Lesson Learned
By Mitch Berg
Over the weekend, the usual pack of Sorosbloggers and Trotskytweeps came out with a “story” – that recently-re-elected Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge David Prosser had “choked” one of his fellow justices. The “progressives” were in high dudgeon, which is about the only kind of dudgeon any of them can do.
Having read a lot of lefty alt-media, I thought I’d defer my judgment, based on two key rules one must follow when appraising the leftymedia:
- Everything they say is a crock of s**t until proven otherwise, and it is rarely proven otherwise. I know – that sounds harsh. But on “story” after “story” after “story”, it’s proven true. If a leftyblogger writes it, distrust and then verify. You will almost invariably end up distrusting some more.
- Remember Berg’s Seventh Law, which for those of you who don’t remember, reads “When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds”.
So what about the allegations against Prosser?
What do you think?
To be fair, there are competing stories; Justice Bradley (one of the court’s stable of liberals) claimes Prosser attacked her; other witnesses disagree (emphasis added):
…the justices were arguing over the timing of the release of the opinion, which legislative leaders had insisted they needed by June 14 because of their work on the state budget. As the justices discussed the case, Abrahamson said she didn’t know whether the decision would come out this month, the source said.
At that point, Prosser said he’d lost all confidence in her leadership. Bradley then came across the room “with fists up,” the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back.
Bradley then said she had been choked, according to the source. Another justice – the source wouldn’t say who – responded, “You were not choked.”
In an interview, Bradley said: “You can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that’s only spin.
“Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren’t resolved by competing press releases. I’m confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace.”
Ann Althouse owns this story among the blogs so far. She says:
I’m reading the Journal Sentinel’s account as referring to 3 — not 2 — sources, with 2 of the 3 versions portraying Bradley as the aggressor: “the source… another source… [a]nother source….”
I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.
So far, if I had to speculate (and that’s what I’m doing), it looks like Bradley threw a shrieking fit and hauled off on Prosser, then dried to engineer a press hit against Prosser, and cry “abuse!” like some feckless Jerry Springer guest when busted.
I could be wrong.
But I’m feeling pretty comfy with that interpretation of the events so far.
June 27th, 2011 at 11:46 am
I wrote a post about this case earlier today. I suspect your version of events is correct. Bradley is actually in a lot of trouble, because if her allegations are true, Prosser has to go. But if her version is false, she has to go.
June 27th, 2011 at 11:51 am
As I shared on Mr. D’s post, this gives new meaning to the words, “Activist Judiciary.”
June 27th, 2011 at 11:55 am
I’ve been too busy to read SitD as often as I’d like, but this caught my attention this morning, over my second cuppa.
Having been off at dog shows over the past four days, I’d missed this, and am still playing catch-up. The only version of these events I’d previously read (whether left right or center in origin) had Prosser apologizing for using highly inappropriate and abusive language, to which he himself has admitted on several occasions in referring to this event.
I’ll fact check this as well, when I get caught up on other topics. In the meantime, Mitch, when you write:
Having read a lot of lefty alt-media, I thought I’d defer my judgment, based on two key rules one must follow when appraising the leftymedia:
1.Everything they say is a crock of s**t until proven otherwise, and it is rarely proven otherwise. I know – that sounds harsh. But on “story” after “story” after “story”, it’s proven true. If a leftyblogger writes it, distrust and then verify. You will almost invariably end up distrusting some more.
Given your personal track record for posting stories which prove not to be true – the snow plow slowdown that didn’t happen in NYC, the 103 dinkytown ballots story that didn’t happen, the repeated claims of disabled voter fraud in Crow Wing county where the big break in news that you keep promising is always refuted by investigations, the claim of democratic felon voting altering the outcome of elections……and beyond you personally failing to report accurate stories or a subsequent correction and update, that also applies pretty much to any story that you see on Fox News or other right wing media.
I laughed out loud at Jon Stewart holding Fox accountable for a lengthy laundry list of stories that failed fact checking recently:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/jon-stewart-fox-news-politifact_n_881998.html
There are the occasional exceptions, but they are few and far between.
I’ll post back here when I work down my to-do list to this item, and we can compare our fact checking. I’m looking forward to see if you multi-source for a change in your fact checking, unlike your usual.
Unlike you and the Mitchketeers, I like to look at a variety of sources, and rate them on how factual what they report is, not on how well I agree with their political slant.
If a right wing source accurately reports something, I don’t mind giving them credit for it. If it turns out that Prosser is being unfairly accused, I’ll join you in calling them on it… and look forward to your correcting or updating your own erroneous stories before you fault others.
In that context, I have to laugh, particularly at the number of faked voter fraud stories you’ve posted, that claim democrats systematically alter the outcome of elections through voter fraud, a right wing urban myth unsupported by any facts. At the same time, you seem to blythely ignore the instances of voter suppression by the right, as documented by these recent indictments of Republicans:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/06/right-wing-racism-voter-suppression-and.html
I have no problem with you complaining about inaccuracy on the left, or the center for that matter, Mitch, if you apply the same standards to the right – but I don’t think you do.
June 27th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Oops, I was confusing the earlier episode where Prosser apparently lost his self control verbally, against Chief Justice Abrahamson, to which he admitted, with this more recent accusation.
While Prosser is insisting an investigation will prove “anonymous claims made to the media will be proven false”.
He is not actually so far denying the accusation made by Justice Bradley, which is not anonymous.
If I recall correctly the incident with Chief Justice Abrahamson, Prosser also initially denied that occurred in a similar staement, prior to admitting it and apologizing. On that basis, I’m not as confident as Mitch that this judicial investigation will vindicate Prosser. It may however also find fault with aspects of Justice Bradley’s conduct, unlike the situation with Chief Justice Abrahamson.
I think I will also see if Justice Prosser’s conflicts with fellow Supreme Court Justices are exclusively with women Justices, or if he has had conflicts with male Justices as well. So far a brief check hasn’t turned up a pattern of the female justices having other conflicts like this with anyone else, but I’m not finished with that check yet.
June 27th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Dog,
You’d have plenty more time to read if you spent less time flailing your fingers on your keyboard.
…and if you spent more time editing your comments.
…and if you stuck to the point.
June 27th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I liked what Mr. D said today on his site. If what Bradley says is true, she needs to file a police report. If she does not, then we know her story is false, because she knows that if a few Justices contradict her, she’s a perjurer.
And Doggone, I seem to remember our host posting stories from the news media. If they turned out to be false, I think that applies more to the ability of journalists than our host, and I note as well that the sources you link are to yourself or to transparently leftist sources.
Kinda like the “anonymous sources” that started this whole SNAFU.
June 27th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
“If a right wing source accurately reports something, I don’t mind giving them credit for it.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….Doggie, you are such a laugh riot! Hey, can you tell me the one about the Three Bears next? Or maybe Jack and the Beanstalk? If you’re spinnin’ fantasy tales today, I’d like to hear a few more!
June 27th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
When I was reading the post I thought to myself, this is going to elicit another Dog Gone, off topic rant. I do so love being right.
Doggie, do you ever get tired of defending leftist scumbags? (That was a rhetorical question. And an indictment.)
June 27th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Hey Foot, I know you favor “tl;dr” but what’s the abbreviation for: “Tried to read but got lost in the BS and gave up”?
June 27th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
“The 103 Dinkytown ballots story that didn’t happen.” Hard to know what that refers to, exactly. It was widely reported that the Emmer campaign objected to 103 ballots in Dinkytown. It was widely reported that the Dinkytown recount was off by 130-odd because an envelope of ballots went missing.
None of that happened? Then why did you write so many columns about it on Penigma, Dog? Something happened, it must have.
Somedays it seems as if I live in a parallel universe where only I have a memory, everyone else is an amnesiac.
.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Nate, I’ve been paying attention. Both Mark Dayton and Al Franken are illegitimate. I don’t care how much bogus “FACT CHECKING” gets done in the name of partisan politics. If these assholes were so confident they would not be fighting voter ID like their illegitimate candidates sinecure depends on it.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
uh Chihuahua…. Jon Stewart acknowledges that he is a clown and not a news source.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
If Justice Bradley’s telling the truth, then she should file a police report (like she almost did when Justice Prosser allegedly called the Chief Justice a “b****” and said he’d “destroy her”). If words are enough to consider going to the police (and in some cases they may be), then an unprovoked physical attack in the workplace ought to be a no-brainer.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“what’s the abbreviation for: “Tried to read but got lost in the BS and gave up”?”
D.G.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Given your personal track record for posting stories which prove not to be true…
Well, let’s stop right there. I’ve posted a few “stories” I’d heard that turned out not to check out. Very, very few. And fewer than you think, since many of the stories you claim ‘aren’t true” turn out to be “still in doubt”.
In the meantime, DG, last week or the week before I posted in this space a partial list, going back about a year, of all the things you’d posted – many of them ironically entitled “FACT CHECKS” – which turned out to be wrong. So I think it’s you with the “track record”. Might wanna tighten up the “fact checking…”
…or be a little less self-indulgent with your choices in sources.
Hint: “the truth” isn’t another term for “wherever Kos, Common Cause, ThinkProgress or CAP leave off on a topic. I know, I know – you say “Kos reads me more than I read Kos”, but given that your “conclusions” seem to mirror the Sorosphere’s collective conclusions pretty much without exception, it’s not hard to see where we’d figure you’ve got your fingers crossed on that.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
the repeated claims of disabled voter fraud in Crow Wing county where the big break in news that you keep promising is always refuted by investigations
Nothing’s been “refuted” at all. As Crow Wing County Attorney Ryan himself told me, merely not confirmed to a degree that he believed violated the law, after a very incomplete, downright bizarre “investigation” by the Crow Wing County Sheriff (partly run by a deputy that’s apparently left the force suddenly) and an “investigation” by KSAX TV that was spotty even by local TV standards.
Sorry, DG. Followed up with Al Steen lately? This is just getting better and better.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I’ll post back here when I work down my to-do list to this item
Er, OK. You go ahead and do that.
My money is on “DG arrives with the “fact check” right after Ann Althouse delivers the smoking gun that gets Bradley impeached. DG will call Althouse a blonde popsy”.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Loren wrote:
“Jon Stewart acknowledges that he is a clown and not a news source.”
Conservative bloggers don’t quote Limbaugh as much as liberal bloggers quote fake newsman Jon Stewart. Conservative pundits & bloggers ignore people like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Hannity unless they make news.
The first warning sign should be that you take the political opinions of people like Stewart seriously.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I remember that KSAX story:
“Did you do anything illegal?”
“No.”
“Well, that’s settled!”
June 27th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Dog Gone: “Read my blog. I’m the new Eva Young.”
June 27th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
uh Chihuahua…. Jon Stewart acknowledges that he is a clown and not a news source.
The key point there was that the only defense Stewart could make to the evidence Wallace brought up linking him as strongly partisan was to claim that he never claimed to be unbiased.
Strangely enough, Steven Crowder got direct proof from a Stewart & company email that Stewart won’t book conservative pundits.
So, D.G. anyone claiming Stewart as a source of anything other than propaganda had better FACT CHECK themselves.
June 27th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
D.G., Mitch, it looks like we’ve got a really interesting situation going on now. It seems that law enforcement and the bar are both getting involved according the the MJS.
So, we have Bradley who’s been known to get histrionic when Abrahamson’s been insulted and Prosser who’s been known to fling vulgarities around about Abrahamson being investigated. This could get VERY interesting. At least one of the two justices will be under a great deal of pressure to resign. If this had been a private meeting it could have been brushed away with a he-said/she-said result, but there were enough witnesses that that’s an unlikely result now.
Let’s see if Bradley can say that she isn’t completely certain who the first one who approached the other was.
Any way you cut this, it reflects very poorly on Abrahamson to run a court with this kind of behavior going on.
June 27th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Wrap your brain around the wonder that is the WaPo Fact-Checker in chief, Michael Dobbs:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/is_obama_guilty_of_infanticide.html
See if you can figure out his reasoning behind his decision to give Palin two “Pinochios” for saying that Obama voted against requiring that an abortion provider work to save the life of a fetus that was delivered alive, when indeed Dobbs confirms that Obama voted against a bill that would require an abortion provider to work to save the life of a fetus that was born alive.
June 27th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Ann Althouse also includes this bit of wonderful analysis.
From the link above:
ADDED: Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign. If that happens, then the tactic of leaking the original version of the story to the press will have backfired horrifically for Democrats, as Governor Scott Walker will name the Justice to replace Bradley. If both Justices erred and must resign, that will be 2 appointments for Walker, both of whom, I would imagine, will be stronger, younger, and more conservative than Prosser, and, with Bradley gone, the liberal faction on the court will be reduced to 2, against a conservative majority of 5.
Terry, the justification for Obama voting against that bill is “that law already existed on the books and he didn’t think another was needed”
Of course, that train of thought doesn’t apply to the 23,000 redundant gun control laws on the books…
June 28th, 2011 at 5:55 am
Mitch, I propose another Berg’s Law: Liberal is Violent.
Bradley is a Liberal who didn’t get her way, lost her temper, and attacked her colleague who either (1) held out his hands to push her away or (2) threw her in a half-Nelson and took her to the mat, depending on who you believe. Well, that’s what a “choke-hold” means to me. If what actually happened was that he put his hands on her collarbones stiff-armed to hold her back, then she’s doing violence to the English language which, as a lawyer and professional word-smith, she cannot have done accidentally but intentionally, after the fact.
It seems to follow a pattern, lately. When Liberals don’t get their way, they turn violent against businesses, laboratories, bank executives, legislators, now Supreme Court justices. Liberals also commit almost all the hate crimes such as nooses on campus, as false-flag operations hoping to stir up hatred against Conservatives.
The scientific way to test a proposed Law of Nature is to use it over time, with many examples. In this case, I will bet a shiny new nickel the facts ultimately will show that the Liberal started the physical violence and escalated it to verbal violence.
I fully expect de-bunkers and deniers to ‘fact-check’ this theorum by mis-applying historical examples; but we can safely ignore those examples as they were not carefully scrutinized by you as they occurred. We’ll just have to apply the facts to this proposed law as events occur, to test its validity.
Would that be Berg’s 8th Law?
.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:02 am
Nate,
I’ve pondered this. But it’s close to, and I think covered by, Berg’s Seventh:
“When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds.”
I think it applies, and in fact covers your scenario.
“
June 28th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Dog Gone says: “I’ll post back here when I work down my to-do list to this item……..”
Buy gin and Kool aid, mix gin with Kool aid, consume mixture, repeat, repeat, repeat.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Buy gin and Kool aid, mix gin with Kool aid, consume mixture, repeat, repeat, repeat.
Write scathing blog expose’ of fraudulent conservative charges of fraudulent Democrat voter fraud. Fraudulently.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Dog runs away from comment sections even faster than she jumps in the very same comment section with off-topic discussion in the first place.
August 26th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
[…] will no doubt hope you don’t. I’ll refresh everyone’s memory here and […]