smittyoneeach's Journal: "Wisconsin's dirty prosecutors pull a Putin"

Instapundit in USA Today:

When Vladimir Putin sends government thugs to raid opposition offices, the world clucks its tongue. But, after all, Putin's a corrupt dictator, so what do you expect?
But in Wisconsin, Democratic prosecutors were raiding political opponents' homes and, in a worse-than-Putin twist, they were making sure the world didn't even find out, by requiring their targets to keep quiet. As David French notes in National Review, "As if the home invasion, the appropriation of private property, and the verbal abuse weren't enough, next came ominous warnings. Don't call your lawyer. Don't tell anyone about this raid. Not even your mother, your father, or your closest friends. ...This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform."

And the slack-jawed syconphants on here that support these abuses can just fall off the planet. History, I surmise, will show, to Wisconsin's credit, that the American residents of the state effectively and peacefully threw off what was tantamount to a Commie takeover.

First they came after...

[fustakrakich]

So silent you have been of this daily systematic abuse, until they net 'one of yours'. Absolutely classic.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're apparently more knowledgeable than I, yet also silent. Yet I am keenly aware of my 100% guilt in this matter. I am burdened with remorse.

(I could not reseeest!) 'dirty prosecutors'?

[fustakrakich]

Oh no! That's just another appeal to hormones, intended to stir the flesh and burn the culture for political power [slashdot.org]! (very poetic, by the way. I could feel the drama)

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You probably know that the newspaper controls the headlines, and uses them in precisely the manner you describe. The question is, given the facts, do you dispute the characterization?

Waiting for regular news to catch this one

[damn_registrars]

Your source pushes a severe agenda. Nobody else is covering this story, so I will wait to react to it until there is some less extreme coverage of it. It is hard to know whether or not this initial coverage reflects reality in any meaningful way.

If you read it with the slightest bit of curiosity you would have a long list of questions on the matter as well that are not addressed in their coverage in any way, shape, or form.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

When I see facts, I will look at them. I do not consider the source smitty linked to for this to be factual. They are honorable enough to be very plain with their political agenda, but when they are trying to break such a politically loaded story I reserve the right to be skeptical until it is evaluated by honest journalists.

Re:

[gmhowell]

I'm sure you had the same level of skepticism towards an article published in Rolling Stone last fall.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Do you have the intellectual courage to juxtapose the two cases, and see which passes even a cursory review?
The RS drivel did not. Errors of fact were evident from the beginning.
If you've been paying attention to the better blogs (e.g. written by non-Progressive lawyers) the whole John Doe case has been building for quite a while.
It's some twisted, fascistic business, and well worthy of your time.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I'm sure you had the same level of skepticism towards an article published in Rolling Stone last fall.

Are you referring to the college rape article that they are getting so much flack over now? I don't read Rolling Stone with any regularity so I hadn't noticed it before the coverage of it that came recently..

That said, any article from Rolling Stone is a far cry from any article in National Review. National Review exists to push a political agenda. They were founded by conservatives, they are staffed by conservatives, they provide a voice for conservative beliefs. Rolling Stone may lean a bit to th

been gone too long (not really!)

[Bill Dog]

(Wow, I'm way behind on what's been going on here.)

From one of those FA's:
“I used to support the police, to believe they were here to protect us."

Yo tambien. Now I see them as any other government employee.

Which reminds me, I need to unaffiliate from the GOP in my California voter registration.

p.s. nationalreview.com can suck a fat one; I'm never visting that site again.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

OK

Re:

[Bill Dog]

I may post a JE some time soon about modern sleazy web programming tactics I'm noticing, such as on that site.