Scott Walker's bumbling AG lapdog Brad Schimel is marvel to watch. At the time, I thought he looked like Homer Simpson, but I had no idea he'd think like him too.
|They think alike...|
In deciding to investigate the leaked John Doe documents to the Guardian newspaper, and not doing the same for the leaked documents to the Wall Street Journal, Schimel made it quite clear…the law is what this self-important little mind thinks it is.
Like Schimel's defense of the “private citizen” who defied a gag order so he could leak information to the Wall Street Journal. One private citizen deserves a gag order, the other does not:
Schimel: "I’ve got to tell you, I’m really puzzled by the criticism that I wouldn’t go after the leak to the Wall Street Journal. There’s a very significant difference between the people we’re looking at (in the Guardian U.S. leak) and the individual who leaked to the Wall Street Journal, because that’s a private citizen. The courts have no authority to order a private citizen to have a gag order on them."
Funny thing, that “private citizens” admitted he purposely violated a legal gag order. Why, because "he believed it to be unconstitutional." Schimel “believes” that too, without ever having to prove it in court:
Eric O'Keefe, the director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth told conservative radio host Vicki McKenna in a 2014 interview that that subpoena he was issued in 2012 included a gag order, and has said frequently because he believed it to be unconstitutional.
Schimel’s comment “That’s incredible to me” is not a professional legal argument:
Schimel: "How can you possibly tell a private citizen who feels they’ve been wronged by government, that has invaded their home, taken their property and more concerning, taken property that contains their thoughts and ideas, and they can’t cry out and say, 'I was wronged'? That’s incredible to me, that anyone who has respect for our constitutional republic and the First Amendment in particular wouldn’t get. That’s as bad as telling a reporter that you can’t report on something. You can’t do that."
Schimel backs that up with his own imagined legal outcome, without ever really testing his theory in a court of law:
It would be "unethical" for Schimel to investigate O'Keefe for sharing information, and the case would be thrown out "in a heartbeat," Schimel said.
Schimel’s partisan hackery would be laughable if he wasn’t so serious. The following makes Schimel’s message very clear about what side he's on, and what he wants to accomplish; manipulate the legal outcome with tampered and untrue testimony exposed to the court and public, which is just how it played out:
The policy underlying secrecy is directed to promoting the effectiveness of the investigation. Courts consider the need to keep information about the investigation from the target in order to:Summing up...
• prevent flight from prosecution;The precise scope of a permissible secrecy order varies from proceeding to proceeding. Typically, a secrecy order covers questions asked, answers given, transcripts of the proceedings, exhibits produced during the proceedings, or other matters observed or heard in the secret session at a John Doe proceeding.
• prevent the target of the investigation from collecting perjured testimony for the trial;
• prevent those interested in thwarting the inquiry from tampering with testimony or secreting evidence;
• render witnesses more free in their disclosures; and
• prevent testimony that may be mistaken or untrue or irrelevant from becoming public.6
State Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison: "Is AG Schimel the Attorney General for the entire State of Wisconsin, or just for extreme right-wing activists? Once again, he has made clear he is only interested in investigating The Guardian leak..."