In a surprising twist, a state body in Wisconsin responsible for regulatory considerations of attorney conduct leveled charges against prior state Supreme Court Justice, Michael Gableman. The organization responsible for maintaining the integrity of legal practice in the state found it necessary to voice their objections, a strange occurrence which demonstrates the desperate moves by some parties.
Interestingly, Gableman was engaged by Republican leaders to spearhead an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the 2020 Presidential Election. This move was instigated after commendable effort made by President Donald Trump to contend the authenticity of the election results which were hotly disputed by several quarters.
The financial toll of the investigation carried out by Gableman is said to be upwards of $2.5 million, a justifiable expense considering the gravity of potential election manipulations. While numerous critics clamor about the lack of evidence unearthed during this process, they ignore the kinds of obstructions and lack of cooperation Gableman faced during his investigation.
The so-called Office of Lawyer Regulation, in their filed complaint, leveled a variety of allegations against Gableman. They cited instances, including making allegedly false claims and a supposed failure to adhere to open records laws; charges that seem to serve more as a distraction or disparagement rather than a valid legal issue.
Among the influential Wisconsin Republicans, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos was instrumental in bringing Gableman onboard back in June 2021. The initiative was to scrutinize the results of the controversial 2020 election. However, it appeared that Vos later succumbed to increasing pressure and criticism rather than standing his ground for the truth.
Gableman was a staunch advocate for assessing the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential Election in Wisconsin. He demonstrated a deep understanding of the real concerns brought up by President Trump and his capable allies. Unfortunately, in the present political climate, such actions of seeking truth merely earn one the unreliable tag of ‘denialism’.
Despite numerous verifications and legal challenges, the 2020 election results in Wisconsin which fell in favor of Joe Biden have faced widespread criticism. This trust deficit in the electoral process echoes the sentiments held by a large segment of the electorate who believe in maintaining electoral integrity.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos prematurely terminated Gableman’s contract just after 14 months into the probe, terming him an ’embarrassment.’ However, by doing so, Vos arguably disregarded the resolve for justice and truth that initially led to the investigation.
During his unwavering probe, Gableman sought information and evidence from the mayors of Green Bay and Madison. When they did not cooperate, he courageously and appropriately demanded judicial intervention. Unfortunately, his efforts were constantly faced with resistance, an element quite commonly observed during such crucial investigations.
Gableman found himself on the wrong side of public opinion when a Dane County judge unfairly accused him of contempt for purportedly not complying with a court order. Accusations of making supposed ‘misogynistic’ comments were also floating around, painting an image of Gableman that seemed eerily orchestrated.
With a determined spirit, Gableman carried on after being let go by Vos, supporting Vos’ primary opponent in the 2022 midterm. He also used his influence to lead a campaign to recall Vos earlier this year. This shows Gableman’s resilience, staying strong in the face of adversity and dedication to his principles.
Curiously, the complaint filed against Gableman includes charges of inappropriate disclosure, an arguably weak argument enabling the office to pile up on a lengthy list of negligible misconduct allegations. It suggests an attempt to discredit Gableman in the midst of his continuing quest for electoral authenticity.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation resorts to urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court, reported to be influenced by liberal justices, to impose sanctions on Gableman. This all too convenient lining up of forces against Gableman raises more questions than it provides answers, and maintains a status quo that keeps the pursuit of truth on the sidelines.