[Ed. – “Scott Walker,” they lied.]
What is not being reported, is that multiple judges have found that the alleged criminal conduct was not in fact criminal even if the factual allegations were true. Here is part of Federal Judge Renda’s opinion, which remains in effect halting the John Doe investigation, in a case brought by two of the targets:
The standard to apply in these cases was recently made clear by the Supreme Court in McCutcheon. Any campaign finance regulation, and any criminal prosecution resulting from the violation thereof, must target activity that results in or has the potential to result in quid pro quo corruption….
It is undisputed that O‘Keefe and the Club engage in issue advocacy, not express advocacy or its functional equivalent. Since § 11.01(16)‘s definition of political purposes must be confined to express advocacy, the plaintiffs cannot be and are not subject to Wisconsin‘s campaign finance laws by virtue of their expenditures on issue advocacy….
A state court judge similarly found the accusations frivolous in refusing to issue subpoenas, Big defeat for anti-conservative Wisconsin “John Doe” probe.
So the media headlines are all about the accusations — accusations which have been rejected multiple times by judges.
UPDATE: Read Christian Schneider’s column in reaction to the document release, Zero evidence of a Walker “criminal scheme”:
However, missing from all these accounts was one small fact: Shortly after prosecutors made the “criminal scheme” charge, it was rejected by the presiding judge, Gregory Peterson. …
In fact, Peterson was only the first judge to rule against prosecutors. …
[T]he prosecution’s case was so weak, it resulted in exactly zero criminal charges. …