Over at Shark and Shepherd, Rick Esenberg is angry that some on the left have speculated that the 18 month old John Doe investigation (which yielded charges against two ex-Walker aides and another individual today) will not end well for Scott Walker.
Because John Doe investigations are secret, I'm not assuming anything. One of the things that has bothered me about this is the innuendo that has come from the flacks and bloggers who don't know a damn thing but act as if they do. I admit that I don't know a damn thing and, therefore, am not going to claim or hint that someone must be in a lot of trouble.
Those of you who can recall the Georgia Thompson debacle may remember Ese was not so circumspect with spreading innuendo about a Democratic governor back then (Nixon reference -- subtle). And after a federal appeals court overturned the conviction, Ese continued to speculate, sans evidence, that she was acting at the direction of her superiors.
No hinting there.
When I first saw this, I thought that perhaps I had been unfair to Ms. Thompson. In almost six years of doing this, I figure I've screwed up once in a while.
But if I was, you didn't find it. These posts were after she was convicted for a political crime, i.e.. of awarding a contract to benefit her political bosses. That's different than the Russell case. There isn't even an allegation of that.
Not an apt analogy at all.
Posted by: Rick Esenberg | January 16, 2012 at 02:53 PM
First, one of the three posts was before the conviction (Doyle is Nixon!).
Second, even after she was convicted there was no evidence that Doyle pressured her -- but despite that you continued to press the innuendo.
FInally, after the conviction was tossed you continued to maintain the "we can't assume Doyle isn't corrupt" line.
Your outrage that people who don't know a damn thing are peddling theories is more than a bit rich and the analogy holds.
Posted by: Brew City Brawler | January 23, 2012 at 09:18 AM