Stuart Taylor quotes his unnamed source as saying "it was surprising how almost hyper-partisan [Chisholm] became." And:Now, we have the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Daniel Bice purporting to reveal Taylor's source as a former police officer and current criminal defense attorney, who worked as an "unpaid special prosecutor for 5 1/2 months in the county office in 2011 [and] spent most of his time filling out grant applications for the community prosecution program."
Chisholm “had almost like an anti-Walker cabal of people in his office who were just fanatical about union activities and unionizing. And a lot of them went up and protested. They hung those blue fists on their office walls [to show solidarity with union protestors] … At the same time, if you had some opposing viewpoints that you wished to express, it was absolutely not allowed.”
Bice reports many severely negative things about this man, and you will have to go over there to read them, but I'll just say that Taylor's lurid picture of Chisholm's office is undermined. Maybe Bice is wrong about the source, but if Taylor can't reveal that the source is someone else or get corroboration, the "anti-Walker cabal" story amounts to just about nothing.
Bice corresponded with Taylor, who still isn't revealing his source and who concedes that he "did not get further confirmation on the blue fist signs."
"I was not aware of anyone else in Mr. Chisholm's office who would have been at all likely to confirm my source's so-far-as-I-know uncontested recollections of what he saw," Taylor said.It's not just that the source (as revealed by Bice) seems pretty untrustworthy. What bothers me most here is that Taylor would pass him off as a "longtime Chisholm subordinate" and "former staff prosecutor in Chisholm’s office" if he was a short-time, unpaid, paper-shuffler. Taylor needs to weigh in.
ADDED: Can't Taylor at least say it's not that guy? And if he can and he doesn't, must we not think that Bice got it right?
Posts
76 comments:
"Maybe Bice is wrong about the source, but if Taylor can't reveal that the source is someone else or get corroboration, the "anti-Walker cabal" story amounts to just about nothing."
It always amounted to nothing. In this environment you have to mistrust most single sources, identified or unidentified. Too many axes a-grinding.
People were so eager to jump on this train.
Didn't the Wall Street Journal reference and run with this story?
A lot of egg on the face from this hit piece. It was so clearly a hit piece it saddens me how many people took this without question, it seemed to have truthiness so they never actually thought it through.
How have Bice and the Journal been on this story before now? Unbiased and informative or partisan and misleading. It's an American newspaper so I probably don't have to ask, but I'm asking...
Prepare for the assault on Dan Bice. Don't like the story, yell squirrel and attack the source.
So predictable. Almost like what happened to a DA's family this week.
The sordid and byzantine machinations of Wisc. politics never ceases to amaze me.
"It always amounted to nothing. In this environment you have to mistrust most single sources, identified or unidentified. Too many axes a-grinding."
It meant something to me because I have respected Stuart Taylor Jr. for many years. I trusted him to have a credible source.
@garage Email me if you don't understand why I deleted that.
Taylor was probably under heavy pressure and his source may still be in that office but undercover. Taylor leans fairly left politically. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats discredit this story.
He should've called him a "thug":
Then he'd have the right to kill him,...
Could this just be an attempt to pressure Taylor into revealing his source? Or to pressure Taylor's source into self-revealing?
You say you "trusted" Taylor. What information in Bice's story put your trust in the past tense? Does Bice have known reliable sources?
Or, to phrase it slightly differently, are Bice and his "sources" any different than Obama ever was?
Trust, but verify.
Taylor needs to start talking.
'Chisholm could destroy me' is likely true if you have phoned in death threats to Chisholm while admittedly drunk.
Do we expect Stuart Taylor to reveal his source? I don't think so.
Did you honestly believe that line about blue fist images being displayed around the DA's office?
Honestly, you did?
Why believe Bice rather than Stuart Taylor? Would Stuart Taylor a longtime left leaning serious journalist be that careless or reckless?
The reporter Bice is, over time, becoming part of the story. He has never lacked for "insider" information and is consistently and virulently anti Walker. A few weeks back when one of the courts' document releases "inadvertently" contained extra material that cast Walker allies in a bad light. Bice's paper almost instantaneously published stories highlighting this material. Bice has consistently highlighted the prosecutors' theories (criminal scheme !) in story after story while downplaying the fact that judges have ripped those theories apart.
And now when information detrimental to Chisholm is published, Bice is immediately on the case with a story whose only purpose is to damage the credibility of the (assumed) source.
It seems obvious that Bice has an anti Walker agenda and is deeply a part of the "win at all costs" rearguard action that the Democrat/Union/Progressive group is Wisconsin is waging. It is unfortunately not surprising but nonetheless regrettable that his employers continue to allow him to operate in this way. Talk about your In Kind Contribution !
I read somewhere that Walker did not want the Club for Growth to proceed with lawsuits as it would be detrimental to the current gubernatorial campaign; event have shown him to be correct. Even as the lawsuits have successfully moved forward, the drip, drip, drip of negative press from the prosecutors' unlimited store of John Doe information hurts Walker. In Wisconsin, it seems that the entrenched progressive forces will find a way for conservatives to lose even when they seem to win. It's no wonder Club for Growth is looking for Federal help, but even there it only takes one or two Holier Than Thou Clinton appointees to ruin your day.
Of course the only wrench in the progressive machinery is the pesky voters who have thrown them back in several elections. Perhaps Bice and his ilk are preaching to the choir in Madison and Milwaukee and cooler heads throughout the state will prevail once again in November.
"You say you "trusted" Taylor. What information in Bice's story put your trust in the past tense? Does Bice have known reliable sources?"
I don't feel trust right now. I think Bice has done enough to rebut my presumption that Taylor did the filtering he needed to do. That's why I ended the post saying that Taylor needed to weigh in.
And now that I think about it, the description of the prosecutor's office didn't jibe with my perception of what a professional environment would be like. That's why Taylor's story made such a big impression.
And now that I think about it, the description of the prosecutor's office didn't jibe with my perception of what a professional environment would be like. That's why Taylor's story made such a big impression.
Mr Lutz, the source, was a police officer who got injured in the lline of duty. He left the police force with a disability classified as PTSD. His partner when he got shot was Mrs. Chisholm's brother. That is how they all knew each other so well.
When he left the police force he went to law school and that is when he got the "internship" in the DA's office.
The smear campaign begins and you fell for it hook, line and sinker, Althouse. I am disgusted that someone "so smart" is so effing gullible.
Dan Bice is an awful reporter. How do you think he got all the leaks about the John Doe? He was on the DA's side, they knew it and they fed him stuff when they needed some good news.
Really, I need to reiterate - you are foolish and ignorant for not knowing the players in this whole mess since it has been going on for so long and there has been ample time to educate yourself.
IMHO
"I think Bice has done enough to rebut my presumption that Taylor did the filtering he needed to do."
Mission Accomplished by Mr. Bice.
To succeed at this, Bice has to have some credibility. At this point, my opinion is that he is an out-there partisan with no credibility.
You're writing about this Stuart Taylor, right?
He has a strong reputation with me. I've read his stuff and seen him comment on TV. Comes across as a careful, logical person.
Well, the outcome should be interesting.
"Prepare for the assault on Dan Bice... attack the source. "
I wonder whether Mark missed the irony here, or if it was intentional.
""Prepare for the assault on Dan Bice... attack the source. "
I wonder whether Mark missed the irony here, or if it was intentional."
I noticed that too, liberals have a long history of projection.
What exactly is it about the source that makes him seem untrustworthy? Ex-policeman , or current lawyer ?
Lutz is a former Milwaukee Police officer who was shot in the line of duty and is on duty disability for post traumatic stress disorder.
Daniel Bice sent an email yesterday to George Mitchell asking "How does a guy on duty disability come off as being credible? How much more do I need to know about him?"
Wow. This is the same paper where Meg Kissinger has reported extensively on issues involving mental health. Now it’s ready to disparage someone with a medically recognized condition -- one apparently caused by an incident in the line of duty.
According to Taylor, the source in Chisholm's office asked for anonymity because he feared retaliation. Those fears are now being realized. Reporters visited his family home and JS staffers threatened to publish disparaging infromation provided by Chisholm.
Try as I might, I can't find the bit where the column offers evidence to support Bice's claim that Lutz is Taylor's source, nor can I find anything to refute Taylor's source's claim that Chisholm's wife is a teacher's union steward negatively obsessed with Walker.
So what's the point other than to support Chisholm by attacking Taylor indirectly, an attack that should have no effect on thoughtful people.
I do have two questions:
1. Doesn't Walker's activity have a potential impact on Chisholm's wife's, and hence Chisholm's, income? Is that too remote to be a potential conflict of interest? If not why isn't it an issue?
2. Why doesn't the length and breadth of this investigation raise the specter of "witch hunt" in the eyes of decent people in Wisconsin? It has certainly done so in the eyes of some judges and an appellate court determination favoring Chisholm on a jurisdiction claim doesn't counter the judges' findings that he is abusing his authority.
These are just the musings of an old, retired, former Democrat prosecutor, but still ....
"That's why I ended the post saying that Taylor needed to weigh in."
Taylor can't weigh in. Bice knows it and so should you. Brice's piece is pure speculation. He counts on the fact that Taylor can't reveal his source and reinforces the source's concerns about retaliation.
Brice's story is for partisans and dupes which, I suspect, abound in Wisconsin. Chisholm is, and has been, counting on it.
"No Quarter has confirmed that the source making the allegations is ....."
I had a ghost over for dinner last night. If you don't believe me, here is his plate. LOL.
twgin said "The reporter Bice is, over time, becoming part of the story."
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has led the way in keeping the brain dead John Doe story on life support for the political advantage of Mary Burke. Dan Bice is a political partisan in what should be a neutral position, and is deceitfully using that position for partisan advantage
Wow- so if Bice has his way, anonymous sources must be found out and unmasked. Unless of course they are pushing a story that props up a librul Dem.
This paper endorsed Walker the last two elections is a partisan leftist paper? Up is down?
The pretzels you tie yourself into to believe the worst about the other side, lol
"Of course the only wrench in the progressive machinery is the pesky voters who have thrown them back in several elections. Perhaps Bice and his ilk are preaching to the choir in Madison and Milwaukee and cooler heads throughout the state will prevail once again in November."
I hope so.
"This paper endorsed Walker the last two elections is a partisan leftist paper?"
He said that? Really?
hombre, read it like a leftist.
richard mcenroe said, "How have Bice and the Journal been on this story before now? Unbiased and informative or partisan and misleading. It's an American newspaper so I probably don't have to ask, but I'm asking..."
Ignore the question; ignore the plea for enlightenment. Think like a leftist.
Also, ending a quote with "lol" is a tell. I think garage mahal does that.
Staff can mean a loose association, not necessarily an employee. You could distinguish staff attorney from line attorney, with the former to mean the paper-pushers, for example. An intern qualifies as staff.
Longtime subordinate is harder to square. Certainly there appears to be a longtime relationship, just not as a subordinate.
So Bice can only be half-right on the charge of mis-identifying the source. We don't know if the source might have worked for Chisholm or his wife before in a nonlawyer capacity.
There could be independent evidence such as pictures for office birthday parties that could prove or disprove the substance of the blue fist posters charge.
I find it hard to believe that Althouse is entertaining the possibility of distrusting Taylor, a liberal legal reporter with a multi-decade history of fair reporting, due to a assertion-filled, but actual-fact-light Bice hit-back piece.
I certainly hope she is actually drawing out thoughtful comments in response to her trolling her own blog, to put to bed the predictable partisan hackery of those like Garage, who are eager to grab onto any hope that this malicious investigation will in any way "take down" Scott Walker.
I'd hate to think she was so un-thoughful herself as to not be able to see through this MJS piece for what it is.
Trust is important. Sounds like one of those copy book aphorisms, I know, but it's true. I've read Stuart Taylor's journalism for about 20 years. I trust him, because what he's said was either confirmed by subsequent revelations, or was true based on stuff that I knew or found out to be true.
But I know nothing about what's going on in Wisconsin. I'm inclined to believe what Taylor says, because I trust him. If it's proved that he misrepresented the nature of his source, I would no longer be able to trust him.
That hasn't happened yet, of course, and perhaps it won't, but it illustrates how important it is to preserve your credibility, whether you are a reporter, a blogger, or a president. When Clinton was president we used to say that the way you knew that Clinton was lying was that his lips were moving. Now we can say the same about Mrs. Clinton, and President Obama. After awhile, you can't get your credibility back.
I hope that doesn't happen to Taylor.
How could the source be identified unless something the source said was true and uniquely communicated by Chisholm to the source? And if that's so, isn't that confirmation that the things offered by the source are accurate?
'Mark' wrote, "This paper endorsed Walker the last two elections is a partisan leftist paper? Up is down?"
What you're seeing is the difference (and disconnect) between the newspaper's management (which chooses who, if anyone, to endorse) and newsroom staff.
It's not uncommon for newsroom staff to lean quite far to the left of the paper's management. Although at some papers (e.g., the New York Times) both lean strongly to the left.
I agree with those who think this is a ploy to get Taylor to reveal his source. Of course that would doom Taylor's journalistic credibility (not to mention his personal integrity) by not keeping faith with his sources. So, even if he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, I seriously doubt that Taylor will reveal his source (By the way, I wrote an email to Taylor rebutting some of his argument on another issue, and I received a courteous and respectful response where he stood his ground. So, I personally trust him. He is not a hack.)
If Taylor denies that Bice has revealed the real source, then I think one would have to accept that, and here is why: it is not inconceivable that Bice's story is part of an attempt to uncover a leak, and this might well be without Bice's knowledge. Now, if Taylor is unwilling to make such an explicit denial, then I think you can assume Bice was correct.
Now come the obscenities, because I suggested the recall was an election.
It is a shame Althouse is no longer moderated.
Some basic basic questions. Who is "No Quarter", and is there a link to them as the source? I assumed "No Quarter" would have a website, like "The Smoking Gun" for one, but could not find it. Since Mr Bice uses them as the sole source for this information they should have been quoted or linked so we could read that for ourselves. I'm just an old boring guy, but the linking standard as been basic to internet news and one of the reasons I've grown to trust it.
Mark: "It is a shame Althouse is no longer moderated."
Hmmm, Mark offers the above in a thread where at least one comment was removed by a blog moderator long before his comment.
Mark said...
Now come the obscenities, because I suggested the recall was an election
Well, recalls are quite different than the normally scheduled governor elections so I'm simply assuming that it is not viewed in the same qualitative way as the "normal" elections.
You are technically correct though so I wouldn't spend much time debating it.
Mark,
Stamping your feet is ineffective on the internet.
You got called a name.
Suck it up, buttercup.
Mark said...
Now come the obscenities, because I suggested the recall was an election.
It is a shame Althouse is no longer moderated.
Useful AA quote:"See, whatever happens can be said to have happened for the reason you've already reasoned is the reason for whatever happens to have happened."
"Mark said...
Now come the obscenities, because I suggested the recall was an election."
No, it was because you equated Daniel Bice with the Editorial Board of the JS AND insinuated that the JS endorsed Walker in two elections. Their position was that they had just endorsed Walker and nothing had changed. See, you are a dumbfuck.
"Brice's story is for partisans and dupes which, I suspect, abound in Wisconsin. Chisholm is, and has been, counting on it."
Exactly.
If Taylor denies that Bice has revealed the real source, then I think one would have to accept that, and here is why: it is not inconceivable that Bice's story is part of an attempt to uncover a leak, and this might well be without Bice's knowledge. Now, if Taylor is unwilling to make such an explicit denial, then I think you can assume Bice was correct.
No. Because you'll likely never get that far with a savvy, experienced reporter. I worked as a journalist for around two decades, and had my share of people trying to smoke out sources. Unless for some reason the source wants to be outed, the answer always is: I can neither confirm nor deny any information about that, because it would compromise not only this source but all the other ones.
Besides, it should be pretty obvious that if you answer that question by denying X is the source, the next question is aha! Is it Y?
So you just say, everything I wanted to say about his or her identity is in the story.
They just updated that article and added this full confirmation:
"Late Friday, Richard Miniter, CEO of American Media Institute — which commissioned the story — acknowledged that Lutz was the anonymous source."
Stuart Taylor might not out his source, but the guy who paid for the article just did.
Game over.
-----Did you honestly believe that line about blue fist images being displayed around the DA's office?
In one case the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal employees who conduct politics on government time, said it was “commonplace” in a Dallas IRS office for employees to have pro-Obama screensavers on their computers, and to have campaign-style buttons and stickers at their office.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/9/dallas-irs-office-plastered-pro-obama-stickers-scr/#ixzz3DAEHlwM4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Heard the interview with Taylor today on the radio. He sounded pretty surprised that a DA with Chisolms (former) reputation would have become so partisan. He also said that he has solid evidence supporting his source's descriptions. Furthermore, he said that there is more to come … (I love it when this kind of evidence is held waiting for a local hack… undercover democrat activist to make a schmutz of himself).
BTW, I know the guy's name is Bice, not Brice. The predictive text on my iPad disagrees.
Keep tying yourself in knots trying not to acknowledge that Stuart Taylor deliberately misled readers as to his source's history.
Guy may have been a journalist once, but he is clearly a partisan hack now.
I am interested to hear how this revelation colors Althouse's take on this story. I don't think she will join you with your heads in the sand.
We'll see how this plays, despite Marks "Game over." The one thing that surely hasn't happened is an actual complete denial by that POS John Chisholm. You have to ask yourself, "Why?"
Because you can't spin a compete lie.
Make that a "complete denial that is proven a lie."
Yet you still are trying to spin Stuart Taylor's story, despite the bald faced lies contained within.
One party here is a known liar, yet you accuse the other side of being the deceitful party.
Anything to defend Walker, apparently.
"No Quarter has confirmed that the source making the allegations is a figure well-known in Milwaukee's legal community — but not for his prosecutorial record."
Do you have a source for that Daniel? Lots of quotes later from John "Speed-dial" Chisholm, but nothing outlining Bice's sources for all his information, some of which may be confidential.
While you're at it Daniel, post the sources for all your leaked John Doe stories over the last 4 years.
"Mark said...
Yet you still are trying to spin Stuart Taylor's story, despite the bald faced lies contained within."
What part of "We'll see how this plays" makes you come to that conclusion. You really are a moron. Or dishonest. Or both.
"One party here is a known liar, yet you accuse the other side of being the deceitful party."
Please show were I accuse any party of being deceitful. Again, are you stupid, a liar, or both? I simply said that Chisholm hasn't made a complete denial. That is a fact. And I surmised "why".
By the way, your premise that Stuart, or his source, are "Known liars" regarding the accusations is bullshit. It is not "known."
"Anything to defend Walker, apparently."
Defend Walker? While this may effect Walker, it doesn't involve Walker. You really are an idiot.
"Anything to defend Walker, apparently."
Says the guy who ignores the unprecedented action of the courts in tossing Chisolm's sleazy investigation and the reasons given for doing it.
This isn't about Walker. It's about Chisholm.
Of course, the real question is: Regardless of Stewart's story, why would any reasonable human being familiar with the investigation, the leaks and the court decisions fail to recognize that the investigation is a political hit by a political hack?
Arguments over Stewart's and Bice's stories just give the lefties a smokescreen to distract Wisconsin rubes from Chisholm's infamy.
Mark: "One party here is a known liar..."
So much for obama.
Hombre:
Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.
I think it was a political hit job, therefore it is. Of course the smearing of the Chisholm family on the very day of the hearing was not a hit job, no way.
Just keep drinking the Stuart Taylor kool aid.
Christopher,
Fair enough.
Mark: "Hombre: Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence."
I find it persuasive that two judges, one federal and one state, have taken the unprecedented step of halting the "investigation." I find it persuasive that after two years of disruptive and intrusive practices, no indictments have issued. I find it persuasive that the election activities of the conservative organizations have been curtailed by Chisolm's investigation during Walker's bid for reelection. I find it persuasive that Chisholm's wife is an official with the teacher's union. Etc., etc.
What do you have besides a typical Democrat's unbridled glee that an unprincipled prosecutor has been able to prejudice the election of a conservative Republican?
Probable cause? No!
Indictments? No!
Convictions? No!
These are the things by which the legitimacy of an investigation is measured.
So show us your stuff, Mr. Integrity!
Oh yeah, given the nature of the investigation, the leaks and the prosecutors' comment, is the secrecy of the proceeding to protect the targets, if there are any, or the prosecutor?
I would guess the latter. There is no obvious reason for a campaign finance investigation to be conducted secretly - particularly when it is no longer secret. LOL.
-----Did you honestly believe that line about blue fist images being displayed around the DA's office?
The chief investigator in the high-profile John Doe investigation into former Milwaukee County employees who worked for now-Governor Scott Walker has a Walker recall yard sign in his front lawn, and a pro-labor “Blue Fist” icon poster on the front door of his home. The news could call into question the present impartiality of the probe at a time when Democrat gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett and his allies have begun to use the issue as a top talking point.
David Budde is the Chief Investigator in Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm’s office, press accounts have repeatedly noted his central role in the John Doe investigation. His name appears throughout various documents relating to the probe.
http://www.mycommunitynow.com/blogs/communityblogs/152338435.html
---Prepare for the assault on Dan Bice. Don't like the story, yell squirrel and attack the source.
While follows an attack on Stuart Taylor and his possibly revealed source. Like is this a congenital inability to listen to yourself?
No decent reporter is going to respond to Bice's claims at all.
There is a finite number of people who could be the source. Every time you say "no" to someone's guess about "was it A?", you shrink that pool. making it more likely your source will be outed.
Bice must know this. In fact, I'll guess that Bice is counting on this.
Post a Comment