June 26, 2011

Lueders responds to my post about him, saying "We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld."

"When we became aware of this alternative version. we included it. We further updated the piece to reflect that Justice Bradley has refuted this alternative version as 'spin.'"

I respond in an update at the original post. The point of this post is: 1. To direct you there, 2. To give you a fresh place to comment, and 3. To pull that particular quote for the purpose of highlighting its passivity and lack of curiosity.

"When we became aware of this alternative version. we included it." Is that investigative journalism? Aren't you supposed to think critically, generate questions, and probe — not sit back and wait for further information to arrive and then let us know when you "become aware" of it? You should seek awareness.  The story you passed on was bizarre on its face. You don't even need to be an investigative journalist to have a lot of questions about it.

Me, I'm always suspicious about things that don't look right... even that period after "alternative version."

ADDED: Rereading Lueders's vague comment the next morning makes me want to be especially clear about what we know about the questions I asked in my original post. The key question that framed the post was: How many sources, total, spoke to Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Both spoke of having 3 sources, but since all were unnamed, we never knew whether there was overlap, and so there could have been as many as 6 or as few as 3. With Bradley later making a statement by name, we may now have 7 sources, but the total number may still be as few as 3. I still don't know whether the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel got more detail from individuals to whom Lueders spoke or whether it turned up sources that Lueders couldn't get a response from, and Lueders does not say.

Lueders wrote in his comment on my post:
We had as reported "at least three" sources for the statement that Prosser allegedly put his hands around Bradley's neck. We also spoke to others who declined to give any information about what occurred. No one said or suggested in any way, shape or form that Bradley was the aggressor, a charge that Prosser himself has not made. 
No one said... but did Lueders probe with questions? What was the political affiliation of the sources? Did they have a motivation to present incomplete facts? Did Lueders share that motivation? That would explain the failure to probe with the obvious questions that spring immediately to the ordinary reader's mind. Lueders just says that they didn't come forward spontaneously with any allegations that made Bradley look bad, they didn't suggest anything, and that was good enough for Lueders, the supposed investigative reporter.

Lueders notes that Prosser has refrained from making a specific allegation about Bradley, but Prosser did say the charge against him would be shown false. It's true, as Lueders says that Prosser hasn't specifically alleged that Bradley was the aggressor, but if you look closely at Lueders's comment, you can see that he doesn't have Bradley specifically denying that she charged at him with fists raised. He only says that she "ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault" and that the story was "spin." The word "spin" reflects an opinion about how people are characterizing the facts. It's not an apt way to deny the facts. Calling something spin is itself spin. And ridiculing the idea that one is at fault is also a characterization of the facts rather than an assertion of facts. That is, it's spin.

At this point, Bradley and Prosser have done the same thing: claimed innocence with respect to facts that unnamed sources have supplied.


Skyler said...

But it's still an odd story. What made Bradley attack with raised fists? Does she have a history of such behavior? It's all quite sordid.

David said...

It's gone way beyond ugly.

Thanks Althouse for the useful summaries and dogged prodding.

All seems peaceful here in Door County.

It's quiet out there. Too quiet.

Tom Spaulding said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Spaulding said...

Well, Bradley "refuted" it, so that settles it. Liberal judgin' is easy...no facts, no evidence, no named witness...just refutin'. Spinning your version by calling the other side's version "spin" is refutation now. Where was this rule when I was in high school?

David said...

"What made Bradley attack with raised fists?"

He was in "her" office. On court business of course but that does not matter to her. She hates him because she can not run him over. Rage, entitlement, sense of superiority, realization that she's losing, etc, etc, etc.

Does the Chief Justice have responsibility for the tone of the court? Yes.

Jason said...

The funny thing is that nobody as far as I can tell has updated this story any further today.

Perhaps more facts will become known once more people show up to work on Monday, but so far this is progressing exactly like I thought it would on Saturday night...a story the media attempted to trump up in order to discredit Prosser and to give Walker a "black eye" or sorts on the day he signed his budget (today) with a headline-grabbing story that Prosser beat up a colleague.

Instead, it had backfired badly and the media cant get rid of this story soon enough, as details have emerged that Bradley is at the very least a part of this, not an innocent bystander.

Yesterday at this time, this story was in big bold headlines at the MJS website. Right now, you have to scroll down on their page to see it. Ironically, it is currently put underneath another story that is a "Journal Sentinel Watchdog Report".

Mel said...

They rushed the story out to bash Prosser, and could care less if there is more information forthcoming. Lazy, bullsh*t, investigative reporting.

Hagar said...

That is not what "refute" means.

Bradley just denied the story, she did not refute it.

It is still "she says/he says" with a little more support for "he says" than "she says."

rhhardin said...

The left treasures the ability to believe things quickly.

PatHMV said...

She "refuted" that version? She denied it, perhaps. Use of "refuted" implies that the journalist accepts her explanation as definitive.

When you make a living with words, the words you use matter. If he doesn't know the difference between "refuted" and "denied," he has no business being a journalist. If he does know the difference, then he's too partial to be a journalist.

Sixty Grit said...

In Soviet Wisconsin, story finds you...

Big Mike said...

Me, I'm always suspicious about things that don't look right... even that period after "alternate version."

And may you always be that way.

Kansas City said...

Lueders comes across as biased and, like the typical liberal media person whose accuracy is questioned, he does into defensive mode instead of the mode of seeking the truth. Why doesn't he talk about how to get to the truth? For example, now that Bradley has come out publicly with her charge, doesn't Lueders need to tell us if Bradley was one of his original sources? He does if he truly is interested in informing the public of the truth.

I also thought he gave himself away as biased with his use of the word "refuted" in his statement that "that Justice Bradley has refuted this alternative version as 'spin.'" She has disputed it. She has not refuted it. In Leuders mind, all he needs to hear is that Bradley disputes the "alternative" and the alternative is therefore "refuted."

Leuders continues to look bad on this. How could he publish the original charge without getting an explanation from someone of the events that led to the incident?

Anonymous said...

Yes, the man apparently doesn't know the proper use of the word "refuted".

Something like this would have been more accurate:

We further updated the piece to reflect that Justice Bradley has characterized this alternative version as 'spin.'

P.S. Look at this sentence and tell me it isn't a prime example of the lameness of putting the period inside the quotes. I'm not blaming Lueders for that. He's doing it "right".

rcocean said...

Ideology makes journalists remarkably incurious. Remember Lucy Ramirez?

I'm still curious as to how/why a 5'2" 68- year old put his hands around the neck of a younger and bigger Bradley - IN A CHOCK HOLD - in a office full of people.

But that's me, a nosy Nelly.

LilEvie said...

The story has just hit the MSM, as I heard it on the radio, with only Prosser's attack mentioned.

Neither scenario really passes the smell test. He suddenly grabbed her in a choke hold? She flew - FLEW - at him with raised fists?

More likely: the justices voted to release their decision the next day. Bradley made a snide comment. Prosser made a snide comment. She ordered him to leave. He said I'm fine where I am. She strode across the room and either shook her finger in his face or attempted to physically expel him from the the room, he pushed her back, she struggled, and he grabbed at her neck to stop her. Something like that.

Can you even imagine such behavior from SCOTUS?


edutcher said...

Effectively, Lueders is saying, "No, I'm not crooked or corrupt. I'm stupid, lazy, and unprofessional".

Much better.

God, I love the Internet.

glenn said...

More than likely Mr. Leuders is a registered Democrat and a Union member. He has a dog in this fight. Probably worth seeing who pays his salary as well.

Oh, and for all the participants in this little farce:


Lincolntf said...

Of course it wasn't "purposely withheld". It was "unfortunately not solid enough to publish, due to a lack of independent confirmation", or some such garbage. It's how they roll.
Still waiting on the "were the sources in the room?" question. Did we get that yet?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Me, I'm always suspicious about things that don't look right... even that period after "alternative version."

The period after "alternative version." looks fine to me, as that is the period following "we included it".

The period that concerns me is the period after "alternative version".

See how confusing things get when you place your punctuation based on aesthetics rather than semantics?

Carol_Herman said...

Loo-ders, in writing his story, overlooks the bizarre nature of how everybody in the room sat so poised.

Sure. They see a batshit crazy woman, stand up. They see her waving her arms about. They see her approaching another seated justice ...

And, this is considered "just another day at the office?"

Loo-der-schmuck can insist all he wants to, that his story is "accurate. But, in the main, it is not. Because he missed the real story, BIG TIME!

Which was the batshit crazy chicks couldn't surpress the opinion. Which got printed.

It turns out the democraps don't care what passes. They only want to stop the presses from printing this up.

Loo-ders should become afraid.

Very afraid.

He picked a career that depends on getting published.

And, he lost his footing in his first act.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Lueders is part of the lamestream media. They are not reporters. They are dutiful, little stenographers and stenographers don't ask questions.

Peter V. Bella said...

There is no investigative journalism. They are all the merchants of poison.

walter said...

If someone gets accused of choking someone and there is the slightest bit of evidence or a witness, is it not irresponsible to have that person walking around freely?
So it begs the question of how credible law enforcement thought the accusation.

Lincolntf said...

I am curious how much "investigative journalism" this outfit has done into the Unions that have been in WI headlines for half a year? Seems pretty topical. Are they looking at the underbelly to see why so many death threats were issued with so few investigations? How the Capitol Building was vandalized in front of God and everybody and officialdom never made a peep? Why the occupation of the Capitol was allowed by Police in the first place?

Carol_Herman said...

No wonder I've always loved Tom Sawyer. He ducked out of the way, when his angry aunt polly was looking to give him a licking.

Now. What kind of advice to executives get ... so they can protect themselves from batshit crazy chicks wo lunge at them?

This is no time for your colleagues to just "sit poised at the table."

Right there, a lawyer could cut "five witnesses to pieces."

Didn't these justices once have to attend law school?

How come all of them have armed sheriffs in their courtroom, if they're told "they sit poised" when a batshit crazy person goes nuts in their courtroom?

Well, what makes the rules change when they're in conference? or back in someone's chamber?

You're trained to "just sit poised," huh?

Personally, I think Prosser should begin bringing in a trained German Shepard, who snaps at people who come in front of ya ... to wave their arms about.

Not to say that just grabbing this fool by the hair. And, pulling down, hard. Wouldn't have been better than just holding your arms up to defend your face.

Robert said...

Carol wrote:

Sure. They see a batshit crazy woman, stand up. They see her waving her arms about. They see her approaching another seated justice ...

And, this is considered "just another day at the office?"

To the extent that the other judges might have been passive, perhaps it was because they had seen this behavior before.

Would any of us be surprised at that?

Sprezzatura said...

"Me, I'm always suspicious about things that don't look right..."

Notice how Althouse reacts to the discovery that her conspiracy theory (re Lueders supposed tricking of Prosser) was shown to be completely wrong?

She compliments herself for coming up w/ disproved crackpot theories. And, she thinks journalists should follow her lead by blurting out hunch-based theories w/o a shred of confirmation from sources. And, then their theories can be shot down, as happened to Althouse here.

She throws throws around "evil" and "stupid" at Lueders, but when we find out that her theory is completely wrong she doesn't acknowledge that her theory was wrong, she compliments herself as a critical thinker. WTF?

And, why isn't she going on about the numbers of sources any more? Oh that's right, if she had critically thought about her own links she'd know that she was pushing a BS theory, even before Lueders' comment. And, now that she realizes that there are more sources connected to the anti-Prosser scenario, her interest in that theory vanishes.

And, is a guy who calls an old lady a bitch dignified? How about a guy who threatens to destroy an old lady? Does Althouse think she's the only woman who doesn't want to be threatened w/ destruction, or being Fed up?

And, what about that critical thinking associated w/ the correct, then uncorrect, then un-uncorrect edits in the earlier post. That was hilarious.

After all of Althouse's dead ends she concludes that the media should be more like her: less reporting, more wrong speculation.


JohnJ said...

This, likely, is going nowhere.

If events unfolded as they were first portrayed, I suspect Bradley's reaction would have been much more dramatic (on the floor, gasping for breath...that sort of thing) and the police immediately would have been called. As it is, I suspect we have two State Supreme Court Justices who got into a childish spat and now wish the whole thing would just go away.

Jason said...

I dont know if I understand a word of pbAndj's post, or how he takes that angle with Althouse's post.

deborah said...

Is pj correct?

rcocean said...

There's only one way to solve this:

Judge Judy.

KCFleming said...

"It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world."

I don't think Samuel Johnson ever met Wisconsin Democrats.

Gary Rosen said...

"The funny thing is that nobody as far as I can tell has updated this story any further today.


Yesterday at this time, this story was in big bold headlines at the MJS website. Right now, you have to scroll down on their page to see it."

Yeah, that's how it works - big black headlines as long as the story fits the narrative. We had the same thing here in the SF Bay Area a couple of years ago on another of their favorite subjects. A Muslim woman was murdered and the local media were full of "hate crime" and "Islamophobia" until they found the perp - a Hispanic guy (can't remember if he was, uh, "undocumented" or not), no religious/ethnic motivation. Needless to say they dropped the story like dirty underwear.

edutcher said...

Jason said...

I dont know if I understand a word of pbAndj's post, or how he takes that angle with Althouse's post.

It's the old Alinsky tactic: throw as much against the wall as you can in the hope something will stick.

rcocean said...

PJ is a bore.

You can't defend Bradley or the "investigative" journalist, so they attack the critic, aka Althouse.

Its play number 42 in of the 'progressive' internet playbook, right ahead of "call them racists".

Anonymous said...

In our local paper, the original story was on the front page, above the fold.

In the editorial section,
Lueders has a long piece touting the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism .

Interesting timing. Not the most auspicious start. Will his updated "investigative reporting" still make the front page if it turns out that Bradley was at least partially to blame for the altercation?

chickelit said...

Judging acts of acting judges,
Fudging facts, and faction's grudges,
News a'Drudge but no one budges.
Slogging through, Meadehouse trudges



1775OGG said...

I understand that the reason for the gathering of Justices in Bradley's office was to protest the delay in issuing SCOTSOWI's decision. My guess is that the Chief Justice wanted to hold off on issuing the decision to allow her cohorts to further dither and dilly. So, it's reasonable that Prosser, et al, went ballistic at that great injustice by the Chief Justice and attacked the closest thing to him, little demur, meek, and mild Justice Bradley. So, old what's his name Lueders simply repeated what he was told by his many informants, at least one or maybe two, what's the problem with his issuing a piece of that as a news article.

The real question is when will this case go up to the highest court in WI, the union bosses.

Jeez, and I thought we had it bad in Minnesota with our Gov. Mark "Doofus Tax the Rich" Dayton; whose trust fund is safely located in South Dakota.

flenser said...

And, is a guy who calls an old lady a bitch dignified?

Pssst! It's "elderly lady". God, can't you even remember your talking points? You want to distract peoples attention from the fact that the person in question is the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so "old lady" and "elderly lady" both do the trick, but it's also important that you pretend to give a damn about the demographic in question, so "elderly lady" is the preferred term.

1775OGG said...


Titus said...

I really don't give a shit about this.

Now, if there were tits involved it would be much more interesting.

TosaGuy said...

Wisconsin's fisters are getting violent and are now assaulting senior citizens.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

"Bradley just denied the story"

You'll notice that Bradley did NOT deny the story that she flew at him. It was a non-denial denial. She said the story that she flew at him was :"spin", which is not the same as saying that it was false. In fact, it implicitly confirms the account.

Sprezzatura said...


Thanks for the tip.

Speaking of euphemisms, maybe I should call her "a lady of the golden vintage."

Or, is that too much?

HT said...

I've read about it. You win, AA. You win. I caved.

Maybe they are BOTH so embarrassed that neither one wants to clarify anything because they'll just show how they were acting like asses.

But I can't believe I caved. This is the last picayune Wisconsin story about politics I read! Ever!

coketown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad said...

I'm sorry, she "refuted" it?

For a supposedly 'down the middle, just the facts ma'am I'm here to find out the truth' "journalist" (scare quotes intended), that's a pretty judgmental description of Bradley's press release.

I believe, Mr. Lueders, the correct word would be "disputed" .....

Unless you're also going to say Justice Prosser's press release denying the story "refuted" Bradley's claim ....

No, of course you're not going to do that ........

Carol_Herman said...

You know, the batshit crazy dames tried to attack Prosser before the election. So, we got to see how one of them (Abrhamason or Bradley) ... wrote a "memo" about Prosser calling Abrhamason a bitch ... and this "note" was copied to staff. To help generate "deniability" ... when the story got splashed into the news.

It was supposed to shred Prosser's chances at the polls.

But as we learned ... after months of ballot counting. Prosser's win was told on election night. And, then the recount just confirmed this.

Kloppenhoppen had to slink off.

And, now, again. The same "bitch" word is tossed upwards like a volley ball.

But it ain't anything of the sort!

It's just a replay of a tactic that failed.

Doesn't enhance the reputations of anyone at the table. It's cruel to say this. But not of the supreme court justices come off smelling like a rose.

Nor is the questiobn answered:

WHAT MADE BRADLEY STAND AND RUN FORWARD? What provoked her to attack Prosser?

This question remains unanswered.

While we know "Crooks" wasn't present. Is this because Nixon is dead?

Buford Gooch said...

It's funny to read P&BJ's posts. They are well worded, but mean zero.

Carol_Herman said...

RCOCEAN. Judge Judy would say "stop peeing down my leg."

And, most school teachers would know how to control kids better. Getting up when you're supposed to be seated?

Get real.

And, if this were done at a meeting in any company ... the bitch would have been fired by Personnel.

There's no explaining this "passive" bullshit reaction.

Of course, when the media calls, all those who were at the meeting, just clammed up.

Being passive just means there's a failure to react.

Now, if anyone, ahead, is forced to resign "for behaviors unbecoming a justice" ... Then that makes Walker's day! He gets to fill such a vacancy.

sarge said...

'understand that the reason for the gathering of Justices in Bradley's office was to protest the delay in issuing SCOTSOWI's decision'

sarge here thar reaso9n to hold off on said rushed decision was to avoid the court lookin partisan for them republicans who oddly enuff delayed thar votin on the collective bargain ect bill till thar supreme court done ruled in thar favor-ol prosser musta been mad as hell after promisin his bosses in the leg and executive thar bill on a golden platter at thar nick-o-time old prosser knows to whom old prosser owes his bitchhood

Carol_Herman said...


Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to sheer stupidity.

KCFleming said...

But she didn't refudiate it, so I'm doubtful.

This cartoon from the Milwaukee Express was rather prescient about Prosser's pugilism.

rcocean said...

Poor Old Grandma Bradley. Why she's such a harmless old thing. Never even gets out her rocker 'cept to go to Church and bake some cookies for the grandkids.

Imagine calling her a Bitch. And I wonder why that big brute Posser would strangle her with his bare hands?

I heard he beats little kids in his spare time.

KCFleming said...



You must never have had kids play pee wee football. Now there's some malice. Leastways, from the parents on the sidelines.

Tom Spaulding said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Voltimand said...

This story hasn't even begun to unfold in a rational, critical fashion. The Capitol police are involved, the judicial watchdogn committee will be involved. Orderly investigations have only begun. If present accounts hold, this is a zero-sum game. If Bradley is right, Prosser is wrong, and vice-versa. As of now, I don't see this case fading into some Piraandello drama of "he said/she said." For me, 'nuff said for now.

Sprezzatura said...

"...but mean zero."

Are there folks commenting here who believe that their contributions register north of zip on the meaning scale?


Personally, I convert my contributions from the normal Meaning scale to Kelvin-Meaning. I may be at -273, but I feel like a zero!

Tom Spaulding said...

More Lueders:

"Scott Walker's declaration of war against Wisconsin's teachers, nurses, social workers, 911 operators, prison guards, park rangers, sanitation workers, snowplow operators, engineers, police officers and firefighters — and their inevitable decision to join the battle — could be for Wisconsin what the attacks of 9/11 were for the nation. It will create a deep before-and-after divide, between a time of relative innocence and a time of perpetual conflict and insecurity.

The difference is that the attacks of 9/11 were external, and stirred a sense of national unity. What has been fomented in Wisconsin is a rupture among ourselves, one that will ensure acrimony and contention for many years, perhaps decades. The dispute will be not just between Walker and his tens of thousands of newly impassioned enemies, but between the state's citizens — worker against worker, neighbor against neighbor, family member against family member. (Personally, I think a colonoscopy without anesthesia might be less painful than the next get-together of my extended family.)

"Our state is ripped apart right now," fugitive Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow from his "undisclosed location" last week. Get used to it. The animosity that has been unleashed here will not go away when some uneasy stasis is reached; it will become part of the fabric of life in Wisconsin.

None of this was necessary, none of it is justified, and none of it can ever be forgiven or forgotten.

SukieTawdry said...

Didn't think the SF Bay area could be outdone in batshit loony, but it's got nothing on Madison.

Steve Austin said...

This all starts and ends with crazy Shirley Abrahamson, goddess of the left.

She's 78 years old and getting worse. Are we going to have to deal with ten years of Helen Thomas type moments before she finally steps aside?

Anonymous said...

"The funny thing is that nobody as far as I can tell has updated this story any further today."

That's deliberate. The left don't want clarity.

They want muddy water and accusation and innuendo - the hallmarks of classic yellow journalism of the worst kind.

And that's what they've successfully created thanks to George Soros' paid hit squad of so-called "investigative journalists" who haven't investigated a fucking thing and still can't tell us what the hell really occurred in that room - even though there were 6 Supreme Court justices in the room at the time of this event.

It's fucking laughable.

This story will end here. It's served its purpose and further light shined on these fucking cockroaches will only see them scurrying back into the shadows.

Can't have light.

Tom Spaulding said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Lueders in a nutshell:

I had half a story from sources with axes to grind, so I ran with it, no matter that the subject denied it.

I later heard another half of a different story, but that person denies it too.

I take the second denial as absolute gospel, and the first denial as irrelevant.

I don't really know what the hell I'm talking about, because I'm a partisan tool running the story I wish were true, not the one I've backed up in any way resembling journalism.

Kansas City said...

Is Prosser really only 5'2"?

And is Bradley one of those large sized women who progress in the world of liberal democrats? Someone said she was 7" taller than Prosser. Is that true?

I don't mean to make funny of Bradley, but sizes seem relevant to the story.

Blog Goliard said...

Here's the telling part:

The original story ran without Prosser's "alternative version" of events, because Lueders couldn't be bothered to get it. Later, he "became aware of it"--note the passive voice--and updated the story.

But not without also including Bradley's "refutation", which is something that Lueders could be relied on to seek out. Because information favorable to Prosser can't possibly be published without an accompanying rebuttal, don'tcha know.

(Please note also the skillful and subtle marginalizing of Prosser's side of the story as an "alternative version". If the witness accounts favorable to Prosser had been included in the original story, as competent and fair journalistic practice demands, then his side of the story wouldn't be the "alternative" to anything...it'd simply be one half of the original mainstream story.)

Anonymous said...

Word of advice to Liberals/Democrats that make criminal accusations against conservatives/Republicans in the press without filing a complaint with the relevant law enforcement agency: Don't.

All that does is show that you are making it up. example: see Anthony Weiner.

For journalists that print/report the liberal/democrats accusations without a complaint filed with law enforcement, here is a word of advice for you: Don't.

By printing/reporting that accusation with out a complaint filing all it does is show you are a hack not a responsible journalist.

William said...

The proverb says that whether the porcelain hits the stone or the stone hits the porcelain, it is very bad for the porcelain. Who's the porcelain figurine here. My feeling is that it is the reputation of that court. Whoever leaked the story did the court no favors.....Without knowing the personalities or, for that matter, the relative size of the people involved, any narrative is pure conjecture. But whatever the facts, neither party looks very good. Judges are not supposed to act this way. That goes double for any judge who leaked this story. That goes triple for any reporter who accepted such a narrative without further delving or without examining their motives for leaking the story. If any part of this story rebounds to the credit of the judges involved or the Woodward & Bernstein who reported it, I would be glad to be so informed....I can't help but note that the commenters here who are so quick to exculpate Bradley are pretty much the same ones who informed us how easy it was to hack Weiner's twitter feed.

Kevin said...

This all starts and ends with crazy Shirley Abrahamson, goddess of the left.

She's 78 years old and getting worse. Are we going to have to deal with ten years of Helen Thomas type moments before she finally steps aside?

I doubt that she'll start muttering that all the Jews should move back to Europe...

pauldar said...

Children of the Horn would make a great movie

Anonymous said...

@ Tom Spaulding -
thanks for the prior Lueders material. I like his choice of words..."Scott Walker's declaration of war on Wisconsin's teachers, nurses, social workers" etc.

Because being required to contribute to your retirement and health insurance is exactly like having a B52 carpet bomb your village.

Ralph L said...

I'm still curious as to how/why a 5'2" 68- year old put his hands around the neck of a younger and bigger Bradley - IN A CHOCK HOLD - in a office full of people

He realized she was going downhill?

Brett_McS said...

"I'm always suspicious about things that don't look right... even that period after "alternative version."

Indeed, the purpose of correct grammar is to make thinks clear. The effect (or purpose) of bad grammar is to make things unclear.

Effect or purpose?

Carol_Herman said...

Sports aren't my thing, Pogo.

My kid played a clarinet and was in the school band. I never did understand how parents signed consent forms for their kids to play in any sports activities.

But that's just me.

As for Prosser, he needs to increase his vocabulary. He relies on "bitch" too much. When he'd have been better off just saying out loud, "tell the batshit crazy person to just sit down."

Said out loud. To no one in particular.

At least those who just sat passively, would get the muscles in their faces to wrinkle into a smile.

Oh, then Prosser could add, "And, by the way, Bradley, you're certifiable. I'd personally sign a 30-day commitment form. Yours for the asking."

No. She would not have swung at his mouth!

You could stop a brawl, as soon as someone seated begins laughing.

The rule of thumb is that you can't do combat when you're bend over laughing.

Prosser should really try a humorous approach, next time. Or bring a German Shepard to work.

punditius said...

Let's see. P goes into B's office, she tells him to get out, he persists. Therefore everything that happens afterwards is his fault. So she can fly at him, fists up - remember, she's female so that does not mean punching - it means hammering with the pinky side - but she is not assaulting him. He fend her off, grabbing at her neck. Remember, girls can hit boys but if boys hit back, then the boy is at fault. So he is the aggressor even though it's self defense.

I'll bet that's what happened.

Ralph L said...

Posted at JOM:
Kudo's to Ann Althouse.

I am in China, so her blog is censored and unavailable. I can get almost everything else but not Althouse. But what I notice from not being able to access her Blog is how important she is at pursuing this story.

I've read Byron York's take, and Legal Insurrection, but from comments all over the web it is Ann Althouse who is pursuing this Leuder's angle with a passion and pushing this important story forward. So though it may sound contradictory, from not being able to access her blogging I'm actually able to see how important her Blogging really is.

I doubt she cares much for awards, but if there is one for informative investigative reporting , she and Meade certainly deserve it for the work they've done in Wisconsin these last 6 months.

Way to go Ann. Keep it up.

Posted by: daddy | June 26, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Carol_Herman said...

punditious. Surely your joking?

The reason "P" enters the "B" office ... is that there was a meeting called. It was dealing with a matter before these esteemed justices ... who had signed onto opinions. After hearing oral arguments. And, after having their staffs type up their opinions ... Papers which are passed around between these "benched officers of the court."

If "B" didn't want "P" to come into her office, all she had to do was have the janitor tack on the Ladies Room sign on her door.

No man enters a room that has a ladies room sign tacked onto the door.

But "B" didn't do that!

If, on the other hand, there was a plot to get the majority of justices to accept a "delay" in publishing the paperwork on the opinion. That was already decided. It failed to function properly.

What we're getting now is sour grapes.

And, a fantasy revenge on a man who was attacked by a batshit crazy person. Who, in the retelling of the story left out major facts.

Given that this story has had a dramatic collapse in the press ... I'm willing to guess that it's possible the legislature can call in TUBBS. And, ask him how far along his investigation IS. And, if he has anything to report?

It's not a dead story.

It's a vampire story.

Any day now more may come of it, rather than not.

Curious George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
george said...

Everyone has already jumped on what looks to be willful bias in the choice of the word "refuted." But I guess the thing that most makes me doubt Bradley's version is that if it were true it would have been pushed much harder and it would have been released to a more credible and less credulous outlet than Lueders' outfit of J-school and NPR types. Lueders appears to have been chosen because he could be counted upon to get the narrative right and not dig too deep. Althouse didn't just throw a monkey wrench into that plan, she threw the whole monkey.

I suspect most journalists covering the story now know it is BS so there won't be the same outrage or depth of coverage there would have been otherwise. But really there should be since if the assault did not occur as originally told then what we have is a rather diabolical plot to smear a man to obtain revenge for losing a legal argument.

There seems to be a pattern in WI that the left is never punished in any significant fashion when they break the law or act in a morally unacceptable manner. Were the teachers who abandoned their classrooms and their charges ever punished? Did the doctors who openly committed fraud on video beneath the shadows of the capitol lose their licenses? Were they prosecuted for their crimes? Did anyone bother to check to see if students were intimidated or punished if they did not go along with the union position?

These are obvious things that any decent community would do and to the best of my knowledge these things have not happened in WI to any significant extent. Perhaps I have missed some of the repercussions. Hopefully so for WI's sake.

WineSlob said...

Mouth-foamer Bradley Wanted Badly
For Prosser to Lose, but Sadly
Despite Planting the Bitch Story
She Lied, She's Not Sorry
Now the Loonbag Lunges at Prosser Like a Banshee.

Reagan said...

Maybe B. Lueders should have just made up and alternative version notwithstanding any source so you could feel like it was Bradley's fault. Y'know she certainly looks like a wild-woman set to attack. He should have just run with that.

Carol_Herman said...

I don't think the screaming banshee bitch owns the high ground.

And, I don't think Loo-ders career goes anywhere on this story.

Who, exactly, steps forward to "enhance" the quotes he's got so far?

Who even believes he has any sources who were actually in the room at the time the screaming banshee left her seat with her fists flying?

Do you think Prosser ever shows up to any meeting that is called by these judicial witches?

Meanwhile, won't Shirley Abrhamson be called on her inability to keep "decorum" present? What threats can she use? So far, she's not able to steer opinion writing. That one goes to the justice, who is both part of a majority vote. And, seated the longest.

Exactly how did Abrahamson benefit from the spill of big secrets, here?

Bradley, in her leap foward out of her chair, busted the silence that should prevail among colleagues, ya know?

There's no benefit to Abrahamson when this shield drops. It's like the stall door flying off its hinges. There are very few ways you can look dignified when such a thing "happens."

What are you going to say? You were just taking a leak? Leaks happen?

Anonymous said...

Carol Herman, good lord woman, you are one odd duck.

Revenant said...

I like Carol. She's interesting to read.

Scott said...

The exchange between Althouse and Lueders shows why the law is a profession, while journalism only pretends to be one.

Paco Wové said...

"Whoever leaked the story did the court no favors..."

Indeed. It makes me wonder if they can order lunch without hair-pulling and scratching, let alone actually judging cases.

Is anything the court does not tainted by personal and/or political venom?

Roger J. said...

Can we assume that judicial temparement is not a quality that is held in high regard in Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices?

As Seven Machos noted this whole kerfluffle raises the question of appointment and confirmation rather than popular election of justices.

The prudent part of me (which operates sometimes) suggests let's wait until some formal investigation takes place, witnesses are sworn and the players names all emerge. Perhaps then (although not likely) we may know what happened.

Roger J. said...

The only real damage that occurs in this whole sordid affair is the diminution of respect for the judiciary. There will be no winners in this thing.

Pedro said...

It really gets harder to take Wisconsin seriously with each passing day. Who knew that hokey Midwestern earnestness infused with ideology could yield something so toxic and loony?

Alex said...

Thank you for the original post and now your points are very clear to understand Thanks ...
Vertical Jump Bible

Akai_Tsuki said...

Effectively, Lueders is saying, "No, I'm not crooked or corrupt. I'm stupid, lazy, and unprofessional".
liquid mineral supplementключар люлин

Khuram said...

I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.

spinre writer