Proximity to those arrested raises reasonable questions over Walker's involvement
UPDATE (Feb 3, 5:30 PM): Gov. Walker set to meet with prosecutors.(Original post)
I have stayed relatively mum on the subject of the growing John Doe investigation, commonly referred to as "Walkergate" in some circles. The reason for this silence is that each new development that came out created new questions, never really any answers, and any assessment I could have made would only be speculation on my part.
Yet, with the latest round of arrests in the investigation (involving the illegal campaign activities of several county employees from the time Gov. Scott Walker was Milwaukee County Executive), there's ample room to speculate with some degree of certainty, to wonder aloud, "What exactly was Walker up to at that time?"
So what can we extrapolate from the latest arrests? The mere fact that Walker's proximity to those involved (both physically and politically) leads us to conclude that Walker himself is involved in the investigation in some way.
That doesn't mean that Walker is necessarily guilty (nor innocent). We can assume, however, that Walker's actions while he served as county executive (and campaigned for governor) are being examined closely, given the direction the investigation has recently taken.
It would be naive at this point to assume otherwise -- Walker worked mere yards from these people, who were engaging in illegal activities. It only makes sense that investigators would question whether Walker had a role in it as well.
When you take the time to think about it, that's a huge development. Previously, the question over the governor's role in John Doe was an enigma, one of those questions that couldn't be answered one way or the other. Now, it's clear that Walker has to be part of the investigation, again given the fact that he worked in the same offices as those who were arrested (not only that, but was also in charge of those offices).
There is still much unknown about the John Doe/Walkergate investigation, and much of the speculation is purely that: just speculation. We don't know of anyone's guilt or innocence at this point, let alone the guilt or innocence of names that have yet to be made public. But it's reasonable to believe, for reasons I outlined above, that Gov. Scott Walker is a main focus of the probe, if not the main focus.
I've been following this investigation closely from GA, and it seems to me that Walker would have stated unequivocally at this point that he had nothing to do with this. I find it telling that he's skirted around the issue when he's had opportunities to address it. I think he's hoping that the issue goes away, especially with a recall election in the near future. He also can't be too pleased that he has now been tied to Jan Brewer in AZ and her efforts to abolish the right to bargain collectively in her state. I'm really depending on you guys to get rid of Walker in the recall election. We're stuck with Nathan Deal until 2014.
ReplyDeleteWalker actually did say he isn't the target of the investigation (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/138210634.html) but I fail to see how he couldn't have been scrutinized, again given the proximity of those involved thus far. As far as getting rid of Walker goes, we're doing our best...the recall election will likely shape the direction the rest of the country takes (will take the wind out of the sails of other govs if Walker loses, for example). Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteAll in your wet dreams Libs! LOL
ReplyDeleteSaid hours before Walker announced he was meeting with investigators...hmm...
DeleteWalker minced words when this thing first broke last summer. Back then he said he didn't know why the FBI raided that house and what the John Doe investigation was about (http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/130693963.html). Now last month he's saying he was cooperating with the FBI for over a year and that his office was the one that initiated the investigation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBbABlGOtHY&feature=related). Which is it? Nothing seems right about it.
ReplyDelete