WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

Too bad, so sad:

Immediately, national news outlets and liberal activists ran with the story, nearly breaking the Internet in the process. “Prosecutors: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Part Of 'Criminal Scheme'” read the Huffington Post. Politico ran with a similar story, adding that “Walker has denied wrongdoing, and no charges have been filed.” Undeterred by facts, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas tweeted, “As feds close in on Scott Walker, just note: none of this would be happening without the recall elections. #DeferredVictory”

However, missing from all these accounts was one small fact: Shortly after prosecutors made the “criminal scheme” charge, it was rejected by the presiding judge, Gregory Peterson. On Dec. 9, 2013, prosecutor Francis Schmitz filed a motion in opposition to quashing subpoenas in the case in which he made the “criminal scheme” allegation. On Jan. 10, 2014, Peterson threw out Schmitz’s motion, saying that it “failed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed.”

In fact, Peterson was only the first judge to rule against prosecutors. Last month, ruling on a lawsuit brought by the defendants, federal Judge Rudolph Randa shut down the entire investigation, issuing a sternly worded rebuke to prosecutors pursing Walker and his allies. So despite all the celebrating liberal groups were doing with the release of the documents on Thursday, few of them knew that the case is currently dead.
 
You seem happy that one of several corrupt slimeball GOP governors may get away with his corruption. Are you similarly cheering for Christie and McDonnell to avoid jail time?
 
I don't know how this will turn out but it bothers me that the groups are admitting to collusion but saying how they collided doesn't count as illegal. It just sounds too much like arguing that they broke the spirit of the law just not the letter, which is not a particularly moral position to be in.
 
You seem happy that one of several corrupt slimeball GOP governors may get away with his corruption. Are you similarly cheering for Christie and McDonnell to avoid jail time?

Two judges have already ruled that there is no probable cause to pursue the case against Walker. It is pretty obvious that this is all about trying to derail a popular governor from a swing state in advance of 2016. As the judge wrote quashing the original subpoenas:

Motions to quash subpoenas have been filed by: (1) Friends of Scott Walker (FOSW); (2) Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc. and its affiliate WMC-IMC.; (3) Wisconsin Club for Growth directors and accountant; and (4) Citizens for a Strong America, Inc. directors and officers. The motions have been fully briefed. The State's brief is a consolidated response, so I assume a consolidated decision will not adversely affect the secrecy order.

I am granting the motions to quash and ordering return of any property seized as a result of the subpoenas. I conclude the subpoenas do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws. I am persuaded the statutes only prohibit coordination by candidates and independent organizations for a political purpose, and political purpose, with one minor exception not relevant here (transfer of personalty, Wis. Stat. 11.01(7)(a)2.), requires express advocacy. There is no evidence of express advocacy.
 
I don't know how this will turn out but it bothers me that the groups are admitting to collusion but saying how they collided doesn't count as illegal. It just sounds too much like arguing that they broke the spirit of the law just not the letter, which is not a particularly moral position to be in.

It does not violate the spirit of the law. The issue is one of issue advocacy versus express advocacy. The former is protected from government regulation by the 1st Amendment, whilst the latter is not. Here is George Will's summary of the Wisconsin shenanigans, and a relevant excerpt:

O’Keefe and the other harassed conservatives had engaged only in issue advocacy, not express advocacy. That is, they had not urged the election of specific candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government regulation of political speech is permissible only to prevent quid pro quo corruption — money purchasing political favors — resulting from express advocacy. Hence there is no justification for the prosecutors’ punitive investigation of O’Keefe’s and others’ issue advocacy. As Randa said, this has no “taint of quid pro quo corruption” and thus “is not subject to regulation.”

The rest of Will's op-ed explains how egregious the behavior of prosecutors was. This was even worse than a witch hunt. It was political oppression disguised as a witch hunt.
 
It does not violate the spirit of the law. The issue is one of issue advocacy versus express advocacy. The former is protected from government regulation by the 1st Amendment, whilst the latter is not.

It is pretty clearly questionable in the spirit of the law. Walker was colluding with the PACs to send his message. They were clearly implicitly advertising for Walker's reelection through collusion. The explicit/implicit divide is an ethically questionable argument.

As of right now the argument basically amounts to this:
"Vote for Scott Walker" - Illegal
"Scott Walker is awesome and his opponents are baby seal clubbers" - legal
It's obvious that both communicate the same message because humans make implicit connections automatically. If they hadn't colluded there wouldn't have been a problem, but they did so now we get to hear all the sordid details.

And George Will is kind of creepy (to the point where at least one paper has dropped his column because of it) and I'm not particularly interested in his apologetics.
 
Last edited:
I don't know who McDonnell is, but has Christie committed a crime?

This remains to be seen. Would withholding Sandy relief funds if the mayor of Hoboken refused to approve a real estate project for Christie's friends be a crime? Even just regarding the bridge closings, would purposely stopping traffic in a city as political retribution be a crime? I think it is, but I'm not sure.
 
This remains to be seen. Would withholding Sandy relief funds if the mayor of Hoboken refused to approve a real estate project for Christie's friends be a crime? Even just regarding the bridge closings, would purposely stopping traffic in a city as political retribution be a crime? I think it is, but I'm not sure.


Abuse of power is a crime in NJ. Interference with interstate commerce is a federal crime.
 
This remains to be seen. Would withholding Sandy relief funds if the mayor of Hoboken refused to approve a real estate project for Christie's friends be a crime? Even just regarding the bridge closings, would purposely stopping traffic in a city as political retribution be a crime? I think it is, but I'm not sure.

Have you called the police?
 
The rest of Will's op-ed explains how egregious the behavior of prosecutors was. This was even worse than a witch hunt. It was political oppression disguised as a witch hunt.

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?
 

Back
Top Bottom