Madison, Wisconsin—“Let’s not make a federal case out of it.”
That’s a rejoinder declaring an issue to be unimportant, and, consequently, to be accorded minor attention equal to its diminished significance.
US Atty Steven Biskupic is in charge of making federal cases for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Biskupic, in fact, is the most powerful law enforcement officer in this district, with authority over the FBI and all federal law enforcement agencies.
He has the power — just through investigating a single citizen — to render financial ruin, among other havoc that a federal prosecution can inflict upon a family.
Granted such vast, discretionary authority, it is a truism that this office should adhere to a heightened code of ethics and accountability.
The office ought to be impartial, non-partisan, and fact-based in all facets of its individual prosecutions, and in its deciding which cases to prosecute.
Too often Steven Biskupic has failed to be impartial, non-partisan, and fact-based.
Instead, he has chosen to pursue the narrow, partisan agenda of Karl Rove and George Bush, joining these reckless and anti-democratic forces, and in so doing has betrayed the citizens residing in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Biskupic is a corrupt public official and ought to resign.
Georgia Thompson
Tomorrow Georgia Thompson is back at her old job as a state purchasing supervisor.
But the costs of the Biskupic prosecution against her have been grave—loss of Thompson’s home, her retirement savings, and the psychological damage inflicted while facing the machinery of an unfeeling prosecution determined to injure.
On April 20, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (that in an extraordinary event 15 days earlier had ordered Thompson freed because it found her clearly innocent and Biskupic’s office wanted her kept jailed pending appeal, calling the prosecution’s evidence “beyond thin”) issued its written opinion by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook.
The 14-page opinion skewers Biskupic’s prosecution as:
- An obvious logical error, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, (after this, therefore on account of this) (p.3)
