Thursday, June 19, 2014

Throwback/Boomerang Thursday For Walker On Transparency

As his plan to keep John Doe records is unraveling, let's not forget Walker's bluster about a commitment to transparency The Lakeland Times printed in an interview transcript during his run for Governor in 2012: 

"I don't just say that, I've lived it," he said.


Anonymous said...

scott walker's idea of transparency is being sure his out-of-state billionaire donors know just how corruptible and unethical he is.

This is why walker foolishly boasts to karl rove that their illegal coordination in Wisconsin is "wildly successful".

Lettin' the little people know what he's up to and who's interests he's represenint? Well walker isn't interested in that sort of transparency.

But letting his overlords know he is doing their dirty work? Yup, walker lives that transparency.

Anonymous said...

As usual, walker is lying when he says

"I hope people will look at the facts. "I think it's pretty clear. You've got judges, who are a separate branch of government...who make it clear that there isn't a case there." (typical walker incoherent rant)

As today's release plainly points out (page 19):

'As noted in FN 5 of that affidavi~ in 2005, fanner
Wisconsin State Senator Charles "Chuck" Chvala was convicted in Datie County Circuit Court Case No.
2002CF2451 of violating Wisconsin Stats. §§ 946.12(2) and 11.26(2)(b). The violations of Wis. SIaL
§11.26(2)(b) arose out of the campaign coord.ination involving Chvala, personal campaign committees and
"inependent interest groups" that are analogous to the potential violations here.

In other words -- it is entirely false that judges say that the "criminal scheme" is OK.

Of course, mention this and republican heads will explode.

Also, the only non-koch brothers' judge that has said there is nothing here, stated:

“As a general statement, independent organizations can engage in issue advocacy without fear of government regulation. However, again as a general statement, when they coordinate spending with a candidate in order to influence an election, they are subject to regulation.”

So now that Special prosecutor Francis Schmitz is clearly stating "coordination of expenditures occurred" (page 151 of today's release) Peterson's dismissive attitude is not relevant as he stated his remarks were contingent on Schmitz not arguing “express advocacy,”and “coordination of expenditures occurred.”

In other words, walker cannot actually honestly point to a judge that says what he did was legal.

But walker is a sociopathic liar and if this is the best defense he has, we all know much more serious allegations will come out.

Indictments are on the way -- it will not be possible for Rhanda's hold on the current probe to be upheld on appeal.

Which is why walker tried to cop a plea (and got called out by wall street journal TWICE for doing so).

Anonymous said...

After Walker's recall election, some questioned statistical anomalies within the ballot counts of a number of Wisconsin counties. Since it appears that that Karl Rove was involved in the Wisconsin recall elections, is it possible that ballot irregularities are being investigated as part of John Doe II or a Federal investigation?

Anonymous said...

To have any legitimacy, Criminal Investigation(s) MUST Look At Election Fraud.

But at this point, I will be happy to see walker have a criminal "accountability moment" on campaign finance laws as Ohio's RICO law will allow Cliff Arnebeck to deal with the national election fraud -- actually theft of elections there.

The missing puzzle piece is connecting karl rove to stolen elections elsewhere -- the 2012 recall can be objectively and scientifically demonstrated to be stolen.

If Wisconsin looks the other way, they won't in Ohio (where bush stole 2004 and where they tried to steal it in 2012)

Jake formerly of the LP said...

Also look up the case of "Smoking Man" Mark Block, who was banned from Wisconsin politics for doing just this in the late '90s.

Walker and #wiright are trying the same BS Nixon did 40 years ago. "It's not illegal when we do it!"