Biskupic said feds' theory in Georgia Thompson case was "unique"

US Attorney Steven Biskupic knew he had a singularly tough case to make against Georgia Thompson. So why was he absent -- and why was his lieutenant so woefully unprepared to defend it --- when it went to appeals?

Why did Biskupic have a tough case to make? Because he had to demonstrate Georgia Thompson had something to gain from "favoring" Adelman in a bid for the state travel contract. Of course, there was no sign of any payola to Thompson from Adelman.

So how did the feds define "private gain'?

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 3/23/06:

The indictment alleges that Thompson manipulated the contract "to cause political advantage for her supervisors" and to bolster her job security.

"Bid-rigging for private gain such as to enhance (Thompson's) job security or to garner political advantage for her supervisors constitutes both honest services fraud and a misapplication of federal funds," says the response filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Hmm. Seems to be a broad definition of bid rigging when people in the private sector spend all day trying to enhance their job security or make their bosses look good.

And when Biskupic won the case he knew exactly where he'd have to argue.

From WisCourts 6/12/06:

U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said what made this case unique was that no personal gain was alleged for Thompson. Biskupic said that fact made the case "unique" and "difficult."

Biskupic said he would expect Hurley to "aggressively appeal" on that aspect of the case.

Thing is, Biskupic wasn't there to "aggressively defend" against Hurley on these points. He wasn't at the appeal to defend anything. He sent one of his lieutenants there. And his lieutenant seemed woefully unprepared to "vigorously defend" any aspect of the feds' case, at one point eliciting a condescending sigh from Reagan appointee Judge Easterbrook.

In an email to Jeff Wagner, Dan Bach, Peg Lautenschlager's right hand man, wrote this:

And to those who contend that state civil service status stands as a bar to politically based pressure, real or imagined, there are many in Madison who would scoff at your naiveté.

Don't seem to recall Biskupic's man scoffing at the naivete of the 7th Circuit judges. Don't seem to recall him using the "Madison insider" argument either. Dan: Don't act all condescending in an email to Jeff Wagner when the case you backed gets laughed out of court. Doesn't reflect to well on you.

Bach continues:

This state cannot afford to proceed any longer without meaningful campaign finance reform, and it will not be restored to its former “clean government” status without prosecutors willing to bring tough public corruption cases.

If by a tough case, Bach means one that the prosecution could not meaningfully defend against a panel of judges that's inclined to side with prosecutors. the Brawler would heartily disagree with Bach's reasoning. Why risk setting bad precedents for future cases with actual merit? Then again, the Brawler's not a prosecutor. (That said, the Brawler does agree with the bit about campaign finance reform.)

So...what's the Brawler's point? Biskupic knew he had a tough argument to make in front of the justices. And he himself wasn't there to make it. And his lieutenant was woefully unprepared to defend a case that had cost a woman four months of her life against the judges. And Biskupic has gone to ground since the verdict, instead relying on others to say he's a good guy. While he remains unavailable. Because Lautenschlager, Bach etc have all kinds of time to talk to the press.

The Brawler's question: Why would a US Attorney send a lieutenant to argue a "unique" and "difficult" and controversial case on appeal?

Again, the Brawler does not know if Biskupic pursued a case that benefited Republicans out of a sense of Justice or on orders from the White House or on his reading of what the administration wanted. Or if he brought a case he shouldn't have brought. It's perfectly possible that he acted out of the purest of motives. The Brawler's been saying that every time he's written about Biskupic for the last month. (As have most left bloggers, contra Bruce Murphy's assertion that bloggers have been a "lynch mob." If so, bloggers have been a highly caveated lynch mob. That said, the fact that Lautenschlager and other Dems worked with Bisk on Travelgate does not automatically mean that Bisk's motives were necessarily virtuous, though rightwing bloggers would suggest otherwise.)

But why didn't he go to Chicago to argue a case that he had described as "difficult" and "unique"?

Comments

[Paul Robeson]

And let's not forget this gem from the pre-trial phase: Biskupic invoked U.S. v. Rosenberg (yes, THAT Rosenberg case) to support his arguments. Check out Hurley's reply:

http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/show_case_doc_1.pdf

[JayMagoo]

A couple of more intersting questions:

Question: "Why did Peg and Brian sign on to such a weak case?"

Answer: Bisk conned them. He needed them for cover in the event that the case against Georgia went south. He conned them into thinking it was a non-political case and dazzled them with the possibilities under the US Criminal Code, so they bought in. Now everybody's got egg on his or her face. When the jury at the trial level convicted, nobody was more surprised than Bisk; when the Seventh Circuit reversed, Bisk probably expected it.

Question: Why did Bisk prosecute Georgia in the first place?

Answer: He got pressure from Karl-baby and the RNC over lack of action against voter fraud by those nasty Dems, and he saw an opportunity to get Karl and the RNC off his back by going after Georgia. He didn't expect to convict with such a weak case, but at least he could tell Karl he was trying. After all, Bisk reads the papers, he saw what happened to Carol Lam in San Diego, and to the US Attorneys in New Mexico when US Sen. Pete Dominici (R-NM) but his knickers in a knot, and in Arkansas. Bisk was thinking "job security."

Question: What happens next in America's Dairyland State?

Answer: Nothing. The heat from Karl and the RNC is temporarily off Bisk, but the US Senate might want to bring him in for a chat, complete with hand on Bible, etc. Peg and Brian will have plenty of explaining to do; the last thing they want to do now is admit they were conned by Bisk to participate in such a weak case, so they have to praise him.

JM