Althouse: "From its inception, this proceeding was a politically motivated attack and a criminal investigation in search of a theory."

October 3, 2016

"From its inception, this proceeding was a politically motivated attack and a criminal investigation in search of a theory."

"We call upon the prosecutors to admit their wrongdoing and close their files. They should end their desperate rear-guard action, surrender these unlawfully seized materials, and submit to the lawful authority of the court system."

Says Wisconsin Club for Growth president Eric O’Keefe this morning, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear take the infamous John Doe case.

58 comments:

Comanche Voter said...: When there's dirty work at the crossroads, you can be sure that a politically "progressive" prosecuting attorney is behind it. Happens in Wisconsin, and happens in Austin Texas. These guys beclown themselves.; 10/3/16, 12:05 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Dems have discovered the DAs will give them cover for criminalizing politics right up to the bitter end 10 years later.

Texas, the home of LBJ politics, has poisoned the rest of the States.; 10/3/16, 12:06 PM
David said...: Well they should release these notes and files, if they still exist.; 10/3/16, 12:13 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Thanks for the typo alert. Corrected. Alerts deleted now.; 10/3/16, 12:16 PM
Patrick said...: The process is the punishment. Glad they failed.; 10/3/16, 12:17 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: If they came to my house in search of hard drives I would smash all handhelds and laptops with hammers and drop the smashed lot into buckets of bleach. Just like Hillary did (but her lawyers recommended Bleach Bit).; 10/3/16, 12:31 PM
Chuck said...: Professor Althouse: A few straight legal questions...

1. This was not a SCOTUS appeal of a state supreme court decision on constitutional grounds, right? This was an appeal from a 7th Circuit decision, yes? In a separate federal case filed apart from the John Doe litigation in the state courts, right?

2. The nature of the case before SCOTUS was a cert petition, yes? And can you supply the most technical description that your readership can handle, on what sort of vote threshold it takes, to grant a cert petition? How many justices does an appellant need to convince, to obtain cert?

I'd join the Althouse Premium Club, to read your editorial on this case and this decision. Where do I sign up?; 10/3/16, 12:33 PM
Larry J said...: Those rogue DAs should be disbarred and perhaps prosecuted.; 10/3/16, 12:34 PM
320Busdriver said...: Have you seen Chisholms response...

Essentially, we dont like what the law is, but we attacked them anyway based on what we wish the law to be.

What a puke. I will post it if I find it. Heard it on the radio.; 10/3/16, 12:38 PM
Chuck said...: 3. ...Or was this a kind of a Caperton appeal?; 10/3/16, 12:40 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Chuck said...
Professor Althouse: A few straight legal questions...

2. The nature of the case before SCOTUS was a cert petition, yes? And can you supply the most technical description that your readership can handle, on what sort of vote threshold it takes, to grant a cert petition? How many justices does an appellant need to convince, to obtain cert?

4 ( I hope that's not too technical for ya, Chuck ); 10/3/16, 12:41 PM
320Busdriver said...: "The state Supreme Court decision, left intact by today’s order, prohibits Wisconsin citizens from enacting laws requiring the full disclosure of disguised contributions to a candidate, i.e., monies expended by third parties at the direction of a candidate for the benefit of that candidate’s election," they said. "We are proud to have taken this fight as far as the law would allow and we look forward to the day when Wisconsin adopts a more enlightened view of the need for transparency in campaign finance."

Thats a fine DA you got there Milwaukee...; 10/3/16, 12:42 PM
Ann Althouse said...: @Chuck

From the linked article: "Schmitz appealed that decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which halted the investigation in July 2015. It removed Schmitz from the case last December and ordered all evidence be turned over to it while the case remained under appeal. Chisholm, Ozanne and Nelson appealed the state court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in April. The case was among hundreds of petitions the court reviewed at its Sept. 26 conference."; 10/3/16, 12:44 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: The really difficult, technical question, is how to pronounce certiorari.; 10/3/16, 12:45 PM
320Busdriver said...: At Chuck...it was, in my limited non lawyer view, a Caperton type appeal.

The fools could not see that even with recusals at scowi the lower courts order, which quashed the subpoenas, would have stood, effectively ending their campaign of intimidation. And he still has a job.; 10/3/16, 12:46 PM
Real American said...: and let the disbarment proceedings and prosecution of these "prosecutors" begin immediately.; 10/3/16, 1:05 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Things like this anger me. Combined with the IRS scandal, it's clear that some institutions are damaged. For example, I want the NYT receipt of Trump's taxes investigated solely because if it came from the Federal government, someone needs to go to jail. It actually might even happen, as this decision makes me think that the courts are starting to take a very dim view of abuse of government power.; 10/3/16, 1:06 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Sounds about right, Mr. O'Keefe.; 10/3/16, 1:10 PM
Chuck said...: Ignorance is Bliss:

Yes; the "Rule of Four." I know. I just wondered, from the perspective of Professor Althouse, if there were any trickiness involved with the Rule of Four when the Court is composed of only eight justices. The Rule of Four was designed, or intended, to prevent a 5-judge majority of the Court from dominating all docket decisions. When the Court is composed of eight, is the Rule of Four any different? Does it matter what route a given case took to get to the threshold of a cert petition?

The Rule of Four, for non-lawyers, isn't in the Supreme Court's own Rules. It is, if I recall my Supreme Court history (which I have almost never used in 30 years of practice) merely convention and custom.

"Although the origins of the Rule of Four are somewhat obscure, its administration during the past 60 years has undergone a number of changes." New York v. Uplinger, 467 U.S. 246, 249 (1984), (Stevens, J., concurring).

Lastly, I guess; does the denial of this cert petition confirm for us that one or more of Ginsburg/Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan effectively said, "Leave Wisconsin alone on this one..."?; 10/3/16, 1:16 PM
Gilbert Pinfold said...: Apparently, the NYT received pages from NY, CT, and NJ returns, not Federal. Thereby neatly avoiding Federal charges of disclosing IRS documents form the Treasury department.; 10/3/16, 1:22 PM
320Busdriver said...: If nothing else good comes of it, at least the WI Government Accountability Board remains a casualty of Chisholm and his flying monkeys' witch hunt.

Anything with the description "non partisan" is completely untrustworthy.; 10/3/16, 1:32 PM
Chuck said...: Gilbert Pinfold said...
Apparently, the NYT received pages from NY, CT, and NJ returns, not Federal. Thereby neatly avoiding Federal charges of disclosing IRS documents form the Treasury department.

Yeah; that is interesting. Just as interesting is how we know all of that. I think it went like this:
~Somebody gets ahold of the Trump state returns, and makes a photocopy;
~They offer them to several newspapers, and several newspapers say "Yipes there could be some major liability for publishing those!"
~The originator assures NYT that indeed they came from state, not federal, copies of returns;
~Floyd Abrams and his team at Cahill check it out for a week or two and identify all the risks;
~NYT decides to proceed, first getting copies sent to Trump for comment;
~Trump says we'll sue you, NYT;
~NYT says, "We know for sure the pages are from state returns, so you don't have that one on us." And, New York state has a shield law and a recognized legal reporter's privilege.; 10/3/16, 1:42 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Walker kicked butt politically.

His opponents didn't like this.

So, a few gung ho prosecutors started issuing a flood of subpoenas to many of Walker's allies to find the "crime" of coordinated campaign spending. The horror.

Chisholm is a disgrace. Lawfare (legal warfare) at its worst.

If the GOP ever does stuff like this, I will denounce immediately.; 10/3/16, 1:44 PM
Rick said...: Comanche Voter said...
When there's dirty work at the crossroads, you can be sure that a politically "progressive" prosecuting attorney is behind it. Happens in Wisconsin, and happens in Austin Texas. These guys beclown themselves.

Concern over Guam tipping over is beclowning. This is serious. Whoever ordered it ought to be in jail and anyone who went along fired and barred from future government employment.; 10/3/16, 1:47 PM
damikesc said...: Things like this anger me. Combined with the IRS scandal, it's clear that some institutions are damaged. For example, I want the NYT receipt of Trump's taxes investigated solely because if it came from the Federal government, someone needs to go to jail. It actually might even happen, as this decision makes me think that the courts are starting to take a very dim view of abuse of government power.

Until Hillary names a Justice here and there. Then, it's open season on conservatives.

Concern over Guam tipping over is beclowning. This is serious. Whoever ordered it ought to be in jail and anyone who went along fired and barred from future government employment.

If that does not happen, I would not be opposed to a more...harsh penalty issued by the citizenry.; 10/3/16, 1:52 PM
Big Mike said...: The trouble with tar and feathers, is that neither is as readily available as they were in the 18th and 19th centuries. You'd have to cut open a down-filled parka, and that's a waste of an expensive item of clothing, plus you'd have to raid a road repair crew when they're working ... lot's of luck on that one, too.; 10/3/16, 1:57 PM
Big Mike said...: Okay, seriously, what bothers me most about Democrat lawfare inflicted on Republican politicians and ordinary citizens is that no one ever seems to pay a penalty for it. Why are the only penalties a Supreme Court wagging its finger and saying "naughty, naughty"?; 10/3/16, 2:02 PM
JRoberts said...: This stuff reminds me of John Boehner's comment regarding the IRS targeting of conservative groups: "I don't want to know who's losing their job, I want to know who's going to jail"

I had high hopes at the time, but I'm sure glad I didn't hold my breath.; 10/3/16, 2:15 PM
buwaya said...: Simple - you have partisan justice because the structure of government is partisan. It's no accident that government is Democrat, because these institutions not only are entirely staffed and operated by Democrats, even if nominally serving under Republicans, but because they run the Democratic party for their own benefit.
The bureaucracy is its own branch of government, the most powerful of all.; 10/3/16, 2:18 PM
Chuck said...: I mentioned Floyd Abrams just above because he has been for about the last 350 years, the highest-profile outside counsel for the Times. "Cahill" is Floyd Abrams' Wall Street firm, Cahill Gordon & Reindell.

Floyd's son is Dan Abrams; also a lawyer and widely known as a reporter and commenter at NBC. Dan Abrams' current occupation is putting out the LawNewz blog. And on that blog, appears this really interesting attack on the Times. It is not written by Dan. The author is another lawyer, Robert Barnes.

It's pretty damn interesting, including the part about how he theorizes that Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet effectively solicited the disclosure when he appeared at a public panel discussion and said that he'd gladly go to jail if needed to publish Trump's tax returns.

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/the-new-york-times-likely-broke-law-by-publishing-trumps-taxes-free-speech-is-no-excuse/; 10/3/16, 2:19 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/3/16, 2:53 PM
Birkel said...: I enjoy watching lifelong Republican Chuck talk about things in his most Moby-ish way. It's almost like he's trying to fool us.

Meanwhile, everybody can see that it is only a matter of degree between what the prosecutors did in this case, what the IRS did to (actual, not Chuck-type) conservatives and what Democrats will do if they control all the levers of power in this country.

Namely, they will do precisely as much as they feel they can. Until they reach some sort of, for lack of a better term, Final Solution about what to do with their political enemies. Perhaps they will attempt, this time, to finally starve those Ukranians into submission. Or send us to Killing Fields.

Chuck will remain safe, somehow.; 10/3/16, 3:18 PM
Chuck said...: Birkel; the beauty of a blog like Althouse is that you can go back and read my comments about the Wisconsin Supreme Court battles and O'Keefe and the John Doe law.

If you pulled your ostrich head out of your Trumphole, you could do that and you'd see that I am actually one of those conservatives who opposed the whole witch hunt from the beginning.

It's Trump and only Trump -- not conservatism -- that divides us these days. And even at that, I'm willing to concede that the preposterous asshole Trump is the lesser of two evils. Four evils, in fact. I just happen to think that nominating Trump was an awful mistake for which somebody should pay.; 10/3/16, 3:27 PM
Brent said...: LBJ tactics.

Democrat LBJ. The Robert Caro books that Professor Ann likes tell all about him.

Democrats are the same today.

And always will be. Its the nature of the congenital conman personality. If you're an intelligent and a Democrat, it is because you have a Machiavellian world view . . . The ends justify the means. Character really doesn't matter to you.

If you are a run of the mill average intellegence/ medium IQ Democrat, you are at the core fully manipulable by the intelligent Democrats. Character matters more to you, but not too much more.

Democrats- slowly reigning in America's liberty since the 1800's; 10/3/16, 3:45 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Chuckie,

"I just happen to think that nominating Trump was an awful mistake for which somebody should pay."

Dude, what decade are you living in? The party bosses don't control the Republican nominating process any more!

The reason Trump won the nomination was that lots of the party base--you know, the ones the party bosses have been shitting all over ever since 1984 at least--decided they were tired of the contempt and went for The Outsider.

damikesc,

"If that does not happen, I would not be opposed to a more...harsh penalty issued by the citizenry."

Same here, believe me: few things would be more restorative to the long-suffering American citizen-sovereign soul than seeing some of the enemies of the republic swinging from lampposts.

The problem is (metaphor-shift-alert!) once the shooting starts it's really hard to stop it before it's gone all French Revolution on us, and who wants that???; 10/3/16, 3:53 PM
walter said...: For a lot more on the ongoing saga:
http://watchdog.org/category/wisconsin/

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the fact that a teenager at one of the homes was confronted by the thugs and disallowed from contacting anyone..including a nearby relative. Thugs regaled the kid with formal statements as if he had anything to do with it or could fathom what the hell was going down.
I wish they would release THAT audio recording..if there was one made like was leaked regarding the raid of Archer's home. Would also love to hear a discussion on surreptitious audio recordings in such instances. SOP? At investigator's discretion?; 10/3/16, 3:58 PM
The Godfather said...: I don't really understand what it is that the prosecuters are being called on to do. They have been totally and absolutely defeated by the State and Federal Supreme Courts. In another culture, they would commit seppuku. At least they should resign. Can they been impeached? Disbarred? Like Nifong?

Shouldn't the Legislature repeal the statute(s) that created the opportunity for this kind of abuse?; 10/3/16, 5:17 PM
Marty Keller said...: Y'know, it's times like these when I really miss Garage.; 10/3/16, 5:26 PM
Jon Ericson said...: Tsk, He's into flower photography now.; 10/3/16, 5:40 PM
Mark said...: "I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the fact that a teenager at one of the homes was confronted by the thugs"

And here I thought blue lives mattered.; 10/3/16, 8:01 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Even garage can't bring himself to defend the hail of stupidity belching forth from the Left these days. The good news is they're on their last legs.; 10/3/16, 8:01 PM
CWJ said...: Chuck,

I've never commented upon you before now, but now I must. You posed questions to Althouse. She replies, but you ignore it and keep blathering in response to others. What's your point Chuck? Why pretend to be authentic when you're not? Seriously. What's your honest reason for commenting here? Emphasis on honest.; 10/3/16, 8:23 PM
CWJ said...: Profile not available Mark,

Yeah because the blue invaders' lives were in mortal danger. I don't have to agree or defend the original commenter to recognize that you are a complete putz. But that goes without saying for the profile not available set doesn't it?; 10/3/16, 8:31 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Blogger The Cracker Emcee said...
Even garage can't bring himself to defend the hail of stupidity belching forth from the Left these days. The good news is they're on their last legs.

I suppose when they got orders from headquarters that women could have penises and father children, some of the foot soldiers began to question the mental fitness of the generals.; 10/3/16, 9:45 PM
Chuck said...: I didn't ignore Professor Althouse's quotation from the linked article. I read it. It answered one of my questions; that is, this case was indeed an appeal from the state supreme court decision. She didn't say whether this was a Caperton-type issue but I think it was. Although how it may have differed from Caperton would be interesting to understand. It is certainly a different result, from the actual result in Caperton. So that's one thing.

My question about whether it was an appeal of a state supreme court decision was a bit silly, given that Althouse was able to blandly point me to the text of the article that answers it, but as anybody with just enough knowledge to be dangerous concerning the John Doe law and the procedural history of the entire matter, there were I think two other federal court cases and one or two appeals to the Seventh Circuit. Somebody pleas feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I may be.

I still don't know if there is any trickiness to the rule of four (informally, no doubt) when there are only eight justices sitting. I'm guesing not, but once again it is not as clear an answer as one may think.

As for my commenting on Althouse... I was a run-of-the-mill commenter here long, long before election '16. Nobody noticed, when I posted comments supportive of Walker and his reforms, or on other routine things not controversial among Republicans. It is Trump, that is the one and only thing to make me an outlier at Althouse, and I think it is equally remarkable on both sides of that equation. I can only speculate what Althouse's personal reasons might be for a rather studied tolerance of Donald J. Trump. It may be equal parts fascination and revulsion with her, although she hides any revulsion remarkably well. The notion that any argument might be 50 to 1 (although I know of more than just one Trump naysayer here) doesn't concern me in the slightest. I am not building anything, I have no desire to place myself in any social network, and I am not selling t-shirts or hits on Amazon. I just desperately don't want to be any part of the Trump Fiasco and I want to rebuild the Republican Party post-Trump ASAP.; 10/3/16, 9:54 PM
Achilles said...: "The problem is (metaphor-shift-alert!) once the shooting starts it's really hard to stop it before it's gone all French Revolution on us, and who wants that???"

Is this a trick question?; 10/4/16, 12:33 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Not a trick question, but a rhetorical one.

"American exceptionalism" might well have gotten started by those noting that our revolution was very unusual in that it did not spin out of control. (See France, Russia, etc.); 10/4/16, 1:22 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Achilles,

Or do you mean that you think some on the left do desire chaos and destruction?; 10/4/16, 1:28 AM
Mark said...: CWJ, I have likely been here longer than you.

Just because I don't enable your snooping doesn't mean a thing. GFY. I prefer my privacy more than I prefer you harass me.; 10/4/16, 3:18 AM
Rusty said...: Blogger Mark said...
"CWJ, I have likely been here longer than you.

Just because I don't enable your snooping doesn't mean a thing. GFY. I prefer my privacy more than I prefer you harass me."

So. Troll it is then.; 10/4/16, 6:09 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I don't have a profile.
That is because if I had a profile, I am afraid that Hillary would use the information on it to ID me and drone me. Or maybe nuke me. Who knows what that crazy bitch would do if she ever gets her finger on the button?
She ain't right in the head. Too many blood clots, too many bloody mary's.; 10/4/16, 8:12 AM
Paco Wové said...: Mark (or as I fondly think of him, "FUDMaster Mark") earned his trolling bones a few years ago ominously intoning to all, repeatedly, that Walker's campaign was a "sinking ship".; 10/4/16, 8:39 AM
mikee said...: How about, "They are charged, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to long prison terms for their malfeasance in office." It sounds better.; 10/4/16, 8:49 AM
320Busdriver said...: I think this case differed from Caperton in that there there were NO SCOWI elections pending or occurring while this case was before the justices as there was in Caperton.

After they lost again, the rabid Walker haters argued that 2 of the justices(Gableman and Prosser) were aided by O'Keefes WI Club for Growth(one of the defendants) in previous elections and should have recused here. Had one or both judges recused, the lower courts(JD's own judge Peterson) ruling to quash the subpoenas would stand.... effectively ending it where it should have.

Rick Esenberg details why this witch hunt was ended here.
http://sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com/2015/07/in-wake-of-wisconsin-supreme-courts.html; 10/4/16, 9:08 AM
Mark said...: So ends the most shameful fishing expedition in US history.

Funny how the same people who kept chattering about "Secret Routers" here could not be bothered to worry about a certain off-the-books email server.

Mark on the Hudson; 10/4/16, 9:49 AM
Jeff said...: Chuck is not the only long-time commenter here opposed to Trump. I've made a few remarks here and there along the same lines, but like Chuck, I've found that conversations with Trump supporters quickly degenerate into name-calling and questioning of motives. Many Trump supporters apparently think calling someone a "cuckservative" is witty and/or insightful. It does end the argument, but not for the reason they think.; 10/4/16, 10:15 AM
Rusty said...: For one thing, Jeff. You haven't come here claiming to be the smartest guy in the room. There is a lot wrong with Trump no one is denying that. There is one thing that is right. He is not Hillary.
I'm sure I'm not alone in expressing my low expectations for Trump as president, but he isn't an establishment politician and he is not a member of the Clinton crime family. The Clintons have made enough money off the backs of the taxpayers. Time to let someone else in.; 10/4/16, 11:26 AM
Jeff said...: Rusty, I don't think Chuck has claimed to be the smartest guy in the room either. Yes, if it comes down to Trump or Clinton, like both you and Chuck I will go with Trump. But I live in Virginia. If Trump is anywhere close to winning in Virginia, that can only mean he's already won enough other states to be the next president. Since my vote isn't going to decide the outcome, I will vote for Johnson. He is easily the best of the nominated candidates.; 10/4/16, 11:36 AM