Clifford’s Hired Guns Lack Integrity

Clifford sure has a habit of using unsavory people to help her.

Where does a guy turn for work after being bounced from the Center for Public Integrity on plagiarism charges?

The Center for the Lack of Integrity?

No, try Wisconsin politics - digging up dirt in the Supreme Court race.

Consider Robert Moore the opposition researcher with one huge skeleton in his own closet.

The campaign for liberal Supreme Court candidate Linda Clifford has paid $22,500 to Innovative Research Group, Moore’s Delaware operation, to ferret out damaging information on Washington County Judge Annette Ziegler, the conservative in next week’s election.

Staffers with Clifford’s campaign said this week it was news to them that Moore was asked to leave the Center for Public Integrity, a respected D.C. outfit known for investigative work and online data, after being accused of filching others’ work.

The question is what will Clifford do about it?  When her minions were caught lying to the police, she backed them up and accused the cops of lying.  Her character was tested and was found wanting.  In this case, will she just shrug and say “oh well?”

1. Her character was tested and was found wanting.  In this case, will she just shrug and say “oh well?”
   .

   Are you referring to Ziegler’s documented and continuing ethics and conflicts problem?

   You have to wonder about the money she has loaned her campaign and the loan from the bank. Nice pass through. I hope Biskupic looks for the lint in her navel on this. That should be fun!

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 0858 hrs




2. But there was no problem when Dr. Millionaire loaned his campaign loads of money??  Why of course not - he is a Dem and as we know everything is OK if they do it and everything is kosher!

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 0924 hrs




3. So, contest seems to be between unethical “dumb” and “ethical” dumber.
   
   I’m going with unethical “dumb” - one can easily make changes in behavior (especially when someone is watching), but becoming more intelligent is a pretty big ship to turn around in a hurry.

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1102 hrs




4. "When her minions were caught lying to the police she backed them up and accused the police of lying”.  scummy.  But replace “her minions” with “Gonzales”, “police” with “DOJ”, and “lying” with “conducting a witchhunt” and you have a wonderful parallel.

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1124 hrs




5. I’m going on looks alone.  Ziegler is a fabulous babe.  Clifford?  Well...to quote Austin Powers: “That’s a man, baby!”

   It’s time to restore some cheesecake to the high Court.  And before you whiny liberals ask the question, I’ll give you the answer: Yes, I am superfical jerk.

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1124 hrs




6. I’m going with unethical “dumb”

   Guess that would include not disclosing WHEDA’s own ties to the bank in West Bend, Huh?

   Kind of makes for an unethical dumb and dumber.

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1135 hrs




7. But there was no problem when Dr. Millionaire loaned his campaign loads of money??

   Yep HE loaned HIS campaign money.

   Ziegler borrowed money from the BANK she did not disclose a conflict of interest with and seems like she might have used it to finance her campaign.

   Should make for an interesting ethics case for the Judicial Review Commission.

   Have we ever had a Supreme Court Justice in Wisconsin impeached?

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1202 hrs




8. Mr. Pelican Pants ,

   Thank you for saying what I have been thinking!

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1303 hrs




9. Look to keep this on a high level. But…

   First, the Supreme Court race is not some Donald Trump beauty contest. That post is damn bizarre.

   Second, in looks and wound tight attitude Ziegler reminds me of Ohio member of Congress Mean Jean Schmidt. Ziegler’s bun on her head looks pulled so tight you’d think it will rip her face open.

   Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1317 hrs




10. Perhaps.  But Clifford has a messed up grill.  

    It would be nice, for a change, to see a little eye-candy on the bench.  Prosser just doesn’t do it for me anymore.

    Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1342 hrs




11. "Guess that would include not disclosing WHEDA’s own ties to the bank in West Bend, Huh? “

    Duh! - West Bend Savings Bank and damn near every other bank in Washington County - Associated, US Bank, JP Morgan, M & I, Horicon, National Exchange, to name a few, are all on the list of WHEDA lenders.  Making home loans - it’s kind of like what banks do. 

    Maybe Robert Moore can do some opposition research and find out that Ziegler picked up a free refrigerator magnet at the County Fair from one of those banks, and then you’ll have more ethics violations to pitch - run some ads based on that.  I doubt that Ziegler has any opposition research going on to see where Clifford gets her refrigerator magnets from.

    http://www.wheda.com/lenderlist/

    Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1351 hrs




12. Txme,

    Anything of a more personal nature you’d like to disclose?

    Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1402 hrs




13. Meanwhile back at the trial lawyers association talk is of ever evolving constitutions and ignoring legislation for personal gain.  Clifford has no conflicts of interest.  If she did the WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL would point them out.

    Posted by mickey on March 28, 2007 at 1501 hrs




14. Why doesn’t the WSJ have to provide a disclaimer similiar to the one that is being demanded of Boots and Sabers?  It’s pretty obvious the paper is nothing more than a propaganda machine for Clifford.

    Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1512 hrs




15. Mr P.P.  I guess you haven’t heard.  Liberals don’t believe in laws.  Laws ‘EVOLVE” with the wind and whim of libs.  You see the WISCONSIN STATE URINAL doesn’t have to comply the law with regards to shilling for liberal clowns, has EVOLVED and DISSOLVED.

    Posted by mickey on March 28, 2007 at 1618 hrs




16. And apparently, not only to they not believe in laws, they also don’t believe in showering, dental hygiene, make-up, hair products, deodorant, lip gloss, teeth whitening products, visiting the dentist on a regular basis, skin care products, decent haircuts, stylish clothing, or general day to day grooming habits.

    Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1628 hrs




17. Well, pjr, you have a big bug up your butt about West Bend Bank. Name for us one person who was harmed by a Ziegler ruling in favor of the bank. If what she did was so unethical there must have been someone harmed, right?

    TW - evidence - which is funny considering we are talking about routine filings here.

    Posted by triticale on March 28, 2007 at 1632 hrs




18. you really wanna see a lack of integrity?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePqzIrR-ao

    Posted by on March 28, 2007 at 1656 hrs




19. Name for us one person who was harmed by a Ziegler ruling in favor of the bank. If what she did was so unethical there must have been someone harmed, right?

    tri,

    1) this would seem a strange measure to apply in defending the clear lapses of integrity and breaches of the public trust by the candidate and voiced by her supporters, who I think would characterize themselves as “rule of law” and/or “law and order” types. I’ll have to try that defense (Gee Officer, I wasn’t hurting anybody) the next time I get a speeding ticket.

    2) in theory anyone who was not given the opportunity to weigh this information (her conflict) in making any decision relative to the filing/case was directly harmed. Indirectly the perception of fairness relative to the judiciary and the court system has suffered harm in the form of a dimunition of the public trust.

    And no, I have no particular axe to grind with West Bend Bank, I don’t think they were under any obligation to reveal the conflict, they were just the beneficiary of it.

    Posted by on March 29, 2007 at 0232 hrs




20. pjr,
    You are such a dumba##.  Sure tri could have used a better phrase to make their point, such as “How did she actually gain from the pro-bank rulings?” Your answer was stupid on multiple levels, what does a speeding ticket, a clear violation of the law, have to do with an ethics issue?  And by the way, the rationale of a speeding ticket is that you are going faster than is safe so you are endangering(potential HARM) other users of the road.  The point of his issue that you libs so(in this case) ineptly try to gloss over is that the bulk of these “ethics violations” were UNDISPUTED DEFAULTED LOANS.  Do you have a clue what that means?  You, me, Barney the purple Dinosaur, and every other stable minded person in the USA would have ruled in the same way.  It is a rubber stamp part of her job that was so routine, it didn’t register as a possible conflict.  Ruling against any of those “violations” would/should have been subject to close scrutiny.  Defending and supporting a pathetic smear as a viable “ethics violation” just shows lack of intelligence and judgement.  It’s a wonder you can press all the pretty buttons to Blog comment in the first place.

    Posted by on March 30, 2007 at 1313 hrs




21. ineptly try to gloss over is that the bulk of these “ethics violations” were UNDISPUTED DEFAULTED LOANS.

    Gee, I’m guessing that UNDISPUTED part happens after the conflict notification is supposed to go out? Hmmm!

    And as a court appointed reciever I am a little bit familar with the process dimwit.

    Well at least we know that ethics doeasn’t mean squat to you but it does to me.

    If it was no big deal then why didn’t she just notify the parties? Lazy? Another great quality for a Supreme Court Justice if you are one of her handlers and want to spoon feed her the opinions.

    How did she actually gain from the pro-bank rulings?

    Gee whiz, you mean her husband served on the board for free?

    Talk about pathetic. Look in the mirror

    Posted by on March 30, 2007 at 1333 hrs




22. Actually, the undisputed part comes from no defendant showing up on the court date.  So you are saying these violations were vs. two parties in front of her bench and they were not primarily a clear cut loan default?  That the bank was trying and (if a violation did occcur) did bilk innocent loan paying law abiding citizens out of their property?  Because if that were true I would be against her taking office.  The above has not been presented as fact.  Honestly I believe that if it were, the political machine would be far more along on its campaign for Clifford.  But you have information that the rest of us until now didn’t and you haven’t shared it with the Clifford campaign?  You seem pro Clifford.  I am saying that most of the cases presented as violations, did not have a defendant present when ruled upon and while she could have told both parties say, by letter, there was no defendant to tell at the court date.  What are you saying? (Hint look up at least one court record before responding.) I do care about ethics, if you are right and I am wrong, you may swing a vote.

    Posted by on March 30, 2007 at 1456 hrs




23. Tuergas,

    got to run for now check back later.

    Posted by on March 30, 2007 at 1519 hrs




24. Cool.
    And I apologize for the name calling.  I hope you can come up with accurate info, good or bad for either campaign.

    Posted by on March 30, 2007 at 1523 hrs




25. To finish defending my statements before I was so rudely interrupted by work, I asked how did she actually gain?  What I meant was, unless the bank was kicking back money to her for “favorable” rulings or to her husband for influencing a judge, I am pretty sure he while he was/is compensated for sitting on the board, I am also fairly certain he wasn’t/isn’t working on commission.  Besides that, the rulings the bank received would more likely get him fired.  My wife has been working at the lending center of her bank for quite a while and every bank would MUCH rather work with someone to pay back missed payments, refinance, change the payment schedule, anything to get them to continue paying interest.  The bank LOSES money on virtually every default.  I don’t think of myself as either a dimwit or pathetic, but I guess info like stated is not readily available to everyone so just like the fact that you a court receiver, I was working on information that you and others may not have.  The banking world is not like “It’s a Wonderful Life”.  Interest is where a bank makes money, not property.

    Posted by on April 02, 2007 at 0843 hrs




26. Tuergas,

    the delay was not mean tas a dodge just to busy with work and home.

    My main beef with Ziegler is the child predator stuff and has been long before it was in the news and part of the crap that passes for a political campaign these days. Check my posts from late January and early February on this.

    For me the ethical stuff just reinforces someone who exhibits poor judgement. That is not a quality that I look for in a Supreme Court Justice. I would prefer someone who is tedious and anal in their decision making process.

    It’s not my fault that whoever decided that Ziegler was a viable candidate did not do their homework and sort out all of her problems beforehand and address them at the beginning of her candidacy rather that making excuses for them after they were brought to light.

    The following link is compliments of Jessica Mcbride;

    http://www.factcheck.org/article480.html

    I don’t necessarily want to change your mind, I just advocate for informed choice.

    Posted by on April 02, 2007 at 2358 hrs




27. Thank you, I agree completely.  I think in the end, neither of these people are ogres in any way.  The full story of the child molester is interesting indeed.  She was very “liberal” in her decision in my opinion.  Only one year in prison IF you admit guilt and complete a rehabilitation.  That is treating the crime as a mental sickness.  If it is, admitting the problem is the first step and she read him right with her punishment.  He wouldn’t admit guilt, therefore treatment is useless, and he spends twenty years in jail.  It was the supreme court that bailed the sex offender out, a decision I guess I don’t agree with.  In the end, it still comes down to activist vs. constitutionally conservative judging.  I think activist judging is not only unconstitutional, it gives the power in to the hands of a person who does not represent any of the public.  I still don’t understand why Dems push so hard for them either.  With the majority in Congress, it is their policies that are going to changed or corrected without notice at this point.  Ajudge has no right to overrule any bill/law unless it pertains to constitutionality.  It has no right to amend or add to any bill...at all.  They have no right to force a state or county or country to spend more on education raise or lower taxes.  That is the sort of thing they are currently doing in other states.  It wouldn’t matter if they were doing what is closest to my heart and ordering the dissolusion of dozens of unnecessary, wastefully redundant Government departments, and revoking million dollar pension plans for city officials, it is not their right!  I would vote against them even as I cheered them on.

    Posted by on April 03, 2007 at 0946 hrs