsible.
Did they go after all four... no. Admitting that and setting that aside for the moment, they did go after Chvala. That is important because he was an equal to Jensen. They were in charge of the party in power for their house. And if you don't think there is a strong tie to the party of power and their ability to manipulate policy-work for political purposes... you're kidding yourself.
Now, I would like to think that if Chvala took this to trial, you would have seen the exact same parade of people before a jury. Instead of Green and Walker staff names showing up in the paper you would be seeing Doyle staff names showing up in the paper. But no, Chvala pleaded down, probably recognizing the political benefit to his party for such an action.
Jensen on the other hand has refused to plead down. He's guilty, they're all guiltly, you said it yourself. You seem to imply that it is therefore okay and we shouldn't go after anyone then.
My point is that I'm confused as to why Jensen took this to trial. He can't win this thing. Is he stupid... I doubt it. My only thought is that maybe his ego finally outgrew any sense of respect for his party and what it would do to him for taking this to trial.
In short (or long), I suggest you put Jensen and Chvala side-by-side. They were in the same sinking boat guilty of the same thing. Chvala decided to take a slap on the wrist and get off the boat, Jensen decided to stay in. So as this boat sinks before our eyes, I can't help but think it is Jensen's fault for all the politcal fallout from the trial. You seem eager to express blame or anger at everyone that has anything to do with this trial... except for Jensen, who could have avoided this whole thing if he had followed Chvala's path.
You can't try a caucus, like ARC, as a person before a jury... so you either go after its leader or you go after every single person who had anything to do with it. The former was chosen (which I agree with), though I know you would have preferred the latter. I think the leaders of all 4 caucuses/parties should have been tried. In the end, we all know that at any one given time, there is one person running the show for each party in each house and that is who should be held responsible.
Did they go after all four... no. Admitting that and setting that aside for the moment, they did go after Chvala. That is important because he was an equal to Jensen. They were in charge of the party in power for their house. And if you don't think there is a strong tie to the party of power and their ability to manipulate policy-work for political purposes... you're kidding yourself.
Now, I would like to think that if Chvala took this to trial, you would have seen the exact same parade of people before a jury. Instead of Green and Walker staff names showing up in the paper you would be seeing Doyle staff names showing up in the paper. But no, Chvala pleaded down, probably recognizing the political benefit to his party for such an action.
Jensen on the other hand has refused to plead down. He's guilty, they're all guiltly, you said it yourself. You seem to imply that it is therefore okay and we shouldn't go after anyone then.
My point is that I'm confused as to why Jensen took this to trial. He can't win this thing. Is he stupid... I doubt it. My only thought is that maybe his ego finally outgrew any sense of respect for his party and what it would do to him for taking this to trial.
In short (or long), I suggest you put Jensen and Chvala side-by-side. They were in the same sinking boat guilty of the same thing. Chvala decided to take a slap on the wrist and get off the boat, Jensen decided to stay in. So as this boat sinks before our eyes, I can't help but think it is Jensen's fault for all the politcal fallout from the trial. You seem eager to express blame or anger at everyone that has anything to do with this trial... except for Jensen, who could have avoided this whole thing if he had followed Chvala's path.
I'm sorry, am I speaking to "the man" or Max Power? I'm glad we agree that all four leaders should have been prosecuted. I'm glad we agree that Scott Jensen is responsible for the ARC. I'm glad we agree that a plea would have been a safer route. I don't agree with your argument that the majority is more responsible than the minority. I also don't agree with your "too bad for him" "that's just the way it is" philosophy. If an interest in equal justice makes me wrong, then so be it. And since I could actually be Scott Jensen, maybe you ought to recognize that this is a real person we're talking about, not some marble representation of all things Republican.
Post a Comment
<< Home
