WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

[elbe]

My aunt lives in Wisconsin and is a regular Fox watcher (she bought the Fox News Keystone pipeline narrative) but even she thinks Walker is an idiot.

 

[Unabogie]

Have you called the police?

Prosecutors are already convening grand juries, so I don't think that's necessary.

 

[BenBurch]

The Headlines; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/19/1308230/-Wisconsin-Firestorm-Engulfing-Walker?detail=email#

 

[sunmaster14]

Why not look at the actual documents and emails? Also is the Bush appointed republican prosecutor, who says Walker is guilty, part of that witch hunt?

Sorry, didn't see this until now. I agree that it is important to read through the actual documents. I have done a little bit of that and am doing more as time allows.

I'm interested in learning more about this Bush appointed Republican prosecutor who says Walker is guilty. Can you tell me who he is?

 

[The_Animus]

Sorry, didn't see this until now. I agree that it is important to read through the actual documents. I have done a little bit of that and am doing more as time allows.

I'm interested in learning more about this Bush appointed Republican prosecutor who says Walker is guilty. Can you tell me who he is?

Francis Schmitz

From: http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/04/21/back-in-the-news-more-evidence-john-doe-is-bipartisan/

Last week we learned from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Francis Schmitz, the special prosecutor in the John Doe, voted for Walker in the recall election and was once a member of the Republican Party. Schmitz also disclosed that back when he was still working for the U.S. Department of Justice, he assisted local law enforcement investigating potential threats to Walker during the controversy over Act 10, the law restricting collective bargaining for state employees. “I generally supported the Governor’s efforts to balance the State budget,” Schmitz wrote.

Schmitz, as I’ve previously noted, had also been one of Republican President George W. Bush’s final three recommended candidates to become the U.S. Attorney for Milwaukee.

So I was wrong about him actually being appointed. Seems he was just one of the final three of Bush's choices. The article goes on to explain that there are other republican DA's involved/consulted as well.

 

[sunmaster14]

Francis Schmitz

From: http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/04/21/back-in-the-news-more-evidence-john-doe-is-bipartisan/



So I was wrong about him actually being appointed. Seems he was just one of the final three of Bush's choices. The article goes on to explain that there are other republican DA's involved/consulted as well.

He wasn't one of Bush's choices. He was one of a bipartisan Wisconsin committee's recommendations.

"Today, Senators Kohl, Feingold, and I, submitted a partial list to President Bush of the candidates selected by the Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission for the U.S. Attorney position in the Eastern District, the Western District, and the federal judgeship in Green Bay. The bipartisan Commission is comprised of people appointed by Senators Kohl, Feingold, and me.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...n-take-on-john-doe-b99296379z1-264102151.html

Francis Schmitz, the special prosecutor appointed to lead the John Doe probe into Wisconsin's 2011 and 2012 recall elections, is rejecting Republican Gov. Scott Walker's contention that partisanship is behind the investigation.

"Mr. Schmitz spent over forty years serving his nation as an Army officer and as a federal prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice," Schmitz's attorney, Randall Crocker, said in an email to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "As a prosecutor, he represented the United States in both criminal cases and on counterterrorism task forces. He was a finalist for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin during the administration of George W. Bush."

Schmitz, through his lawyer, was responding to questions from PolitiFact Wisconsin about the investigation after the prosecution theory of the case — that Walker illegally coordinated with conservative groups on fundraising — became public in a lawsuit.

Walker's campaign on Friday said "the accusation of any wrongdoing written in the complaint by the office of a partisan Democrat District Attorney by me or by my campaign is categorically false. In fact two judges, in both state and federal courts, have ruled that no laws were broken."

That "Democrat District Attorney" is John Chisholm, the Milwaukee County DA, whose office initiated the investigation before it expanded to four other southern Wisconsin counties. Along with Chisholm, the DAs in those counties — two Republicans and two Democrats — said they sought an independent prosecutor to avoid partisan concerns. Schmitz was appointed by a judge in the John Doe case.

"Mr. Schmitz swore an oath when he accepted his appointment to lead the John Doe investigations in accordance with the law and on behalf of the State of Wisconsin. He has kept that oath," Crocker's statement on behalf of Schmitz said.

<SNIP>

 

[sunmaster14]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...n-take-on-john-doe-b99296379z1-264102151.html

Francis Schmitz, the special prosecutor appointed to lead the John Doe probe into Wisconsin's 2011 and 2012 recall elections, is rejecting Republican Gov. Scott Walker's contention that partisanship is behind the investigation.

"Mr. Schmitz spent over forty years serving his nation as an Army officer and as a federal prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice," Schmitz's attorney, Randall Crocker, said in an email to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "As a prosecutor, he represented the United States in both criminal cases and on counterterrorism task forces. He was a finalist for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin during the administration of George W. Bush."

Schmitz, through his lawyer, was responding to questions from PolitiFact Wisconsin about the investigation after the prosecution theory of the case — that Walker illegally coordinated with conservative groups on fundraising — became public in a lawsuit.

Walker's campaign on Friday said "the accusation of any wrongdoing written in the complaint by the office of a partisan Democrat District Attorney by me or by my campaign is categorically false. In fact two judges, in both state and federal courts, have ruled that no laws were broken."

That "Democrat District Attorney" is John Chisholm, the Milwaukee County DA, whose office initiated the investigation before it expanded to four other southern Wisconsin counties. Along with Chisholm, the DAs in those counties — two Republicans and two Democrats — said they sought an independent prosecutor to avoid partisan concerns. Schmitz was appointed by a judge in the John Doe case.

"Mr. Schmitz swore an oath when he accepted his appointment to lead the John Doe investigations in accordance with the law and on behalf of the State of Wisconsin. He has kept that oath," Crocker's statement on behalf of Schmitz said.

<SNIP>

So the special prosecutor's personal attorney vouches for his goodness and objectivity? Was his mother not available?

And, by the way, all of the evidence that Schmitz is Republican leaning comes from Schmitz himself in documents filed with the court in support of his claim that he his non-partisan. He even claimed in those documents that he voted for Scott Walker in the recall election. It is patently absurd for a lawyer to use as an argument in court documents whom he personally voted for, not least because it is an absolutely, unverifiable claim. The fact that he did so makes me think he's a nutcase.

In any case, the overweening ambition of prosecutors almost always trumps political ideology. Prosecutors want to win, and some of them (as the evidence shows here) are willing to win at any cost, using any argument.

Just as an example, do you even know what legal strategy Schmitz et al are using currently to try to shutdown Judge Randa's preliminary injunction? Randa certified to the appeals court that it was frivolous. Can you explain why?

 

[Unabogie]

So the special prosecutor's personal attorney vouches for his goodness and objectivity? Was his mother not available?

And, by the way, all of the evidence that Schmitz is Republican leaning comes from Schmitz himself in documents filed with the court in support of his claim that he his non-partisan. He even claimed in those documents that he voted for Scott Walker in the recall election. It is patently absurd for a lawyer to use as an argument in court documents whom he personally voted for, not least because it is an absolutely, unverifiable claim. The fact that he did so makes me think he's a nutcase.

In any case, the overweening ambition of prosecutors almost always trumps political ideology. Prosecutors want to win, and some of them (as the evidence shows here) are willing to win at any cost, using any argument.

Just as an example, do you even know what legal strategy Schmitz et al are using currently to try to shutdown Judge Randa's preliminary injunction? Randa certified to the appeals court that it was frivolous. Can you explain why?

Well, you've made a great case for Walker here. Oh, wait, no, you've just smeared the prosecutor, which won't help him at all. In reality, it will all come down to what he did or didn't do. Those emails look pretty damning. He explicitly coordinates with Karl Rove. And in a deliciously ironic twist, that fake David Koch call that tricked him so completely will possibly be used as evidence. He thought he was talking with the real David Koch and discussed strategy with him, even suggesting that outside agitators could be hired to disrupt the protests against him.

No, hopefully this is going to be tried by a jury.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well, you've made a great case for Walker here. Oh, wait, no, you've just smeared the prosecutor, which won't help him at all. In reality, it will all come down to what he did or didn't do. Those emails look pretty damning. He explicitly coordinates with Karl Rove. And in a deliciously ironic twist, that fake David Koch call that tricked him so completely will possibly be used as evidence. He thought he was talking with the real David Koch and discussed strategy with him, even suggesting that outside agitators could be hired to disrupt the protests against him.

No, hopefully this is going to be tried by a jury.

He's allowed to. That's the whole point. As a matter of law, the conduct which is alleged is protected by the 1st Amendment. It was made particularly explicit in the recent Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC. Yes, the case is on appeal in various forms, but for all intents and purposes, it's over.

 

[BenBurch]

You have a quite faulty understanding of that decision.

 

[sunmaster14]

You have a quite faulty understanding of that decision.

Please explain. I would love to have a substantive debate on this issue, or any issue frankly, but I can't seem to find any willing interlocutors on this forum supposedly dedicated to "critical thinking."

 

[The_Animus]

You haven't been here long but you post a **** ton so most of the regulars are pretty familiar with your general ideology. I would consider you a highly partisan, yet respectful poster. I think long after everything has been said you continue to argue the same general conservative talking points even if imo it's been addressed. Or it's just an agree to disagree.

I'm curious sunmastet if you've ever worked in an office setting. With John Doe 1 Walkers office was 6 feet from his employees. His employees set up a separate wireless network. His employees all brought their laptops to work even though they had computers. His employees spent 4 hours of their 8 hour shift every day doing campaign work instead of their actual job.

I work in an office, and my boss would have noticed and inquired on day 1 if that happened here. So, logically, Walker either knew and is corrupt, or didn't and is incompetent.

From what I've seen Walker is not incompetent which leaves corrupt.

 

[sunmaster14]

You haven't been here long but you post a **** ton so most of the regulars are pretty familiar with your general ideology. I would consider you a highly partisan, yet respectful poster. I think long after everything has been said you continue to argue the same general conservative talking points even if imo it's been addressed. Or it's just an agree to disagree.

I am not intentionally partisan here (the unintentional partisanship is just due to any subconscious biases I may have). I am not trying to change anyone's mind to advance whatever causes I advocate. If I were in the business of changing minds, JREF would be about the last place I would spend my time. I admit to being a bit of a devil's advocate (well, a lot of one actually), and that will look like partisanship when there is a large partisan imbalance (in the other direction of course).

I'm curious sunmastet if you've ever worked in an office setting. With John Doe 1 Walkers office was 6 feet from his employees. His employees set up a separate wireless network. His employees all brought their laptops to work even though they had computers. His employees spent 4 hours of their 8 hour shift every day doing campaign work instead of their actual job.

I work in an office, and my boss would have noticed and inquired on day 1 if that happened here. So, logically, Walker either knew and is corrupt, or didn't and is incompetent.

From what I've seen Walker is not incompetent which leaves corrupt.

Yes, I have worked in an office setting, in some cases shoulder to shoulder on a long trading desk, and in some cases with my own desk in an open area with a dozen other desks. I have not looked at John Doe 1, so I won't opine on it, but as you've described it, it appears to be unsurprising political corruption. Not too different ethically, if not legally, from political patronage. So, no, it would not surprise me to find that Walker is guilty of corruption. I think all politicians are to varying extents. It is less likely that he's a complete incompetent, even though his educational background does not inspire confidence. He's not a deep thinker, but he strikes me as having above average political savvy.

I am perfectly willing to admit to the failures and crimes of Republican leaders here. If it turns out that Walker broke the law, I have no problem admitting it. For example, I think Chris Christie undoubtedly knew about the bridge lane closings and probably wanted them to happen, although he may not have explicitly ordered them. I think he is corrupt, but the corruption manifests itself in ways which are worse than just some campaign shenanigans or minor misuse of public resources. He is power-corrupt, meaning that he cannot tolerate dissent or what he perceives as disrespect. I don't like him for that reason, but if he were the Republican nominee for President in 2016, I would still crawl over broken glass to vote for him over virtually any Democrat (well, not really - my vote is meaningless - but you know what I mean).

As for John Doe II, I find the case to be intellectually interesting. I think the prosecutors are just wrong on the law. They're not necessarily acting in bad faith (although I suspect some of them are) because there is significant confusion about campaign finance law. But whether Walker and his compadres had good legal advice and knew they were on the right side of the law, or they were like the idiot drug dealer who ends up getting caught trying to hide 10 lbs of baby powder, I think they did nothing illegal. Worse, though, from what I can see, these John Doe investigations are horribly oppressive. The targets of the investigation were treated like armed criminals from the beginning, and the nature of the process meant that they were effectively condemned before they were even indicted.

 

[Unabogie]

He's allowed to. That's the whole point. As a matter of law, the conduct which is alleged is protected by the 1st Amendment. It was made particularly explicit in the recent Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC. Yes, the case is on appeal in various forms, but for all intents and purposes, it's over.

This AP article seems to disagree with you.

Independent expenditure-only committees, or super PACS, such as SOFA PAC are barred from consulting or coordinating with the candidates they support. Republishing campaign materials is considered an in-kind contribution to a candidate, and candidates cannot coordinate with Super PACs to republish campaign materials.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I would love to have a substantive debate on this issue, or any issue frankly, but I can't seem to find any willing interlocutors on this forum supposedly dedicated to "critical thinking."

This is not the first, second, or third time you've offered your pointed assessment. It's quite a wobbly leg, so you might want to shift your weight a bit.

 

[BenBurch]

This AP article seems to disagree with you.

Thanks! Was about to go looking for that.

 

[sunmaster14]

This AP article seems to disagree with you.

I don't know that the author Matt Volz was being particularly careful with his words there, nor is it obvious that he has any experience in campaign finance law (not that I do either!).

His LinkedIn profile says he's a generic reporter with a generic education:

Columbia University - Graduate School of Journalism
M.S., Journalism
2001 – 2002

University of Richmond
B.A., International Studies
1991 – 1995

So, I'm not going to put a lot of stock in a background paragraph he wrote in a news story.

My understanding is that coordination on issue advocacy is allowed. It is express advocacy (specifically advocating for or against a particular candidate) which is regulated. This is the concession that campaign finance laws must make to the 1st Amendment.

Additionally, super-pacs are not 501(c)(4)s like the groups at issue in the John Doe case in Wisconsin. 501(c)(4)s are supposedly social welfare organizations which must spend less than half of their time and money on campaign politics. Super-pacs have no such restriction, but at the cost of donor confidentiality. Super-pacs, historically, have been heavily involved in express advocacy, which is why coordination with a campaign looks bad on its face. It would be very hard to disentangle express from issue advocacy coordination with a super-pac, so my guess is that lawyers for campaigns just tell their clients not to coordinate with super-pacs, ever. Although, as Colbert and Stewart pointed out, there is a giant loophole in that it is possible for effective coordination to take place via public statements in the media.

 

[sunmaster14]

This is not the first, second, or third time you've offered your pointed assessment. It's quite a wobbly leg, so you might want to shift your weight a bit.

And this is the second time you've apparently taken offense. I'll admit that my perception is skewed by the fact that I spend all my time wallowing in the cesspool that is USA Politics.

However, from the little bit of browsing I've done, I have noticed a strong tendency for people here to mock other people they consider to be stupid rather than engage in debates about interesting topics.

Mocking religion is simply not interesting in my opinion. What's the point of trying to convince people not to waste their time praying to a nonexistent God (or at least one who doesn't care about their prayer)? Personally, it might be more satisfying and useful to convince people not to waste their time rooting for a particular sports team. I mean really, who cares if your hometown has a great sports team? And I live in Boston, the greatest sports town in the history of the universe!! Take that stupid Yankee fans!

 

[BenBurch]