Sunday, May 27, 2012

Walker Must Come Clean On Walkergate Now!

There is a reason why people refer to Scott Walker as a weasel, besides the fact that I've been doing it for years.  Walker is as unscrupulous as a person can be and despite his inability to govern his way out of a wet paper bag, he is very adept at dodging and sidestepping the truth, even when it requires talking out of both sides of his mouth.

One of Walker's most glaring examples of his skill at "weaselspeak" is the way he is now trying to address the Walkergate issue.  He alternates between being cooperative, to not being a target to being unable to talk about it because of the secrecy rules, depending on which is most politically convenient at the moment.  He often uses all of them in the same conversation which is really confusing to most people.

On Saturday evening, I had the chance to speak with former Kenosha County District Attorney Bob Jambois, to help clarify the issues regarding Walker's weaselspeak and Walkergate.  Jambois is a very astute attorney and has conducted a number of John Doe investigations while he was a district attorney.  Jambois also cosigned the letter from some of the most esteemed members of the legal field attesting to the integrity of the Milwaukee County District Attorney, the Honorable Neal P. Nettesheim and the prosecutorial process.

"I'm not the target."

Walker has often claimed that he is not the target of the Walkergate investigations.  The most recent example comes from Friday night's debate, where he claims to be cooperating again and claims to not be the target (starting about the 1:45 mark):

However, per Jambois, the only way for a person to know that they are not the target of a John Doe investigation is to be given immunity.  And when one is given immunity in a John Doe, it is easily verifiable, regardless of the type of immunity which was granted.

If Walker was given formal immunity, there would be a court record of it which would be public knowledge.  If Walker was granted informal immunity, he would have a letter from the District Attorney's office which he could legally produce to verify this claim.  However, there is no court record showing Walker was granted immunity.  Likewise, he has never produced a letter to verify his claim.

Thereby, we can conclude with confidence that Walker has not been granted immunity and thus cannot, in any conceivable way, know that he is not a target of the Walkergate investigation.

"Bound by the secrecy of the John Doe process"

When Walker is not busy professing that the he is not the target or that he has a "high level of integrity,*" he is copping out saying that he cannot talk about Walkergate because of the secrecy aspect of the John Doe proceeding, as he did in this interview, starting after the nervous cough at 1:45:

Per Jambois, the only way that Walker would be under a secrecy order is if he testified before the John Doe judge or if there is a broad secrecy order.  And even if he did testify, the only thing he couldn't comment on is his testimony.

Now, given Walker's history of micromanaging his campaign - see the infamous "we can't have another story like this" email - I reckon it is conceivable that his testimony could be rather extensive.  This is especially true when one considers all the different directions the Walkergate investigation has taken, from embezzlement to pay for play bid rigging to illegal campaigning and Lord knows what else.

Furthermore, as Jambois explained to me, if Walker was not the target and if Walker did not testify before the judge, the DA has no legal authority to forbid Walker from talking about Walkergate.  It would be especially unlikely, given that Walker is just days away from facing a recall election, that the DA would forbid Walker from clearing his name in a clear and concise way, if, as Walker claims, he is not a target.

Which is it? Secrecy or immunity?

As I said, Walker is trying to play both sides of the John Doe.  But he simply and legally cannot have both his secrecy and immunity too.  If he was given immunity, it would be public record and not a secret.  If he was ordered to secrecy, then he cannot claim not to be a target.

It is time that Scott Walker comes clean about Walkergate and his involvement in it.  He needs to answer directly to what his role is and why he has been lying to the voters regarding this.

It is also time that the press in this state start doing their jobs and asking these questions until he gives a clear and direct answer to them instead of giving him a pass on his weaselspeak.

And this needs to be done now, so that the voters have a clear understanding of just who Walker is and exactly just what role he played in the illegal activities that took place in his own executive suite and under his watch,.


  1. If (gods forbid!) Walker survives the recall election and remains governor:

    What financial responsibility would the WI citizens, as taxpayers, have if he is indicted and brought to trial?

    Please comment on other ramifications for government that would come into play.

  2. Hispanic News Network USA Blog reporting a 'reliable source releasing an investigative report saying 'Walker and up to five others in the Governor's inner circle while he was Milwaukee County Executive will face several felony charges resulting from the John Doe investigation'....AFTER the recall election.

    Let's make sure they indict a Governor that has been already REMOVED.

  3. Weasel John Doe Walker

  4. I read blog comments from Walker supporters, and they repeat the mantra: "Walker asked for the investigation, so he must be innocent." It seems as if I read somewhere that his team didn't ask for the investigation until there was already so much evidence against them that it was clear that they had been caught. Is that true? If it is, then it certainly deflates the argument that Walker must be innocent, or he wouldn't have asked for the investigation.

    This is an excellent site for reading about WalkerGate. I wish this site's info would permeate every Wisconsin household.

    The "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" disappointingly endorsed Walker, but it seems as if they are trying to make up for it a little by printing letters from people who were angered by the endorsement. They said they will print additional letters this week. Do you think they would print your article above (if it's something you'd like to share?).

    The "Cap Times" has seemed very open to printing anti-Walker stuff. And the Ed Show has been good. What I've noticed is that people seem to go to the news sources that fit their view of Walker and then they read what they want to hear. I am anti-Walker, and it is disconcerting (yet revealing) to stumble upon a pro-Walker site and see their view of the situation. Sometimes it's obvious that they don't have the facts, and they are not reading this excellent site!

    Thank you for all your good work.

    1. You can do your part.

      *Pick a few good links here and send them to those you think need to know.

      *Print and distribute some of the posts to those who do not use the internet. They are most misled by the Walker supporting media machine.

    2. I try, but I rarely know if I'm reaching anyone. In the past year, I've written several times to the PBS Newshour, Meet the Press, The Ed Show, Greta Van Susteren's show, Robert Reich, and to a Wisconsin journalist who appeared on the PBS Newshour. I haven't heard back from any of them. (Although to be fair, I should say that I didn't write to the Ed Show until this week).

      I also wrote to Jon Nichols and Dave Zweifel at Cap Times, and I received nice answers from them. As I have read the comments on their articles, I have seen that they have taken a lot of unfair criticism this year.

      When I bump into a pro-Walker blog, sometimes I feel compelled to retort, and I compose responses only to find out that I can't post them without creating an account with the blog. I admit I don't take the extra step of creating an account because I am a little leery of retaliation from the pro-Walkerites.

      I guess I wish Barrett and Jon Nichols would see these posts about WalkerGate. I also wish that the people who will be formulating and asking questions in Thursday's debate would see these WalkerGate posts. I don't know how to effectively get from here to there. Should I just try sending them and see what happens? (If that is okay with Capper because it is his copyrighted material.) I've never called him "Capper" before. Sorry if that's too familiar from a stranger. :-) I am thankful for his good work.

    3. Feel free to share as much as you wish. I'm not one of those pretentious types. I just want the facts out there as much as possible so people are informed of the truth.

    4. Thanks Capper. I will try to reach Barrett and Nichols, and I will try to find out who will be involved in the setup of the debate. I don't know if I will do any good, but I will try. I'm far away from Wisconsin, but I grew up there, and I still care.

    5. anon 12:18 here

      Registered Wisconsin voters are who I was suggesting you contact. They are the only ones who can vote Walker out of Office by voting Barrett in. You probably won't convince the media that they are wrong, or to change their ways.

      Convincing a few voters that Walker is an unfit weasel is the righteous mission for everyone.

  5. How can we confirm, invalidate, or otherwise get at the edges of Goodson's claim that an indictment is upcoming after the election? I have heard and understand the argument (while I disagree with it) for the DA waiting until after the election to come out with the next set of indictments. But obviously someone has started the leak process. How can we tease away at that to reveal the maximum about Walker's involvement?

    1. There is no leak process. Furthermore, as evidenced with the case against Johnny Carson, Chisholm does not follow the elections when it comes to his decision to charging people.

  6. Barca thinks we forget his mafia connections and the ethics issues with Doyle and jambois working for Dennis Troha not the people. just like scooter working for David Koch. Troha was the largest campaign donor to Most democratic Wisconsin legislatures. Doyle was indicted on this. Also using state lawyer jambois as Troha`s personal attorney on the states dime.

  7. Jambois went to Washington dc as a Wis dot attorney and worked as dennis troha his wifes employers personal attorney all on the taxpayers dime. Google it. jambois makes walker look like a boy scout. The Bell case shows he falsified evidence to let his four friend get away with the BELL murder. The only way the Bell family got justice is in a civil suit. Documents show jambois cover up for four gangland murders. Peter Barca asked the feds to investigate jambois actions in the bell case per the Milwaukee journal. the articles always show Troha as their mafia connections.please investigate people like jambois before you say their good. I talked to ed garvey about jambois working for ALEC and going to many Prison corporation of America`s meetings. Jambois is a ALEC man.