Several stories running on the coattails of one posted at the National Review have been making the social media rounds lately. All of them are half-baked attempts using old partisan attacks against prosecutors to neutralize the criminal scandals swirling around Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
Besides their obvious politically tainted journalism, the National Review sadly attempts to take advantage of the recent national fervor surrounding the wrongful deaths of suspects at the hands of police officers by pushing Wisconsin law enforcement officials working the case under the same bus. Yes, they do "guilt by association" extremely well and in doing so, further demonize the prosecutors and law enforcement professionals in hopes to finally collapse the John Doe case under the weight of total chaotic nonsense.
But their primary goal to neutralize Walker's scandals on the eve of his expected presidential campaign announcement isn't complete until they whip out the old victim card by re-framing Scott Walker and themselves as victims of a witch-hunt carried out against conservatives by "democrat" partisan prosecutors.
However, typical of the National Review, their expertise in alarmist hack-style writing combined with their sloppy investigative reporting left them with no choice but to omit a key element of the John Doe II investigation from their attack story to make it work as intended. It is the "partisan" element of their rambling story you can easily debunk by simply opening up your browser search box on each web page and input the name "Schmitz." You'll find that name appears nowhere in their text.
Why is that important? Well, because Schmitz is for Francis Schmitz and he happens to be a respected 30-year federal prosecutor appointed Special Prosecutor in the John Doe II investigation.
If you're an informed Wisconsin voter, you probably know Schmitz filed a sworn declaration of statements pertaining to his "partisanship" with the U.S. District Court. Schmitz stated he voted for Scott Walker in the 2012 Recall Election, joined the Republican Party when he was being considered for a judicial appointment by President Bush, has no issue with Act 10 and said he has absolutely nothing personal against Scott Walker.
JS Online Excerpt:
"In my role as a special prosecutor, while I have sought input and counsel from others involved in the investigation, I have made the final decisions on what actions to take and the content of pleadings and other filings," Schmitz wrote.
So, debunking the partisan element of their story is as simple as that. Without including Schmitz, it's not the prosecutors but the writers of those stories who expose themselves as unhinged attack dog partisans. Plus, false stories fabricated through omission is the oldest trick in the book.
My main point should be obvious. If you're going to get partisan over the prosecutors, which by the way is a ridiculous and extremely poor defense against documented evidence of wrongdoing, make sure to include all of them, particularly those in lead roles. Otherwise, you are the partisan you're projecting onto others.
Related:
JS Online - John Doe prosecutors allege Scott Walker at center of 'criminal scheme'
JS Online - Exhibit C: Prosecutors lay out the case against Scott Walker
PRwatch - Was John Doe Raid Led by Republicans?
3 comments:
Also, a couple of the upstate county district attorneys working on the Doe case are Republicans. Curiously, whenever a right-wing group "sues the Doe prosecutors," they only sue Milwaukee County DA Chisholm and not the others. Partisan witch hunt, indeed.
I agree. By the way the stories have been written by conservative operatives over the past two years, the average reader could easily walk away thinking the prosecutors and law enforcement charged with carrying out the John Doe investigation are an army of conspiring party democrats, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
If this is the new norm, the defense for people who signed the Walker Recall petition and later arrested for whatever can now plead they were targeted by the state for their political speech and had their civil rights violated.
Post a Comment