WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

[Grizzly Adams]

You usually are not so dishonest. You should apologize.

It was clear to everybody that the cheering is over corruption being exposed, not cheering for corruption.

When someone says "hooray for that nasty little man being implicated in it," that doesn't support your theory in the least.

In fact, all it does is expose the cheering for what it was: one partisan cheering for the possible downfall of another.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

Why would I think that he was only asking for what he asked for, instead of proof of some hyperbolic thread title?

Ever heard of 'Keep it simple, st'.... oh, never mind.

 

[eeyore1954]

You usually are not so dishonest. You should apologize.

It was clear to everybody that the cheering is over corruption being exposed, not cheering for corruption.

To me clearly the cheering was about the possibility of someone Complexity does not like being implicated in something.

 

[eeyore1954]

Why would I think that he was only asking for what he asked for, instead of proof of some hyperbolic thread title?

Ever heard of 'Keep it simple, st'.... oh, never mind.

Did he ask for proof that Kelly M. Rindfleisch was charged with four felony counts of misconduct in public office.

Because the request was posted in the hyberbolic thread , the article in the hyperbolic thread implied the same thing as the title and the quote included in the thread implied the same thing.

A recall from his position as Wisconsin's governor could ultimately be the least of Gov. Scott Walker's worry, if a criminal complaint quietly moving forward in the Badger State court system continues on its current trajectory. At the moment, Walker seems to be at the bottom of a mountain where an avalanche is just beginning to roll.

.

Do you want anyone to believe that people in this thread are concerned whether "Kelly M. Rindfleisch was charged with four felony counts of misconduct in public office" if Walker is not implicated.

 

[RandFan]

To me clearly the cheering was about the possibility of someone Complexity does not like being implicated in something.

Which I don't have a problem with. AIU, Walker didn't campaign on ending collective bargaining and he was given concessions to close budget gaps but he striped union rights anyway. I have no proof he is guilty of anything. I'd be damn surprised if he wasn't though. I very much hope he has done something inappropriate and that he suffers the consequences of those actions.. If not I hope he is recalled. I think he's a dishonest piece of ****.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Which page incriminates Walker?

None

Can you quote the parts that implicate Walker?

No one can, because they aren't there. The part that has the "Brad Blog" (really? That's the best name you could think up?) all worked up, is basically listing all the characters involved (but not indicted, or even accused of anything), so that someone reading the indictment knows who is who.

 

[Reginald Hobbes]

The very language used to describe Scott Walker as a relevant party is,

...at all times relevant to this criminal complaint...

Let's read the entire sentence:

Mr. Walker, the current Governor of the State of Wisconsin, was at all times relevant to this complaint the County Executive of Milwaukee County.

They were describing the position he held during the time in question.
Mr. Walker, the current Governor of the State of Wisconsin, was, at all times relevant to this complaint, the County Executive of Milwaukee County.

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.

Then there was no benefit here, because Brett Davis did not receive the nomination for Lt Gov.

 

[WildCat]

Tu Quoque.

No, it's not. It's an example that being tied to someone engaged in illegal activities doesn't implicate you in their illegal activities.

Read the document. The writer goes out of his way to tie these activities to Walker.

Are you calling Brad Blog a "document"?

Because nothing in the actual document ties these activities to Walker. And just imagine the Milwauker Journal Sentinel getting scooped by Brad Blog on a public document implicating the Governor of Wisconsin for criminal activity! Somehow, I doubt this is happening.

 

[WildCat]

And the pope has ties to Nazi youth groups!

Holy apples to oranges batman!

Ben Burch claims merely having ties to someone implicates you in their criminal activity. Do you agree with this?

The very language used to describe Scott Walker as a relevant party is,

Reginald Hobbes already covered that one, you're reading it wrong.

 

[crimresearch]

Because the request was posted in the hyberbolic thread , the article in the hyperbolic thread implied the same thing as the title and the quote included in the thread implied the same thing.
.

Do you want anyone to believe that people in this thread are concerned whether "Kelly M. Rindfleisch was charged with four felony counts of misconduct in public office" if Walker is not implicated.

In other words, you would have interpreted it in other than a straightforward manner, for reasons that appeal to you.
In other words, you wouldn't have just provided an assortment of links and let people see for themselves if the actual news story supported any particular aspect of pooh-flinging.
In other words, you would have brewed up a big ol' cup of 'willing suspension of skepticism'.

Well, here comes the hard part. Not everyone is like you, not everyone does things like you, and not everyone gives a rat's butt about your opinion on the way things should be done.

 

[WildCat]

In other words, you would have interpreted it in other than a straightforward manner, for reasons that appeal to you.
In other words, you wouldn't have just provided an assortment of links and let people see for themselves if the actual news story supported any particular aspect of pooh-flinging.
In other words, you would have brewed up a big ol' cup of 'willing suspension of skepticism'.

Well, here comes the hard part. Not everyone is like you, not everyone does things like you, and not everyone gives a rat's butt about your opinion on the way things should be done.

I'm pretty sure you're the only person here who is confused as to what I was talking about.

 

[BenBurch]

... The part that has the "Brad Blog" (really? That's the best name you could think up?) all worked up, is basically listing all the characters involved (but not indicted, or even accused of anything), so that someone reading the indictment knows who is who.

Brad Friedman is a friend of mine, and his blog grew from something rather small and focused only on the dangers of electronic voting machines to a very popular news and opinion site. He is a good writer and a good journalist, and a stand-up guy. (He's also good at shameless self-promotion, something I suck at.)

 

[BenBurch]

[/I]
No, it's not. It's an example that being tied to someone engaged in illegal activities doesn't implicate you in their illegal activities.


Are you calling Brad Blog a "document"?

Because nothing in the actual document ties these activities to Walker. And just imagine the Milwauker Journal Sentinel getting scooped by Brad Blog on a public document implicating the Governor of Wisconsin for criminal activity! Somehow, I doubt this is happening.

The PDF is really quite clear. We're going to have to agree to disagree about this, and we will see what transpires.

 

[eeyore1954]

In other words, you would have interpreted it in other than a straightforward manner, for reasons that appeal to you.
In other words, you wouldn't have just provided an assortment of links and let people see for themselves if the actual news story supported any particular aspect of pooh-flinging.
In other words, you would have brewed up a big ol' cup of 'willing suspension of skepticism'.

Well, here comes the hard part. Not everyone is like you, not everyone does things like you, and not everyone gives a rat's butt about your opinion on the way things should be done.

To me the straightforward manner was "this is a thread about Walker being implicated based upon a claim in something called the brad blog." hence the information requested was about that.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I very much hope he has done something inappropriate

So you're hoping a politician you don't like has been corrupted.

 

[Brainster]

Brad Friedman is a friend of mine, and his blog grew from something rather small and focused only on the dangers of electronic voting machines to a very popular news and opinion site. He is a good writer and a good journalist, and a stand-up guy. (He's also good at shameless self-promotion, something I suck at.)

He's a kook. I spent an hour with him on the phone one time when he tried to get me to change some stuff I had written about Sibel Edmonds (another kook). At the time he was still trying to pitch her supposed sensational expose to the national media. None of them bought the story, so he ended up having to write it up for Hustler, as I pointed out above.

 

[BenBurch]

You sell stories where you can. He does believe Edmonds but we all have our nutty ideas. He's no truther, I can tell you that.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

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

WALKER: No.

COUNSEL: No further questions, your honor.

JUDGE: Next witness!

Shenanigans are legal in Wisconsin under statute 27 paragraph 3 subsection TragicMonkey.

Hijinks on the other hand, are a felony, and are punishable by death by cheese wheel.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm pretty sure you're the only person here who is confused as to what I was talking about.

You are pretty sure about many things... that are complete fantasies on your part.

 

[crimresearch]

To me the straightforward manner was "this is a thread about Walker being implicated based upon a claim in something called the brad blog." hence the information requested was about that.

As I said, you don't get to decide for anyone else.

What you shoulda-coulda-woulda done or thought is only relevant to you.