Feb 1, 2013

Scott Walker Still Refusing to Speak to Wisconsin People on Criminal John Doe Probe

Tim Russell and long-time aide and friend, Scott Walker
Update: Many outside Wisconsin -- following the news here the last two years as Scott Walker and Republican senators used Koch brothers money to hold onto political power -- have asked, 'what's wrong with Wisconsin? First Russ Feingold is gone and now ... ?' A big part of the answer is the amount of money the Republicans, with their hands out, have at their disposal. Perhaps equally important is the fact that the Wisconsin broadcast and corporate media have buried the Walker-Tea Party-GOP corruption, a part of which is under investigation by the criminal John Doe probe. Consider today's print edition of the GOP's Wisconsin State Journal. Buried on page five under the small AP "Digest" is some four column inches of the news that Walker "adds money to legal defense fund." No quote from non-GOP sources (though) they are readily available. Just a Walker-slanted piece with a reference to Walker spokeswoman, Nicole Tieman, who is quoted with no knockdown that Walker needs the money to "cooperate" with John Doe authorities.

Dan Bice of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, on the other hand, quotes Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski: "It is beyond belief at this point that Walker had no role in crimes that have led to the convictions of six aides and supporters. Time will tell what's in store for him."
---

News today that "Gov. Scott Walker transferred $40,000 in campaign funds late last year to his legal (criminal defense) fund," has renewed questions about whether Wisconsin citizens' governor is a crook.

The three-year John Doe probe into Scott Walker's rise to political power during his tenure as Milwaukee County Executive has discovered a rat's nest of criminal activity and secured the convictions of the nucleus of Walker's political inner circle.

As for explanation from Scott Walker to the people of Wisconsin, no one in Wisconsin's formerly squeaky-clean political culture expects Walker to visit all (or any) of Wisconsin's 72 counties in listening sessions and say: Ask me anything. You deserve to know your governor is not a crook.

No one expects Walker to explain why he refused to publicly call upon his personally appointed former aides (now convicted felons) to simply tell the full truth to John Doe investigators working for the Milwaukee District Attorney's office.

As noted in today's column by Cognitive Dissidence, not one convicted felon who worked for Walker has come forward and publicly declared Walker's innocence of misusing his public office for political, private puposes—a felony.

This complete silence of the Walker gang, including those who pled guilty to felonies and have been sentenced is not demanded by the secrecy codicils of the John Doe proceedings.

Reads Wisconsin statute on Criminal Proceedings (968.26 on John Doe Proceedings):

Subject to s. 971.23, if the proceeding is secret, the record of the proceeding and the testimony taken shall not be open to inspection by anyone except the district attorney unless it is used by the prosecution at the preliminary hearing or the trial of the accused and then only to the extent that it is so used. A court, on the motion of a district attorney, may compel a person to testify or produce evidence under s. 972.08 (1). The person is immune from prosecution as provided in s. 972.08 (1), subject to the restrictions under s. 972.085.
Point is: Nothing prevents Walker or his gang from saying: 'Look, I'm innocent. This slander must stop. And Scott Walker surely is innocent of misuse of public office, in my view.'

Or Walker could have negotiated an immunity deal; saying in effect: Anyone is my past administration breaks the law; they get what they deserve.'

Walker took a different way.

Walker's response has been to hire a PR firm; become the first sitting Wisconsin governor in history to form a criminal defense fund; and continually mislead the Wisconsin people and the gullible press about why the John Doe Proceedings were begun in the first place—Walker's stonewalling.

John Doe proceeding can be kept secret even after convictions might be secured and the proceedings are declared to be ended.

But the presumption of innocence under the law, and the right to declare one's innocence live on. This right is not negated by John Doe proceedings.

Why is no one in this matter declaring their own or past colleagues' innocence?

No comments:

Post a Comment