Van Hollen refused to help in John Doe investigation

Refusal to assist raises more questions within "Walkergate"

The John Doe investigation into whether Scott Walker's administrative staff (back when he was Milwaukee County Executive) used public resources to do political work is gaining steam. Cognitive Dissidence has a great explanation on what is fast-becoming known as "Walkergate" throughout the Wisconsin blogosphere.

A new aspect into that investigation was revealed yesterday. State Attorney General JB Van Hollen was asked to assist in the investigation last November -- but Van Hollen refused to lend his assistance and that of the highest legal office in the state.

Now, with the seizure of evidence from Walker's employees' homes, it's clear that there's substantial merit to the claims within "Walkergate." At least, the FBI seems to think so.

You would think that Van Hollen would have wanted to take part -- he is, after all, the "top cop" in the state of Wisconsin. But the mere fact that he won’t even look into the matter in a joint investigation with the feds sounds the alarm of concern over whether Van Hollen, himself a Republican, refused to take part due to his political allegiances rather than his constitutional oaths.

Admittedly, there isn't any evidence to substantiate this notion. But it warrants asking, if simply to point out the irony of it all, whether JB Van Hollen refused to involve himself in an investigation on improper political use of country resources BASED upon political pressures or preferences.

At the very least, Van Hollen did a disservice to the people of Wisconsin for refusing to take part in the investigation. These are pretty serious (and apparently legitimate) allegations against Walker and his administrative staff, many of whom followed the governor to Madison when he assumed office.

Unfortunately, doing a "disservice" to the state is the best-case scenario in this situation. At worst, it would appear that our state AG is engaging in the very behavior that is under investigation in the first place.

Let's hope for the "best-case" option, that we’re dealing with an incompetent, lazy AG, rather than a corrupt one. The state can’t bear another controversy -- or the leaders behind them, it seems.