Phil Walczak, Mayor Barrett's Deputy Campaign Manager, is sending around an e-mail claiming that the Governor can only set up a legal defense fund under the following circumstances:
- Scott Walker is being charged with a crime
- Scott Walker thinks he is being charged with a crime
- Scott Walker is paying for the defense of crimes
- Scott Walker has been convicted
- All of the above
You can certainly set up a legal defense fund if you are charged with or convicted with a criminal violation of chapters 11 and 12 (which deal with campagn finance and certain related activity).
But sec. 11.64(1) of the statutes also authorizes the creation of such a fund whenever a candidate or public official or his or her agent "is being investigated for" a potential criminal violation of chapters 11 or 12 of the statutes. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that being "investigted for" is not the same as "being charged with" or even thinking that you are "being charged with" a crime. Even Mr. Walczak, however he may be gripped with partisan fervor and panic at his guy's lousy poll numbers, should be able to understand that.
To establish a legal defense fund, there need not be an actual violation of the law. There need not be a charge. It is not even necessary to show that you are a "target" in the sense that the prosecutor suspects that you may be guilty or is trying to prove that you are. (As I explained in my last post, you do not necessarily know these things. A prosecutor doesn't have to tell you and is not bound by whatever he or she does tell you.) It is only necessary that your conduct is being investigated for potential criminal violations of the pertinent laws.
Nor is it even necessary for Scott Walker to be the one who is being investigated. If the agent of a candidate or a public official is being investigated, he or she can establish a fund. This is obviously not the same as "paying for the defense of crimes."
The petition calls on the Governor to produce e-mails from what it calls an "illegal e-mail network" in his office. This is a loaded question. First, it assumes that the network was "illegal." I don't know that and neither does Mr. Walczak. There is nothing intrinsically illegal about public employees using private e-mail. It really depends what it was used for. The DA has alleged that two county employees illegally used it to raise money for a candidate other than Scott Walker from their county offices. He has alleged nothing else. Second, Walczak assumes, without evidence, that Walker knew about so-called secret e-mails and that he is in possession of them. I suspect that he does not have them and, in all likelihood, never did. Third, it assumes that releasing such information would not violate a secrecy order issued in the course of the John Doe proceeding. Again, neither I nor Mr. Walczak know that. I haven't seen the secrecy order and I don't know what, if anything, the Governor has and how it relates to the John Doe.
I understand that the Democrats are disappointed that, after a proctological examination that has taken almost two years, no one has accused Governor Walker of anything illegal. But wanting something to be so does not make it so.
10 comments:
Indeed, a much a do about nothing, Professor.
The role of campaign managers is to keep pressure on the opposition. You expect anything different? So if you are going to complain about his tactics, fine, but then you best bemoan the strategies from the opposing side as well.
"Scott Walker thinks he is being charged with a crime."
And your explanation covers Wslczak's simple statement in excruciating, partisan detail. You and him are essentially saying the same thing.
"If the agent of a candidate or a public official is being investigated, he or she can establish a fund."
And just who is this agent? Vague and confusing.
"I understand that the Democrats are disappointed that, after a proctological examination that has taken almost two years."
The wheels of justice are slow, especially in these specific cases. You, of all people, ought to know that. Either Walker will be fully exonerated, partially exonerated, have his reputation tarnished due to the actions of his underlings, or be indicted. It is up the investigating team to perform their jobs. Let's see how it plays out.
Rick,
The last name is spelled "Walzak." There is no C.
Jack
"The last name is spelled "Walzak." There is no C."
Like much of this apology, it's riddled with errors. Scooter is wise to retain counsel...he'll be needing it.
Tom Barrett is a lawyer. He understands the important issues and nuances in play. Yet he allows his campaign to advance a dishonest spin. At this rate he will forfeit what's left of his reputation, i.e.,"nice guy."
Sorry, George Mitchell, but that's how politics is played nowadays. You, of all people, should know that by now!
"Allowing his campaign to advance a dishonest spin"...surely you jest. This strategy--if it IS dishonest-- is right up your alley, so quit your bellyaching. It's much ado about nothing, since Barrett will lose on June 5, aina?
Besides, since when did you even care about reputations, anyway, especially Barrett's?
Based on the comments, the Dems position is that, sure, we tell vicious lies, but only because the GOP does.
Barrett knows that Chisholm will be announcing that Walker is not a suspect nor even a target; that the announcement will come soon after June 5.
But I'm puzzled about which jurisdiction is looking into this. I would think the feds, if anyone, would be indicting a sitting governor, not the local Democratic Party member DA.
And I would also think that Christie and Jindal looked closely into whether there was any chance that they might soon be accused of supporting an about to be indicted fellow governor- and they concluded it wasn't going to happen.
"Barrett knows that Chisholm will be announcing that Walker is not a suspect nor even a target; that the announcement will come soon after June 5."
And how would YOU know?
"And I would also think that Christie and Jindal looked closely..."
Again, how would YOU know? Besides, you're giving Christie WAY too much credit. Jindal, definitely.
The question is, why don't you know...?
Seriously, if Barrett knew that charges would be brought before June 5 he'd just shut up - first, because he wouldn't need to attack Walker, the complaint would give him what he wants; and second, he'd be accused of poisoning the jury pool.
Knowing that charges will never be brought, and that the announcement won't be made before the election gives Barrett unlimited opportunity to attack Walker. On the other hand, if the announcement were going to come before June 5, then Barrett and all his ilk would look worse than foolish right before the election - a chance they can't take.
So that's why I maintain that Barrett is acting out of knowledge [knows exactly what he's doing].
Finally, why attack Christie and Jindal for lack of intelligence? How would you know??
Anonymouse--All you have is speculation, a theory. Possible? Yes. Probable? NO.
Good for you, have some cheese.
You are insinuating that Barrett has been regularly informed about the Walker investigation by the Milwaukee DA. Any direct proof, not just supposition?
Let's run counter to your theory. If Barrett did NOT keep up the "verbal attacks" and kept quiet, it would lend credibility to people saying that he is indeed privy to the contents of the investigation. Besides, people have already made up their minds who they will vote for, so this idea that "Barrett and his ilk would look worse than foolish" makes no sense.
"Finally, why attack Christie and Jindal for lack of intelligence? How would you know??"
The same way YOU allegedly know about Barrett knowing about the direction of the Walker investigation.
Post a Comment