A Wisconsin judge appointed by Gov. Tony Evers is defending calling assassinated activist Charlie Kirk a “white supremacist” and “liar,” among other claims, but cited Wikipedia when pressed for evidence to back up his incendiary statements.
Iron County Judge Anthony Stella said that, due to the ensuing publicity, he does regret making the comments “in a forum accessible by others.”
When Evers appointed Stella, a former DA, criminal defense attorney, city attorney, and corporation counsel, to the Wisconsin bench, the Democrat governor wrote, “He has the temperament, knowledge and experience to be an excellent judge.”
Stella posted the comments slamming Kirk on social media after Kirk was assassinated. Reached for comment via email, he asked Wisconsin Right Now to take down a social media post about his comment. He also requested that we not report on his comment at all. Because of his elected position and the response of U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a likely candidate for Wisconsin governor, we believe his Kirk comment to be newsworthy. We also believe voters in Iron County have a right to know.
In his Facebook comment, Stella called Kirk a “white supremacist, among other things,” who “fabricated conspiracies and lies in order to foment hate.” Although he said Kirk “certainly didn’t deserve to die,” he wrote that Kirk was “part of what is wrong in our country” and denied that Kirk is a martyr. See the judge’s comment in full here:
The judge’s comment provoked a strong response from Tiffany.
“He must resign, and I call on Governor Evers to join in demanding his resignation immediately,” Tiffany wrote on X. “He clearly does not possess the temperament or balanced judgment required to be a judge.”
Other people on social media also slammed Stella. “He should be fired, impeached, disbarred… whatever can be done to remove him from public leadership of any kind,” wrote one person.
“I bet he never saw ONE of his talks- lazy hate is the worst,” accused another.
Stella was appointed to the bench by Evers, a Democrat, in 2019. His application, shared by the Wisconsin Justice Initiative, notes that he was an “unpaid volunteer for California Governor Jerry Brown’s 1980 presidential campaign and for Vice President Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign.” He slammed a case on gerrymandering in the application to Evers, criticizing the Republican-controlled Legislature and writing, “This case has already emboldened the Republican majority which no doubt now sees an opportunity to further entrench its political power.” He also declared himself an admirer of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
A screenshot of Stella’s criticism of Kirk was sent by an outraged person to Wisconsin Right Now and to several Wisconsin talk radio hosts, generating criticism on social media. Talk radio host Vicki McKenna also shared the judge’s comment on X.
We Asked the Judge for Evidence & He Produced a Paragraph From Wikipedia
We reached out to the judge and asked him, “Does he stand by the comment he made, or does he regret it? Why? Why is the comment appropriate for a judge to make about a man who was assassinated on camera while exercising free speech? How can he assure people he won’t bring his biases into court? Is there anything else he wants people to know?”
When he insisted that his comments about Kirk were accurate, we followed up, asking, “Can you document your basis for calling Kirk a white supremacist and also your statement that he lied about West Point and lied about other things also? What are the sources and evidence for those comments?”
“I don’t have time to address this in more detail, and as I said, I have only recently become aware of who Mr. Kirk is,” came Stella’s prompt response.
“I did some searches and learned as much as I could and made my conclusions based on the totality of information. I’m sure if you did a cursory search you would pull up many of the same sources I did. I started at Wikipedia and went from there.”
“I am attaching a screenshot from Wikipedia as an example, summarizing the West Point controversy and his changing stories, complete with citations,” he continued. “Mr. Kirk has been described as a racist or white supremacist by hundreds of people more familiar with him than me. He has denied it and of course everyone is entitled to make their own conclusions based on the facts.”
The judge sent this screenshot:
Kirk recounted the West Point story in a video interview with the Daily Caller. A 2018 Politico profile on Turning Point recounted Kirk’s West Point story and then added, “West Point officials have said they do consider race in admissions, but only for candidates who also fully meet their admission criteria.” The story doesn’t debunk it. He did later tell the Chicago Tribune that the story was something he was told and claimed he was being sarcastic to The New Yorker.
The Politico story contains this statement from the author, “I spoke to a number of people who work for, work with, or are members of Turning Point USA, none of whom said they saw systemic racism in the organization.” A top staffer who sent a text message at age 18 trashing blacks was immediately let go when Kirk learned of it, and, at the time of the story, Turning Point was hiring Candace Owens as its communication director and adding a black leadership summit and more outreach to black college students.
However, the judge continued to use strong words to refer to Kirk.
The judge continued, “Once I learn someone is a liar, I give everything else they say less weight. There is nothing partisan or political about that. I don’t see how someone who lies to the public can be said to make a positive difference. I don’t think that conclusion should be controversial, nor does it demonstrate bias of any kind — unless you wish to conclude that I am biased against liars.”
“It’s unfortunate that the narrative has turned from the problems with political violence in our country to a debate about who Charlie Kirk was,” he added. “His killing is another step toward escalating violence and instilling fear in people wanting to express their views. I hope that in your journalism you don’t accomplish the same thing the shooter did, lest we all should live in fear of expressing our views. Thanks for giving me the chance to respond.”
Judge Anthony Stella Insisted That He Didn’t Believe ‘Anything Stated in My Comment Was Inaccurate’
How did the judge defend his comment? His insisted he didn’t say anything inaccurate.
“My FB comment was made on a FB friend’s page as part of a discussion in response to another comment,” said Stella. “It was not intended as a public statement for broad dissemination. It was a post by a friend that involved a few comments and a few dozen likes,” Stella responded by email on Sept. 12. “First of all, Mr. Kirk’s death was a terrible tragedy. I made it very clear there was no excuse for it.”
He then doubled down on his criticisms of Kirk.
“I don’t believe anything stated in my comment was inaccurate,” he wrote. “Nor do I think anything I said should give anyone concern about bias in the courtroom. I was pointing out known lies Mr. Kirk told about him being denied admission to West Point. There is nothing particularly political or partisan about that. He later admitted his story was not true. There were other lies he has told that were exposed. I don’t believe making statements about that shows bias that might be used against 3rd persons who have nothing to do with Mr. Kirk’s actions.”
Continued the judge, “Frankly, I didn’t even know who Kirk was until a short while ago and really don’t pay attention to who might or might not like him. My comment was made as part of a discussion where I would expect the others to refute anything they believed I was mistaken about. I’m always ready for a healthy debate.” He said his original commentary was “out of context and gives what was a comment to a few people a much broader audience in a situation where that was not intended and in which the context is different.”
He claimed that publicizing his comment could “unnecessarily incite” people and put his family at risk, as “Judges are frequently targets.”
“If you asked around, you would find that I have a reputation as a fair and unbiased Judge,” claimed Stella. “I am rarely substituted. I have never been overturned on appeal during my 6 years on the bench. My personal politics never affect my decisions. I take pride in being fair and getting the law right. The great thing about Wisconsin is that anyone can substitute a judge for any reason or no reason. Therefore, nobody has to worry about whether the judge on his or her case is biased. So if someone were to conclude for some reason that I might be biased, they could remove me from their case as a matter of right.”
Continued the judge, “I do not comment in my capacity as a judge when I comment on friends’ pages. They know who I am, and the few others who see my posts will generally have no idea who I am….This is not a topic I have a strong interest in. I was merely responding to others. There are thousands of opinion pieces out there already by people on all sides…Again, my intention was to respond to a comment on a friend’s post, not make a broader public statement. Given this unintended subsequent publicity, I do regret carrying out that conversation in a forum accessible by others.”
Table of Contents
