October 11, 2014

"Just as the Delay prosecution touched off a dozen other politically motived cases, the Wisconsin John Doe investigation provides a template for similar mischief across the nation."

"It suggests that anyone can lob accusations of illegal 'coordination' between an officeholder and his allies — and all a partisan prosecutor needs is evidence of a single private meeting or email to justify an intrusive and aggressive investigation. It’s that easy to tie your ideological opponents in knots for months or years on end. After Wisconsin, the temptation to use the law as a political weapon may prove irresistible."

From a Wall Street Journal article titled "Criminalizing Political Speech in Wisconsin/Like it or not, the federal courts should intervene in the state to uphold Americans’ First Amendment rights."

31 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Well written piece. It agrees with me that Federal Judges clearly shirked their duty. Using a jurisdiction preference to tell the wronged person that they effectively have no remedy is BS.

Are the Feds expecting a bribe first?

campy said...

It's good to have the DOJ in your pocket in times like these!

Mark said...

Those files Club for Growth is keeping secret really must be something.

Big Mike said...

I agree with traditionalguy.

alan markus said...

Those files Club for Growth is keeping secret really must be something.

Right, that is why the Democrat groups would be more than eager, if asked, to voluntarily disclose their files - no court orders necessary. In the name of transparency and to show how it is possible to operate above reproach.

Michael K said...

"Those files Club for Growth is keeping secret really must be something."

Are those in the same closet as garage's secret routers ? You lefties are a trip.

hombre said...

"Those files Club for Growth is keeping secret really must be something."

Yeah, they should disclose everything so corrupt Democrat prosecutors can violate their oaths and the public trust by engaging in new witch hunts despite having the old ones condemned by trial court judges.

Right on, eh, Mark? BTW, do you have any idea how obviously sleazy an investigation has to be before a judge steps in to condemn it publicly? Does it even matter to today's Dems?

The latter question is rhetorical. Everybody knows the answer is "no."

Anonymous said...

These groups are allowed to coordinate with the candidates, as long as the donors are disclosed. Otherwise the door is wide open to quid pro quid bribery.

Some limits on political speech are acceptable. Or at least that is what was said about the singers in the capitol.

Humperdink said...

If ever an R or a Conservative assumes command of the White House and by extension, the Justice Department, I would suggest they go after every Dem of note. The days of playing by the rules are over.

They could begin by going after Eric the Red; Harry/Rory Reid and their ill-gotten gains. Hopefully, Ozero left some evidence. And of course, let's not forget Lois Lerner.

garage mahal said...

Excellent read here

campy said...

"If ever an R or a Conservative assumes command of the White House and by extension, the Justice Department,..."

Pigs will evolve wings before that happens.

Mary Beth said...

wide open to quid pro quid bribery

I think that's quid pro quo.

Unless you're saying the British are involved and they're being paid off in cash £?

EDH said...

I know garage linked this article intending to bolster his argument...

A few days before the decision was announced, O’Keefe’s lead attorney David P. Rivkin, Jr., was forced by his partners at the Washington law firm of Baker Hostetler to withdraw from another high-profile suit, one brought by John Boehner accusing President Obama of overstepping his authority by delaying the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The New York Times reported that Rivkin’s colleagues at Baker Hostetler feared he had taken on an “overly partisan lawsuit” which “could drive off potential clients and hurt Baker Hostetler’s credibility.” This suit led to a parody on the Tonight Show, with a fake commercial showing an ambulance-chasing lawyer and the line, “At Baker Hostetler, we specialize in one thing — suing the president.”

To me it reads like Baker Hostetler essentially buckled to outside pressure under fear of retribution.

And do you really think the Tonight Show writers, without being "led to" do it, as the article states, would genuinely think a broad-side naming this law firm over one lawsuit against the administration would truly resonate with a late night audience?

This is emblematic the kind of creepy insider shit that made me distrust Obama even prior to his election.

The one redeeming thing is the larger public is starting to see it now.

damikesc said...

Excellent read

Nope. It was pretty bad.

When the pendulum swings, retribution will not be pretty.

cubanbob said...

Mark said...
Those files Club for Growth is keeping secret really must be something.

10/11/14, 10:54 AM

I'll just settle for the disclosure of Obama's college records. Or who in the Obama campaigns authorized the acceptance of non-verified credit card donations. Or how his people bribed a judge into releasing seal divorce records. At least the Club For Growth has a legitimate purpose and interest-promoting economic growth something no Democrat at any level of government can legitimately claim to promote.

traditionalguy said...

A good lawyer looks for the facts to argue, or if the facts are not good enough, then you argue the law. But If neither one is any good, then you have to resort to the weapon of Procedural Delay.

When the Justices overseeing litigation know there is no case and they let procedural delays go on and on and on, that is a clear sign of a corrupt Judiciary.

Wisconsin deserves better.

Michael K said...

"This is emblematic the kind of creepy insider shit that made me distrust Obama even prior to his election."

I am worried about what he could do if he loses the Senate.

cubanbob said...

Michael K said...
"This is emblematic the kind of creepy insider shit that made me distrust Obama even prior to his election."

I am worried about what he could do if he loses the Senate.

10/11/14, 2:36 PM"

Why worry? There is nothing you can do about. The Congress will bitch and moan but do nothing and Obama knows it. Of course the RNC types will claim can't get to feisty with Obama lest we turn off the 'moderates' and 'independents' and lose in 2016.

khesanh0802 said...

A competent argument by Posner, but I still don't agree with him. I believe that a state has a right to set some requirements for voting and that a photo ID is not an undue burden. Posner does note (without comment) that one needs a photo iD to enter his courtroom.

Reading this opinion reminded me that a competent attorney can make a plausible argument for any side of an issue regardless of the rightness of that argument - and never bat an eye!

David said...

The commentary is presents the prosecutors as the problem. They are a problem, but the underlying source of the suppression is the law itself. This kind of thing is inevitable once the government gets into regulation of political speech.

richard mcenroe said...

If Obama loses the Senate AND a nonRNC pick wins the WH in 2016, DC will see a confetti blizzard and a digital accident of Biblical proportions. No Democrat record more recent than Woodrow Wilson''s inauguration speech will still exist.

Anonymous said...

For those looking forward to retribution of similar behavior from a Republican administration, I sympathize.

I too have found myself desiring such mischief.

However, its not going to happen under a Republican administration. It can't. We have something in this country known as the 4th estate. It protects us from overreaching Republican administrations. Even if a Republican administration is half as bad as the Obama administration as far as protecting our rights, we will all be convinced its twice as bad.

This is why you should always vote against Democrats and progressives. Because the media will only helot to protect our rights against those dastardly evil conservatives.

Michael K said...

" No Democrat record more recent than Woodrow Wilson''s inauguration speech will still exist."

No, they will be evidence.

Anonymous said...

Helot to protect?

Think I meant help there.

The Godfather said...

Another item added to the growing pile of reasons why government regulation of political contributions and political speech must be ended. Whatever benefit society may hope to gain from prohibiting an "appearance" of improper influence pales into insignificance compared to the real damage done to the political process by giving government officials the power to attack political opinions they don't like, as in Wisconsin, as in Texas, as nationally by the IRS, etc.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

David said: This kind of thing is inevitable once the government gets into regulation of political speech.

Exactly. I blame the voters.

McCain-Feingold is a clear abridgement of citizen liberty.

The Afraudable Care Act is a bloated, incomprehensible law. Voting for a bill that huge - which defies reading and understanding - is dereliction of duty.

NO legislator who voted for either of those should have been returned to office.

- But that applies also to probably 90% of the shit Congress is doing. -

I say again. I blame the voters.

Dad29 said...

"After Wisconsin"??

Ask Tom DeLay about "lawfare."

Dad29 said...

"Those files Club for Growth is keeping secret really must be something."

So are HRC's records from her days at her Arkansas lawfirm.

donald said...

Dissent was patriotic. Silencing political opponents was evil. Then it wasn't. What changed?

mezzrow said...

re: "helot to protect"

Your Freudian side has slipped on the banana peel of our relationship to government as citizens under this regime.

Helots, indeed.

chickelit said...

Mary Beth said...

I think that's quid pro quo.

Unless you're saying the British are involved and they're being paid off in cash £?


lol