According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the last player in the Walkergate case is his right-hand man, Tim Russell, who just reached a plea deal with prosecutors over his alleged embezzlement of funds from a veterans group.

Russell, as you might recall, is also the person who was alleged to have set up the secret email system inside the capitol so that others could conduct political business on others' time. On November 29, 2012, we are likely to discover more information about what happened, when it happened, what Scott Walker knew, and when he knew it.

But as Capper at Cognitive Dissidence is wont to say, there's always more.

Stemming from these revelations (which were really revelations to only the people that haven't been following along here), Walker was feeling enough heat that he had a press conference to discuss this and try to weasel his way out of it.What a rip snorter that turned out to be!

Walker gave us his best impression of Nixon's "I'm not a crook" line when he again denied being John Doe:

Gov. Scott Walker said Monday that coordination between his gubernatorial campaign and his Milwaukee County executive's office in 2010 was fundamentally different than the caucus scandal that shook the state Capitol a decade ago.

And he said he remains "absolutely" confident that he is not the subject of a criminal investigation involving former aides in the Milwaukee office.

For someone who is supposedly "'absolutely' confident" that he isn't John Doe, he's sure betting against himself. Walker has already funneled a third of a million dollars into his legal cooperation fund - and that's just the money we know of. It's probably a lot more now, especially after today.

And still, there's always more. As Capper notes, prosecutors were looking for Kelly Reindfleisch, who struck a deal last week, to give them information about someone in authority. She gave them very little usable information.

So the question in front of us, which might be answered in court on Thursday, is whether they were able to obtain any "usable information" about Governor Walker in exchange for a deal with Russell, who is facing far more serious charges than Reindfleisch.

Stay tuned. There's always more.

Good news, at least for now, though I expect an appeal will be filed and stop any reversal of the harm already done.

Via Washington Post:

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void. The ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the Madison teachers union and a union for Milwaukee city employees.

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said he was confident the decision will be overturned on appeal.

“We believe the law is constitutional,” said Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck.

I'm reading through the ruling now, but the judge first noted that the plaintiffs (Madison Teachers Union and Milwaukee city employees) had the burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Colas then went on to rule that the limitations on collective bargaining for public employees violated the union's right of free speech, association, and equal protection, and voided those sections.

It appears from the ruling that this applies to city employees, but not state employees, since they weren't included as plaintiffs. I'm not sure how it relates to state employees, but am looking for more information.

This is just the first step in a series, I'm sure. By ruling that the US Constitution had been violated, I believe the union will have the right to take this case to a federal court, too. But I'm not a lawyer and I'll wait for one to weigh in on that.

The Wisconsin recall elections are coming up soon. One district has an interesting choice to make. It seems that State Rep. John Nygren didn't gather enough signatures to climb onto the recall ballot for Senator Dave Hansen's seat, leaving David Vanderleest as the sole Republican challenger. Problem is, David Vanderleest has a few legal issues that might stand between him and victory.

JSOnline:

Specifically, he was convicted of disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor, in 2007. He said the conviction was part of a plea deal in a domestic dispute.

That same year, a bank foreclosed his Green Bay house, which was sold at a sheriff's sale.

Another bank, Associated Bank, won a court judgment for nearly $30,000 against VanderLeest and his company, VanderLeest Enterprises. That sum has never been paid, VanderLeest acknowledged.

In addition, VanderLeest and his then-wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2006, meaning he did not have to repay most of his creditors. The bankruptcy filings show that they reported $118,341 in assets and $291,674 in liabilities, including unpaid credit card debts, health care bills and loans.

"I had a marriage fall apart and I was in real estate," VanderLeest said. "I'm not ashamed of that."

Asked why the voters should select him to oversee a multibillion-dollar budget given his personal financial problems, VanderLeest said the answer is simple.

"I represent the average person who's struggling," he said.

VanderLeest said he expects to be targeted by top officials in Green Bay. The city has taken him to court over building code violations at properties he owns, leading to more than $1,300 in fines for VanderLeest. His buildings were deemed nuisance properties.

On a personal level, I could probably overlook the foreclosure and other financial problems detailed in his rather lengthy court file. But that domestic dispute plea deal really bothers me. Domestic dispute? Was that a domestic dispute that was a really loud fight outside or was it the kind of domestic dispute where he put hands (or fists) on his spouse and left bruises? Which kind gets charges brought and a plea deal made?

TPM has the text of his one-paragraph statement in response to criticism about his litigious past. I offer it here as it was written.

I am an advocate for truth in Brown County. I have sued public officials for curruption and abuse of power, as an attempt to protect the hard working taxpayers, of NE WI. (see federal court case number 07-c-318) I am inocent of every criminal case ever brought against me. Every accusation ever brought fourth, happened because my then wife had a drinking problem, and made false accusations that she later recanted. These cases were intensified at the hand of currupt officials, who viewed me as a political threat, and wanted to silence, suppress, and minimize me, like Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Mike Tate tryed to do today. Crooked public officals like this do not deserve the public trust. They fear my ability to polarize the public and expose true corruption that takes place at the hand of public officials who have different political views then me. People like this have no morals, and only care about winning, at any and all cost. These officials do not care who they hurt in the process, they are simply interested in protecting their place at the public trough. Hurting David VanderLeest and his seven year old son James, are just ways of getting currupt official the means they desire.

Everyone else is corrupt, everyone else has a problem, and everyone else is conspiring against this guy to hurt him. And you know what? Even the spelling police have abandoned him.

Just what Wisconsin needs. A guy who wears the mantle of perpetual victimhood, can't spell, can't manage his finances, and expects voters to simply trust him.

Blue America is raising money to help send Republicans in Wisconsin back to the rocks they crawled out from under. If you can, a donation would be most welcome.

Yesterday Nicole Belle brought you the story of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser's alleged violent acts toward a fellow justice, who also happens to be female and who also doesn't agree with him on much. Here's an update.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has now confirmed that Prosser did indeed put his hands around her neck, describing it as a "chokehold". Via JSOnline:

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Bradley told the Journal Sentinel.

Sources told the Journal Sentinel two very different stories Saturday about what occurred. Some confirmed Bradley's version. According to others, Bradley charged Prosser, who raised his hands to defend himself and made contact with her neck.

She "charged Prosser"? Really? Let's have a look at the two of them side by side. Here's a photo. Prosser is 2nd from the left; Bradley is 3rd from the left.

In the very best case, they appear to be of similar height. I have tried to imagine a scenario where his hands simply "made contact with her neck" and can't quite get there. If he was defending himself from a charge, wouldn't he just block her, or step out of the way?

Here's a bit more of the story, as related by JSOnline:

A source who spoke to several justices present during the incident told the Journal Sentinel that the confrontation occurred after 5:30 p.m. June 13, the day before the high court's release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Six of the court's seven justices - Justice N. Patrick Crooks was not present - had gathered in Bradley's chambers. Some were informally discussing the decision.

The conversation grew heated, and Bradley asked Prosser to leave. Bradley was bothered by disparaging remarks Prosser had made about Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a source said.

Bradley felt Prosser "was attacking the chief justice," the source said.

Before leaving, Prosser "put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold," the source said.

"He did not exert any pressure, but his hands were around her neck," the source said.

The source said the act "was in no way playful."

But another source told the Journal Sentinel that Bradley attacked Prosser.

"She charged him with fists raised," the source said.

Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," the source said. "He blocked her."

In doing so, the source said, he made contact with Bradley's neck.

Bradley has a different version of the story, where she describes it as a chokehold.

Whatever actually happened, no one disagrees with some basic facts. One, they were in her office and there were witnesses. Two, there was a heated, angry discussion about Justice Abrahamson, who Justice Prosser had already tangled with earlier this year.

Abrahamson singled out Prosser for criticism, calling his concurrence “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant. Like the order, the concurrence reaches unsupported conclusions.” She said the ruling “seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law… .”

In March, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that, in a disagreement over a case last year, Justice Prosser had called Justice Abrahamson a “total bitch” and threatened to “destroy” her. Prosser, the paper reported, confirmed making the remarks, saying he “probably overreacted” while accusing Justices Abrahamson and Bradley of being “masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements.”

So there's bad blood between them. Advocacy is like that, particularly with a dogmatic type like Prosser. Compare Prosser's comment about Abrahamson and Bradley to the version of the story where her neck got in the way of his hands.

Anyone who has had any experience with a physically abusive person knows these kinds of stories well. They're the stories that go like this: "I wouldn't have had to beat you to a pulp if you had just done [fill in the blank]." Or, "I wouldn't have had to rape you if you'd just dressed more modestly." These are the excuses of one who blames everyone for their own destructive acts. I might have been more willing to give Prosser the benefit of the doubt if he hadn't, in two separate statements dealing with two separate issues, spoken the language of a serial abuser and bully.

There's a record with this guy. A long one, evidently. Not only isn't this the first time he's "overreacted", but it happens to be with these two justices -- Abrahamson and Bradley. In February, Bradley sent an email to the entire court, concerning his 'bursts of anger' and abusive attitude toward women on the court. And let's look more carefully at what he said after confirming that he did have a temper fit and call Justice Abrahamson a bitch.

"In the context of this, I said, 'You are a total bitch,' " Prosser said. "I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely . . . warranted. They (Abrahamson and Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing."

There it is again. The guy who demeans women and possibly gets physical with them claiming he's the bullied one. This is almost a textbook case of sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace, but I'm betting it's not the women harassing or bullying. Why would they be the ones to call the authorities or take steps to air the grievances and clear them if they were the bullies? No, when you have the man claiming he's a victim every single time he's accused of victimizing others, there's much more there than meets the eye.

Think Progress has a report on the four ways this man can be removed from the court. In my view, the right thing for him to do is to step down immediately, before he renders the court dysfunctional and paralyzed. Of course, if he does, that will give Scott Walker the right to appoint his successor which from an ideological standpoint could be as bad or worse than Prosser, but hopefully he'd manage to find one who understands that men do not put their hands on women without an invitation, and that everyone should treat each other with respect, particularly those serving as arbiters of the law.

Despite Republican challenges, six Wisconsin State Senators will be challenged in recall elections. Today the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board approved three more recalls.

Via Wisconsin State Journal:

State election officials have cleared the way for three more GOP state senators to face recall elections, meaning six senators will almost certainly have to defend their seats.

Republicans had challenged recall petitions against Sens. Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling and Sheila Harsdorf. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board tossed out most of the challenges.

The senators still have the option of challenging the board's decision in court. Otherwise they'll face recall elections in the next few months.

Three Democrats may also face recalls, but the final decision hasn't yet been made on them, largely because many of the signatures were gathered by professional petition gatherers from out of state and are under challenge by Wisconsin Democrats.

Greg Sargent:

Meanwhile, the board has also announced that they are not prepared to approve the signatures gathered by Republicans for the recall of their three Democratic targets. Dems have alleged that the signature gathering by Republicans is fraudulent, and now the board has explicitly claimed that their reason for not approving the recall elections against Dems is that the signatures “have raised numerous factual and legal issues which need to be investigated and analyzed.”

Translation: The fraud allegations just may have something to them.

What a surprise.

It looks like Wisconsin Republicans are getting a bit nervous about the possibility they may lose their Senate majority via recalls this year. After a Democrat won a long-held solid Republican seat in a special election last week and ended the Republican supermajority, their legislative calendar has been ramped up.

Yahoo! News:

Republicans, in a rapid sequence of votes over the next eight weeks, plan to legalize concealed weapons, deregulate the telephone industry, require voters to show photo identification at the polls, expand school vouchers and undo an early release for prisoners.

Lawmakers may also act again on Walker's controversial plan stripping public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights. An earlier version, which led to massive protest demonstrations at the Capitol, has been left in limbo by legal challenges.

"Everything's been accelerated," said Republican Rep. Gary Tauchen, who is working on the photo ID bill. "We've got a lot of big bills we're trying to get done."

And they accused Democrats of being radical? Sounds like it might be time for another trip for some Wisconsin senators out of state.