Wisconsin's Governor Walker and the possibility of a recall

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.

IMAGE(http://38.media.tumblr.com/d7f560483169af0b7d8eb928e92f85cb/tumblr_n7hpllkLoi1rr5t33o1_500.jpg)

Really? Reaaaaaaaaaaally? Walker's your choice, huh? *sigh*

Well, it is comically incorrect.

LeapingGnome wrote:

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!

Dimmerswitch, earlier this year[/url]]GOP State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald introduced SB 654 back in March, which would have reversed judicial precedent and declared that "issue ads" cannot be considered a candidate contribution regardless of whether they were run in coordination with a candidate's campaign (this change would have rendered the second John Doe investigation moot, since that is precisely the point under investigation there). Fortunately it didn't pass, but I think it shows that at least some of the players understand which laws might have been broken during the recall election.

Minor correction: Scott Fitzgerald apparently wasn't the one to introduce the bill, though he definitely pushed to get it passed.

At the time, SB 654 like it was an attempt to de-fang the John Doe investigation.

Turns out, the timing was even more damning.

PR Watch[/url]]On October 3, 2013, prosecutors secretly served Wisconsin Club for Growth director Eric O'Keefe with a subpoena in the John Doe investigation, and executed search warrants on the homes of Walker's top campaign advisor R.J. Johnson (who also was the Club's chief strategist) and his associate Deborah Jordahl.

Two weeks after the secret subpoenas were issued, drafting records show that an aide to Sen. Lazich, Zach Bemis, contacted the Legislative Reference Bureau and requested a bill that would rewrite state law, reverse court of appeals precedent, and exempt "issue ads" from Wisconsin campaign finance statutes.

At the time, the John Doe was operating under strict secrecy orders. But recently-unsealed documents show that the bipartisan group of John Doe prosecutors alleged that the Walker campaign and legislative leaders were part of a "criminal scheme" to violate Wisconsin's disclosure and donation laws during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections, based on evidence of coordination with nonprofit groups such as Wisconsin Club for Growth. The Club spent at least $9.1 million on electoral issue ads during the recalls, and acted as a hub for funneling millions more to other politically-active groups.

By changing the law to put issue ads beyond the reach of Wisconsin's campaign finance statutes, Lazich's bill would have had the effect of legalizing the issue ad coordination under investigation. Lazich was the subject of a recall attempt in 2011.

The October 18 drafting request states that Lazich's office wanted the bill "today." The bill was quickly drawn up by the LRB, but Lazich would not introduce it for five months.

The three organizations who registered to lobby in favor of SB 654? Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Wisconsin Family Action, and Wisconsin Realtors Association. All three of these organizations have also been implicated by the second John Doe investigation.

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.

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.

Another good example of what's wrong with the State's Rights movement.

Jolly Bill wrote:

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.

Wisconsin is flyover country, and has next to no presence on the national media landscape.

When we had protests at the Capitol with over 100,000 people the biggest coverage we got was on Fox News, claiming the protesters were violent (we weren't, and the fight footage they showed was from LA, complete with palm trees).

kaostheory wrote:
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.

Another round of John Doe documents was released last week.

Wisconsin State Journal[/url]]...in an affidavit filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in February and included in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals records released Friday, Schmitz argued Peterson “did not focus on evidence in the record that at least two political committees expressly advocated for Gov. Walker and Senate recall candidates or expressly advocated against their opponents.”

Schmitz cited an email from R.J. Johnson, who served as both a consultant for Walker and the head of Wisconsin Club for Growth, to a representative for the Republican State Leadership Committee during the 2011 Senate recalls.

“Need to know that you are up and the content of your spot,” Johnson wrote. “We are drafting radio to complement. Also need to know if you plan to play any further in WI beyond (Democratic Sen. Jim) Holperin.”

Schmitz wrote that the plans were then shared with Walker, his campaign manager Keith Gilkes and fundraiser Kate Doner in a July 13, 2011, email. A copy of the email is not included in the records that were made public.

An RSLC spokeswoman did not return a call seeking comment.

Schmitz also references eight advertisements sponsored by Right Direction Wisconsin Political Action Committee, an arm of the Republican Governors Association, that criticized Walker’s opponents in the 2012 gubernatorial recall election.

“Additional emails document that agents of (Friends of Scott Walker) were regularly conducting meetings and conference calls with the RGA to discuss campaign strategy, including polling,” Schmitz wrote.

Schmitz noted such political committees must act independently of campaign committees, or else their work becomes reportable in-kind contributions.

The Cap Times has commentary on some highlights from the document release:

Capitol Times[/url]]Want to know what's in the latest John Doe records release but don't have the time to sort it all out from the various news reports? You're in luck: Politico's James Hohmann has kindly boiled them down to six key tidbits which allow gleeful Democrats to take delight in Gov. Scott Walker's legal problems.

The documents — some of them released inadvertently and later removed from public access — leave little doubt that Walker and his backers, most prominently the Wisconsin Club for Growth, sought to sidestep campaign finance rules by coordinating the governor's recall campaign.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/w...

Not sure which of the Wisconsin threads was the best home for this, but here's a reasonable overview of the John Doe case that will be heading to our State Supreme Court later this year.

Many details are unknown publicly because of strict secrecy rules around the investigation, but prosecutors have suggested in documents that they were weighing whether disclosure rules and donation limits were violated as Governor Walker’s allies directed activities of at least a dozen outside groups, including the Wisconsin Club for Growth, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and Citizens for a Strong America. Lawyers for some of the groups have said no laws were broken, in part, because the groups did not tell people directly how to vote.

The investigation stalled more than a year ago when a state judge quashed subpoenas, saying he had found no probable cause of campaign finance violations. The Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for next month on the question of whether the investigation can proceed.

According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, some of those same groups have provided more than $8 million over the years to support Justices Prosser, Patience Roggensack, Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman, mainly for issue ads that do not explicitly tell people to vote for a candidate, but which, the democracy campaign’s analysis says, clearly supported the conservative justices by advocating their stances or denouncing their opponents’ records.

I chose this thread, ultimately, because astute readers might remember the Wisconsin Club for Growth and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce from my post upthread, noting that SB 654 (written in an attempt to render the second John Doe investigation moot) was backed by some of the same groups who were implicated by the investigation.

Turns out some of those groups have also been pouring money into our State Supreme Court races. In support of the justices who (unless they recuse themselves) will determine whether the investigation into unlawful coordination by those same groups may proceed.

This was slightly unexpected.

State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman took the unusual step Thursday of asking his colleagues to reconsider a decision not to review the misconduct-in-office conviction of a former aide to Gov. Scott Walker.

On a 6-0 vote, the high court declined in March to take the case of Kelly Rindfleisch, who served as Walker's deputy chief of staff when he was Milwaukee County executive. She was convicted in 2012 of doing political work at her taxpayer-funded job and a state appeals court upheld her conviction 2-1 in November.

On Thursday, a memo was filed from Gableman asking that the high court revisit the issue when it next meets in private. He did not explain why he wants to take the issue up in his one-paragraph memo.

Such a move is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. The original decision not to take the case was agreed to by all the justices except David Prosser, who did not participate in the case.

The court did not explain its March decision why it would not to take the case, following its usual practice for such matters.

A state appeals court upheld Rindfleisch's conviction 2-1 in November, and the state Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal in March.

Earlier this month, Rindfleisch asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case. She contends search warrants for her emails were so broad as to be unconstitutional.

Rindfleisch was caught engaging in illegal campaigning while working for Milwaukee County under then-County Executive Scott Walker. Rindfleisch was sentenced to six months in jail and three years of probation after she pleaded guilty in 2012 to one felony count of misconduct in office, though even as she pleaded guilty she was arguing that the search warrants issued in her case were so broad as to be unconstitutional.

Very odd that Justice Gableman is trying to get her case re-opened years later, given the unanimous decision (including Justice Gableman) to not hear it previously. I'm not sure the real reasoning will ever be public, but I'm still super curious to hear the spin on why he feels this apparently unprecedented step should be taken.

Four days later, the motion is withdrawn, without any comment or explanation.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman withdraws motion to have colleagues review case of ex-@ScottWalker aide Kelly Rindfleisch

Would love to know the story here.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

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!

Legal issues seem to be in the air.

Cindy Archer, longtime aide to Scott Walker, who you might remember from upthread, has filed a lawsuit against the prosecutors in the John Doe investigation.

Archer's complaint said the Milwaukee County district attorney's office, under Chisholm's direction, has "conducted a continuous campaign of harassment and intimidation against individuals and organizations in retaliation for their association with Scott Walker and their support for his policies, especially public-sector collective-bargaining reforms."

Assistant District Attorney David Robles, one of the named defendants, said per state policy he and others in the office could not comment on such lawsuits.

The investigation involved a September 2011 raid at Archer's east side Madison home, where officials seized her personal items and emails.

Six former associates and aides of Walker while he was Milwaukee County executive were convicted of charges linked to the probe. Neither Walker nor Archer was ever charged.

"Defendants orchestrated home raids, issued invasive subpoenas, badgered victims in secret interrogations, and took numerous other actions calculated to silence the voices that favored Walker's agenda and to punish his allies for their support of and association with him," her complaint reads.

And in an opinion piece published Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal, Archer wrote that her "reputation and career have been damaged beyond repair."

"Worst of all, I have discovered that my demotion as Gov. Walker's deputy director of administration, which came four weeks before the raid on my house, appears to have been engineered by the governor's team after word reached them that I had been targeted by the district attorney," Archer wrote. "Subsequently, I have not been given any role in the administration that may bring public attention."

Archer, who works in the state public defender's office, was appointed to a new job in July 2014 making about $113,000 a year. In this case, she is being represented by a team of attorneys including David Rivkin of Baker and Hostetler LLP in Washington, D.C.

Rivkin has also represented Eric O'Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth in previous lawsuits over a second John Doe investigation into whether Walker's campaign illegally coordinated with independent conservative groups in the 2012 recall election.

The pointed line about her demotion makes me feel like there's some possibility that not everyone is willing to take the hit to further Governor Walker's political career.

Not totally sure this is the best home for this, but doesn't feel like it merits a separate thread.

Wisconsin's legislature is in the process of passing the state budget. The final budget proposal includes a surprise non-fiscal amendment that would gut Wisconsin's open records law.

Nearly all records created by state and local government officials, including bill drafts and communications with staff, would not be subject to the Wisconsin open records law under a sweeping surprise change Republicans introduced in committee Thursday as an amendment to the state budget.

The changes were part of a 24-page final motion to the budget that makes 67 alterations to the two-year, $70 billion spending plan that the Legislature was expected to vote on next week. The panel was to vote on adding it to the budget Thursday night. The full Legislature, along with Gov. Scott Walker, would have to sign off before they would become law.

Numerous new protections would be extended to the 132 members of the Legislature, their staff, support agencies, and all other state and local government officials, including members of school boards.

"It's astonishing," said Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. "It is a full-frontal assault on the open records law as it pertains to the state Legislature and other agencies of government."

Under the provision, all "deliberative materials" would be exempt from the open records law. That includes all materials prepared in the process of reaching a decision concerning a policy or course of action or in drafting a document or communication.

The exemptions are even more extensive for members of the Legislature and their staff. They would not have to disclose communications between one another, the public or others who work for the Legislature, such as staff in the clerk's and sergeant at arms offices. The protection extends to a wide array of legislative business, including drafting bills, developing public policy, all aspects of legislative proceedings such as committee hearings, and investigations and oversight.

Legislative service agencies would be required to keep all communications, records and information confidential.

Nobody has been able (or willing) to answer the question of who authored this amendment. Wonder whether we'll see a "Spartacus" moment with this, like we did with the Gogebic Taconite mining bill.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

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.

Robear wrote:

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.

I have been busy and tardy in my updates, but here's a brief synopsis on the open-records situation:

* Nobody was willing to acknowledge who authored the amendment. (Joint Finance Committee co-chairs state Rep. John Nygren and state Sen. Alberta Darling, who introduced the budget amendment package, claimed to not know who the author was).
* Governor Walker weighed in, stating he would work with legislators to remove the open-records provisions from the budget
* Governor Walker was unwilling to confirm or deny whether his office was the author of the open-records changes (including this on-camera dodge of point-blank questions)
* The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism noticed that [url=http://wisconsinwatch.org/2015/07/go... Walker's office has been using essentially the same language as the open-records budget amendment[/url when rejected open-records requests, for some time now.

Leading to today, when Governor Walker's office admitted that yes, they had in fact been involved in drafting the very language they subsequently vowed to get the legislature to remove from the budget.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Scott Walker confirmed Tuesday that his office was involved in drafting dramatic changes to the state's open records law.

The statement came after numerous inquiries from the State Journal and after Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said Tuesday that Walker's office collaborated with Assembly and Senate leaders to draft the changes.

"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."

Patrick's statement said legislative leaders had initiated the discussions.

Earlier Tuesday, Fitzgerald told reporters at WISC-TV, The Capital Times and WKOW said that Walker's office was involved. "We had talked to them about open records issues and the amount of requests the governor gets," Fitzgerald said, according to WISC. "The Assembly obviously was involved as well."

A spokeswoman for Walker's office did not immediately respond to a request seeking confirmation. Since the Joint Finance Committee members backed the changes Thusday, Walker's office has not answered State Journal questions about the governor's involvement in crafting them.

The changes -- which Walker and legislative leaders pledged to pull from the 2015-17 budget -- would block from release nearly all communications and records that help the public understand how lawmakers do their jobs. They generated tremendous backlash from the public, conservative and liberal advocacy groups, newspaper editorial boards, open government advocates and lawmakers from both parties.

In another development, a key Republican lawmaker on Monday apologized to voters for his part in passing the open records changes in committee.

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."

"Since the vote this has been found to be inaccurate," he wrote. "I apologize for not recognizing the scope of these changes."

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.

Demosthenes wrote:
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.

It would not be the first time Governor Walker's administration lied to GOP members of the legislature.

Which is not to say that Rep. Kooyenga was necessarily lied to about the open-records provisions by Governor Walker, or his administration - only that they have been willing to do engage in that behavior towards GOP members of the state legislature in the past.

"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."

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/QOd8rFQ.gif)