already a subscriber? Register me
Subscribe now See my options


  • We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
Comment threads per page: 10 | 20 | 50
  1. Brice please explain further that individual state prosecutors that are not under Chilsholm's supervision do have wide prosecutorial discretion. They can investigate cases without the approval or knowledge of Chilshom.

    The public office of the elected Milwaukee District Attorney doesn't have the same powers as state prosecutors.

    Individual prosecutors can throw the elected county DAs under the political bus doing their own thing. The law supports them on that front.

    When state prosecutors led by a Milw DA prosecutor pushed to be state rather than county employees it undermined the authority of the elected county DAs to control hiring and firing of their prosecutorial staff. This effort was not about cost control or provide better court services to victims or oversight on offenders. It was a political power play. State prosecutors created jobs for themselves with little managerial oversight to have the freedom of private practice without the liability, cost of insurance and overhead with the guarantee of a steady paycheck.

    Chilsholm needs to be judged under the light of reality that he can not by law control his prosecutor staff to hire and fire. Too many state prosecutors not just in Milwaukee are fighting in criminal cases for their own self promotion rather than the law.

    We are not seeing it that this was opportunity to throw Chilsholm under the political bus.

    Once a plea bargain is entered into the court record, it usually cannot be rescinded by either party. So why was Feiss attempting to redo a plea bargain without the knowledge of then DA McCann? These folks do whatever they want and especially in Milwaukee feel they also can exploit any case to legislate without having to bother to be elected to office.
  2. The political coup d'état is revealed a little at a time. Prosecutors would of been in a prime position if they had goods on Walker or other county staff. I believe the John Doe is case no 2010JD000008.

    The contra coup d'état is also revealed a little at a time. Hypothetical if not one but two people had the playbook of the potential political marketing plan both could of profited. If for example one had to defend themselves against false allegations its reasonable the prosecutor got a copy of that playbook. I

    Profits and celebrity status for a prosecutor that won a landmark conviction for Walker would of been huge. The fame monster.

    How do you know who the good guys are anymore?
  3. Could Bice please tell us what is happening at the federal level?
    Hide replies
  4. Why did the former prosecutor fell he had to ask Abele's permission to report a possible crime?

    The county workers are for the most part all long term employees that know each other well. Walker shook up the apple cart. Workers that have little job experience outside the county and government were reasonably upset. Change is a very hard process with the county.

    Things boiled over with the different camps. Everyone was going to do it their way. Bully if someone was going to tell them to change.

    Milwaukee DA enjoyed decades of total domination and no one questioned their staff. McCann was vicious protecting the gates. He rejected every new idea and went by his old Milwaukee thinking. That is why he didn't believe the deaf boys. Something like that never happened before.

    Chisholm was a new program and Walker was seen as upsetting the apple cart. I am shocked to be real about it that Chisholm lasted as long as he has with cutting edge ideas like restorative justice.

    Don't get the county people wrong. Many are very good workers and do a good job often under alot of pressure. They are good people at heart. Put them all together and somehow it stops working. This is why decades ago the DA should of been pulled out of the courthouse to let the workers not feel that intimidation pressure. The channel of command in the DA has to be made very clear and supported by law. Every department needs the same thing.

    County is James Bond without the cool car.
    Hide replies
    • Sorry. DA Chisholm is about as ethical as you can get. A straight-shooter who doesn't suffer fools gladly. If Walker is guilty of misconduct or criminal activity, he should be very, very worried.
    • Chisholm inherits the baggage of many cases that shape the community viewpoint.

      Chisholm is avoiding taking on the task to investigate David Feiss over issues in the Jane Doe case that go to a campaign contribution.

      in 2002, Broydrick “remembers that when Chuck Chvala ran the state Senate, campaign cash sealed a deal,” according to the Milwaukee Journal.

      Broydrick was the major contributor to the Feiss campaign. Feiss prosecuted Chvala. The campaign contribution wasn't disclosed. Its Feiss was suspected of skewing charges and sentencing against women. Come on now, Chilsholm has investigated one of his own. Ethical for who and when?
  5. Governor Walker will ultimately be exposed as a cheater and a liar-just like Lance Armstrong was.
    Hide replies
  6. Bice needs to get over his fixation with Walker. There is so much going on in Milwaukee, I am sure he could find some current events to cover.

    "The governor cooperated, just as he said he has cooperated in the investigation," Landgraf said.

    Time to move on.
    Hide replies
  7. Nothing has happened since the recall? Go figure...
  8. In the past its on record at least twice that the Milwaukee DA did not pursue indictments against government employees during employment hours that solicited or accepted funds. One incident the JS documented involved a judge that used the county mail system to campaign. The second involved two government employees suspected of giving/receiving a campaign donation in the office of the Milw DA.

    When a low standard of adherence to the campaign laws is demonstrated by a judge, judicial candidate and a prosecutor we can't blame it all on Walker.

    It all has to be addressed with the same quality of intent no matter who was involved. What was suspected in the campaign money exchange in the Milw DA office was two prosecutors were involved.

    Everyone wants to the rule the world. Today as winning campaigns takes more dollars and are driven by issue ads with more open records not acknowledging the wrongdoing opens the door for the issue ad politics. Even worse wrongdoing by prosecutors not publicly acknowledged could be used in the backwaters to get better plea deals. How would we know? There is no requirement that prosecutors determine plea bargain offers by any set standards. This is why we can look through any number of cases charged under the same statue and see vast differences in sentencing.

    To indict someone for asking the question of who knew about campaign donations suspected of taking place in the Milw DA office was wrong. That was the abuse of public office, threat and intimidation running the law. Taking that case before a judge as one of the two people suspected to be involved was freakish. What happened there was the gotcha where the prosecutor wanted to alter a plea bargain to reflect knowledge of their wrongdoing. The fact the alleged victim on record to appearing at every event suddenly is absent was telltale on what was really going on.

    What would of happened when the next defendant found out, the next after that?
  9. Hopefully the guv realized he can't BS the DA like he BS'ed the people of Wisconsin.
  10. The bottomline folks is Walker does have public support and did win the recall despite this John Doe investigation.

    The use of prosecutors to change possible election outcomes is straight out of the OK Corral. Its not just a one side thing to say Republicans or Democrats see this as acceptable. Both parties have these types in their fold.

    No matter how the law is shaped there is no way every government official and manager can police all their workers to enforce no campaigning on the job. If you make the penalty so high to felonize it the process only goes underground with secret emails.

    Private sector employees would not be subject to the rule they can't campaign on company time. Many companies support their employees campaigning.

    Is it worth it to have government workers where they come with so many rules, more risk liability when they do wrong?
    Hide replies


See all Journal Sentinel Twitter feeds