If the Supreme Court does not unambiguously repudiate the basis for the current John Doe probe, the GOP is empowered to launch similar investigations into left-leaning organizations in 2016 and beyond. The next group at the business end of a John Doe battering ram could be One Wisconsin Now rather than the Club for Growth.
You would think every commentary on John Doe would recognize this danger, but you would be wrong...
May 14, 2015
"If prosecuting politically unpopular speech becomes the 'new normal,' you can bet this tactic will be embraced by both parties."
"Left-wing individuals and groups are at least as guilty of coordinating their expenditures and efforts with Democrats as conservatives are with Republicans," writes Larry Kaufmann at Isthmus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
Yes, you would be wrong. Lefties assume they won't be on the receiving end of speech controls and extra-legal bullshit, because it's pretty much true. Think about the last time (how about the first time?) speech controls were imposed on a lefty group on a university campus.
If the Supreme Court does not unambiguously repudiate the basis for the current John Doe probe, the GOP is empowered to launch similar investigations into left-leaning organizations in 2016 and beyond.
First, the repubs would have to win. Second, they'd have to develop the courage to defy the media firestorm that would arise.
Ain't gonna happen.
They fully expect to wipe out the Republican Party and create a single party state. All efforts are made in support of this goal.
"You would think every commentary on John Doe would recognize this danger, but you would be wrong"
Umm, no. Lawfare is all one way. There's no danger to Progs.
Wow! Larry Kaufman seems like a clever writer, and a smart, sensible conservative. How is it that he gets published in The Isthmus?
Meh.
If the Supreme Court rubber stamps this tactic, and a lame-duck President Obama embraces it, how will any Republican ever get elected again?
Chuck, they're desperate for an 'alternative' voice.
Seriously, Isthmus has always treated me well.
Kaufman is wrong. Any new normal will not include any restrictions on the hateful speech the lefties spew. That would be because they mean oh-so well.
- Krumhorn
Self awareness is not a leftist characteristic.
Planet Obama, for example.
Unfortunately, recent events have left me wondering whether the endless list of White House amenities also includes a giant Anti-Self-Awareness Transmogrifier, conveniently located between the gluten-free flour garden and the ever-useful “Instantly Produce a Federally Employed Yes Man” call button. Speaking at commencement exercises at historically black Tuskegee University last Saturday, first lady Michelle Obama told a crowd of bright-eyed graduates the following: “The road ahead is not going to be easy. It never is, especially for folks like you and me.”
Saying that the "other side might do it too" is not going to convince many Progressive to behave decently. Not all, but far too many Progressives are convinced that the end always justifies the means, and understand that their enemies, weak because they do not share the same belief, in most cases will not stoop to the same Alinsky/ fascist-type methods.
The next group at the business end of a John Doe battering ram could be One Wisconsin Now rather than the Club for Growth.
It must be driving righties nuts that they know Schmitz has the goods. Like the emails that show coordination with David "The Choker" Prosser and CfG. Oh my.
garage mahal said...It must be driving righties nuts that they know Schmitz has the goods.
Good one! Yeah, no.
If Schmitz didn't have the goods O'Keefe, CfG, WMC wouldn't be lighting their hair on fire and clogging the courts with paperwork for the past year.
Schmitz offered to make all the docs available to the public if the defendants agreed. Of course, they declined. Because they know they broke Wisconsin law.
The only thing keeping the left from putting themselves in chains is the right.
If the SCOTUS agrees to look at the two issues raised in O'Keefe v Chisholm what are the practical effects if they find in favor of the plaintiffs? Other than the possibility that the defendants could be held liable.
It seems that none of it reaches the questions about the permissibility of regulating coordination with issue groups like WCFG.
Mahal: you know there is treatment for babbling the same thing over and over and over again. Please let me know if you need the name of a good doctor, my husband is in the medical profession.
Mahal: you know there is treatment for babbling the same thing over and over and over again.
Try refuting anything I've said with evidence.
I've yet to see one conservative present a case that thwarts anything prosecutors have alleged. That's why you only hear "witch hunt!" or "gulags!", or "teh left hates free speech!" "Nazis!". Cuz they don't have anything else.
Just last week I read an economic analysis that showed that a head-of-household single woman and a live-in boyfriend would pay much less in taxes and get more in socialist benefits than if they were married.
No man in his right mind will marry nowadays, of course, though he might get a secret vasectomy.
Dumbocrats like garage and John Chisholm always assume that Republicans are too nice to retaliate. Ostensibly neutral people like Professor Althouse try to enforce that by regularly appealing to Republicans to take the high road and play nice.
Nice folks finish last. Carly Fiorina didn't get where she was by being "nice."
I'm reminded of the independent prosecutor law in the 1980s. Liberals loved the act when it was used to investigate the Reagan Administration.
But when it was used to investigate the Clinton Administration they suddenly realized the problems with the legislation, the lack of checks and controls on the scope of the law.
Suddenly, it wasn't such a good idea.
"I've yet to see one conservative present a case that thwarts anything prosecutors have alleged."
Say, I'm new here having just fallen off the turnip truck. This mahal dude looks pretty sharp.
What's that you say? The prosecutors have already lost fatal motions in two courts, one state and one federal. But how could that be if mahal dude is being truthful?
Oh. I see.
Lefties have neither insight nor foresight. It's all about polls and winning tomorrow's election. Unfortunately, Republicans are beginning to look like them.
If there's one Journolister in Wisconsin, President Walker should get a friendly prosecutor to launch a John Doe investigation of media coordination with the Democrats, and schedule depositions of the warm-weather offenders during winter, during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
"According to one brief by Walker campaign attorney Steven Biskupic, the governor was not a “candidate” when he worked closely with such groups. In the records, Biskupic’s client is referred to as Unnamed Movant No. 1."
So we've moved past denying there was coordination between campaigns and outside groups. The argument now is that Walker wasn't a candidate until two months before the 2012 election. Haha.
@garage, I've been calling you a Dumbocrat for months. You just now noticed? When did you learn how to read? I know it was yesterday, but I was wondering what time yesterday.
"Dumbocrats like garage and John Chisholm always assume that Republicans are too nice to retaliate."
Hahaha! No one assumes Republicans are "nice!"
It would be "your intellect..."
You're welcome!;)
Dumbocrats like garage and John Chisholm
Oh ya? You're a Poopypublican!
Great retort. Your intellect is a wonder to behold.
*edited*
Thanks 320Busdriver!
"garage mahal" is correct. It is likely true that the unconstitutional law of Wisconsin that illegally violated the civil liberties of US citizens was violated by Governor Walker.
Now, the fact that such an unconstitutional law has no effect or force under US law should not be allowed to sway us that a person seeking to exercise God-given civil rights was not a Democrat.
"You would think every commentary on John Doe would recognize this danger, but you would be wrong..."
Yes, you would be. Because, apparently, there are plenty of unreflective, short-sighted people out there who don't seem to comprehend the danger. I wonder why that is? Any ideas, Garage?
Republicans wouldn't get away with it. It would be watergate all over again, every news cast, every front page, every day for months clamoring for impeachment and prosecutions. Fox News wouldn't stick up for it (to their credit). Remember how Al Gonzalez was hounded from office? And for what? It's asymmetrical warfare.
I think you assume that Republicans will not shoot you down like a dog in the street, or kneeling at the edge of a freshly dug pit in a nearby forest, your thumbs tied behind your back. As have your guys.
By the way, I am not a Republican. (Or a robot.)
You would think every commentary on John Doe would recognize this danger, but you would be wrong...
They wouldn't have to think for themselves if they'd just read Althouse. This salient fact about what is colloquially called tit for tat has been stated repeatedly on this blog by commenters amazed at how shortsighted and stupid progressives are. With the freakshow ya'll got up in WI there's never a shortage of amazing things to marvel at.
On the other hand Garage, if Shitzy "had the goods" it seems he would have filed charges oh, I don't know, sometime in the last two years! Oh that's right, he doesn't have jack squat!
Surprise! Garage's allegation was a little lacking in fullness:
“In the case of the 2012 gubernatorial recall, Governor’s Walker’s ‘candidacy’ did not begin until April 9, 2012,” Biskupic argued. “And prior to that time, Governor Walker and his campaign committee were entitled to raised unlimited campaign funds in connection with opposing the circulation of the recall petitions.”
This is a factual assertion by Biskupic and I don't know if he's right or if Shitzy is correct. But the prosecutor's rebuttal is whack:
“[A] person does not cease to be a candidate for purposes of compliance with” campaign finance and ethics laws “by virtue of the passing of the date of an election.”
Oh I see. So even though the election is OVER Walker is still a candidate, according to this Bozo. Unless by "passing of the date" he actually meant something else. Oh and the outside spending to help elect the SC justices happened years -- YEARS -- before the John Does and I think the prosecutor might be a little insane to try to tie ancient history to a recusal motion. But then I only spend a few weeks a year in WI so what do I know.
Maybe we should realize that campaign finance laws are really stupid and tread on our rights of freedom of speech and association.
This witch hunt for Walker is a great example why. Coordinate all you'd like. Spend as much as you'd like.
The fact that garage wants to see people suffer for exercising these rights says a lot about him.
garage mahal said...
"The next group at the business end of a John Doe battering ram could be One Wisconsin Now rather than the Club for Growth.
It must be driving righties nuts that they know Schmitz has the goods. Like the emails that show coordination with David "The Choker" Prosser and CfG. Oh my."
garage mahal said...
"If Schmitz didn't have the goods O'Keefe, CfG, WMC wouldn't be lighting their hair on fire and clogging the courts with paperwork for the past year.
Schmitz offered to make all the docs available to the public if the defendants agreed. Of course, they declined. Because they know they broke Wisconsin law."
garage mahal said...
"Mahal: you know there is treatment for babbling the same thing over and over and over again.
Try refuting anything I've said with evidence."
You first.
Do you ever try and bounce this stuff off someone with a working brain cell before you post?
I've yet to see one conservative present a case that thwarts anything prosecutors have alleged.
No need.
If the 'case' is built on evidence that was acquired in violation of the law, there's no case to answer.
Therefore you are wrong right out of the gate, buddy.
Of course, "what goes around comes around."
But just try convincing politicians in power of that. Good luck
No political party in power--Dems or Repubs--wants to prepare for the day when it will be out of power and on the receiving end for a change.
Maybe they consider that defeatist.
Or (even worse) maybe they think they'll be in power forever and won't have to worry about being on the receiving end ever again.
Too many elected officials in power believe that "If you've got it, flaunt it!"
I used to try the "What goes around, comes around" argument on the GOP.
When the PATRIOT Act was passed under the Bush Administration, I asked what would happen if someday, a liberal President (Hillary was my exemplar) decided to use the power of Government to put conservatives under surveillance.
They didn't care.
Until a liberal Dem actually did win the White House, that is.
It must be driving righties crazy..
It's certainly driving somebody crazy and into making repetitive, nutso comments. My experience with crazy people however is that there is no convincing them that they are crazy, so I won't bother trying.
See, the thing is that the Left thinks they control the levers of power enough that they just won't be targeted. It worked with the IRS, after all.
"It must be driving righties nuts that they know Schmitz has the goods. Like the emails that show coordination with David "The Choker" Prosser and CfG. Oh my."
-- I was told they had the goods on Bush's going AWOL, on McCain's affair with a lobbyist and on Romney's not paying taxes.
Put up or shut up.
"I've yet to see one conservative present a case that thwarts anything prosecutors have alleged"
-- I don't have to counter baseless allegations. When the people making the allegations are willing to do it in the light of day, in a fair and open hearing, then I'll bother to pay it attention.
Other people I was told they had the goods on: Tom Delay and Ted Stevens.
Hey! Don't call Garage a Dumbocrat.
His preferred nomenclature is "Bitchtits"
Never give a power to a political ally that you would not wielded by a political opponent. This isn't hard.
(Though I'm looking forward to the next GOP president smart enough to compromise on a budget where taxes are raised and the budget is cut and then unilaterally, a la Obamacare, decides not to implement the tax increase portion of the bill.)
When Obama rejected public funding for his presidential run, breaking an earlier promise to stick to the public funding, Obama-worshipping Dems lost all right to say anything about the evils of money in politics.
Post a Comment