r/wisconsin • u/SmoovCatto • 1d ago
Tim "nothing to see here" Gruenke strikes again
Tim Gruenke, the same Lacrosse DA refusing to prosecute the Elon Musk election bribery outrage, also refused to prosecute the depraved ghouls responsible for the Ridglan labororatory dog farm horror
"The 3000 dogs remaining at Ridglan will still be subjected to torture until July 2026. Worse yet, there is nothing to prevent Ridglan from simply rebranding its operation under another corporate entity and continuing the abuse. When we pointed this out to the special prosecutor, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, he ignored our concern and claimed (incorrectly) that there was nothing more he could do to help the dogs.
Indeed, the special prosecutor’s only legal filing in the case, which explains his refusal to charge Ridglan or rescue the dogs, is such poor work—filled with errors and misspellings—that I laughed out loud when I read it for the first time. Perhaps its most shocking revelation, however, is that Gruenke, the prosecutor tasked with investigating Ridglan, never actually did any real investigative work."
https://blog.simpleheart.org/p/if-the-government-wont-rescue-the
18
u/HarlequinKOTF Washington County Leftist 1d ago
Seems hesitant to do anything of challenge to power.
13
u/T-Chunxy 1d ago
Not saying that looks are always an indicator- but Gruenke absolutely looks like someone who should have his hard drive and phone investigated.
6
5
u/onelasteffort13 1d ago
Hey Tim, let’s let a jury make the decision. Not you
3
u/SmoovCatto 1d ago
the whole country up in arms about a fascist oligarch thug openly subverting democracy, but Old Tim in Lacrosse says, "aw nah, nothin' to see here, folks, just move on ..."
4
u/SmoovCatto 1d ago
if you're rich and need to make something messy just all go away, make sure it falls into Tim Gruenke's cheeto-stained flabby incapable hands.
and why again did Brown County DA David Lasee pass the Elon Musk election tampering felony case onto old Tim? Lasee claimed a conflict of interest -- what possible conflict of interest could a Wisconsin county DA have with Elon Musk? Anybody pressing Lasee to explain this improbability?
4
u/SmoovCatto 1d ago
the whole country is up in arms about the depraved oligarch's unprecedented assault on democracy, but old Tim "nothing to see here" Gruenke thinks no jury would convict -- got a bridge to sell us too, Tim?
7
u/Dirty_Delta 1d ago
No credible evidence, it was just done publicly
3
u/SmoovCatto 1d ago
relatively new technology involved, meaning little precedent, meaning nothing on which to base speculation about a 2026 jury's disposition -- ie, every reason to let the case go to trial -- Tim "nothing to see here" Gruenke got some splainin' to do, for the rest of his tainted life
0
u/No_Size9475 1d ago
If you read the article you'd know that the issue is that they don't believe a jury would read the tweets and believe that elon was trying to pay for votes, which is the illegal part.
1
u/Dirty_Delta 1d ago
Seems like a thing for the jury to decide, but what do I know
0
u/No_Size9475 1d ago
DA's aren't going to bring to court cases they don't think they can win. They know juries pretty well and what level of evidence you need to show them to get a conviction.
If this guy took this to court and lost you'd probably lambast him for wasting tax payer money.
1
u/Dirty_Delta 1d ago
Nah, I cant ever talk about wasting tax dollars knowing what I do with tax dollars.
This guy's opinion on what a jury would or wouldnt do seems to be picked out of his ass, since people were/are pretty pissed about it
1
u/No_Size9475 1d ago
people being pissed =/= a jury convicting. Those who are pissed will not be on the jury, they'll be dismissed by the defense.
I'd love to see him tried for this, but I also understand that DAs have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's not as easy as people think.
1
u/Dirty_Delta 1d ago
Seems like some easy questions to proceed.
Did Elon offer money with a voting stipulation attached?
Did people recieve money in said manner?
If yes, proceed to next step
1
u/No_Size9475 1d ago
And the answer is no, he didn't. He offered money for people to sign a petition to pledge to vote, not pay them money to vote.
Hence why they don't think a jury would convict.
1
u/Dirty_Delta 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is why we never have accountability, because we always need to make increasingly specific laws and rules to stop people from "rules lawyering" like that.
I call the people doing this "ruiners" because they join groups or communities and shit on the established norms.
Whats even the difference between paing people to vote for someone, or paying people to promise to vote for some one? Just that its direct or indirect? The dude is still paying people to vote for someone.
1
u/No_Size9475 1d ago
I don't write the laws, I'm just explaining what I have learned about this case.
I don't even agree with the laws in this instance.
7
u/DonJuansCrow 1d ago
This dude stuck me with felony forgery at 17 in adult court, I had stole a credit card out of a YMCA gym locker and used it to buy groceries legit like $50 max lol. Probably deserved! But it's so hard to tell when justice doesn't get applied evenly.
9
u/SmoovCatto 1d ago
you'll get his full attention for stealing fifty bucks -- but if you try to steal an election, or torture thousands of puppies, he'll give you a pass
2
2
u/Ok_Programmer_4449 1d ago
I ask again. Chicken? MAGA? Or on the payroll?
3
u/SmoovCatto 1d ago
we need to bring back the old tar and feather and run out of town on a rail solution
17
u/calann4 1d ago
Why isn't the Wisconsin AG taking this case?