Discussion for article #224432
Oops! Too late. I think we all know the truth behind the Wisconsin GOP Trojan Walkerstan Horse. Let the media boil his balls.
interesting that the prosecutor is the one making this comment - not confident of his case? worried that Walker’s influence will interfere in the process and outcome?
I’m not jumping to conclusions.
I’ve known for a couple of years now that Walker is a lying, duplicitous, right-wing shitweasel.
Meanwhile, Walker urges the media to conclude that these prosecutors are partisan slanderers.
Yeah, let’s not jump to any conclusions. Instead, let’s do a long, drug out, extremely thorough investigation that concludes about Nov. 3rd 2016. And then bring in Chris Christie as a character witness just to seal the deal.
Repub Govs all seem to be denying a lot lately and they are all Kock puppets, Hmmm? Is there a connection? Do the kocks provide some sort of manual or guide lines to be followed? Why is money always involved?
This isn’t just about Scott Walker, it’s about the neo-Republican Party and what they have become. It’s also about catching hem at what they call governing and we are
TPM Headline: Prosecutor Urges Media Not To Jump To Conclusions About Scott Walker
Who’s jumping? That conclusion was only a foot away - not even a full step. All I did was turn to the right and I found myself standing in that conclusion like a man in a cow pasture stepping in shit - which is a perfectly valid metaphor for the ubiquity of corruption in the GOP.
In other words, it’s: unavoidable.
Thus whole case gets stranger and stranger.
The documents:
argued that Walker, his campaign, and two of his close allies were involved in a criminal scheme "to utilize and direct 501(c)4 organizations, as well as other political committees."
Not argued that it was alleged that they were involved…
I don’t see any ambiguity there.
As for not yet targeting Walker, that is customary, I believe, when circling in on the prime movers in cases like this. Remember how long it took for charges to be leveled at Nixon?