WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

FTR:

Like Clinton's White Water I've little doubt Walker was involved. Proving it is another thing though.
 
Tricky said:
Section B.
Click to expand...
Yes I know, but I asked for the part implicating Walker?

So far it's just Brad Blog and a few posters in this thread saying Walker is implicated. Not the prosecuter, not any reliable news source.

So, got a link? A quote?
 
WildCat said:
Has "relevant" somehow become a synonym of "implicated" and I just didn't notice?
Click to expand...
If you're one of the people listed in the complaint, then you're implicated. This much is clear. If you want to argue something, argue whether the complaint has any validity. This is too small of a nitpick to base your argument on.
 
BenBurch said:
Read the complaint. It clearly ties the accused with Walker.
Click to expand...
And Obama has ties to Tony Rezko.

Your point?

Tricky said:
If you're one of the people listed in the complaint, then you're implicated. This much is clear. If you want to argue something, argue whether the complaint has any validity. This is too small of a nitpick to base your argument on.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the complaint against Walker. "relevant parties" is a very broad term.
 
crimresearch said:
You never asked for corroboration that Walker had been implicated, you are just now adding that in.

Do you seriously think no one scrolls up and compares reality with your feeble evasions?

You said let you know when a reputable outlet ran the story about Rindfleisch, and you got what you asked for.
Click to expand...

Why would you think he was asking for something other than let him know when a reputable outlet ran a story "implicating Walker" that is what the thread was about.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Do you know what the definition is of relavant parties is for this purpose?
Click to expand...

If it is like most such documents I have read, it is to establish a predicate for bringing a conspiracy charge in front of a Grand Jury. I am not intimately familiar with the WI court system, however. But it seems fair to look at this document in that light, especially as they are going out of their way to tie him in to significant points in this charge.
 
BenBurch said:
Read the complaint. It clearly ties the accused with Walker.
Click to expand...

Not very convincingly, though. She worked in the same building as him, and for a time she worked on his reelection campaign. Then she resigned from the campaign when a new guy was brought in to work on the campaign, apparently because the two didn't get along.

At worst (best?), Walker's contribution to this case is going to be his testimony that he had no idea Rindfleisch was perpetrating shenanigans. Nobody will produce any evidence that he knew, and that will be that.

I've only skimmed a portion of the complaint so far, but so far the gist of seems to be that she participated in campaign activities while employed by the government, in violation of government regulations. The stuff I've read so far gives pretty clear details of exactly who she was working with during the prohibited periods, and so far none of those people are Scott Walker.

As far as I can tell, this document implicates Walker in two things:
  1. As County Executive, not micro-managing his deputy chief(s) of staff to make sure they're not campaigning on county time; and
  2. As candidate for governor, not micro-managing mid-level campaign staff to make sure they're not campaigning on county time.

I'd be interested to see if anybody can find something substantially more damning for Walker, in this complaint. I'd also be interested to see if anybody can advance a coherent argument that the stuff I found is particularly damning for Walker.

Like I said, all this complaint really does is put Walker on the "people who get to be deposed by counsel" during the prosecution of the case.

COUNSEL: Mr. Walker, did you know that the defendant was perpetrating shenanigans?

WALKER: No.

COUNSEL: No further questions, your honor.

JUDGE: Next witness!
 
BenBurch said:
If it is like most such documents I have read, it is to establish a predicate for bringing a conspiracy charge in front of a Grand Jury. I am not intimately familiar with the WI court system, however. But it seems fair to look at this document in that light, especially as they are going out of their way to tie him in to significant points in this charge.
Click to expand...

What specific points do you find "significant", and in what way do you believe this document ties Walker to those points?
 
theprestige said:
What specific points do you find "significant", and in what way do you believe this document ties Walker to those points?
Click to expand...

That the candidate she is alleged to have illegally helped was the preferred candidate of the Walker team. All that needs to be found in discovery is anything that shows Walker was aware of this.

RICO-type conspiracy, as I understand it, does not need real strong declarative orders to show that somebody was working at the behest of somebody else; the Mob is usually careful to never say things plainly. You show awareness and that the person benefited, in this case by getting the preferred candidate elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom