Leftist Wisconsin AG Wants To Hide Court Docs In Alternate Electors Case
1 Trending: Supreme Court Makes It Clear. Mass Deportations Are Mandatory To Save America
2 Trending: McCarthyism Didn’t Go Far Enough To Root Out Filthy Commies, So Now We Have Modern NYC
3 Trending: SCOTUS Smacks Down Limits On Political Party-Candidate Spending Coordination
4 Trending: After SCOTUS Citizenship Ruling, National Security Requires A Travel Ban On CCP Nationals
Leftist Wisconsin AG Wants To Hide Court Docs In Alternate Electors Case
Kaul is trying to use a state law intended to protect the rights of sexual assault victims in his trumped-up prosecution of Trump’s allies.
Share Article on Facebook
Share Article on Twitter
Share Article on Truth Social
Share Article via Email
After victimizing his party’s political enemies for more than two years, far-left Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul is asking a Dane County trial court for a protective order to lock away discovery documents from public scrutiny.
And Kaul, the Democrats’ answer to Inspector Javert, is trying to use a 2020 state constitutional amendment intended to protect the privacy rights of sexual assault victims in his trumped-up prosecution of President Donald Trump’s allies in Wisconsin.
“This matter has generated attention from the media and the public. The attention has caused concern for the victims and witnesses who are named in the discovery and may testify in this matter,” the motion, filed Tuesday, claims.
The “matter” is Kaul’s weaponized witch hunt against Jim Troupis and Kenneth Chesebro, the lawyers who represented Trump’s Wisconsin campaign in legal challenges following the rigged 2020 presidential election. Each faces multiple felony forgery charges for advising and carrying out a legal strategy that used alternate electors to protect Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes for Trump should he prevail in his lawsuits.
Kaul and his friends in the accomplice media like to paint the strategy as a “fake electors” scheme employed in an attempt to overturn the results of the election. How they have come to that conclusion is curious, given the fact that Kaul’s DOJ twice noted, the legal........
