Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It
- States Take On GMOs in Battle Over Labeling
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Genetically Engineered Meat, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Did Scott Walker Confess to a Crime in Koch Prank?
In the now-infamous phony phone call to Scott Walker, the reporter impersonating the billionaire David Koch asked the Wisconsin governor about “planting some troublemakers” in the crowd of protesters.
“We thought about that,” Gov. Walker responded.
With that admission, Walker may have put himself in some legal jeopardy.
Since 1871, there has been a civil rights statute on the books entitled “Conspiracy Against Rights” (See TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241.)
It reads as follows:
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . . They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Since Gov. Walker said, “We thought about it,” it's logical to conclude there were at least “two or more persons” involved. And they may have been conspiring to “threaten” or “intimidate” protesters from exercising their First Amendment rights.
That, at least, is the interpretation of Lisa Graves, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice, who previously served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States.
"Governor Walker has conceded that he considered disrupting the protests of Wisconsin residents exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress and that he discussed doing so with legislators and perhaps others,” says Graves, who is now the executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wis. “His admissions warrant further investigation of his compliance with civil rights laws that have been in existence since the Civil War to protect Americans from conspiracies to injure or intimidate them for exercising their fundamental rights as free people, which obviously includes freedom of speech and dissent.”
Repeated calls to Gov. Walker’s office for comment were not answered.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
19 Comments so far
Show AllNice confession Scott, you're goin' down! You should start squirmin' and maybe call your attorney.
Nothing will happen. Walker isn't a young, disaffected member of a minority group, so there's no reason for anyone to investigate his admission.
Correct.
"When the (governor) does it, that means it's not illegal."
- Richard Nixon (paraphrased)
Arrest the mother fucker.
I'd like to see Walker thrown out of office or imprisoned too but this duck just don't quack. If they talked about it (Walker and others) and began to act (even if they just did the planning) then yes but to talk about it and dismiss the idea (for whatever reason), I don't think so.
Not a can of worms we want to open. Think about all the "talk" here on CD. Certainly more than one person. We talk about not just a general strike but the possibility of needing an actual insurrection, rebellion, or revolution to effect real change.
Using the standard proposed in this article we could all be guilty even though most of us say it might have to come down to that and nothing more. No planning, no timetable, no physical acts.
This is one article that isn't quite ready for prime time. There isn't any evidence that they actually did some planning on the suggestion, and from what I've seen and read of the Wisconsin protests I find it difficult to believe they ever did. Too many other things they're using like closing the Capitol building and interfering with the opposition party's elected representatives ability to get any work done.
This is one article that isn't quite ready for prime time.
_________________________
Well stated, KrazyKatz. I agree with this (and the rest of your comment).
Apart from the dismal truth that the Amerikan legal system bends over backwards to shield and protect the power elite and the otherwise well-connected, there's simply no "there" there.
I tend to agree with you here. "We talked about that" could mean that they discussed how other, less democratic officials might do something like that. If a grand jury is called and Walker is questioned under oath, that might provide some answers.
KrazyKatz, Mar 2 2011 - 1:10pm., stated:
"Think about all the "talk" here on CD. [...] Using the standard proposed in this article we could all be guilty "
Since when do we, here in the comment threads at CD, "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States"?
It looks to me like Krazy forgot to take stock of the exact phrasing of the law and merely reacted in fear about what folks say here at times. Even if someone has called for insurrection here, such a call does not of itself amount to "conspir[ing] to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person..."
The most symptomatic part of Krazy's post is this: "... we could all be guilty..." Talk about a totally undue generalization. Not only is Krazy gripped by fear, but he or she is very close to inducing fear.
Gotta keep one's cool in the wobble zone we have entered.
Much as I'd love to see the guy arrested, I think you'd have a hard job convicting him for "thinking about" something.
As much as I believe that no government official should even consider putting plants to disrupt protests, I don't think Walker is guilty of conspiracy here. The quote is "We thought about that." Meaning they were no longer considering it. The mens rea element here allows someone to change their mind without being guilty of a crime. If the Model Penal Code had been adopted that would be a different story.
There is no evidence here that he took a substantial step towards putting plants in the crowds, nor is there any evidence that he got dangerously close to carrying it out. As it stands now it just looks like they bounced around an idea that would have been illegal had they carried it out.
... and that is enough grounds! What is your problem? Prosecute, prosecute, prosecute! these goons need to have the books thrown at them. Nothing wrong with that at all! and BTW it would be up to a judge and jury to decide not any one person here. I can't believe these self-defeating comments.
Did you read the news that 1.2 trillion of our tax dollars are going to the War Machine??? 1.2 TRILLION!!! And what would you say to that? "Yeah, that's just the way it is!" "We can't fight these people, they are too strong" so on, so on! What a bunch of pathetic defeated morons! And every time I come here and say DO SOMETHING! people just disappear! Everyone seems to love having some opinion but NO ONE is willing to get anything done! Think about this again: 1.2 trillion dollars and that's PER YEAR!!!!! How many bullet trains, subway systems, top notch schools, top notch teachers, health care for all, so on we could get if we had 1.2 TRILLION A YEAR!!! And we do! And it is going straight up to the very top, not to us all! It is OUR TAX MONEY!!! these top goons hardly pay any taxes! We are ALL pitching in so they get even filthier richer! It is enraging to watch how apathetic people are in this country to tolerate this! Oh, but we could be thrown in jail, we could be tortured for speaking out. Is that what this is about??? Cowards!!!
I think you need to step back for a minute and calm down. If he hasn't broken this law then he shouldn't be prosecuted for it. I think he is much more likely to have broken campaign finance law when he talked strategy and policy with a donor, but this conspiracy charge is more than just a stretch. Obviously it would be up to a judge or a jury to decide, but I suspect he would get the conspiracy charge thrown out before going to a full jury trial. Conspiracy requires active steps in furtherance of the conspiracy AND renouncing the conspiracy is a complete defense.
And I completely agree that our war machine money could be a spent more wisely on a million different things, but that is irrelevant. This article is about charging Walker with Conspiracy Against Rights. and just because I don't think that his actions constitute a violation doesn't make me an apathetic coward. We shouldn't be charging people with crimes they didn't commit just because we disagree with them politically. The better charges are probably campaign finance and ethics laws. I'm all in favor of prosecuting people for crimes they committed, but right now this phone call is not evidence of conspiracy. In fact it is exculpatory of conspiracy.
“Conspiracy Against Rights” is NOT what we do here so we are not doing anything illegal. We are exercising our rights. It is amazing how people may get all twisted around between rights and wrongs! Too much fear!
“We thought about it” it's logical to conclude there were at least “two or more persons” involved.
Therefore there it may be grounds for further investigation and possible prosecution. Why aren't the democrats in congress continuously screaming fowl play over all that is happening is very telling! Like their counterparts they too must obey the hands that feed them so most in DC will stay quiet and pretend to be invisible.
These people must be prosecuted at every opportunity!
Josh_NC,
I stand by my statement. Per the subject law the article is based on:
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . . They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
I would say that if one were to read this language broadly, then many of these threads could be construed that way. Take the article and comments on UK-Uncut and how to do the same here in the U.S. Corporations are "people", at least in the eyes of the law and "conspiring" to injure would make us guilty. What is the injury in this case? Loss of business.
The problem I have is that I don't consider it a conspiracy if there are actually no plans made. To simply bring up an idea and dismiss it - again, for whatever reason - to me doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy.
If someone can show where they drew up lists of possible "provocateurs" or discussed other concrete steps that could be implemented then maybe. Otherwise no. And unless anyone has written or recorded information the 5th amendment would shield all of them from any inquiry - even a grand jury. As far as using that telephone call as evidence, all Walker really stated is that yes it was brought up but we said no, even if their reason for saying no was deplorable.
All that would be accomplished is that Walker and his people would garner more support and sympathy and very little else. The reason we even have criminal conspiracy laws are so that we can prosecute everyone for committing an actual crime or crimes if they were there at the planning even if they physically didn't participate in the dirty deed.
You wrote, "These people must be prosecuted at every opportunity!", I agree and from what I've read there should certainly be enough evidence to investigate and convict Walker on violating Wisconsin's campaign finance laws. From the phone call:
(Fake) Koch": So, what else can we do for you guys down there?
Walker: Well, two things
Walker: So one thing, per your question, is the more groups that are encouraging people not to just show up, but to call lawmakers and tell them to hang firm with governor, the better. Because the more they get reassurance, the easier it is for them to vote "yes"".
(Fake) "Koch": Right
Walker: The other thing is, more long term, after this, in the coming weeks and months ahead, particularly in more of these swing areas, a lot of these guys, they don't necessarily need ads for them, they're going to need a message ad, reinforcing why this thing was a good thing for the economy... so the extent that that message is out, over and over again, obviously is a good thing.
(Fake) "Koch": Right, right. We'll back you anyway we can.
Governor Walker was doing this in his office (on the taxpayers dime) and more importantly while people, and now because of Citizen's United, corporations are allowed to spend money on campaigns or issue ads the law still forbids coordinating this with candidates.
If were gonna prosecute him lets do it with good law.
I just find it surreal that our government can arrest, beat up and then threaten to prosecute someone for standing up silently with his back to the speaker in show of descent, right in the eyes of a high government official while we on the other side cannot even entertain prosecuting because... no good laws? Perhaps no ballsy lawyers to take this up. Whatever happened to the American Bar Association that were going to do this and that when Bush was still president. If I am not mistaken, someone leaked it to the Washington Post and that attempt was completely thwarted and the media as usual representatives of the powers that be, ignored the event.
A rather famous and well known lawyer has been trying to get George W. Bush into court for years to face criminal charges for conduct during his term as US President.
So far, no court in the US will bite..
And when Obama said no charges would be pursued against ANY of the criminal actors of the Bush Junta, Bush, Cheney and the boys knew that they had gotten away with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity scott free.
Scott Walker will be no different. He could admit in public and on the record he eats barbecued babies that he personally cut from their mother's womb in his own living room. But because he is connected to the *TRUE* (Corporate) rulers of the US, no criminal charges will ever be sought.
That famous lawyer by the way, was the same man who put madman Charles Manson in prison for life. His name is Vincent Bugliosi.
Impeachment should be tried by the Dems, even if the votes aren't there. Walker's comments show that he isn't faithful in following the laws of the land. His example is why the impeachment process exists. Walker doesn't have to have committed a crime on the books to be impeached. With such proceedings in place, Republicans would be faced with defending a guy who was ready to take his baseball bat and assault peaceful protesters - at least that's what Walker implied. Alas, I fear the Dems haven't shown much respect for unions over the years, or even the public. So expect it to fizzle out.
"We thought about it" Perhaps he was using the "Royal We" as in "We are not amused."
No, no, no.
This is NOT the trail to trek.
The McCarthy era was the time when we imprisoned people for their thoughts. We don't want to go anywhere near there.
Walker's ACT of closing the capital to citizens is where he violates the law. That should be the focus.