My initial reaction
to the termination of the Joe Doe investigation can be found over at
Right Wisconsin. (Sorry, it's behind a pay wall.) I am not one of those
conservatives who claim that the investigation was a witch hunt (I don't
pretend to know) but it was troubling both in its conception and
execution. It has been my view that we are not served by vaguely worded statutes
defining political crimes that can be interpreted to apply to both true
abuses of power and garden variety politicking. Expecting those crimes
to be enforced by partisan elected officials - even those with the best
of intentions - further aggravates the matter. Ordinary politics ought
not to be criminalized.
Nor are we served by the kind of partisan irresponsibility that marked
much of the public discussion of the Doe. I found it shocking that a
member of the bar running for Governor allowed rampant speculation
about a legal proceeding to be advanced in his name. I understand that
politics ain't bean bag and a political campaign can be a bit like a
fist fight. You could hit in the face and you lash back. But all the
sepia toned ads about Scott Walker and Dragnet-style Democratic party
websites would look silly today if they had not been so irresponsible
then.
Cross posted at Purple Wisconsin.
3 comments:
The professor makes the false assumption that only partisans will abuse the statutes that govern the actions of politicians -and- those actions which are subject to the laws are of the "garden variety".
The citizens of Wisconsin have made it abundantly clear that they want legislators held accountable, and they are have entrusted prosecutors to use their discretion to bring forth charges if evidence warrants a probe. It is up to the media and the people to put pressure on those individuals who investigate these matters to ensure that the process will be diligently followed.
During the process, indeed, there will be events that lead people to question its legitimacy, but these events do not necessarily negate its intended purpose.
Both sides leaked information. Both sides gamed the system to work it to their advantage. Both sides marshaled their "attack dogs". Professor, it's called trying to win a case within the confines of the rules.
Furthermore, professor, please be honest here. There seemingly appears to be a disconnect with this statement...
"I have steadfastly refused to question the motivation behind the probe and I won’t start now."
with this statement...
"An investigation into nothing took forever to produce very little. In the process, political partisans misused it in a failed attempt to bring down a Governor."
So, indeed, you do have an opinion on the matter regarding the reason behind the investigation.
As the venerable John Foust would say, a classic Standard Contradictory Disclaimer™ on your part.
And another thing, professor. I do not know if you edit your own work, or have someone check your posts, but two of your links do not work..."vaguely worded statues" and "allowed rampant speculation".
I am sure that you take your students to task for not being diligent in their work.
So all your good stuff goes behind a paywall now.
Way to go.
Post a Comment