Posted on 04/26/2015 4:36:19 PM PDT by markomalley
If a prosecutor wants to assure the public he’s not out of control, perhaps he shouldn’t suggest that critics could be prosecuted. On Saturday, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker commented on Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm’s use of armed, pre-dawned raids against conservative targets of his extraordinarily expansive “John Doe” investigations:
“I said even if you’re a liberal Democrat, you should look at (the raids) and be frightened to think that if the government can do that against people of one political persuasion, they can do it against anybody, and more often than not we need protection against the government itself,” Walker told the radio station.
“As [National Review] pointed out, there were real questions about the constitutionality of much of what they did, but it was really about people trying to intimidate people…” Walker said.
“They were looking for just about anything. As I pointed out at the time, it was largely a political witch hunt.”
As public criticism goes, this statement is mild — especially when the criticized conduct included officers swarming into homes, taunting, yelling, denying access to lawyers, barging into sleeping kids’ rooms, threatening to batter down doors, and then demanding silence from the victims. And keep in mind that not one of the women who came forward to describe these raids has ever been charged with any crimes (#WarOnWomen?) In fact, Walker’s critique is milder even than Heather Digby Parton’s at the very left Salon. She called the raids “intimidation, pure and simple.”
But Walker’s comment was apparently too much for Chisholm, who broke his own (official) silence about the John Doe investigations with this remarkable statement:
“As to defamatory remarks, I strongly suspect the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin’s, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others,” Chisholm said in a statement Saturday responding to Walker’s comments.
Francis Schmitz — a “self-described” Republican who acted as a special prosecutor in the second John Doe investigation said this:
“His description of the investigation as a ‘political witch hunt’ is offensive when he knows that the investigation was authorized by a bipartisan group of judges and is directed by a Republican special prosecutor appointed at the request of a bipartisan group of district attorneys,” Schmitz’s statement said.
He called Walker’s comments inaccurate but didn’t detail why.
“I invite the governor to join me in seeking judicial approval to lawfully release information now under seal which would be responsive to the allegations that have been made,” his statement said. “Such information, when lawfully released, will show that these recent allegations are patently false.” (Emphasis added.)
Considering it was the prosecution that launched years-long secret investigations and then placed gag orders — on pain of criminal punishment — on the targets, Schmitz’s call to “release information” is almost comical. Chisholm’s response, however, is especially revealing. The excesses of the John Doe investigations raise concerns that Wisconsin prosecutors are trying to criminalize political speech, and in response the lead prosecutor . . . threatens to criminalize political speech. As my friend Ken White at Popehat tweeted:
Exactly so. Yet if Chisholm thinks threats can deter future comment or further investigation of his actions and motivations, he’s sadly mistaken.
Just to do due diligence, is there any way to “impeach” such characters?
In the meantime, his background should be examined with a fine tooth comb. Those who do evil seldom only do it once.
Self righteous scumbag Democrat knows nobody has the guts to go after him knowing anybody that does is targeted, silenced, and it’s going to cost them one ‘H’ of a lot of money they have to raise from people who will then be targeted, therefore nobody will come to their aid.
He’s a punk.
‘Did he read any of those books in the background?’
Sure he did, and studied them extensively to see how he could further his power at the least risk.
Smart manipulators and exploiters study the law.
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary...” is still out there Mr Chisolm. So you want to tred on us I suggest you be ready for “blowback”
Freegards
LEX
The bulk of the anti action could be conducted from out of state. Why can’t he be John Doe complainted too with the actual litigant shielded?
Of course, it isn’t at “NO” risk.
“As to defamatory remarks, I strongly suspect the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin’s, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others,” Chisholm said in a statement Saturday responding to Walker’s comments.
Under the Sedition Act, even the rights of American citizens were curtailed by prohibiting assembly ‘with intent to oppose any measure … of the government’ and made it illegal for any person to ‘print, utter, or publish … any false, scandalous, and malicious writing’ against the government.
He’s hoping he can now get it “liberal judged” into law when legislation has not gone his way. Given how Barack Obama has been his rear guard in the Federal arena, the temptation is understandable.
That’s a disgusting parasite, if I’ve ever seen one.
First step to going down.
He needs to be removed and disbarred pronto.
I hope that if and when he is eventually backed into a corner, conservatives do not just “nice it over.”
This type of thing must be set forth as an example of the fundamentally intolerable. It is a grab at tyranny, at rule by the Machiavellian will of man with no underlying ethics (hypocrisy is writ large over the whole thing).
I would settle for throwing himself in front of a fast-moving train.
What did any fast moving train do to deserve that?
Don't forget to add the Hitler mustache before it does.
Nothing, but when the times comes, we'll all have to make sacrifices.
Mustaches are often added as whimsical to things like the Mona Lisa. This one would be serious satire.
Some out of state news agency ought to investigate this one.
By stooping to their level, we rob God of a display of the righteous winning by heaven’s righteousness.
Another Ronnie Earl. This house needs cleaning. Mark Levin is right, we need a constitutional convention of the states. Repeal the 17th, back to our roots.
Wait..What? Iowa and Wisconsin have criminalized defamation? In my 26 years as a lawyer, I never heard of criminal defamation. Think of that. The government can punish you criminally for speech? Defamation has always been about a private citizen’s right, in limited circumstances, to seek CIVIL redress against another citizen for harm to his reputation. Typical cases require, among other things, showing monetary damage stemming from the defamatory communications, except in cases of libel per se, where the communication accuses the individual of having a hideous disease, sexual deviancy (is there such a thing any more?) or the commission of a crime.
Moreover, defamation suits are always considered an exception to First Amendment free speech rights, which are jealously guarded by the law. There is also a litigation privilege that applies to statements made in court or in a court proceeding (such as a deposition, etc.). Potentially, comments about the prosecutor’s behavior in these John Doe investigations is protected. Comments about public figures or matters of public interest (such as this prosecutor) are accorded a higher level of protection from suit than private matters and individuals. Finally, statements of opinion are absolutely protected.
So, where the hell is this jerk going with these mealy-mouthed threats?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.