Wisconsin

Political Motivations in Scott Walker-Related Probe

D.A.'s man in Milwaukee decks home with pro-union, anti-governor propaganda.

|

Lawn signs cause passersby to change their votes, every time.

MADISON — The prosecutor is on the defense.

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm released a tersely worded statement Monday in defense of David Budde, his chief investigator into a John Doe probe involving Gov. Scott Walker's former aides.

The district attorney responded to a Media Trackers report earlier in the day that Budde had a "Recall Walker" sign in the front yard of his home.

Media Trackers, a Milwaukee-area conservative watchdog organization, also reported Budde's home has a pro-labor "blue fist" poster on the front door.

Chisholm said he spoke with his chief investigator and Budde confirmed that his wife, an employee with Milwaukee County, placed the recall sign in the front yard of the home about a week ago.

He did not mention anything about the blue fist.

"I do not regulate or control the constitutional freedoms of my employees' families in their private lives," Chisholm wrote in Budde's defense. "They have the right, under state law, and in this case, county civil service rules, to express their political views as does any other citizen."

Still, Walker supporters have questioned the objectivity of Chisholm, a Democrat, and his office in a county that is a stronghold for union Democrats.

Chisholm said Budde did not sign the recall petition. The district attorney said his investigator has conducted himself "professionally and independently, as he has done in numerous criminal investigations throughout his 26-year career as a law enforcement officer."

"Any decisions related to the John Doe investigation are based on the evidence and not on the political views of any members of this office or their families," Chisholm wrote.

But Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made the John Doe investigation a focal point in his campaign against Walker.

While the Republican governor has not been implicated, Barrett on Monday demanded that Walker release all information related to the probe, including more than 1,000 emails sent through a secret Internet system near Walker's office in 2010, when he served as Milwaukee County executive.

Barrett's campaign rolled out a fresh round of ads attacking the governor on the John Doe probe.

Walker has said he is cooperating with the investigation.

"The bottom line is my integrity. I've always had high standards," he told Fox 6 in Milwaukee. "In the state Assembly, in my time as county executive, and as governor, I continue to have those high standards. Anytime something's been brought to my attention that my staff in any way violates that, I've taken swift action and the facts are very clear with that."

That point arguably was defined in an email made public in the John Doe investigation.

"We cannot afford another story like this one. No one can give them any reason to do another story. That means no laptops, no websites, no time away during the work day, etc.," he wrote to a staff member following news that another aide appeared to be campaigning on government time in summer 2010. 

Wisconsin Reporter has filed an open records request with the District Attorney's office seeking information related to Chisholm's handling of the John Doe documents.

This article originally appeared at WisconsinReport.com

Advertisement

NEXT: Matt Kittle on the "Recall Walker" Investigator Leading a D.A.'s Probe of Walker's Office

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I said this on the PM links and I’ll say it again: Scott Walker is not someone I would ever vote for, but he’s being opposed by such a despicable group of parasites that I can’t help but defend him and want him to win. I’m utterly disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy and retarded partisanship shown by Democrats and liberals on this issue.

    1. Partisans act like partisans. Because they’re partisans. Just substitute “absolute, utterly lacking in any shred of integrity scum” for partisans and that works too.

      1. We should round up partisans and shoot them.

        All partisan really means is taking the practical step of choosing to affiliate yourself with a political coalition (that is, an entity with the means of accomplishing political ends).

        If you want to jerk off all day to sci-fi utopias, that’s your business, but not choosing a party doesn’t ipso facto make you smarter or have more integrity than everyone else.

        It’s dangerous to put all your intellectual eggs in one basket. When you finally get over this 8th grade honors program substitute for wisdom, what are you possibly going to harp on?

        1. The Vichy Regime called. It wants its moral compass back, Tiny.

          1. How is choosing to be politically unaffiliated related, by itself, to morality in any way?

            Choosing to support social darwinism, like many political choices, does have a moral component. But as someone who’s studied moral philosophy, I’m not aware of any moral system that requires people to be politically irrelevant and jerk off to utopias.

            1. Oh there is that fringe philosophy nobody worth listening to takes seriously. I think it’s called libertarianism. But then it does have its own political party.

              1. T o n y|5.22.12 @ 11:21PM|#
                “Oh there is that fringe philosophy nobody worth listening to takes seriously. I think it’s called libertarianism. But then it does have its own political party.”

                Yes, shithead. Partisans like you try all sorts of well-poisoning to avoid engaging in honest discourse.

            2. I said it was retarded partisanship, as in recalling a governor who has violated no laws or committed any wrong-doing because he pissed off the public sector unions while attempting to fix a state budget shortfall.

              The Democratic reaction to this dwarfs anything the Tea Party ever did on the retard scale.

              1. At most it’s a political battle being waged outside of the normal election calendar. I think the most useful course of action would be for Walker’s draconian cronyism to take effect for a while so people can decide through experience why it’s so godawful. But as someone who believes Democrats have been pussies for far too long, and as someone with no moral problem with strong political action, and someone who doesn’t like to see people suffer any longer than they have to, I have to come out on the side of the union thugs I’m afraid.

                1. So really I think recall is the most useful course of action, only because I haven’t been convinced that losing political battles ever has more utility than winning them.

                  In the longer term, though, making people suffer under a certain political regime has the happy tendency of making them reject it for a good long time, though they may react with too sharp a swing and cause problems in the other direction. I think that is a neutralized threat in a country where the choices are one extreme and pussy moderates.

                2. T o n y|5.22.12 @ 11:49PM|#
                  …”I think the most useful course of action would be for Walker’s draconian cronyism to take effect for a while so people can decide through experience why it’s so godawful.”

                  Shithead, is that code for some SEIU members having to find a job?

                  1. You do realize that the E in SEIU stands for “employees,” otherwise defined as people with jobs, don’t you?

                    Out of morbid curiosity just how much should we restrict restaurant workers’ rights to peaceably assemble and petition government?

                    1. T o n y|5.23.12 @ 12:10AM|#
                      “You do realize that the E in SEIU stands for “employees,” otherwise defined as people with jobs, don’t you?”
                      Yes, shithead, I do. *Government* employees, shithead. I’m their boss.

                      “Out of morbid curiosity just how much should we restrict restaurant workers’ rights to peaceably assemble and petition government?”
                      I don’t know shithead. Why would that matter, shithead?

                    2. They’re not all government employees. The largest group are healthcare workers.

                    3. T o n y|5.23.12 @ 12:22AM|#
                      “They’re not all government employees. The largest group are healthcare workers.”

                      Yes, and who manages the majority of the healthcare market, shithead?

                    4. I dunno, the catholics?

            3. T o n y|5.22.12 @ 11:15PM|#
              …”Choosing to support social darwinism,”

              Shithead, just once post without a lie or some logical shenanigans like this.

            4. For someone who claims to study morals, and then also claims to have no morals, and then at other times point fingers at others for having no morals, you clearlt don’t have an idea what you are talking about.

        2. T o n y|5.22.12 @ 11:04PM|#
          “We should round up partisans and shoot them.”

          Shithead, you’d be the first to die. Are you volunteering?

  2. What’s a John Doe probe?

    1. Well, first you take an unclaimed male corpse from the police morgue…

      1. Go on…

        1. Which one of you is bringing the probe?

          1. I was under the impression that we would all use our “built in” probes. Am I right, NutraSweet?

            1. Beats me. I’m no sicko like you two.

              1. “I don’t judge, you guys. It’s cool. I like yogurt up my ass and a Popsicle stick in my mouth.”

                1. Speaking of which, did you know Ben Jerry’s–Communist Vermont’s finest ice cream maker–just came out with “My Big Fat Greek Gay Wedding” frozen yougurt?

                  1. Is it any good?

                    1. I don’t know what’s in it…could be lube flavored ice cream with Santorum swirls for all I know.

                  2. Does the package include a Greek bond? I mean, you might as well give ’em away as tsotchkes.

  3. Bonus points for the use of “festooned.”

  4. …including more than 1,000 emails sent through a secret Internet system near Walker’s office in 2010, when he served as Milwaukee County executive.

    What the hell? His neighbors didn’t password protect their wi-fi and he used a Yahoo account, or he’s a Bond villain.

  5. Now wait just one minute, Reasonoids. This petty low brow partisan sniping is more worthy of Breitbart than Reason mag, the above-the-fray GOP disdaining journal of small-“l” glibertarianism! You’re taking sides in the politically adolescent red-vs-blue battle, and I’m calling you out!

    1. I’m still trying to find out what a John Doe probe is; don’t blame me.

      1. It probably has something to do with marriage counseling for homosexuals.

    2. no. Reason’s just one of the few places that puts a light on bullshit like this. The chief investigator with a vested interest in the election’s outcome….no, no possibility of conflict there.

      Reason would put the story up if it was Team Red assholery, too.

      1. Everyone, in theory, has an interest in an election’s outcome.

        I tend to think no good can come from chilling anyone’s freedom of speech. People in nonpartisan public roles might feel it prudent to self-censor, but I’d just as soon you didn’t help them. I’d be afraid how far you’d take it.

        1. T o n y|5.22.12 @ 10:41PM|#
          …”I tend to think no good can come from chilling anyone’s freedom of speech…”

          So you support Citizens United ruling, shithead?

          1. The part of it that deals with free speech. Not the part that, by answering a dispute that wasn’t at hand, empowers corporations and superrich individuals to back political candidates with practically no spending limits.

            Whether you must assume that we’re making an exception to free speech, or whether you think like an advanced primate and realize that money doesn’t equal speech, can you just consider the negative consequences to democracy? Sorry, I’ve probably lost you by now to a blinky light somewhere.

            1. T o n y|5.23.12 @ 12:14AM|#
              “The part of it that deals with free speech. Not the part that, by answering a dispute that wasn’t at hand, empowers corporations and superrich individuals to back political candidates with practically no spending limits.”

              So, shithead, you lying twit, you do not support it at all.
              Thanks, shithead.

      2. If you read the article, the only evidence that the investigator has a vested interest in the outcome is a political sign that his wife put up.

        I guess libertarians only support freedom of speech when it’s speech they like to hear.

        1. “I guess libertarians only support freedom of speech when it’s speech they like to hear.”

          1. Sorry, bozo, the squirrels ate the part about your strawman.
            Are you having fun? What are you going to do one day when that strawman punches back?

            1. You do not understand what a strawman is.

              1. Yes he does:

                To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

                You misrepresented reason’s position as “anti-freedom-of-speech”, when in fact they were using the sign as evidence of bias. In other words, you did not refute the bias (‘the original argument’) and instead misconstrued their position as “antithetical to free speech” and attempted to refute it on those terms, even though that was not the argument presented.

                In short, fuckstick, you don’t understand what a “strawman” is, even though you engage them all the time.

                1. Nah, this piece gets close to being journalism but doesn’t quite. Maybe it’s just the headline any real news editor would reject and the inherent bias associated with the publication. Maybe it would have been best, as a libertarian advocacy outfit, just to come out and endorse the guy’s free speech rights, wherever that free-wheeling freedom takes us. With all the strawman accusations flying around I can only assume we all agree on this.

                2. Indeed, I did refute the bias, as the article attributes the sign to HIS WIFE YOU MORON.

                  1. you clearly aren’t married. Not surprising.

                    1. And still, you pretty much stated that reason was anti-free-speech, which was a deliberate misconstruing on your part, which you then argued against. The “strawman” accusation stands.

                      Retard.

                  2. Nah, the prosecutor just “took it like a man and blamed it on his wife”

  6. Libertarians have to support the freedom of people to express political opinions.

    Freedom of speech has to be at least as free-wheeling as you want freedom of commerce to be.

    Otherwise, you are the world’s biggest liars when you say you value freedom more than anyone else. Maybe this man’s political opinions ought to be censored, or he should be dismissed from his job, for the common good. But libertarians shouldn’t be the ones endorsing it.

    1. what the hell are you talking about?
      who are you even arguing with?
      do you even read the articles or comments, or are the strawmen already prepared just so?

      1. Is it a strawman if it proactively counters the anti-freedom Team Red cheerleading that will inevitably go on? Maybe, except perhaps for the inevitable part.

        1. T o n y|5.22.12 @ 11:19PM|#
          “Is it a strawman if it proactively counters the anti-freedom Team Red cheerleading that will inevitably go on? Maybe, except perhaps for the inevitable part.”

          Shithead, try posting that as a question minus all the bullshit presumptions and you might get an answer.

        2. Is it a strawman if it proactively counters the anti-freedom Team Red cheerleading that will inevitably go on?

          This is, quite possibly, the most humiliatingly spastic attempt at “working the refs” it has ever been my goggle-eyed privilege to witness, online.

          Seriously. Like watching Stephen Hawking attempting to clog-dance.

    2. T o n y|5.22.12 @ 10:39PM|#
      “Libertarians have to support the freedom of people to express political opinions.”

      Yes, shithead, most libertarians were pleased with the Citizens United ruling.
      Did you have a point, shithead?

      1. This is the point at which real libertarians smack their foreheads and silently say “thanks for the help, jackass.”

        The thin thread of respectability holding CU up is its first amendment connection. But it just might have such perverse effects as to be the impetus for another necessary exemption to the bill of rights as have occasionally come along in our history. Or people could have just not equated money with speech and corporations with people and saved us the trouble. But that would require cracking open a dictionary.

        1. T o n y|5.23.12 @ 12:18AM|#
          “This is the point at which real libertarians smack their foreheads and silently say “thanks for the help, jackass.””

          Se above, shithead. You’ve already claimed and proven yourself to the a hypocritical twit.
          Nice to see you want to make no mistake about it.

          1. You really aren’t doing them any favors. It’s just that libertarians, like all fascists, are more polite to their pets than their political enemies.

            1. T o n y|5.23.12 @ 12:23AM|#
              “You really aren’t doing them any favors. It’s just that libertarians, like all fascists, are more polite to their pets than their political enemies.”

              Doing THEM favors shithead? By pointing out your hypocrisy?

              1. Seriously, though, responding to Chony gets you what you deserve, dude.

                1. An eloquent and thoroughly rational smackdown? You’re right, that is what he deserves, depending on how biblical you’re feeling I suppose.

                  1. An eloquent and thoroughly rational smackdown? You’re right, that is what he deserves

                    I know. too bad you aren’t the one to provide it.

      2. Jeebus, Sevo – do you have a shithead hot key or something?

  7. Jesus, two pro-Walker screeds in as many days?

    Go Team Red! WOOOO!

    Did the Kochs make it clear what the message was this week?

    1. “Did the Kochs make it clear what the message was this week?”

      Hey, hey, D, how many strawmen did you kill today?

      1. “strawman” implies I’m misconstruing another person’s statement to argue against it. Since I’m not responding to anyone’s statement or argument, mine cannot be a “strawman”. Maybe the word you’re looking for is “boogieman”.

        The more you know!

        1. Sevo learned his logic 101 vocabulary at the best school, reason’s comment board.

        2. Here’s the thing: you’re misconstruing reason’s posts here as “pro-Walker”, and then using that misconstruing to argue against reason supporting Republicans, when they neither said nor exhibited no such behavior.

          IOW, it is a strawman, and you’re an idiot. Congrats!

  8. They’re both clearly pro-walker. This one defends him from attacks on his ethics. The other describes attacks on him as “amazingly bogus”. If you can’t see that as “Pro-walker”, you’re lost way too far up Ayn Rand’s asshole to ever find your way out.

    1. They’re both clearly pro-walker

      No evidence for that.

      This one defends him from attacks on his ethics

      So what? Right is right. No proof of partisanship.

      The other describes attacks on him as “amazingly bogus”

      Because they were bogus, as demonstrated on the thread, had you read it. Again, not proof.

      If you can’t see that as “Pro-walker”, you’re lost way too far up Ayn Rand’s asshole to ever find your way out.

      Your lack of evidence and ad hominems are not my problem. They’re yours.

      1. You seem to think that it is impossible to be both correct on the merits and Pro-Walker. It is not. If Reason regularly ran articles defending democrats from baseless attacks from republicans, you might have a point. But they don’t.

        Again, pull your head out of Murray Rothbard’s anus, wipe the santorum out of your eyes, and try to look at the issue objectively.

        1. Also, they describe the sign as “anti-governor propaganda” That’s some objective shit right there! Totally based on the merits.

        2. I had no idea that there was a fairness doctrine requirement to bias.

          Of course, reason defends Democrats all the time. You’re just too shortsighted to remember, and this blatantly wrong lie of yours proves that you’re another TEAM BLUE shill. Yay for you, asshole!

          1. See: Russ Feingold, for example.

        3. Dear Loki – I think I’m about to have a monocle-and-top-hat-adjust moment here.

          C’mon, D. There’s not much time left on this thread to throw in a token broken window phallacy or Adam Smith’s armpit hair reference as well. You’d better hurry!

          Is Mary getting this???

  9. This move is really a fine by the peoples and it makes really a great effect to the media.

  10. I wonder if Tony would think having a recall election of Barack Obama because you dislike legislation he passed would be an appropriate use of the recall process.

  11. I heard some people involved in the election 2000 decision were partisans, too! Antonin Scalia secretly likes Republicans, and has a portrait of Ronald Reagan in his home.

    I made that up, but, you can see where this would lead.

    1. The issue isn’t that people are partisan in the normal course of electing and governance, it’s the fact that we are now moving to a very dangerous level of elected officials scurrying across borders to quell the function of government and then affect recalls because you disagree with policy. Recalls are meant to remove people unqualified to hold the public trust, not because you disagree with policy – that’s what the next scheduled election process is for. Partisan ship associated with proper democracy is one thing, partisanship in the function of using democracy when it suits you and then breaking the system when you don’t is the problem here.

      I hope that Reason would be just as dismayed if the shoes were on the different foot.

      1. There is no point at which a person can divide policy from competence, one simply needs to argue that anyone who promotes such a policy is clearly incompetent or ignorant, and in either case unfit to serve.

        The reverse case that jumps to mind was when Alberto Gonzalez, Bush’s Attorney General, had a bunch of District A.G.s fired for political reasons.

        I checked the record, they did speak out against the Gonzalez firings.

        However, the case that the prosecution itself is simply a political witch hunt hasn’t been made.

        1. “The reverse case that jumps to mind was when Alberto Gonzalez, Bush’s Attorney General, had a bunch of District A.G.s fired for political reasons.”

          I remember that case. Bunch of lawyers got canned by an employer who had complete power to can them. Being lawyers, they sued over it. And if I recall correctly, they lost their case.

          1. I was just pointing out that Reason had taken the high road, and been against the politically motivated decision, when the shoe had been on the other foot.

            They came repeatedly to the defense of one of them, who had a really stellar record, but he wouldn’t prosecute low level pot offenses, or maybe even medium level pot offenses.

  12. Seriously, doesn’t reason regularly mock Sheriff Joe? And you Team Asshats want to claim that they are (R)’s? Really? Shit man they ride that guy like a two dollar whore. Partisan Fucksticks are Partisan Fucksticks. Why can’t you all just die together?

  13. Chisholm said he spoke with his chief investigator and Budde confirmed that his wife, an employee with Milwaukee County, http://www.nikewinkel.com/scho…..-c-49.html placed the recall sign in the front yard of the home about a week ago.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.