Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Walkergate: From Cooperative To Cornered

Tuesday was supposed to be a big day in Walkergate, the John Doe investigation into Walker, his campaign and his county staff who was doing his campaign work.

Tuesday was supposed to be the day of Darlene Wink's sentencing.

But it's not going to be:
The prosecution and defense have jointly asked for a delay in the sentencing of Darlene Wink, a former aide to Gov. Scott Walker who was charged as part of an on-going John Doe investigation. She was to be sentenced tomorrow.

Wink, director of constituent services for Walker while he was Milwaukee Co. executive, earlier agreed to assist prosecutors in the ongoing probe in exchange for her cooperation. She pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors counts of doing campaign work while being paid by taxpayers as Walker’s aide.

Circuit Judge Daniel Konkol was to have sentenced Wink on Tuesday but delayed the sentencing at the request of the lawyers. He told both lawyers to appear in court Tuesday when a new date is expected to be set.
There's really only two or three reasons why this has happened.

One is that Wink has chosen not to be cooperative with the Walkergate investigators, which would set her up for much bigger legal problems as the DA reinstates the original charges, and then some.

Another possibility is that she has indeed been cooperative, but the District Attorney is concerned that her cooperativeness will end the moment her hands are slapped and she gets convicted on the much less severe charges.

The last possible scenario, and the one I think is most likely, is that she has been very cooperative, but the investigators have found much more for her to be cooperative about. Things like whatever they found in the missing computers or the Dumpster'O'Fun.

But what choice does Wink really have? It's either cooperate or be be cornered by her already pleading guilty and not having yet been sentenced.

However, Scott Walker apparently is choosing to take another path.

When Walkergate first started picking up steam at the beginning of this year, Walker would dismiss his role in it, claiming that he had been told that he was not a target in the investigation, but that he was being cooperative with investigators in their pursuit of justice.

Even after he started his Legal Cooperation Fund, he was saying he did so in order to be even more cooperative:
But Walker spokeswoman Ciara Matthews said late Friday that the fund was set up "under the guidance of the GAB."

"We reiterate that Gov. Walker has been told that he is not a target of this investigation," Matthews said.
However, there was a shift in tone, at least among his apologists, when it was revealed that Walker has spent over $100,000 making sure his campaign was "compliant" and that he spent more than another $100,000 - with almost half of that coming from his own pocket, before the legal cooperation fund - to ensure his cooperativeness. Yeah, that's a whole lotta complying and cooperating.

His apologists started hammering on the point that the money doesn't have to be about him, but could go for the defense of an agent.

While this is technically true, it doesn't hold water. You see, not one of his agents, which is legally defined as a member of his campaign, has been charged with any crimes related to Walkergate.

In the last few days, Tom Barrett, Walker's recall opponent, and the Democratic Party have been hitting Walker pretty hard about this, questioning the fund's purpose if he's not part of the investigation and if no campaign staff have been charged with a crime.

They just might be onto something, too.

Walker is starting to show that he is feeling a lot of pressure, like someone who has been cornered. For example, look at his response from Monday, in this Fox6Milwaukee report about the recent push regarding the fund:
The Democratic Party filed a request with the GAB to release all of its communication with Walker.

“I don’t think they’re going to do anything because there’s no merit to it. It’s nothing more than a cheap political stunt. We see it routinely. There’s no merit to it, and it’s not even worth discussing any more than that,” Walker said.
No talk of not being charged. No talk of cooperating or complying. Now suddenly it's "not worth discussing."

Remember, part of any John Doe investigation is that the parties involved with it are not allowed to talk about it. The fact that Walker is now clamming up when he used to by quite chatty with things would fit in with the rumor going around that Walker has met with the DA and his investigators in the past week.

Now, that doesn't mean that Walker has been indicted, or even that he ever will be. It's impossible to say that with any certainty until it happens, since Walker wouldn't ever admit it, even as he's wearing handcuffs and Chisholm's office is as tight as a drum, despite of the smear job that Walker's apologists would try to get people to believe that it's leaking information.

Furthermore, if Walker was indicted, it would be a matter of public record, and that news would be all over the state long before I could get to write about it.  Even the right wing media would have to report that.

But if what Walker says is true, and he is not a target, and no one from his campaign has been charged with a crime. Who is the legal defense for then?

Most of the people charged and/or convicted so far - Darlene Wink, Tim Russell, Kelly Rindfleisch and Keven Kavanaugh - were his county staff. To claim that they were agents in order to use funds to protect them would be admitting that they were working on his campaign illegally.

So, does anyone pose enough danger to Walker, that it might make him consider illegally using his legal defense fund, knowing the risk that would go along with it?

Tim Russell and Scott Walker 
We know that Tim Russell is named in every single charge pending, even though he himself has only been charged with embezzling from a veterans fund. Russell could conceivably charged with any number of other crimes from illegally campaigning to child sex crimes.

Russell was also a top lieutenant for Walker's campaigns throughout the years and would have enough damage to cause a lot of problems for Walker if he chose to turn state witness.

And we know that Walker and Russell have been very close friends for two decades.

But is all that enough to make Walker risk everything?  Would Walker take the chance of violating the rules regarding the legal defense fund to help out someone like Russell - or Brian Pierick or Darlene Wink or Kelly Rindfleisch?  Regardless of what the crime might be?  How much would their silence be worth to a power-hungry person like Walker?

Time will tell.  But if a person is feeling cornered, who knows what they will do?

9 comments:

  1. I don't think Walker would hesitate for one second to violate GAB rules or break other laws when he is already facing so many potential felonies and looking at Blago style prison time. I say he's all-in and looking for some way to scuttle the legal proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the GAB might be inclined to do something, what could they do?
      What are the penalties can the GAB impose? Are they civil or criminal in nature?
      Could criminal referrals be made by the GAB?

      Delete
    2. GAB probably wouldn't do anything but refer the case to either the county DA or to the Attorney General, depending on what the complaint is.

      Delete
  2. In the game of Bridge, sometimes to make a difficult contract (playing out a bid that is too high for the cards held), one has to play the cards as though the cards among the four players are distributed precisely where they have to be to win [make] the contract.

    This is what Scott Walker is doing, but his political-religious ambition may stop him from moving as he should for his self interest; because he has to make two contracts: Stay out of jail and get elected.

    When he says "it’s not even worth discussing any more," it's political because he knows if he not reelected, he still has funds from his campaign chest wiht which he can as a then-non-candidate do whatever he wants, like paying his defense attys. Perhaps seeing immunity down the road and Walker testifying as he stalls.

    But Walker will not let the Wisconsin people see him sweat.

    With several staff members and Walker facing an investigation in possession of 1,000s of e-mails run out of a secret system of the Milwaukee executives's office, Walker has to campaign as though sufficently few voters know and care, and the media portrays the John Doe criminal probe in the way Walker wants them to—Walker being helpful and cooperative.

    Walker needs delay in the investigation, likely going to happen.

    But what I want to know if Walker has volunteered to testify, does he receive immunity. Statute reads in part "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 ... ." - http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/26/

    It's possible Walker has agreed to testify, gets immunity and then threads the needle politically as though the stars are alligned where he wants them to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Questions for MAL or anyone:

    If he is booted out of office can Walker use his recall donations for any purposes, i.e. defense attorneys, new condo near his ALEC/Koch replacement job, etc.?

    Do leftover funds automatically transfer to the Legal "Cooperation" Fund? Is it only now before the recall election and indictment/court hearings that he is required to ask permission from donors to use political donations?
    Palli

    ReplyDelete
  4. State office so:

    http://www.wisconsinreporter.com/after-race-is-run-lots-of-leftovers-in-wi-campaign-finances


    Under Wisconsin election law, residual campaign funds may be used for “any political purpose not prohibited by law, returned to the donors in an amount not exceeding the original contribution, or donated to a charitable organization or the common school fund.” That includes donating to other state candidates and political parties within contribution limits.

    Read through to find that visits to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse and UW football games may be "any political purpose not prohibited by law".

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm getting pretty tired of reading John Doe stuff that lacks any real punch. I'm afraid that all it has done is make Walker a martyr to the GOP faithful. If an indictment, with 'punch' - ie, one that forces the people of Wisconsin into understanding what a sleaze this guy really is - doesn't happen soon, we'll all look like we've been taken for a ride. And that includes the Dems focusing on this, instead of beating Walker the old fashioned way: by winning on the issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I think you will see a bit of both soon enough.

      Delete