This was really surprising for me. We'll have to see whether the case gets back on track.
I would LOVE to see Karl Rove go to jail.
The complaint says former Kenosha County Circuit Judge Barbara Kluka, the judge who originally presided over the investigation, authorized as many as 100 subpoenas "of breathtaking scope" and ordered raids "related to at least 29 organizations."
So, to sum up: it's a "witch hunt" because the conspiracy was so large that it took that many subpoenas to gather the evidence.
When breaking the law, apparently, go big or go home. If enough people are doing it, then the court can't help the investigators, because that would be a witch hunt.
Well, it is comically incorrect.
Well, it is comically incorrect.
As a Good Cartoon pointed out, Democrats have a well-outlined plan (that is sure to be villainized by Republicans), while Republicans just want to get their man elected then... magic!
Wow. How is this not more damning? How is this not receiving more coverage? True, I've not exactly been keeping abreast of regional news stories / politics lately, but this is just epic levels of corruption, and becoming more and more obvious with just what is available to the public.
How would that nullify the investigation? Can the WI legislature pass ex post facto laws that make things retroactively legal? That's nice work if you can get it.
How would that nullify the investigation? Can the WI legislature pass ex post facto laws that make things retroactively legal? That's nice work if you can get it.
ex post facto protects you from being prosecuted for something that wasn't a crime when you did it. If you make something legal, it doesn't matter that you did it while it was still illegal, you can no longer be prosecuted for it.
Another good example of what's wrong with the State's Rights movement.
Walken Dead wrote:How would that nullify the investigation? Can the WI legislature pass ex post facto laws that make things retroactively legal? That's nice work if you can get it.
ex post facto protects you from being prosecuted for something that wasn't a crime when you did it. If you make something legal, it doesn't matter that you did it while it was still illegal, you can no longer be prosecuted for it.
I'm confused, your two sentences don't exactly align in my brain. Ex post facto stops you from being prosecuted if you did something that was later made illegal... but in Walker's case, he was being prosecuted for something that would potentially have been made legal. But he still did it while it was illegal.
I think it works the other way too (although I think that there is another term for the other way) the idea being that society has decided that something is no longer illegal implies that society doesn't think it should have been illegal before, meaning that prosecution would go against society's wishes.
Works out well for stuff like Marijuana smoking, or biracial marriages, doesn't work out as well when it's not so much the society's wishes that are being implemented, but people writing a law just to keep themselves out of jail.
It depends on how they word the law that makes the act legal. Sometimes the new law legalizing the act is considered to repeal the original law completely, sometimes it is interpreted as only legalizing the act from this point forward.
Would love to know the story here.
"Excuse me, Judge Gableman. I think you dropped this blank check that just so happens to be signed by the Koch brothers."
Santa visited early this year!
Nobody has been able (or willing) to answer the question of who authored this amendment.
The Koch Bros. of course.
I'd argue it comes from Walker and his immediate leadership circle. I don't think the Kochs are worried about getting caught doing shifty government things, but the bureaucrats and appointees doing them sure are.
I'd argue it comes from Walker and his immediate leadership circle. I don't think the Kochs are worried about getting caught doing shifty government things, but the bureaucrats and appointees doing them sure are.
I took it more to be an ALEC thing where rich folks and corporations are the ones actually writing the legislation and both they and the legislators would rather keep that out of the public eye.
Rep. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield, said in an email posted on the conservative website RightWisconsin that, "After inquiries my understanding was" the changes would have made Wisconsin's open records law similar to those in other states and that of the U.S. Congress "in order to facilitate more honest dialogue."
So, you thought a law designed to remove all transparency from government actions was going to make the government more open and honest... sounds like someone needs to be fired pretty much immediately.
"Our intent with these changes was to encourage a deliberative process with state agencies in developing policy and legislation," said spokeswoman Laurel Patrick. "This allows for robust debate with state agencies and public employees over the merit of policies and proposed initiatives as they are being formed, while ensuring materials related to final proposals, as well as information related to external stakeholders seeking to influence public policy, would remain fully transparent."
Pages