The New York Times’s Fact-Free Smear Job on Scott Walker

[Geee]

National Review:

Multiple courts ruled in Walker’s favor, but the Times ignores the law to resurrect the case against Walker.

In college, I had a buddy whose entire worldview was circumscribed by whatever happened to be in front of his face at that very moment. We would drive down the street and he’d read off the signs as we passed by them in the car. Instead of engaging in deep philosophical conversations about Camus or the Green Bay Packers, he’d rattle off phrases such as “Oooh, Arby’s,” or “Same-day Martinizing!” (We often joked that he always thought whatever direction he was facing was north.)

A recent myopic editorial by the New York Times, however, makes my friend look like Ben Franklin for his scope of knowledge. In opining about a recent document dump stemming from a previously secret “John Doe” investigation into Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and his allies, the Times peddles a wildly misleading argument completely devoid of context.

 

Last week, the Guardian, a British left-wing paper, released nearly 1,500 pages from the investigation into whether Walker “illegally” coordinated with third-party groups such as the Club for Growth during his 2012 recall election campaign. The Times asserts that these groups “are not allowed to work with a campaign to urge voters to vote for a candidate, because that would essentially allow donors to funnel money toward these groups to get around contribution limits that apply to campaign committees.”

[Geee]

More evidence points to prosecutors, investigators as source of John Doe leaks

 

MADISON, Wis. – Despite the garish headlines and the narratives of nefarious political schemes wrought by The Guardian’s release of court-sealed John Doe documents last week, only one known crime has to date been committed: The leaking of those documents.

 

And now there is more evidence pointing to prosecutors or their allies as the source of that leak.

 

Sources close to the situation tell Wisconsin Watchdog that the 1,300-plus documents related to Wisconsin’s politically driven John Doe investigation could only have come from the working files of the prosecutors and investigators in the case.

 

There is a small universe of people who had access to the documents, and that universe is almost exclusively populated by prosecutors, investigators and court officials.

 

It is clear the documents were not filed in any court, sources say; none of the documents were stamped or marked as exhibits.

 

As Wisconsin Watchdog reported last week, the records include handwritten notes on the motion of an unnamed movant (one of dozens of conservatives targeted in the probe), as well as an unsigned draft of an affidavit from John Doe special prosecutor Francis Schmitz.

 

http://watchdog.org/276408/prosecutors-leaks-john-doe/