WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

Roadtoad said:
This is wrong on so many levels. Not the least of which is that simply having a seat on the bench does not mean you forfeit your rights.

Enough is enough.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that bad asking for a probe. I think I read in the article that they do not have a right to openly support political parties.... I don't think this falls in that category, but others can disagree and ask for it to be looked at. No problem with that.
 
BenBurch said:
Actually, yes! See previous page.

He admits he is under criminal investigation by forming a defense fund - something illegal in Wisconsin unless you are being investigated by a GJ or have been indicted or arrested.
Click to expand...

Color me unimpressed. The alleged activities happened in his office. It was already a given that the prosecutor would have questions for him, and that he would start a defense fund.

When the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, only serious rocket nerds and the guys at Mission Control considered booster separation a new development.
 
theprestige said:
Color me unimpressed. The alleged activities happened in his office. It was already a given that the prosecutor would have questions for him, and that he would start a defense fund.

When the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, only serious rocket nerds and the guys at Mission Control considered booster separation a new development.
Click to expand...

You're analogy makes no sense to me, sorry.

But we just went from "No proof walker is investigated" to "Walker admits he is investigated".

Seems fairly significant to me.
 
BenBurch said:
As judges, I do believe they know the law better than you do.
Click to expand...


Great. Well, time to shut it down folks. No need to question the interpretation of laws ever again, the judges have it under control (except for the nasty conservative ones like Clarence Thomas).
 
mikedenk said:
The judges, who are prohibited from supporting political parties or candidates, apparently think they've found some sort of loophole.

"Look, we're not supporting a candidate, we're just OPPOSING the other guy! Totally different!"

Get real.
Click to expand...
So, in what statute is it spelled out that in addition to giving up the right to engage in direct partisan activity, the judges also give up the right to petition the government?
 
crimresearch said:
So, in what statute is it spelled out that in addition to giving up the right to engage in direct partisan activity, the judges also give up the right to petition the government?
Click to expand...


They don't in all cases. In this case, signing the petition indicates direct opposition of a candidate/party, which is the equivalent of supporting a candidate/party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom