Adam Cohen writes:
Opponents of Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin spent $4 million on ads last year trying to link the Democratic incumbent to a state employee who was sent to jail on corruption charges. The effort failed, and Mr. Doyle was re-elected and now the state employee has been found to have been wrongly convicted. The entire affair is raising serious questions about why a United States attorney put an innocent woman in jail.
The conviction of Georgia Thompson has become part of the furor over the firing of eight United States attorneys in what seems like a political purge. While the main focus of that scandal is on why the attorneys were fired, the Thompson case raises questions about why other prosecutors kept their jobs.
Cohen implies that prosecutors kept their jobs because they brought thinly based political prosecutions like that of Georgia Thompson.
Cohen never explains that Steven Biskupic, the head of the office that prosecuted Thompson, is thought to have been targeted for firing only after Biskupic’s prosecution of Thompson had been completed.
The timing makes no sense. But Cohen shows no interest in exploring that angle. Instead, without any evidence whatever, Cohen speculates about Biskupic’s motives:
Mr. Biskupic made the creative argument that she gained by obtaining political advantage for her superiors and that in pleasing them she enhanced job security for herself. Those motivations, of course, may well describe why Mr. Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson.
Cohen describes that as “ironic indeed.” What I find ironic is that, while Cohen is willing to excoriate Biskupic for leveling serious accusations at Thompson with slim evidence, Cohen is only too happy to level accusations at Biskupic with no evidence at all.