No Nick, wrong wrong wrong.

Eugene Kane is trying to draw parallels to other indicted politicians.

He is tyring to minimize or draw distinction between these cases, he is trying to say McGee is being treated differently.

None of those other people threatened to do bodily harm, they are not parallel examples.

Kane has a history of defending McGee the son & the father no matter how outrageous their behavior. Open up your eyes and see the hater in front of you (not me Nick, Kane).

All papers will be unsealed in due time, the reason they are under seal will come to pass, but the reason all this was escalalted is because they were trying to protect people from this violent Amderthug.

I have never attributed a wayward comment to Eugene Kane. I don't think
he is a "hater". I criticize him when he deserves criticism, and have
actually e-mailed him to congratulate him when, in my humble opinion,
he hits the nail on the head.

That being said, I don't think that it's the paragraph you cite that will
get the conservative side of the blogosphere spinning themselves into a
frenzy at all, I think it's the fact that Kane makes this argument that
McGee's (allegedly intercepted and recorded) words were "misinterpreted"...
while totally ignoring (or selectively choosing not to mention) that
an actual negotiation for monetary compensation (allegedly) took place.
I believe that to be the nature of the conspiracy charge, and the
prohibitively high bail. (I don't recall Paul Henningson being accused
of trying to hire anyone to do a "beat down" on anyone, do you?)
But that little "detail" gets omitted because it doesn't suit Mr. Kane's
(flawed) logic.

Also, every news account I have read of why the body of the intercepted
testimony remains sealed (the cases themselves are no longer sealed, the
details of the charges, judicial assignments, submitted motions, etc. are
ALL a matter of public record, anyone with a computer can CCAP them) is
because McGee's own attorneys have suppressed that part of the complaint
(presumably so as not to become part of discovery in other complaints).

But that detail also fails to get mentioned in Kane's comments.

So what does this bring us back to? This question of why McGee is "still
in jail"? He is "still in jail" because he has a prohibitively high bail
as a result of the (multiple) conspiracy charges. With his personally
and family owned properties, on the surface it would seem a possibility
at least that Mr. McGee should be able to post bond. So why hasn't he?
If he can't post bond entirely on this own, why hasn't his father, or
Jerrell Jones, put up a property or bank account to help him "bridge the
gap?"

My suspicion is that this hasn't occurred because it would bring further
scrutiny (and accountability) to the financial position of the McGees.
Faced with this prospect, it might explain why Mr. McGee is still wearing
an orange jumpsuit. And why he's appealing to his supporters to "pass
the hat".

So, the better question should be posed as follows: Why has Mr. McGee
chosen to remain in jail? My assertion is that it better suits the
image of himself he's trying to present to his (rapidly growing) followers.
Plus, the TV cameras can't follow him into his cell.

The thing is, this is all about Jessica McBride for Fred. She got fired, so Eugene Kane must be fired, in Fred's mind, because he does not jump to conclusions that satisfy Fred. The difference between the two is McBride was fired for a contrived interview that wound up being over the top and distasteful because of her use of the tragedy of a four-year old's death to make a meaningless political point against ... surprise ... Eugene Kane. If she had stuck to questioning the reasons why Kane did not come on the show and merely asked the questions she would have liked him to answer, she'd still be on WTMJ (until the end of the month when she was going to be replaced anyway).

Kane is paid to write a column of his thoughts, views and opinions. He is not paid to tailor what he wrotes to make Fred happy, to make me happy, or to make anyone else happy. He writes opinions. The difference is clear to most.

Regarding Jensen ... why is he still free? That he is should make everyone consider the condition of the legal system in this state ... one in which those with money or political friends can escape justice, while grandmothers like Kimberly Prude, who made a dumb mistake, are sent right off to prison. A system that sends Georgia Thompsen to prison for only doing her job.

Your's was a balanced post, Nick. Good job.

I don't think Kane is hateful.
He's just illogical and racially biased.
His column is beyond moronic 9 times out of 10, and if
he wasn't black, he wouldn't have a column at all.
We can debate McGee until the cows come home, but if you cannot
recognize that McGee is McSlime, then you need to have your head
examined. I for one have no clue why you would go to bat for Kane,
Nick. He isn't a good writer and he is nearly nonsensical today.
But some people feel the need to pander to blacks. I believe you should
hold blacks to the same standard that you would hold whites to.
This isn't a cultural divide, it's a moral divide. McGee is immoral
on many many many levels. To deny that is ridiculous and specious.

Nick From a Tosa native to a current Tosa resident,

I do understand why certain residents of the central city are upset
about McGee still being in jail. I just think it's important that
they consider some of the maneuvering that may account for why he's
still there. I don't think Kane presents these angles, and I don't
always think that's fair to a reader who comes to the column with
a chip on their shoulder.

As I wrote at BadgerBlogger earlier this morning, Eugene Kane
is a columnist, not really a journalist. Like Patrick McIlheran
(sp?) on the other side, these folks are really just “entertainers”
that the paper uses to appeal to a certain segment of their (perceived)
readership. Maybe sometimes we take their words and thoughts too seriously.

See you at the July 4th parade, I'll be sitting in front of the
M&I Bank on 92nd and North waving a flag (just like I have for
25 years or so), probably helping my shy 4 year old pick up candy
from North Ave :)

Bruce, I was raised in Tosa, and watched the parade from 88th and North for years and years.
On the McGee subject. Let me put this into perspective.
If Teri Estness had behaved in the ways McGee has, and if Teri Estness was put into jail the way McGee has. Would you and your neighbors be upset? There is a great deal of knowledge of McGee and his past character. Would you accept that character from Teri Estness and support her in her office of Mayor? Would you be upset if Teri Estness was jailed knowing her past indiscretions and knowing the multitude of both State and Federal charges being levied against her? There is a great deal that we DO KNOW about McGee, and if Teri Estness had behaved in a like fashion, I sincerely doubt anyone in your neighborhood would support her.
Why should residents of Milwaukee's 6th district feel diffently about a immoral person and politician than those of the CHRIST KING/McKinley neighborhood of Tosa? I continue to see people post and talk about the majority of Milwaukee's 6th district being good working people.
Well DO THEY or DO THEY NOT DECRY McGee's actions? Kane seems to be dubious as to McGee's character. Be honest with yourself Bruce. Why is KANE so "unsure" about McGee's character??
Yes Kane is an entertainer, like Belling and Limbaugh, but his column isn't fictional. At least it isn't supposed to be fiction. McGee deserves to have his rights observed as much as I do, but to support him is beyond silly. The man is filthy. Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Kane is actually destroying the little credibility he once had. Which wasn't much

Nick, you should hold the columnist responsible for his words. Kane is backing McGee for one reason. You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, and I was not attacking it. I'm merely making the case that even a blind man could see how dirty McGee is. Even the notion of making a case in print on his behalf is laughable. Kane has no point. There is no case to be made. McGee will get his day in court, but his personal character is obviously severely flawed. I can't even take him seriously. Reading your well written post, I see you giving Kane far more credit than he deserves. Whether you have in the past or not is not relevant to your post of today. The mere fact that Kane would care and write about McGee's plight, and suggest that McGee is being treated unfairly is absurd. McGee's actions and history have been enabled by Kane for several years. Kane is fumbling and trying to save face. He cannot.
If the person in question was not a black man, Kane would not be saying what he is saying.
If a white columnist went to bat for a white politician in McGee's situation, we'd all, including you laugh in his face.
That is where your double standard comes in. No offense sir. You would not give a white columnist the same kid gloves treatment. If you say you would, I'll take you at your word, but doubt you. Btw, a white columnist would not be allowed to post the racial and illogical tripe that Kane is. That in and of itself is a double standard. Not yours, but a double standard none the less. Society is full of them. It's the media's version of affirmative action. We hold one race to a higher standard than the other and treat blacks as if they are perpetual victims. That is pandering and wrong.
Good day.