A few days ago I posted a story about a leftist judge accusing Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser of physically attacking her in a closed-doors meeting of the justices. The lefty sites went mad for this story, but as the days wore on the lefty judge’s claims started to seem less and less credible. Now we are finding out that two lefty judges leaked the story in order to hurt Judge Prosser in the court of public opinion because they knew Bradley had no real legal case against him. In other words, she was lying, she knew it, and she launched a program of character assassination because she had no real legitimate case to press against Prosser.

Christian Schneider of The National Review’s The Corner blog reports some more of the sad details about this left-wing attack and gives us even more reason to suspect that lefty Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is simply a liar.

To recap Bradley’s claims, she charged that Justice David Prosser physically attacked her — choked her, actually — during a heated discussion in a closed-door meeting at which several other judges were attending. For his part Prosser (and several witnesses it turns out) said that he only put up his hands in defense when Justice Bradley came at him in anger.

The story hit like a freight train on the lefty blogs, all of which took Bradley’s claims at face value, reporting them straight as fact. As the story gained steam, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel began to investigate the story and began to find several witnesses that directly disputed Bradley’s claims, witnesses that the original lefty sites did not bother to quote or seek out for comment.

Now, here is the thing: if Justice Bradley was really physically attacked, she most assuredly would have filed official charges in some venue or another. Yet, she has not. Here is what Schneider says of that…

To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.”

Speculation is abundant as to why Bradley decided to forgo a criminal complaint against Prosser, deciding instead to go to the press ten days after the event. Some say Bradley’s complaint wouldn’t have stood up if given the scrutiny of a criminal investigation. Furthermore, others speculate that if any formal criminal proceedings had moved forward (a restraining-order filing, for instance), Prosser would be afforded evidentiary hearings, testimony, and discovery.

Furthermore, sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe.

Oh, I don’t think there is much reason to “speculate.” It’s pretty plain that the two leftist justices knew Bradley was lying about this faux attack and knew they had no real legal standing to get Prosser charged with anything. They also knew that the best way to damage Prosser with the false claims was if they leaked the story to friendly, left-wing hacks to disseminate it for them.

Even the capitol police (unionized, so no fan of Prosser) started an investigation and then dropped it quickly because it was fairly obvious that Bradley had no case.

It is pretty plain here that the lefty judges are liars, that they have an agenda, and that they want to use the reactionary left-wing blogosphere and other George Soros funded concerns to smear their enemy, Judge Prosser.

This sort of smear campaign is how leftists work. Who needs facts and truth when a loud charge, wild-eyed finger pointing, voluminous calumnies, followed weeks later by a barely audible “correction” — if they bother to apologize at all — can be used to win the day?