Sunday, April 26, 2015

Walkergate Prosecutors To Walker: Put Up Or Shut Up

Over the weekend, Scott Walker was once again in Iowa, peddling the false pretense that he is a good Christian, when he went after the Walkergate prosecutors, echoing the fabricated narratives that has been bouncing around the right wing echo chambers. This time, though, the prosecutors aren't just standing by. They issued a challenge to Walker to walk the walk and to go big and go bold by agreeing to release all of the John Doe documents which are currently sealed:
Prosecutors have largely been mum publicly about their probe of Walker's campaign, and Walker recently has largely refrained from discussing the matter.

That changed Saturday after Walker on Friday spoke to WHO-AM in Des Moines about a recent report in the National Review detailing a 2011 police raid on the home of Walker aide Cindy Archer and ones in 2013 on those working for groups supporting him.

"I said even if you're a liberal Democrat, you should look at (the raids) and be frightened to think that if the government can do that against people of one political persuasion, they can do it against anybody, and more often than not we need protection against the government itself," Walker told the radio station.

"As (the National Review) pointed out, there were real questions about the constitutionality of much of what they did, but it was really about people trying to intimidate people..." Walker said.

"They were looking for just about anything. As I pointed out at the time, it was largely a political witch hunt."

The raids were conducted as part of a pair of investigations led by Chisholm, a Democrat. On the second investigation, Chisholm was assisted by district attorneys from both parties and special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, a self-described Republican.

"As to defamatory remarks, I strongly suspect the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin's, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others," Chisholm said in a statement Saturday responding to Walker's comments.

In a separate statement, Schmitz said he was surprised Walker would "speak publicly about specific issues which are now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a decision."

"His description of the investigation as a 'political witch hunt' is offensive when he knows that the investigation was authorized by a bipartisan group of judges and is directed by a Republican special prosecutor appointed at the request of a bipartisan group of district attorneys," Schmitz's statement said.

He called Walker's comments inaccurate but didn't detail why.

"I invite the governor to join me in seeking judicial approval to lawfully release information now under seal which would be responsive to the allegations that have been made," his statement said. "Such information, when lawfully released, will show that these recent allegations are patently false."

Chisholm said he agreed with Schmitz's statement.

"Stripped of niceties, Mr. Schmitz is saying the governor is deliberately not telling the truth," Chisholm's statement said.

"The truth is always a defense, so let's get the truth out in a legal manner, not through lies, distortions and misrepresentations."
As one might expect, Walker dodged this challenge and refused to answer questions about releasing the sealed documents.

In other words, Walker has neatly painted himself into a corner.

He can either release the documents and hope his presidential bid can survive. Given the weak-kneed corporate media and America's terribly short attention span, there is a good chance he could survive the release of the documents. But I wouldn't hold my breath for him to do that, because he would have to give up his portrayal of the Tea Party Martyr.

If Walker refuses to allow the release of the documents, it would be nice if a reporter or three practiced a rare act of flagrant journalism and ask him what he is trying to hide - and to persist on this questioning until he finally answers.


  1. > "If Walker refuses to allow the release of the documents, it would be nice if a reporter or three practiced a rare act of flagrant journalism and ask him what he is trying to hide - and to persist on this questioning until he finally answers."

    As far as Wisconsin news media like the MJS group are concerned, don't hold your breath... but now that Wanker's a "national" figure, maybe a national network reporter he can't simply ignore will confront him. If you can just get such a reporter's attention on the question....

  2. It was interesting to hear conservative Judge James Daley's response when asked about John Doe during a state supreme court election debate. It was something like: collusion is against the law.

  3. So are conspircies and that is what the RNC has been perpetrating since 2009.