Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Scott Walker Basically Admits He’s Under Criminal Investigation

Posted by Phoenix Woman on June 2, 2012

Here’s the scoop:

Following reports that Scott Walker’s criminal defense fund grew by $100,000 in May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is today reporting major revelations in the John Doe criminal corruption probe, including Scott Walker’s mistaken admission that he is under investigation.

–Scott Walker mistakenly admits that he is a target in the John Doe criminal corruption probe

Walker, in a rare moment of candor, stated to reporters that he would not use the criminal defense fund to pay for the legal defenses of his aides, who have been charged with crimes ranging from child enticement, to theft from veterans and the families of fallen soldiers, to misuse of taxpayer resources to illegally campaign for Scott Walker, and would instead use the funds for himself or his campaign.

Wisconsin law is very clear: an elected official can only establish a legal defense fund if they, or their agent, are under investigation for, charged with, or convicted of violations of Wisconsin’s campaign finance and election laws.
Nothing provides for an elected official creating a legal defense fund for the sole purpose of campaign compliance, assisting the prosecution or aiding an investigation, as Scott Walker claims he is doing.

Since he is not paying for the defense of an agent acting on his behalf, it is now clear that Scott Walker is under investigation.

More can be found here.

3 Responses to “Scott Walker Basically Admits He’s Under Criminal Investigation”

  1. agnostic said

    Following your recent posting on Walker.

    Elsewhere you posted

    “As for the current stories, I do note that the Barrett ground workers are by and large staying away from them and working on GOTV and the Walker-as-Federal-criminal-target story instead; in fact, a number of them think the whole thing is a Walker dirty trick, as the original Wisconsin News Co-op story was posted by an anonymous non-member.”

    While that is how it appears now, the original post at wcmcoop did have a byline. “By Edie Stokes”.

    Search the title of the article with the authors name and see what you get.
    Here is a rip and repost of the apparent first version with the author’s name on it.

    The preview of the post at wcmcoop still shows the byline.

    The same identity appears on previous comments at wcmcoop.

    Just thought you’d be interested.

    • agnostic said

      fixed the link.

      • Charles II said

        Interesting, agnostic. Although the pregnancy story is probably irrelevant to statewide office (at least, unless/until a paternity suit gets filed), the story about the dirty campaign really should have been picked up by oppo, not that Dems are any good at that. That should be verifiable, since it’s supposedly in the student newspaper.

        Although I sincerely hope Scott Walker gets thrown out of office, seeing him indicted and force to acknowledge paternity would be a not-insignificant consolation prize.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: