Political Oppression in Wisconsin

[sunmaster14]

This article by David French at National Review gives a chilling description of what the politically driven John Doe investigations looked like to conservatives on the ground in Wisconsin.

For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.

Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

A John Doe investigation differs from a normal criminal investigation in that it replaces a grand jury with a single, supervising judge, and it imposes strict secrecy requirements on the targets of the investigation. That is, defendants in a John Doe investigation are not even allowed to explain to their neighbors and friends what's happening to them, let alone defend themselves in the media. Even if the investigation is conducted in good faith, the whole thing just sounds oppressive, if not wholly unconsitutional. Of course, in this case, the investigations appear to have been conducted in bad faith. As a consequence, they egregiously trampled the First and Fourth Amendment rights of conservatives in Wisconsin.

If the first series of John Doe investigations was “everything Walker,” the second series was “everything conservative,” as [Milwaukee District Attorney] [John] Chisholm had launched an investigation of not only Walker (again) but the Wisconsin Club for Growth and dozens of other conservative organizations, this time fishing for evidence of allegedly illegal “coordination” between conservative groups and the Walker campaign.

In the second John Doe, Chisholm had no real evidence of wrongdoing. Yes, conservative groups were active in issue advocacy, but issue advocacy was protected by the First Amendment and did not violate relevant campaign laws. Nonetheless, Chisholm persuaded prosecutors in four other counties to launch their own John Does, with Judge Kluka overseeing all of them.
Empowered by a rubber-stamp judge, partisan investigators ran amok. They subpoenaed and obtained (without the conservative targets’ knowledge) massive amounts of electronic data, including virtually all the targets’ personal e-mails and other electronic messages from outside e-mail vendors and communications companies.

The investigations exploded into the open with a coordinated series of raids on October 3, 2013. These were home invasions, including those described above. Chisholm’s office refused to comment on the raid tactics (or any other aspect of the John Doe investigations), but witness accounts regarding the two John Doe investigations are remarkably similar: early-morning intrusions, police rushing through the house, and stern commands to remain silent and tell no one about what had occurred.

The article is a fascinating read. The issues involved are far larger than just criminally partisan prosecutors and judges. As the government promulgates more and more intrusive, arcane, and ambiguous laws, the power of prosecutors to harrass and oppress political opponents grows exponentially. Unfortunately, the people we empower to administer, execute, and uphold these laws are human, with all of the biases and weaknesses that that entails. By the way, liberals should remember that those humans are not always going to be like-minded political allies as they are in Wisconsin.

 

[Giz]

This article by David French at National Review gives a chilling description of what the politically driven John Doe investigations looked like to conservatives on the ground in Wisconsin.



A John Doe investigation differs from a normal criminal investigation in that it replaces a grand jury with a single, supervising judge, and it imposes strict secrecy requirements on the targets of the investigation. That is, defendants in a John Doe investigation are not even allowed to explain to their neighbors and friends what's happening to them, let alone defend themselves in the media. Even if the investigation is conducted in good faith, the whole thing just sounds oppressive, if not wholly unconsitutional. Of course, in this case, the investigations appear to have been conducted in bad faith. As a consequence, they egregiously trampled the First and Fourth Amendment rights of conservatives in Wisconsin.



The article is a fascinating read. The issues involved are far larger than just criminally partisan prosecutors and judges. As the government promulgates more and more intrusive, arcane, and ambiguous laws, the power of prosecutors to harrass and oppress political opponents grows exponentially. Unfortunately, the people we empower to administer, execute, and uphold these laws are human, with all of the biases and weaknesses that that entails. By the way, liberals should remember that those humans are not always going to be like-minded political allies as they are in Wisconsin.

We'll, when IRS audits aren't enough, whaddya gonna do?

 

[The_Animus]

I stopped reading after the claim that the investigations were just an attempt to undo election results.

As a Wisconsinite I've been following Walker and he is the poster child for corrupt cronyism.

 

[BStrong]

After election monkey business?

It happens in California too, but they were only gun control opponents, so it won't count:

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/californians-against-corruption

Short version -pro gunnners get a recall on the ballot on one of the two authors of the first California assault weapon law - David Roberti - and he ends up spending all of his campaign funds in the recall election (which he won) so he didn't have enough funds to successfully run for state treasurer.

Pro-2nd group raises 130,000 K m/l, California FPPC investigates, finds they failed to touch second base on some donations, fine's the groups two treasurers $808,000.00, the highest fine ever levied for campaign funding violations...that'll teach those amatures to muck about in California politics!

 

[Newtons Bit]

I can't see how gag orders on people accused of crimes can possibly be constitutional. Hopefully the appeals courts shut this nonsense down.

 

[Beerina]

The goal isn't to find crime. As with the IRS stuff, the goal is to scare off donors until after the election.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't care about Scott Walker one way or another. The tactics employed, however, seem particularly abusive and dastardly.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

I stopped reading after the claim that the investigations were just an attempt to undo election results.

As a Wisconsinite I've been following Walker and he is the poster child for corrupt cronyism.

There isn't any evidence of corruption from Walker.

The corruption is coming from the bitter Democratic union members

 

[Ziggurat]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a rather strong ruling shutting down the investigation permanently.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/0...john-doe-investigation-against-conservatives/

 

[sunmaster14]

In looking around for news on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, I found this - another harrowing description of one of those John Doe raids:

It was still dark outside when “Jonah” (not his real name) heard the pounding on his front door. As luck would have it, he was awake — or mostly awake. He’d gotten up at 4:00 a.m. on October 3, 2013, to see his parents off to the airport. They were leaving on a quick trip to raise money for the children’s charity his father runs. Jonah was 16 at the time, old enough to stay home alone for a short time, but not old enough to deal with what awaited him on the other side of the door.

The pounding continued, and Jonah peered out the window to discover its source. To his horror, he saw uniformed officers, their guns drawn. “Police,” they yelled. “We have a warrant.” An officer shined a flashlight on a document Jonah couldn’t read. Unsure what to do, but unwilling to defy the authorities, he let them in.

The officers sat him down, read him the entire search warrant, and ordered him not to tell anyone about the raid — not even school officials. He asked if he could call his parents. They said no. He asked if he could call a lawyer. They said no.

...

And his mother continues to be terrified by the thought of what could have happened in the raid. “We’re so fortunate that he’s okay,” she says. “He could have been in the shower. They could have broken the door down. He could have been shot. Over politics.”

Things really got crazy in Wisconsin. It's a good thing that the Supreme Court has shut this crap down. Hopefully, the John Doe law will be revised soon.

 

[Giz]

Jeez, like a banana republic. That's terrible.

 

[sunmaster14]

Another excerpt from the decision (emphasis added):

The special prosecutor’s theories, rather than “assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished.

Sure, I know it sounds bad, but really, how else can we stop these evil and vicious 501(c)(4)s from buying TV ads?

 

[quixotecoyote]

The view from the other side:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/scott-walker-john-doe-investigation

Seems like this is an established Wisconsin legal procedure, and the first one they mention actually turned up some corruption, although it didn't catch Walker.

I don't have enough to say their judgement was biased, but decisions like this are why judges shouldn't be getting campaign donations, since the people they shut down the investigations on had donated millions to their campaigns.

 

[Ziggurat]

The view from the other side:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/scott-walker-john-doe-investigation

Seems like this is an established Wisconsin legal procedure, and the first one they mention actually turned up some corruption, although it didn't catch Walker.

I don't have enough to say their judgement was biased, but decisions like this are why judges shouldn't be getting campaign donations, since the people they shut down the investigations on had donated millions to their campaigns.

John Doe investigations are messed up. Most states don't have anything like them, and for good reason. It's a tool which is too easily abused, as it was here. The fact that they may sometimes uncover legitimate criminal activity isn't an excuse to allow them. I'm sure that cops could catch a lot of criminals if they could do searches without just cause, but we don't let them, and for good reason.

 

[quixotecoyote]

John Doe investigations are messed up. Most states don't have anything like them, and for good reason. It's a tool which is too easily abused, as it was here. The fact that they may sometimes uncover legitimate criminal activity isn't an excuse to allow them. I'm sure that cops could catch a lot of criminals if they could do searches without just cause, but we don't let them, and for good reason.

Maybe so. It's hard to tell. The subject is awash with conservative sites pounding on the horror of the police raids. Which, given by the stories to frequently come out about raids in the age of the Drug War, seem pretty normal and mild. Being woken up, having your house searched messily, kids being scared, normal police ******** that normally gets praised under the law&order, tough on crime mentality.

The John Doe probes are slightly worse than normal investigations, due to the secrecy requirements. I can see them being useful, but they'd need a bar to clear that shows secrecy is necessary, and no such bar exists. I'm guessing that if anyone litigated the gag orders, they'd get tossed as unconstitutional, as a judge mentioned in this case. That said, grand jury investigations are only less secret after the fact, so the stuff that's happened so far wouldn't have seen much difference.

The actual investigation doesn't seem that absurd either. You had $700,000 in secret donations by iron mining organizations to Walker's booster groups, and then he comes out with rules that let them open pit mines worth 1.5 billion. Now, thanks to the wonders of our 'money is speech' version of democracy, it's legal to give the guy who makes the rules boatloads of money as long as he helps your business interests, but there used to be rules that you had to at least know who was buying the government. The prosecutor was relying on some of the campaign finance law still being viable, and the judges (2 of whom getting millions from the people under investigation), ruled otherwise.

Fair enough, a win for Walker. But the ridiculousness of this isn't the investigation that's no more onerous than is typically unobjectionable to the people under investigation. It's the whole *********** "money is speech" deal that makes buying out the governor legal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe so. It's hard to tell. The subject is awash with conservative sites pounding on the horror of the police raids. Which, given by the stories to frequently come out about raids in the age of the Drug War, seem pretty normal and mild. Being woken up, having your house searched messily, kids being scared, normal police ******** that normally gets praised under the law&order, tough on crime mentality.

First, this looks a lot like a tu quoque defense. Second, no-knock raids are pretty bad, and there are plenty of people on the right who are opposed to them as well.

The John Doe probes are slightly worse than normal investigations, due to the secrecy requirements.

That's not slightly worse, that's a lot worse. Do you honestly not get that?

I can see them being useful, but they'd need a bar to clear that shows secrecy is necessary, and no such bar exists.

Exactly. Which is why they shouldn't be allowed. Other states do fine without them.

I'm guessing that if anyone litigated the gag orders, they'd get tossed as unconstitutional, as a judge mentioned in this case. That said, grand jury investigations are only less secret after the fact, so the stuff that's happened so far wouldn't have seen much difference.

Fair enough, a win for Walker. But the ridiculousness of this isn't the investigation that's no more onerous than is typically unobjectionable to the people under investigation. It's the whole *********** "money is speech" deal that makes buying out the governor legal.

The prosecutor began a secret investigation with no evidence of any illegal behavior. That doesn't trouble you? The then prevented subjects of that investigation from talking about it. That doesn't trouble you? He used armed raids to search people not even suspected of any violent crimes. That doesn't trouble you? And for what? For a legal theory that crumbles upon inspection.

Your only defense of all of this is that basically they deserved it, because they're conservatives. That's a bull **** defense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The John Doe probes are slightly worse than normal investigations, due to the secrecy requirements. I can see them being useful, but they'd need a bar to clear that shows secrecy is necessary, and no such bar exists. I'm guessing that if anyone litigated the gag orders, they'd get tossed as unconstitutional, as a judge mentioned in this case. That said, grand jury investigations are only less secret after the fact, so the stuff that's happened so far wouldn't have seen much difference.

You know, it's mostly the "no, you're not allowed to talk to the police or your lawyer about this at all" that wigs me out and makes it seem completely wrong. It's like a carte blanche allowing the police to violate the suspect's rights, and the suspect has no recourse to defend themselves. There's no due process in that.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, it's mostly the "no, you're not allowed to talk to the police or your lawyer about this at all" that wigs me out and makes it seem completely wrong.

FTFY.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Meh. Soft-sell on my part. I'm expressing my opinion of a situation where I may not have all the facts. It's my impression and my understanding, and I hesitate to state it as incontrovertible fact. Even if I believe it to be so.

 

[Ziggurat]

Meh. Soft-sell on my part. I'm expressing my opinion of a situation where I may not have all the facts. It's my impression and my understanding, and I hesitate to state it as incontrovertible fact. Even if I believe it to be so.

What forum do you think you're in? Don't you know this is politics?