One of the 85 ‘loyal Bushies’ comes under scrutiny

Last year, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D), seeking a second term, was considered relatively vulnerable by the Republican establishment. The GOP had successfully recruited then-Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) to be their gubernatorial candidate, they cleared the field so he could get the nomination, fundraising was brisk, and some early polling showed Green within striking distance.

Right around the time that Green officially became the GOP nominee in Wisconsin, U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic brought charges against a top official in Doyle’s administration, accusing the state purchasing supervisor of corruption. Were the charges politically motivated? It’s hard to say for sure, but consider how quickly a federal appeals court dismissed the charges yesterday. (thanks to reader D.D. for the heads-up)

Federal judges Thursday ruled that former state purchasing supervisor Georgia L. Thompson was wrongly convicted of making sure a state travel contract went to a firm linked to Gov. Jim Doyle’s re-election campaign and freed her from an Illinois prison. The three-judge panel in Chicago acted with unusual speed, ruling after oral arguments by Thompson’s attorney and the U.S. attorney’s office. During 26 minutes of oral arguments, all three judges assailed the government’s case, with Judge Diane Wood saying at one point that “the evidence is beyond thin.” During a news conference later Thursday, Doyle, a former state attorney general, said the three judges did an “extraordinary thing” by entering an order finding Thompson innocent and ordering her immediate release.(emphasis added)

I’ll spare you the minutiae of the case, but here’s the story in a nutshell: Thompson, who was originally hired under Doyle’s Republican predecessor, awarded a state contract to Adelman Travel, which became controversial because two of the company’s officers had donated the state maximum to Doyle’s re-election campaign.

There was no evidence that Thompson personally profited from the contract and nothing to suggest she approved the contract for political reasons. Biskupic brought charges anyway and managed to win a conviction, which was thrown out swiftly yesterday.

Given the recent evidence involving the politicization of U.S. Attorneys’ offices, the questions are unavoidable.



Indeed, it’s worth remembering that Wisconsin Republicans used the bogus scandal during the gubernatorial campaign as a political defense when Green stood accused of accepting dubious contributions.

Just to be clear, I know of no evidence to suggest that the U.S. Attorney in this district was trying to influence the election. I have no idea if Karl Rove gave Biskupic a call and said, “You know, it’s a close race. Anything you can do would be helpful.”

We do know, however, that shortly before a close election, Biskupic brought extremely thin criminal charges against a top Doyle administration official who apparently did nothing wrong.

It’s one of the lasting problems of the administration’s purge scandal — there are now constant suspicions about prosecutors’ political motivations. Now that the nation has learned that several U.S. Attorneys were pressured to bring politically-charged cases for Republicans’ benefit, and some of those who refused lost their jobs, it’s inevitable that prosecutions like this one will garner fresh scrutiny.

I recently started a list.

* Paul Krugman noted a couple of weeks ago, for example, that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued subpoenas as part of an investigation against Sen. Bob Menendez (D) shortly before last year’s election.

* In New Hampshire, Democrats want Congress to investigate whether prosecution of a Republican phone-jamming scheme on Election Day 2002 was intentionally delayed until after the presidential election two years later.

* Did the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania intentionally target Bob Casey allies to undermine his Senate campaign against Rick Santorum?

* Why was the career U.S. Attorney in Guam removed in 2002 after he started investigating disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff?

* Why has Western Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, spent a disproportionate amount of her time launching public-corruption investigations against Democrats, while overlooking Republicans?

* In July 2005, the [tag]U.S. Attorney[/tag] in Denver decided not to pursue a matter in which bouncers at a Bush event impersonated Secret Service agents to throw out three law-abiding ticket-holders because of their bumper sticker (the Denver Three controversy). Did politics dictate the decision?

As Bud Cummins, one of the purged prosecutors, recently explained:

“[T]he public must perceive that every substantive decision within the department is made in a neutral and non-partisan fashion. Once the public detects partisanship in one important decision, they will follow the natural inclination to question every decision made, whether there is a connection or not.”

Bingo. It’s the consequence of the administration undermining public confidence in the system.