The Milwaukee Post

By Jessica McBride The war-size headlines blared around the country. Prosecutors allege Gov. Walker was part of a "criminal scheme." Welcome to bizarro land, where we are treated to headlines about allegations of "criminal schemes" that might not be crim- inal and investigations that might never be brought. Generally, such headlines occur when prosecutors have CHARGED someone crim- inally because they believe they can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Then, accused people are entitled to attack that evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present their own witnesses. Here, you have old allegations made by prosecutors who wanted to issue subpoenas to see whether there was evidence to charge something that two judges have now said is not a crime. They don't think they have enough evidence to prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt in court yet, pre- sumably, or they would have just charged. However, I think those nuances get lost on readers who hear the words "prosecutors allege" because they're used to allegations being made in criminal complaints and the weird part about this one is that the appeals are coming before that point. The threshold needed to allege is so much lower here than we're used to. A state judge quashed the subpoenas. A federal judge shut down the investigation. Both felt that even if there was coordination between Walker and outside groups, that wouldn't be illegal because the outside groups engage in issues advocacy. And the feder- al judge also said he did- n't see evidence of coor- dination, anyway. After wading through 200-plus pages of legal theorizing in the latest John Doe 2 document dump, I was left thinking of that old lady in the burger commercial howling, "Where's the beef ?" The free-speech issues aside, the evidence presented of coordina- tion with Walker sounded vague, ranging from inferences stemming from dual roles to supposed conference calls and conversa- tions not detailed. The wording is very important. We were also treated to an email that Walker supposedly wrote Karl Rove prais- ing outside group coordination. But that was imprecise enough it could be read to mean he was praising how the outside groups coordinate with other outside groups — which no one argues is illegal. However, the war-size headlines alleging Walker committed crimes are exceptionally damaging to his national and state prospects. It's the first time it's been explic- itly clear that prosecutors were targeting him personally (although it was already inferentially pretty obvious). I have a general dislike for trials by media because the accused has no real abil- ity to defend himself. This is far from over, of course. Those crying "witch hunt" always skate over the fact the prosecutor, Fran Schmitz, is not a liberal and is a respected former fed- eral prosecutor. I think you need to separate John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 also. Conservatives look disingenuous when they dismiss the very real convictions that resulted in Doe 1. It's odd that Walker won't answer whether he knew about the "secret router." However, some of the people never charged were very mistreated in Doe 1 (like that guy from Rice Lake). Some of the leaks were highly suspect in timing. Walker was never charged. Doe 2 is a different kettle of fish. The scope is very broad and the legal questions important. I feel like we're being asked to judge Walker without much or with incomplete evidence. I won't do that. I am not naive. I believe both sides are not always pure as the driven snow. But I want to see how the courts decide this, and we should all take a big breath and wait for actual evidence in proper forum. The law draws distinctions, but I'll leave what those are to the judges. Liberals who are ready to proclaim Walker a crook should recognize that everyone is innocent until proven guilty — especially a guy who has never been arrested and who might not have done something two judges don't think is even a crime. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final say, although prosecutors would still need to bring a case and convince a jury if federal Judge Randa is overturned. It's stunning for the feds to shut down a state inquiry before it's completed, of course. As a matter of disclosure, as I have writ- ten before, I am biased here. I know very well personally and like some of those named in the documents as targets, dating largely to the attorney general's race of 2005-06. That may cloud how I see this all because I see them as real human beings whom I like. The bottom line is that there is so much unsettled here, but you wouldn't know that from the headlines. It's not the media's fault — the headlines were generated by court fil- ings in a suit instigated by a target who did- n't object to their release. But having to tell national media "I am not a crook" is something no politician wants to do, especially in a media trial, where the standard of proof is almost noth- ing. How does one unring that bell? (Jessica McBride is a member of the jour- nalism faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a Waukesha resi- dent. Her column runs occasionally in The Post.) 8 • Milwaukee County Post • June 27, 2014 OPINION Walker's 'criminal scheme' has yet to be proven McBride LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Was Randa biased toward Walker? To the editor: Some are asking if federal Judge Rudolph Randa is biased in his approach to the ruling he made regarding the investiga- tion of Governor Walker and his high- priced supporters. I would ask the same question of the judge. Let's take a look at Randa's record on and off the bench. An article on www.pub- licintegrity.org by Chris Young recently puts the judge in certain situations and in certain company that an unbiased judge should not be in. For instance, Young states in the article that Randa attended "multiple seminars funded by anti-cam- paign finance groups" at the expense of conservative organizations "including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation." In his decision from the bench, Randa ordered the prosecutors looking into possi- ble illegal campaign spending to immedi- ately halt their "long-running investigation into the campaign spending and fund-rais- ing activities of Walker, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other conservative groups." As a citizen of Wisconsin, I would ask, "If there is a possibility that Walker and the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other conservative groups are violating the law, what's the judge's problem with prosecu- tors continuing to look into the situation? What's the judge's problem with allowing the prosecutors to try to get to the bottom of the prosecutors' allegations and settle the matter once and for all?" I would also ask, "Does the judge know something the rest of us don't know and is that the reason he ordered that all records be destroyed the prosecutors have compiled in their long- running investigation?" Randa also wrote in his decision that Wisconsin Club for Growth "had found a way to get around campaign finance laws." Wow! "Found a Way." That's a heck of a way for an unbiased judge to want to allow someone to get away with violating the spirit of a law. If Wisconsin Club for Growth has to "find a way" to "get around" a law, an unbiased judge wouldn't allow that to happen. Again, Randa has attended numerous expenses paid judicial conferences funded by right-wing foundations, like the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and other large corporations such as ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical and Pfizer. Attending these conferences, it would seem, would, on its face, make the judge lean to the right in his rulings from the bench. Because of Randa's seemingly biased attitude toward Walker and his supporters and his seemingly biased attitude against the prosecutors, he should have recused himself from ruling on the possible viola- tion matter. Casper Green Franklin Lurid headlines no substitute for real evidence File photo

• Cover