Interesting, because I sent a note to a Madison pal about this very question on Tuesday.
Beginning on February 21, 2011 DCI was asked to investigate multiple threats to various members of the Wisconsin Legislature due to the volume, our ability to fully analyze the many communications and our experience.
...Investigators concluded it did not present an imminent threat but presented sufficient probable cause that criminal behavior had occurred and on Friday, March 18, 2011 this matter was referred to the Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne who has sole jurisdiction and charging authority for a charging decision. On Monday, March 23, 2011 the Department of Justice learned through press reports that the Dane County District Attorney had returned the referral to the Department citing clerical and administrative issues related to the reports transfer. Importantly the investigative reports themselves were not returned.--WI Dep't of Justice
It's fair to guess that DofJ had either extremely minor--or zero--"issues related to reports." The DofJ people do this regularly, you know. It's not a proc with which they are unfamiliar.
SOME crimes are subject to swift and timely prosecution in Dane County. However, politically-correct crimes, such as threatening death to Republicans, are NOT of particular interest.
The obvious question: WHO is being protected here? (We know it's not Republicans.)
What is the identity of the perp? AFSCME bigwig? Son/daughter of a (D) bigwig? Inquiring minds want to know.....
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I'm confused. Dad29 admonished himself? Is there a doppleganger in our midst?
Anyways, assume the Dane County DA is refusing to investigate matters for political reasons. It is possible, and it is flat out wrong.
What is also wrong is the DOJ and members of the Wisconsin legislature who refuse to honor a temporarily injunction issued by a court of law.
Now, perhaps the evidence that is deemed probable cause according to the DOJ is interpreted by the Dane County DA as not meeting the standard burden of proof based on the merits of the case.
Hard to believe, but it could also be true that the DOJ is conducting on a fishing expedition in retaliation against Democrats, similar to the GOP in Wisconsin calling for an open records request of the activities from a UW professor who recently questioned its motivations.
And, Dad29, since when are you concerned about threats and violence when you enable lunatic anony posters here to advocate sodomy against your fellow man?
The D of J has a lot of ex-County prosecutors working there; it's not remotely likely that they don't know a case from shinola.
Open records requests can be filed by any citizen at any time for any reason. The UW prof was abusing the TAXPAYER-PAID facilities. Gee, he got caught.
You are correct on one count: you ARE confused.
IF, IF, IF, the UW prof used company time, it doesn't negate his account. The GOP is engaging in a fishing expedition, all because he touched a raw nerve.
Besides, the concept you conveniently ignore is called innocent until proven guilty. And you say you are an ardent supporter of the Constitution???
The only reason I am confused is that you commented "wrong" on your own blog post. Why, I have no clue.
An Open Records request does NOT, in and of itself, mean that the party is "guilty." Were you a State employee, I could request records on your correspondence with Santa Claus (e.g.) for no reason whatsoever. The request does not mean that you're "guilty" of anything.
But the records MAY indicate that you were corresponding with Santa Claus. If that is a prohibited activity with State equipment, then you ARE in trouble.
The Perfesser may characterize the ORR as a "fishing expedition" or as a witch-hunt, or any way he likes. So what?
The question now is: did the Perfesser engage in prohibited political activity? If he did, are you endorsing it?
Seems that way.
If he did, then the professor has some explaining to do, and consequences given.
Is it coincidence that the professor who writes a critical piece against the GOP is then summoned with an Open Records request by members of the political party he criticized, when all indications, as of right now, appear that he did this writing on his own time and away from his workplace?
No, the gloves are off. Just the way you like, eh?
Speaking of endorsing behavior, do you condone the actions of anony posters who call for the raping of those bloggers whom you oppose ideologically?
Seems that way.
Post a Comment