From the brief filed yesterday in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals by Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, excerpted and discussed by Professor Jacobson, whose blog post ends:
Lavrenti Beria, head of the KGB under Stalin, is reported to have said: “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”I got to Professor Jacobson via Instapundit, who said: "The Deep State isn’t that big on law, but it’s big on legal institutions."
If the factual recitation in the John Doe targets’ Brief is accurate, that was exactly the methodology used by prosecutors in Wisconsin.
The man was Scott Walker, the crime has not yet been found, but in the pursuit the conservative movement was silenced and had its constitutional rights violated.
ADDED: Here is an easily readable PDF of the document. Those with a background in Federal Courts (a subject I've taught for 30 years) should be interested in the details of the discussion of the Younger, Pullman, and Burford abstention doctrines. The John Doe investigation is a proceeding that one might argue should be allowed to take its course within the institutions of state government, especially since there is a state statute to be interpreted and applied. Why should O'Keefe and the Club be allowed to go on the offensive in federal court? Isn't that disruptive, duplicative, and disrespectful? The brief must answer those questions.
Posts
158 comments:
The sheer audacity and hubris of these people in pursuit of their ideology at any cost is astounding. The chilling effect their actions had on the rights of others is appalling and they need to be prosecuted to the full of extent of the law for willfully and deliberately depriving their fellow citizens of their Constitutional guaranteed rights. These people are a cult!
If that's the way they want to behave, two can play at that game. Do they really want to go there?
O'Keefe should sue for costs too.
By the way Prof. Your comment that this should follow the state courts before jumping to federal merely allows the state to play their Stassi like game longer and deprive the defendant's right to free speech and association.
The sheer audacity and hubris of these people in pursuit of their ideology at any cost is astounding. The chilling effect their actions had on the rights of others is appalling and they need to be prosecuted to the full of extent of the law for willfully and deliberately depriving their fellow citizens of their Constitutional guaranteed rights. These people are a cult!
Are you talking about the Club for Growth or the investigators?
Why is the federal government getting involved in a simple lunch counter dispute, much less interfering with the local schools in deciding who will be allowed entrance into the schools? Isn't this disruptive and disrespectful of the States? Just for some so-called "Civil Rights"?
Precedent in Jarndyce v. Jarndyce must be followed first.
The brief needs to show the statute, as applied, is violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That has been accomplished.
Anybody who continues to support this crime by Democrats against Republicans because of politics, in abrogating civil rights, should face public scorn.
Once again Democrats support exclusion. Bull Connor, redux, but this time in Wisconsin.
But that is not how the game is being played, Larry J. Republicans never try to drum up phony charges against Democrat politicians to run them out of town. In large part because they can't get away with it in the court of public opinion. As long as the media is owned by democrat leaning corporations who use that power to put their thumb on the scales of public discourse the game, set, and match, will continue to go to the Democrat party. They do Josef Goebbels proud.
The John Doe investigation is a proceeding that one might argue should be allowed to take its course within the institutions of state government, especially since there is a state statute to be interpreted and applied. Why should O'Keefe and the Club be allowed to go on the offensive in federal court? Isn't that disruptive, duplicative, and disrespectful? The brief must answer those questions.
I've got a beyond vague recollection of "abstention" from long ago law school. But in a common sense way the answer seems plain, the "institutions of state government" have themselves been perverted and are in no position to act as referee.
The brief must answer those questions.
Professor:
For those of us without a background in Federal Courts, could you give us your opinion on whether the brief does answer those questions?
" The John Doe investigation is a proceeding that one might argue should be allowed to take its course within the institutions of state government, especially since there is a state statute to be interpreted and applied. Why should O'Keefe and the Club be allowed to go on the offensive in federal court? Isn't that disruptive, duplicative, and disrespectful? The brief must answer those questions."
The State courts are tainted since the action occurred under auspices of the State itself. For example, State judges issued (or endorsed) warrants.
I have no legal training beyond a truly excellent High School Civics course taken back in the day, but my understanding is that no local law can abridge the rights of citizens as defined by the Federal Constitution. If the effect of applying an Abstention doctrine is to allow the State to infringe upon those rights indefinitely (since as far as I know this John Doe investigation does not have any end in sight as far as the prosecutors are concerned) then it strikes me that the plaintiffs need to make the case that the sweeping nature of the John Doe investigation shows that the State is using the local statute as a mechanism of harassment. The fact that anyone and everyone who took positive political action aligned with the interests of Scott Walker could potentially be investigated and be legally required to not speak of the investigation seems on the face of it to be a suppression of protected speech.
To the extent that the issues pertain to how the State of WI runs its John Doe investigations, the Federal courts maybe should abstain. But where a federal question is involved, i.e., the First Amendment, the Feds cannot abstain.
"By the way Prof. Your comment that this should follow the state courts before jumping to federal merely allows the state to play their Stassi like game longer and deprive the defendant's right to free speech and association."
You're ascribing a position to me that I didn't take!
And, if the brief does not answer those questions, is that because the plaintiff's position is weak, or because their lawyer is not doing a good job?
I see Freder Frederson supports efforts to deprive American citizens of civil rights.
George Wallace supports your Democratic efforts, Freder. You are in good Democrat, civil right denying company.
"For those of us without a background in Federal Courts, could you give us your opinion on whether the brief does answer those questions?"
There are a lot of separate questions, and I'm not going to purport to do what the court must do on all of them. There is a lot of precedent to apply to the very difficult fact pattern. But generally I do think they have made good arguments with respect to all of the issues that the defendants raised.
Althouse:
Does your non-position-taking statement apply in other civil rights cases where it is the state that is violating civil rights under the 14th Amendment?
I encourage Democrats to apply the rule you suggest. *snicker*
Disrespectful?
Using government to attack political opponents has gotten very popular.
Thank you, Mr Obama!
"I have no legal training beyond a truly excellent High School Civics course taken back in the day, but my understanding is that no local law can abridge the rights of citizens as defined by the Federal Constitution."
Yes, but the state courts are also bound to apply the federal Constitution, and in many situations, the federal courts must (or may) leave it to the states to apply the constitutional law, subject to review down the line by the Supreme Court.
This is a case of someone who is already caught up in a state procedure wanting to begin another case, in federal court, to get into the offensive position. Generally, that's not allowed. You're supposed to raise federal defenses in state court.
The main problem with that in this case, and the main argument against abstention, is that the state proceeding doesn't offer an adequate opportunity to raise the federal defenses.
I'll wait until garage weighs in before halving my opinion of Wisconsin Dems.
I't won't be illegal until Republicans do it to Democrats.
The whole Doe clan is the problem. Everywhere they go they start legal trouble in secret. I am sorry to hear that Does have moved to Wisconsin. Their real name is Smith.
I blame The Sound of Music for popularizing Austrian female deers.
Republicans never try to drum up phony charges against Democrat politicians to run them out of town.
Says someone with no memory.
MM Re: Phony charges.
I have a poor memory also (age related). Help me here.
It may or may not be legal, but that $700k law Walker passed for Gogebic ain't right.
This case may win in the court, but I bet a win in the court assures a loss for Walker.
If Republicans were in this racket it hasn't been in the last 20 years or so. Now we ARE talking about PHONY charges here, not when Democrats are guilty of actual wrongdoing. there is quite a list of those... I don't care to get into that rat-hole tho...
TRADITIONALGUY!
AIN'T NO SUCH ANIMAL AS DEERS!
Usage is 'Deer" in all occasions. E.g., If you go to a stag party and pay a few bucks to have some Jane Does dance for you don't go home and have your Dearest see the lipstick on your collar. She might put you out to pasture, where you could encounter many deer in their natural setting.
Signed, -Grammar Police.
MadisonMan: "Says someone with no memory."
MadisonMan is correct.
And even if he weren't it wouldn't matter.
Improper abuse of one's political opponents using the long arm of government is a natural consequence of the increasing power and scope of governments over the individual.
The mere fact that it's dems doing it so broadly at this point (with clear gusto combined with no shame whatsoever) doesn't mean there wouldn't be repubs doing it later.
Sunshine makes the best disinfectant. Because a partisan press has fallen down on the job, the feds need to step in an clean up this "local" cesspool of liberal lawfare. I would hope even goo-goo liberals see the threat this sort of star chamber poses to liberty. You guys won't always be in charge and you might enjoy the protection of the 1st amendment at some point.
It may or may not be legal, but that $700k law Walker passed for Gogebic ain't right.
GTac and their lawyers wrote the bill.
Why should O'Keefe and the Club be allowed to go on the offensive in federal court? Isn't that disruptive, duplicative, and disrespectful?
When it comes to civil rights, Federal court is exactly the place to go. And this star chamber exercise is a grim exhibit of why those who wrote the US Constitution placed restrictions on the powers of government against individuals and organizations.
Very similar to State tyranny against blacks. The Feds went over the heads of the States whose laws permitted racial persecution, and here they can properly go over the head of the good ol' County boys who are in lynch mob mode against opinion differences benefiting non-Democrats.
Not EVERY person. Just the ones they know have secret routers and dark secrets in their hearts.
"Are you talking about the Club for Growth or the investigators?"
-- The Club for Growth cannot chill any free speech. Free speech can only be chilled by those in political power.
In southern Austria we sez deers. Wisconsin insider Criminal politics is sort of Austrian. But Walker's boots walked all over them. being Southern Baptist Walker actually forgot to fear the corrupts politics that rules Madison.
Isn't that disruptive, duplicative, and disrespectful?
The First Amendment guarantees individuals, among other rights, the right to freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The goal of the Wisconsin witch hunt is to abridge these rights, consequently the proper place to petition for redress is in the federal courts.
So the answers to your questions, Professor, are "no," "no," and "who cares -- Wisconsin Democrats deserve no respect."
Says someone with no memory.
Remember Chuck Chvala? I don't recall conservatives jumping into bed defending him, for basically the same thing that is being investigated right now. Here is the state's sentencing memo. Less than 10 years later. Conservatives are just so full of shit it's jaw dropping.
Ah, the "you did it also" defense.
Sounds like my adolescent chile(sic).
Ah, the "you did it also" defense.
Not a defense. An observation that this is not a partisan problem, but rather a universal one.
Remember Georgia Thompson, used as a cudgel on Jim Doyle? Similar (but different :) ) to what has been done to OKeefe.
Ah, the "you did it also" defense.
Democrats go to jail and Republicans can't even get investigated. Hey, that works out great for Republicans!
"Free speech can only be chilled by those in political power."
Brendan Eich, Target, and others, would disagree.
Not a defense. An observation that this is not a partisan problem, but rather a universal one.
Chvala should not have been investigated, tried/convicted, and sent to jail? If so, Walker needs to pardon him ASAP.
I will mark "garage mahal" down as 'willing to violate the civil rights of American citizens for political expedience' and recognize that he is every bit as bad as L.B. Sullivan who thought civil rights violations were just jake.
Civil rights are important. Democrats should take a break from trying to violate those rights.
Chvala pleaded guilty, didn't he? How is... how is that comparable?
"Brendan Eich, Target, and others, would disagree."
-- Maybe I'm being overly dogmatic about the particular turn of phrase.
It may universal with respect to both sides doing it. But,I would argue using the legal system to go after one's political adversaries resides primarily with one party. Primarily to large degree.
The continuing "not a smidgen" (phony) IRS scandal is similar in nature. The claim by the left the IRS went after the Dems also is farcical.
The left has mastered the art of the using the legal system in all facets of the political system.. The hetero sexual marriage laws dropping like flies. Can't win at the ballot box? Find a friendly judge.
Sure the R's dabble in it, but they mere novices and generally too timid to execute.
isn't it because the state judges are either corrupt (see the judge who signed off on this witch hunt) or have already struck this down?
@garage, I had never heard of Chuck Chvala, so I looked him up on the Internet. It seems that (a) he was a Wisconsin state senator who (b) was being tried on 19 counts including the very serious felony of using his position to extort campaign money. As part of an overly-lenient plea bargain he pled guilty to two minor counts of making an illegal campaign contribution and directing state employees to do pro bono campaign activities.
There is nothing in the Chuck Chvala case remotely like the efforts to chill the free speech of O'Keefe and others.
sojerofgod said...
But that is not how the game is being played, Larry J. Republicans never try to drum up phony charges against Democrat politicians to run them out of town. In large part because they can't get away with it in the court of public opinion. As long as the media is owned by democrat leaning corporations who use that power to put their thumb on the scales of public discourse the game, set, and match, will continue to go to the Democrat party. They do Josef Goebbels proud.
I know that. A big part of the law is precedent. Since Democrats have been waging lawfare for some time, often successful, then there is precedent to do the same thing to them.
"Democrats go to jail and Republicans can't even get investigated. Hey, that works out great for Republicans!"
Yeah, it worked out well for Ray Donovan. I'm sure you've forgotten him.
Mathew Sablan: "- Maybe I'm being overly dogmatic about the particular turn of phrase."
Extremism in defense of dogmatism is no vice!
Big Mike: "There is nothing in the Chuck Chvala case remotely like the efforts to chill the free speech of O'Keefe and others."
Expecting garage to rise above a high school freshman level of understanding regarding facts of cases is asking far too much.
Chvala pleaded guilty, didn't he? How is... how is that comparable?
The state was allowed to investigate Chvala without interference from a sympathetic federal judge?
garage: "The state was allowed to investigate Chvala without interference from a sympathetic federal judge?"
LOL
And there you have it.
No further comment required.
No further comment required.
You can't comment because you have no clue what the topic even is. It would be one thing if you tried, but you're too stupid, and more importantly, too lazy.
garage: "You can't comment because you have no clue what the topic even is."
LOL
We are currently chatting about your utter inability to discern legal differences between different cases.
Your subsequent postings bear this out in spades.
When this is pointed out, you fume and howl at the moon because you can't see it even when it is pointed out.
That explains your pathetic lashing out rather than backing up your own assertions with a serious discussion about why the case you mentioned is comparable to the John Doe investigation.
But again, no one blames you for this.
It's just who and what you are.
I thought the State DID investigate Walker?
I thought that was the whole point of the suit. They investigated. They dug. They raided people's offices.
They found NOTHING, but want to keep going on the legal theory "It's got to be there!"
Mathew Sablan: "They found NOTHING, but want to keep going on the legal theory "It's got to be there!""
You lost garage at "They found NOTHING, but....."
Suddenly we're upset that plaintiffs are using Federal Court to overturn State Court rulings?
And what authority permits Wisconsin to denature the First and Fourth Amendment rights of its citizens so egregiously?
Still riding on the D ticket, Ann...
I am a lawyer who rarely deals with any of the abstention doctrines except for Colorado River, which is inapplicable here, but of the various cases the good professor named, my memory is that only Younger impinges on criminal matters, and it has exceptions for facial constitutional challenges (as opposed to as applied challenges) meaning the entire statute is a constitutional violation under any circumstances. I think there might also be a bad faith exception. Now I'm going to read the brief and see if this is adresssed and if I'm right.
We are currently chatting about your utter inability to discern legal differences between different cases.?
No, you're not discussing anything. You're either too dumb or too lazy to even attempt it. Your comments are nothing more than yapping from the sideline.
Chvala was convicted for illegally controlling what was supposed to be an independent campaign committee.
1. Should Chvala have been investigated?
2. Were his 1st Amendment rights violated int the process?
I know you're too stupid to answer. Perhaps someone else could try to explain.
I will say it's entertaining to watch Garage use Chvala to justify the partisan investigation in John Doe II. Hmmmm seems to me that Chvala was part of a larger investigation of misdeeds by both Democrats and Republicans in the Caucus Scandal. So it was a completely nonpartisan investigation.
I guess that little fact eluded Garage in his zeal to make some kind of point.
garage still doesn't get it.
You were the one whom brought up the Chvala case as similar to the John Doe investigation.
You should be able to explain why.
You haven't at anything other than a cursory, moronic level of detail.
Then you ask me the questions that you should have provided as the basis for your comparison.
Why haven't you?
Stupid?
Lazy?
Let's just say it's clear that it's both.
Are there any other cases you believe are similar yet can't explain why?
PackerBronco: "I guess that little fact eluded Garage in his zeal to make some kind of point."
All the facts elude garage.
Even when he makes assertions.
And he always wants someone else to explain it to him.
Drago said...
------------
You lost garage at "They found NOTHING, but....."
------------
Garage belongs to the legal school of: "Sentence first; verdict afterwards."
Actually with this case Garage and his pals belongs to the legal school of: "Sentence first; then verdict; and then thirdly find a crime."
"Garage belongs to the legal school of: "Sentence first; verdict afterwards.""
Garage belongs to the school where you wear helmets and use safety scissors. A moron AND an a-hole. Wow garage, your sex life must be stellar.
They found NOTHING, but want to keep going on the legal theory "It's got to be there!"
They found all kinds of stuff. Namely, emails directing coordination to supposedly independent groups. A federal judge halted the investigation and the decision on whether it can continue is with the 7th Circuit.
Could you guys be bothered at all to read up on the simplest aspects of a case before opining?
My understanding is that what was found wasn't illegal, which is why the judge halted it.
So, yes. They found emails that were determined to be, while sometimes awkward/not very nice/not what we'd all like, also not illegal.
Chvala
What a sleaze he was. I think of him every time I see the Power Plant on Walnut and shake my head.
"They found all kinds of stuff. Namely, emails directing coordination to supposedly independent groups. A federal judge halted the investigation and the decision on whether it can continue is with the 7th Circuit."
And that is like the other case because? And did the other guy plead guilty or not (which IMHO and probably ignorant of law means he was probably guilty of something)?
They found emails that were determined to be, while sometimes awkward/not very nice/not what we'd all like, also not illegal.
They, as in Judge Randa, who has been overturned by the 7th Circuit, hilariously, many times. We'll have to wait to hear from them.
Garage: "They found all kinds of stuff."
Yes, he actually just wrote that.
LOL
I'll bet they found a half-eaten chicken sandwich in all that "stuff" as well!
Dios Mio! Is there no end to Walker perfidy?!
Went to high school with Chuck Chvala. He was an ambitious guy.
Seven felony convictions in the previous John Doe and DragoBirkel is still claiming that "nothing" was found during those investigations?
What a tool
I was at a UW football game at Camp Randall during the Chvala era. Someone hired a plane pulling a banner; the ones that are usually ads. This one said: "Impeach Chvala. Put him in jail too". Guy got his wish.
@garage, actually it's you who are almost inconceivably stupid. A moment's attention on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet shows that Chuck Chvala was a crook. He was not convicted of illegally coordinating a campaign, he pled guilty to the two least serious of the 19 counts against him (which included using his political office to extort money). In October 2005 Chvala stuck a plea agreement with prosecutors in which the 17 most serious counts were dropped in exchange for pleading guilty to the charge of felony misconduct in public office and making an illegal campaign contribution. Further details on the scandal can be found here.
Apparently, garage, you cannot distinguish between the rights of a private citizen to assemble with others of a like mind and a crooked politician. So the answer to your questions are (1) yes (he could have contested the charges but chose a plea deal) and (2) no.
Apparently, garage, you cannot distinguish between the rights of a private citizen to assemble with others of a like mind and a crooked politician
You're under the mistaken impression that 501(c)(4) groups and political campaigns are not bound to operate legally under Wisconsin laws. Where would you get that they aren't?
One can easily tell the professors who comment out of the line of fire from those who represent the defendants whose livelihoods are at risk.
Very interesting. It's the kind of case, given its egregious facts and the obvious political motives of the state actors trying to squelch political advocacy on ideological and partisan grounds, that is likely to result in a decision distinguishing any prior decisions that might, on different facts, have warranted abstention on one ground or another. That the Circuit will largely affirm the injunction strikes me as an easy result, much easier than the reasoning that will lead to it.
It's also astonishing, and highly ironic, that the closest Supreme Court case to these facts was Dombrowski, a 1965 decision upholding the rights of black citizens in Louisiana who were targeted by state actors in various criminal and civil proceedings as part of an effort to deter those citizens from participating in the political process. In that case, as in others arising in the civil rights context of the 1960s, the motives of the state actors was obvious. The Court had no trouble sweeping aside abstention and other doctrines in order to get to the merits. In doing so, the Court also had no hesitancy in taking action to stop the interference with the black plaintiffs' constitutional rights to participate in the political process.
The irony is that, both in Dombrowski and this Wisconsin case, the state actors seeking to suppress the constitutional rights of American citizens to participate in the political process were all Democrats. It is a history of which most Democrats today would be ashamed, not something they would want to see repeated.
Professor, if they feel their civil rights are being violated by the investigation, isn't the federal system the only route you can really take?
And if the state was the one permitting the violations, can a defendant actually expect justice out of the state courts?
Republicans never try to drum up phony charges against Democrat politicians to run them out of town.
Says someone with no memory.
They don't because they cannot. The press would crucify them. If the press was truly impartial, then yes, they would likely try it.
garage mahal supported it all. What an asshole.
"Chvala. What a sleaze he was."
I'd forgotten what happened to his wife. Married his high school sweetheart. And she was a sweetheart. Everybody liked her. Bad car crash on the old Beltline put her in a wheelchair, dependent on a feeding tube, etc. The bum divorced her.
Your instincts are correct, MM.
Wisconsin Democrats deserve no respect
Remember, there's a whole large pack of lib Dems/Progressives in Washington who attempted to silence the opposition in a variety ways, legal harassment, denial of permits (!!) from the taxation bureau, threatening letters, ad nauseum. Democrats deserve no respect. They want to enslave us to their ideology.
not something they would want to see repeated
Hell, they just repeated it.
The irony is that, both in Dombrowski and this Wisconsin case, the state actors seeking to suppress the constitutional rights of American citizens to participate in the political process were all Democrats.
This just isn't true, no matter how hard conservatives try to convince themselves of it.
Google Francis Schmitz, the special prosecutor, and tell me he is a partisan Democrat.
Where would you get that they aren't?
Where do you get that they haven't?
madisonfella: "Seven felony convictions in the previous John Doe and DragoBirkel is still claiming that "nothing" was found during those investigations."
LOL
I'll bet there were lawyers involved in that case too, just like this one!!
Wow.
The similarities are eerie....
Where do you get that they haven't?
Document dumps from the 7th Circuit detailing Walker's campaign fundraising & funneling contributions and message coordination. Was it illegal? I don't know. But a federal judge stopping a state investigation is unheard of as far as I know.
None of these machinations would be possible if our government didn't have the "right" to regulate political speech.
garage: "Was it illegal? I don't know."
LOL
garage continues (as he must): "But a federal judge stopping a state investigation is unheard of as far as I know."
"...as far as I know."
LOL
I haven't followed the Walker legal saga too closely but as far as I can tell there are 2 distinct isues here. 1 is whether the investigation of Walker is/was valid, fair, etc and what it uncovered. 2 is whether the investigation itself is being/was used as a weapon against Walker supporters (and not the man himself) in an unfair way (tools of the State/law enforcement serving nakedly political ends, etc).
I think everyone understands garage m's position on 1. I am mildly curious as to garage's position on 2. Thoughts?
Now you've stepped in it again Garage.
Schmidt is a figurehead who admitted in court that he did not draw up any subpoenas or search warrants but only rubber-stamped what the marauding Democrats were doing. He is a fig leaf. A symbol for people like you to point to while the real crooks are in court now facing their actions.
Chvala's "associate" said (in the link you provided) "we knew we were breaking the law when we did it." And "it" refers to extortion and breaking federal campaign finance laws as well as the WI laws on transparency.
You act like they caught him with a secret router or something!
Garage3 if it was illegal for politicians to solicit on behalf of outside organizations our current President would be in jail. "Solicit" has a completely different meaning from "coordinate" but the big point you miss is Walker didn't tell the groups how to spend the donations or on what issues to advertise. Therefore, no coordination. It is the main reason the judge is pissed at your out-of-control partisan DAs.
Maybe you should go to another thread and comment. You're too lost in the woods to see the trees here.
@garage, I had never heard of Chuck Chvala, so I looked him up on the Internet. It seems that (a) he was a Wisconsin state senator who (b) was being tried on 19 counts including the very serious felony of using his position to extort campaign money. As part of an overly-lenient plea bargain he pled guilty to two minor counts of making an illegal campaign contribution and directing state employees to do pro bono campaign activities.
There is nothing in the Chuck Chvala case remotely like the efforts to chill the free speech of O'Keefe and others.
9/3/14, 10:19 AM
I knew the fat fuck full of shit when I read his post. Ya know how? He wrote it.
Um, that shoulda been the fat fuck was full of shit.
Answer that Garage:
Should everyone targeted by the prosecutors have their 1st and 4th amendment rights suspended for as long as this witch hunt takes?
Bonus:
Should it be allowed to go on indefinitely given the gag orders etc.?
Schmidt is a figurehead who admitted in court that he did not draw up any subpoenas or search warrants but only rubber-stamped what the marauding Democrats were doing
So the former federal prosecutor (and Walker voter) who broke up terrorist networks, rubber stamped an illegal investigation by marauding Democrats?
Here is what Walker's own campaign lawyer had to say about Schmitz:
"Obviously, I worked with Fran a long time and I have a lot of respect for him, and I’m going to leave it at that because … I’m also the lawyer for Friends of Scott Walker,” said Biskupic, who now runs his own practice." Link
"So the former federal prosecutor (and Walker voter) who broke up terrorist networks, rubber stamped an illegal investigation by marauding Democrats?"
Apparently, "broke up terrorist networks" is supposed to boost his Republican creds.
But a federal judge stopping a state investigation is unheard of as far as I know.
How many other states have a John Doe system as insane as Wisconsin's?
Was unaware that a federal judge should allow a citizen's rights to be violated by a state court. What other rights do state courts have carte blanche to ignore as long as they "investigate" something.
"Solicit" has a completely different meaning from "coordinate" but the big point you miss is Walker didn't tell the groups how to spend the donations or on what issues to advertise
How do you know that? Nobody knows what documents prosecutors are looking at.
"In the email, Doner wrote to Johnson that Walker wanted Wisconsin Club for Growth exclusively to coordinate campaign themes. "As the Governor discussed ... he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging," she wrote." Link
How do you know that? Nobody knows what documents prosecutors are looking at.
I've heard Reid is a pederast. We should subject him to intrusive investigations....you know, just in case.
And speaking of Reid, whatever happened to his claim that Romney hadn't paid taxes for ten years? We don't know what evidence he was looking at.
It's cute when a guy who would deny civil rights to fellow Americans claims to know for whom another private citizen voted in the privacy of the election booth. Thanks for the laughs, "garage mahal".
All those Democrat sheriffs who were on the wrong side of the civil rights are proud you carry on their traditions.
Birkel said...
It's cute when a guy who would deny civil rights to fellow Americans claims to know for whom another private citizen voted in the privacy of the election booth.
And he keeps stating it as a "fact".
On thread after thread.
So we are forced to once again ask the eternal (last 100 years) old question regarding mindless automatons (like garage) on the left: does their presence truly help or hinder the leftists?
In terms of sheer numbers it must help, otherwise what would be the point?
"whether the investigation itself is being/was used as a weapon against Walker supporters (and not the man himself) in an unfair way (tools of the State/law enforcement serving nakedly political ends, etc)."
Apparently HD, you'll have to use smaller words.
Original Mike: "Apparently HD, you'll have to use smaller words."
There are no words small enough.
Perhaps this thread needs the civility bullshit hashtag, or rather bullshit civility as it's more apt.
"I knew the fat fuck full of shit when I read his post. Ya know how? He wrote it."
Just lovely place Althouse runs here. Such depth to the commentary.
Oh, Mark! You are correct that we should treat the lies and obfuscations of inveterate liars more respectfully. The next time you and your ilk wish to deny fellow Americans their civil rights we will be more temperate with our language.
I'll try again Garage, typing very slowly:
Should everyone targeted by the prosecutors have their 1st and 4th amendment rights suspended for as long as this witch hunt takes?
Here I'll show you how it's done, Garage. You asked:
So the former federal prosecutor (and Walker voter) who broke up terrorist networks, rubber stamped an illegal investigation by marauding Democrats?
YES! By his own admission he did not even READ the subpoenas.
See? Easy!
The Club for Growth and other organizations are being targeted by an arm of the government in a witch hunt. Because they are exercising their inalienable rights to free speech and association.
They shouldn't have to answer any of those questions when the federal government exists to protect those rights from intrusion, either by itself or more local governments. Including state governments. The question that should be answered is why the federal portion of the government wasn't involved sooner in looking into this authoritarian nonsense.
YES! By his own admission he did not even READ the subpoenas.
Link?
Ok, fine, two can play that game.
"garage mahal" now must provide a link that proves for whom anybody voted.
Proof will be redefined shortly.
You got a point Mark?
Mark's point, donald, is to distract from the Left's attempt to deprive Americans of their civil liberties.
Bull Connor and George Wallace could not have attempted so clever an assault on civil liberties. Democrats are, seemingly, always attempting to deny Americans the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Wisconsin's Democrats are every bit as terrible as Southern Democrats from the 1950s and 1960s on the issue of civil rights.
Mark: "Just lovely place Althouse runs here. Such depth to the commentary."
LOL
good old Mark.
After days of Mary Glynn and madisonfella plying their trades here, Mark finally finds a comment that irritates him in a "gee that's not civil!!" sort of way!
And whaddya know, it ain't a comment from the left.
It's almost like Mark is completely full of crap and has no principles at all.
You know.
Like a leftist.
From the brief, regarding the first judge for John Doe #2:
Retired Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Kluka was appointed as John Doe judge. R.53 Ex. P. Judge Kluka provided no meaningful oversight over this John Doe proceeding. In fact, public records indicate that she approved every petition, subpoena, and search warrant sought in the case, and purportedly reviewed hundreds of pages of affidavits and evidence, in just one day’s worth of work.
***From reading it appears we know it was only about one day's work from an open records request that found she was paid only $445.15 for her work on the case. Majesty of the law, baby! Get some of that meaningful judicial oversight, yeah!***
Just lovely place Althouse runs here. Such depth to the commentary.
Drago and "birkel" flood the zone with endless partisan vomit until the thread becomes unreadable. They don't even understand (or care) what the thread is about. You could paste every comment from them to the next thread and nobody would even notice. That's why nobody responds to them.
It is kinda funny that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel seems to get pretty good inside information on the investigation while anyone who is a target or even peripherally-involved with an organization under investigation is enjoined from speaking on anything related to the case or their treatment under penalty of contempt. By a strange coincidence the targets are all on the political right and the leaks to the paper are all supportive of the prosecutors.
Drago said...
Mark: "Just lovely place Althouse runs here. Such depth to the commentary."
LOL
good old Mark.
After days of Mary Glynn and madisonfella plying their trades here, Mark finally finds a comment that irritates him in a "gee that's not civil!!" sort of way!
And whaddya know, it ain't a comment from the left.
It's almost like Mark is completely full of crap and has no principles at all.
You know.
Like a leftist.
Say, are you the same guy who is all about'... if it was me, I would hang the government officials responsible?"
Or are you the guy who was so interested in my prick yesterday?
Marks obvious point is calling the other guy a poo-poo head kinds cheapens the thing. Don't really matter how witty or verbose, it still cheapens the thread. Plenty of other places to do that, why stink up a classy joint like this?
I thought the Democrats believed that all is fair in love and lawfare.
Now I get it. Calling somebody a poo-poo head is uncool.
Attempting to deprive Americans of civil liberties is totally jake. And defending the Leftists who are attempting to deprive Americans of civil liberties is also perfectly acceptable.
Standards!
FullMoon: "Say, are you the same guy who is all about'... if it was me, I would hang the government officials responsible?"
Or are you the guy who was so interested in my prick yesterday?"
No.
And no.
Next time try paying attention.
Or is that too "uncivil" to recommend?
garage: "They don't even understand (or care) what the thread is about."
LOL
You made a comparison.
A request was made for you to back up your comparison.
You couldn't.
Because you are a mindless partisan moron.
The realization of this makes you angry.
Hilarity ensues.
Birkel said...
Now I get it. Calling somebody a poo-poo head is uncool.
Attempting to deprive Americans of civil liberties is totally jake. And defending the Leftists who are attempting to deprive Americans of civil liberties is also perfectly acceptable.
Standards!
Naturally a cock-sucking piece of bloody dog shit eating cowardly baby raping bastard like you would lie about my intent. Are you really that stupid, or are you pretending?
Infected Hemorrhoids like you cheapen the comments with your Huffington like comments. Easy enough to destroy garage et al with legitimate argument.
Drago said...
FullMoon: "Say, are you the same guy who is all about'... if it was me, I would hang the government officials responsible?"
Or are you the guy who was so interested in my prick yesterday?"
No.
And no..
Sincere apology for that. It is cubanbob who would carry the rope for the necktie party. Birkle admires my prick.
Why should O'Keefe and the Club be allowed to go on the offensive in federal court?
When the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly there are bunions.
The Democrats have been using Federal courts against state laws since... well, forever. Live by the law, die by the law.
Drago and "birkel" flood the zone with endless partisan vomit until the thread becomes unreadable.
Which is what you try to do on each and every thread.
Big Mike to garage: "Which is what you try to do on each and every thread."
garage is a case study in projection.
Not that he understands that.
In fact, he can't.
FullMoon: " It is cubanbob who would carry the rope for the necktie party."
It's getting rather difficult to focus on the horrors that conservatives and Christians and whites are inflicting on people over the beheadings, kidnappings, murders, enslavement etc by non-white, non-Christian non-Western islamist extremists.
Whom the left defends.
Invariably.
Drago, don't you have a life? You're on here 24/7.
Blogger Drago said...
FullMoon: " It is cubanbob who would carry the rope for the necktie party."
It's getting rather difficult to focus on the horrors that conservatives and Christians and whites are inflicting on people over the beheadings, kidnappings, murders, enslavement etc by non-white, non-Christian non-Western islamist extremists.
Whom the left defends.
Invariably.
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle 'em with bullshit.
I am baffled. Are you competent enough to simplify your comment? Am I being insulted, or complimented?
"Yeah, it worked out well for Ray Donovan. I'm sure you've forgotten him."
When he is forgotten is when he gets his reputation back so I guess the distant future is where you go to get your reputation back.
Unknown said...
Drago, don't you have a life? You're on here 24/7.
Hardly.
But I do go thru periods where the bulk of my time is spent on preparing business cases and pitches.
During those times Althouse is a diversion that clears my mind and lets me come back to work with a fresh set of eyes.
FullMoon: "I am baffled. Are you competent enough to simplify your comment? Am I being insulted, or complimented?"
Well, there are a couple implicit premises to your question:
1) That my comment is not already at its simplest level.
2) If not, would a further simplification prove justified based on clearer recipient understanding and/or conversational benefit?
As to your being insulted or complimented, it's actually neither.
It's simply an observation of a trend I see on many sites wherein every act of islamist butchery is met with ever increasing calls for ever increasing vigilance of white, male Christian transgressors.
Bottom line here: You can see from my comment that I must be working on a business case which will presented next week and which I anticipate will be attacked on all sides in the particular venue in which I expect to find myself.
Not unlike lots of folks, I'm sure the tenor and substance of my comments are colored by what I happen to be dealing with at that time.
Gosh Drago, Do you really see lefties on other sites blaming Islamic beheadings on white Christian males? I fit that profile but don't feel particularly transgressive, I leave that to the lefty art crowd who think a four foot canvas painted black with a couple of silver circles on it is art. -True story- Personally I don't frequent many opinion/forum sites, my time is valuable and I blow my bank account of wasted hours on sites like this one- (Invoice is in the mail Ms. Althouse!)
Sites like that are a mirror of sites like this one; echo chambers where most come to reaffirm their preconceived beliefs, with a salting of trolls who live to cause controversy, whether they believe the stuff they say or not.
I don't mind being in the echo chamber really, its comfortable. Besides it is kind of like panning for gold: lots of dross with the occasional nugget. This site pans pretty good.
Drago It's simply an observation of a trend I see on many sites wherein every act of islamist butchery is met with ever increasing calls for ever increasing vigilance of white, male Christian transgressors.
My beef is with the people who are quick to puff up and tell us how ".. if it was me, I would, or, what they should have done ..." I am talking about people who have never been actually involved in violence and are unable to realistically imagine what it takes. Comments suggesting the fathers of the rape children should murder the officials who covered it up, as if they would do it themselves, and therefore implying the parents are somehow lacking for not channeling Dirty Harry or Charles Bronson..
Personally, I am all for revenge
sojerofgod: "Gosh Drago, Do you really see lefties on other sites blaming Islamic beheadings on white Christian males?"
No, so it's a good thing I never said that.
It's quite possible that I buried the lede in a mountain of BS that FullMoon has asked about.
Mea Culpa.
My point was more about how the left (yes, a generalization) tends to minimize and deflect and outright ignore transgressions by islamist extremists all the while talking about the US and the West as if the Inquisition was still in full swing.
FullMoon, I hear ya.
No problem with what you've written.
I'll take it not one commenter here can explain why Chuck Chvala should have been investigated and Scott Walker shouldn't be. Madison Man and Original Mike just...kind of...shrug their shoulders. Hmmph. Chuck was a icky ambitious man though!
FullMoon:
I hear you too but you don't hear me.
You assume so many things about other commenters and that makes me comfortable ignoring you going forward.
Blogger Birkel said...
FullMoon:
I hear you too but you don't hear me.
You assume so many things about other commenters and that makes me comfortable ignoring you going forward.
WTF? I admitted defeat on that other thread and here you are picking on me again. At least you didn't mention my prick this time.
garage mahal said...
I'll take it not one commenter here can explain why Chuck Chvala should have been investigated and Scott Walker shouldn't be
another epic garage fail.
You brought up Chvala.
You asserted that it was "basically the same thing" as what was being investigated for Walker.
Go ahead rakeface, tell us all the legal similarities that make the Chvala case "basically the same thing" as the John Doe investigation.
Hilarity sure to continue.
arage mahal said...
Where do you get that they haven't?
Document dumps from the 7th Circuit detailing Walker's campaign fundraising & funneling contributions and message coordination. Was it illegal? I don't know. But a federal judge stopping a state investigation is unheard of as far as I know.
9/3/14, 1:27 PM
You're right, it is unheard off. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that the federal district courts that normally give a great deal of deference to state courts have found this with hunt particularly egregious and the document dump just adds to it.
Comments suggesting the fathers of the rape children should murder the officials who covered it up, as if they would do it themselves, and therefore implying the parents are somehow lacking for not channeling Dirty Harry or Charles Bronson..
People forfeit viligante justice in the belief that the state will handle that part of the equation. We don't punish wrongdoers personally because the state will do it on our behalf.
The state not only did not do so here, they covered up the problem and punished parents and officials who tried to rectify it.
If the state will not provide justice and protection, is there a moral argument AGAINST vigilante justice at that point?
I'll take it not one commenter here can explain why Chuck Chvala should have been investigated and Scott Walker shouldn't be.
You've not really explained how the cases are similar yet.
Cubanbob ... The 'document dump' was from the 7th Circuit who finally cracked the secrecy of the proceedings and decided to release it. Against both the parties involved filed motions asking it all to remain closed.
It's hard to paint the investigators as wrong for objecting to the document dump that the federal court did.
It's also hard to paint the document dump as incriminating when the judge has held that no law has been violated but that doesn't stop Mark from trying.
The purpose of the document dump is to reveal 1) the extent of the fishing expedition, and 2) that no crime is revealed from all that fishing.
If this is such an open and shut case of prosecutorial over-reach, why did the 7th Circuit give an hour to each side vs. the usual to present next week? They often give much less time.
You would think the briefs would be good enough if the First Amendment claims are so clear, not extra time for arguments just to waste the court's time.
It sure would be interesting if the 7th Circuit affirmed the ability of the investigation to go on. Quite a corner some people have painted themselves into - a finding against Club for Growth would imply their entire narrative is false.
High stakes.
Why would the judge provide extra time? I will explain it to you even though you will diligently try not to understand.
A judge often provides extra time and issues rulings favorable to the party the judge is likely to find broke the law because that makes the decision less likely to be overturned on appeal. Get it?
If this judge believes, as do I, that the prosecutors violated the civil rights of Americans then those prosecutors will NOT have the normal protections from judgments in civil cases. Their is no immunity in civil rights cases thanks to the well-founded belief that Alabama sheriffs should not be protected from judgments for their heinous actions.
And now those same safe assumptions are true about politically motivated prosecutors in Wisconsin.
Also, and just to be clear, we're not discussing prosecutorial overreach. We're discussing the intentional crime of denying American citizens their civil rights and the associated torts.
This is a civil rights case.
Garage... isn't it a little early in the year to be waiting with Linus in the Pumpkin Patch for the Great Pumpkin to appear?
Or it could be that they feel Judge Randa stepped so far out of line they need to correct it decisively.
They nearly instantly stayed his order demanding all evidence be destroyed from his ruling on this case.
But hey, keep up with the Freedom of Speech argument. If it fails, the media will pretty much sentence Walker guilty. I may not think this is a likely ruling, but a partial win for the prosecutors is going to make Walker's political career come to quick end.
I already have you in the column "Giddy over the idea Wisconsin's Democrat prosecutors can use BAMN tactics to undermine civil rights of American citizens." I'm not sure what else there is to say about the matter.
You keep rocking that whole Alabama sheriff thing. You look just awesome doing so.
Michael K said...
"Democrats go to jail and Republicans can't even get investigated. Hey, that works out great for Republicans!"
Yeah, it worked out well for Ray Donovan. I'm sure you've forgotten him."
Let's not forget Scooter Libby, convicted of having different memories then an FBI agent, or some such nonsense. While an investigation went on after the special prosecutor had already determined the source of the leak, and knew the source was not the target of the investigation. And even then- there was no underlying crime to begin with, as Valerie Plame's name and occupation were already out in the open.
Post a Comment