Elections Do Matter

Elections Do Matter

Our recent state-wide elections brought interesting and hopeful results. Democrats swept the state-wide races and Republicans maintained comfortable, but not veto proof, majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. Hopefully, one of the results will be an end to, if not a tempering of, the one-party rule arrogance that has permeated Wisconsin government since the GOP ascendance in 2010.  

Clearly, Wisconsin voters just elected to move forward with divided government. When power is split between the two parties, no one agenda holds sway. There are only a couple of options. 

The preferable option is for the GOP leaders in the legislature to work with Democratic legislators and the Governor’s administration to find common ground. Polling makes clear that voters want our roads, bridges and other infrastructure items fixed, they want affordable healthcare that covers everybody and they want public education funded adequately. These are problems that transcend party lines and need bi-partisan fixes with which everyone can live. Governor-elect Evers reached out to GOP legislative leaders offering to work with them on these and other pressing agenda items. There has not been a favorable response.

A second, less favorable, option is for the two sides to continue the battle for power and control with the legislature passing bills that Governor-elect Evers cannot sign or fix with the line item veto. The goal here has less to do with actually trying to address real problems with real solutions than it is to make the other side look bad and rack up points to use in the next election cycle. Unfortunately, the GOP’s Assembly Majority Leader Robin Voss and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald are toying with this option by publicly floating proposals for a lame duck legislative session to pass bills stripping the newly elected governor of certain powers they freely gave when a friendly Scott Walker occupied that office. They follow this path at their peril. Voters will see it as nothing more than a naked power grab and a slap in the face for the new administration. The ultimate outcome with this choice will be a do-nothing government until the next election and that will suit many in the GOP just fine. 

An equally intriguing issue is how the legislative races turned out. Even though Democrats scored a 10-point victory re-electing Tammy Baldwin to the U.S. Senate, and took the rest of the state-wide races with relative ease, they lost legislative races to the GOP in staggering numbers. 

Michael Warren, a UW-Madison student journalist, looked at the numbers and came up with this analysis. 

If we look at the votes cast in all the Wisconsin Assembly Races, Democrats out polled Republicans by about 200,000 votes. 1.3 million Democrats voted in Assembly races but only 1.1 million Republicans did. These translate roughly to Democrats casting 54% of the votes to 46% for Republicans. When we look at the numbers of Assembly seats won, in a fair election, we would expect similar percentages to hold. Instead, Republicans won roughly 63% of the Assembly seats to 36% for Democrats. There is only one way to explain those numbers. Unfair partisan gerrymandering of the Assembly districts in favor of Republicans. 

Gerrymandering involves the drawing of state and federal legislative district lines to give an advantage to one party over the other. It is done in two ways, “packing” and “cracking.” The current legislative districts were drawn by the GOP when it controlled the legislature and governor’s office. They “packed” certain districts with Democrats, making sure they stayed blue, and “cracked” other democratic strongholds into several districts, giving Republicans majorities in multiple districts. 

In this past election, there were 35 democratic seats won. 80% of those races had no Republican candidate to challenge the Democrat. In the Republicans’ 64 seat victories, only 4% were uncontested. Republicans did not bother to run in districts “packed” with Democrats while Democrats ran in many more districts because they contained “cracked” Democratic voting blocs. Of the 68 contested races, 41% had a margin of victory of less than 5,000 votes. Thin victory margins rely upon where the district lines run in “cracked” districts. 

Let us add fairly redrawing the lines of Wisconsin’s state and federal legislative districts after the 2020 census to the list of issues the new Wisconsin split power government must consider. Leaving it to partisans leads to unfair gerrymandered districts that favor those in power. 

Six states, some red, some blue, have instituted independent commission systems to draw fair lines that make districts with roughly equal numbers of voters from each party much more competitive. It is part of the Wisconsin tradition to utilize panels of experts to look at and propose solutions to problems free from partisan political influence. We should consider returning to that approach when tackling redistricting while we have time to get it done fairly and correctly. This is another issue voters care about and demand a fair fix.

All Politics Are Local

All Politics Are Local

Change Starts Here

Election season is upon us once again.

Wisconsin Democrats are putting up more quality candidates than we have seen for many years. Women, veterans, business leaders and union workers are running strong campaigns across the state, including traditionally GOP voting districts like ours.

Dennis Degenhardt, the recently retired CEO of West Bend’s Glacier Hills Credit Union, has been knocking on doors and meeting voters across the 58^th Assembly District all Summer. Building on his special election run for the same seat last winter when he won the City of West Bend over Rep. Rick Gundrum, Dennis is making his case directly to the voters on the issues that matter. 

Degenhardt’s campaign is focused on support for affordable universal healthcare, stronger support for public education, creation of family sustaining jobs, fiscal responsibility for state spending, protection of Wisconsin’s natural resources and ensuring fair elections. His website is found at https://www.degenhardtforassembly.com

Chris Ralf, a Navy veteran and businesswoman, is running strong against Rep. Rob Brooks in the 60^th Assembly district. She was recently the beneficiary of a gift from Gov. Scott Walker when Walker called on Brooks should resign from the Assembly after making offensive racial and sexual comments about several GOP women assembly members while intoxicated. Brooks stepped down as Assistant Assembly Majority Leader, but refused to resign. 

Rahlf’s campaign is focused on sustainable economic growth, increased protection for the environment, stronger support for public education, fair elections and affordable universal healthcare. Her website is found at http://chrisrahlfforassembly.com

Emily Siegrist, an Army veteran and nurse, is running in the 24^th Assembly District against Rep. Dan Knodl. She promotes universal healthcare, increased support for public education, renewing Wisconsin’s infrastructure, support for veterans and protection of the environment. Emily’s website is found at https://www.emilysiegristforwi.com

All of these candidates for Washington County assembly seats share something else in common. All of their Republican opponents have refused every opportunity to debate or share public events with them. The non-partisan Ozaukee County Chapter of the League of Women Voters proposed debates in each of the districts where the incumbents and challengers could describe their visions and take questions form their constituents. All the GOP incumbents refused this time-honored format, but suggested one forum for all of the candidates. When that demand was agreed to, they demanded more conditions such as choice of moderators and influence over the questions to be asked. The League wisely backed away.  Rep. Gundrum refused to debate Degenhardt during the special election campaign and has, so far, failed to respond to an invitation from groups at UWM-WC to a candidate forum on their campus next week. Brooks has already declined to attend. All the invited Democrats agreed to attend.

These GOP representatives seem to be acting in concert with other GOP Assembly members who have also refused to meet face to face with Democratic challengers in front of their constituents. One has to wonder what they are afraid might happen should they meet with voters in something other than a friendly forum with scripted questions followed by buzz word answers. 

Perhaps they might be asked to explain how they might respond to Gov. Walker’s about face on issues like education, healthcare and transportation. Once hallowed GOP ground, Walker has sullied the party line by recently adopting very democratic sounding ideas like full 2/3 state support for cost of public education, required coverage for pre-existing conditions and increased funding for Wisconsin’s crumbling roadways. Walker’s new promises ring hollow when we recognize that he does not have the support from his colleagues in the Legislature for any of these measures. He knows he can promise the moon in order to gain another term when he also knows that his cronies will never allow him to deliver. 

The pre-existing condition coverage promise is all the more hypocritical after Walker unleased Attorney General Brad Schimel to join other Republican governors in suing the federal government to overturn the Affordable Care Act which provides the very coverage he now claims to support.

Walker even tried to outdo State Superintendent of Schools Tony Evers by claiming the mantle of “Education Governor.” While it is true that Walker proposes to significantly increase “education” funding in the next budget, he forgets to mention that most of the increase would  go into the failed voucher/school choice pot, not the “public education” pot he and the Legislature have slashed to the marrow of the bone. GOP restrictions on local control and funding through referenda remain untouched.

Voters indeed have a choice next month. We can restore Wisconsin to its great traditions of strong. Locally controlled public education, a pristine protected environment, fair taxes spread equitably and elections free from gerrymandered chicanery or re-elect those afraid to meet their challengers to debate the issues of the day in front of their constituents and a governor who is willing to say and do anything to get re-elected. 

Rush to Judgment

What’s the Rush?

Do it Right this Time

What’s the rush to hold a vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court?

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s

 accusations of sexual assault against the nominee for this coming Monday. Dr. Ford’s requested a short delay and rules to ensure a fair hearing and her safety. Grassley already rejected her request for an FBI investigation into her allegations but has offered to have the hearing next Wednesday with questioning to be conducted by an independent lawyer. Dr. Ford is still considering this offer. Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley seems hell bent on getting the distraction caused by Dr. Ford over with so his committee can vote to confirm Kavanaugh’s nomination and pass it on to the full Senate. 

This is no longer 1991 when Prof. Anita Hill leveled sexual misconduct accusations against another Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas. Hill’s appearance before the same committee in that year played out on TV and showed the nation what little regard the male Senators had for issues of sexual violence against women. Some of the same Senators who dismissed Prof. Hill then still sit on the Judiciary Committee today and we will soon learn if they have made any progress on women’s issues in the decades that have passed. 

Dr. Ford’s life has already been turned upside down after she revealed her claims publicly in an interview with the Washington Post. She has received death threats, had her email hacked and had to leave her home for the safety of her family. She has every reason to request an independent investigation into her allegations so that there is more than a “she said, he said” record before the Committee hearing. While Kavanaugh’s original FBI background check has been completed, all President Trump has to do is ask that it be re-opened to include Dr. Ford’s claims. So far, Trump has failed to make that request.

Prof. Hill correctly pointed out in an opinion piece in the New York Times on Tuesday that the Senate lacks any kind of protocol for handling claims like those she and Dr. Ford have made. She suggests the outline for one that makes a lot of sense and would take much of the partisanship out of the process.

Prof. Hill suggests that Senators make both claims of sexual violence and the integrity of the judiciary priorities and craft rules that acknowledge the importance of both. Next, she proposes that a neutral body, well versed in sexual violence cases, be tasked with investigating the claims and issuing a report for the Committee to use when it develops questions for a fact-finding hearing. The Committee should also rely upon advice from experts in the field of sexual violence as the hearing unfolds to avoid many of the myths often raised to counter women’s claims, like the “failure to report, therefore she’s lying” claim Trump made Friday. Hill joins the voices calling for a delay in the fact-finding hearing so that a proper investigation of Ford’s claims can be conducted. Finally, Prof. Hill suggests calling Dr. Ford by her name and not referring to her as an accuser or other loaded terms. 

Unfortunately, Prof. Hill’s suggestions are likely to fall on the tone-deaf ears of highly partisan Senators who need Judge Kavanaugh confirmed before the Supreme Court’s new term begins on the first Monday in October, not to mention the mid-term elections that take place a little over a month later. The shaky GOP Congress does not want a slew of 4-4 votes from the Court when a clear 5-4 majority is close at hand. 

There are substantial downsides for the GOP rush to confirmation looming as well. Confirming Kavanaugh’s nomination without holding a meaningful investigation and a fair fact-finding hearing on Dr. Ford’s claims will further alienate suburban women who are already jumping from the GOP ship in droves over Trump’s treatment of women. If the male-dominated Senate pushes Dr. Ford aside, many of those up for re-election in the up-coming mid-terms will not fare well in the backlash.

The #MeToo movement and the passage of time since Prof. Hill was raked over the coals must have had some impact on those in the Senate with any compassion for women who have suffered from sexual violence. Hopefully, Senators Collins and Murkowski will join with Sen. Jeff Flake and slow the train by voting “no” if Kavanaugh’s nomination comes up for a speedy confirmation vote in the full Senate. The ten democratic Senators facing re-election in states that Trump won will have to stand strong as well. A dismissive treatment of Dr. Ford’s claims will make that an easier vote for them all. 

We have reached a pivotal moment in our history. We will soon see how those we elected to represent us choose to treat women’s claims of sexual violence by the prominent and important. They need to start taking women seriously. 

Trump's Troubles

Turning on Those You Trust is Dangerous

Secret Recordings Come to Light

President Trump’s longtime personal attorney and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, secretly recorded some of his private conversations with Trump. When the FBI searched Cohen’s offices, home and apartment, they seized lots of recordings. Cohen’s attorney recently released one of those recordings and it reveals a conversation between Cohen and Trump where they discussed how to buy and bury a story from a former Playboy Bunny who claims to have had a sexual relationship with Trump before he ran for President, but after he married his current wife, Melania.

Trump long denied knowing anything about efforts to hide the Bunny’s story and Cohen’s lawyer released the recording to counter Trump’s current claims that Cohen should not be believed. Trump badly needed to make Cohen out as a liar because it appeared that he was changing sides and cooperating with prosecutors looking into many of the Trump family enterprises. 

Trump then tweeted about how unusual and illegal it was for Cohen to have recorded their conversations. He asked, “what kind of lawyer records conversations with his client?”

As a former criminal defense lawyer, I can make an educated guess why Cohen would have recorded conversations with Trump. Having represented people with mental health issues, a heavy dose of “I can do no wrong” and a less than firm grip on reality, I can tell you that many with those afflictions will gladly turn on their lawyers when their cases go south. Hoping to save themselves, they try to implicate their lawyers with prosecutors anxious to sweep up criminal activity with a broader net. Defendants caught with the evidence against them try too often to offer up their lawyers in order to avoid a lengthy stay behind bars. When the conduct of the client and the lawyer approaches or crosses legal or ethical lines, it is even easier to tempt prosecutors with the defense lawyer’s scalp. 

Experienced lawyers understand what’s involved in representing prominent, but mentally or morally challenged, clients in high stakes matters. They know that one day the advice they gave may come into question and often seek protection by secretly recording their private confidential conversations where strategies are discussed just in case the client later tries to blame the lawyer for the client’s actions. 

Cohen’s recordings were completely legal where they were made. New York law allows for secret recordings when just one party to the conversations, Cohen in this instance, consents to the recording. Wisconsin has a similar rule. Any ethical duty not to disclose the otherwise confidential contents of the recording vanishes when they are legally revealed to others or when the client later makes claims against the lawyer that can be contradicted by the recording.

Trump’s continued attempts to distract and deflect attention away from his own behavior just makes his situation worse. He will soon pay the dictator’s price for following the old patterns telling supporters that his is the only “truth” and all of the mounting evidence of his duplicity, venality and depravity is nothing more than “fake news.”

In Trump’s unreality world, Cohen just joined the conspiracy of false prophets already populated by the mainstream media, the FBI, Courts, Democrats, Republicans who are beginning to question his actions and the “rogue” special counsel investigating him. 

Republicans facing re-election bids in the upcoming mid-term elections have a tough choice to make. They stand with Trump at their peril. Moderate Republicans who have had enough of Trump are challenging them from the center in primaries and progressive Democrats are winning their elections with impressive numbers running anti-Trump, anti corruption, populist campaigns. If GOP legislators seeking re-election repudiate Trump, the financial support his team control goes away, leaving them swinging in the wind. Recent polling puts Trump’s approval rating at an all time low, making their choice all the more difficult.

Trump’s days are numbered. The chief financial officer of the Trump family businesses who has been at Trump’s side for decades was just subpoenaed by the special counsel to appear before the grand jury investigating allegations of criminal activity. He knows where Trump’s money came from and where it went.  He’s a cagey sort and I would not be surprised to find out he has secret recordings too and a second set of books detailing Trump financial dealings. 

Trump is learning the hard way that trusting people and then stabbing them in the back is dangerous business. 

Beware the Federalists

Federalist Society Judicial Ideologues

Injustice Rules

Supreme Court Justices were originally envisioned as impartial arbiters of what the United States Constitution required when disputes arose between people or those between people and their governments, large and small. The Justices are supposed to be legal scholars and put themselves above the partisan fray of their times. The nine who sit on the highest court in the land, after all, have the final say in those disputes they choose to resolve. 

From time to time in our nation’s history, the Court has strayed from its lofty mission of impartial decision maker and become a player for one side or another, diminishing its stature and credibility as a result. We are now caught up in one of those times. Partisanship does not become the blindfolded lady Justice.

The latest assault aimed at capturing the Court’s power and prestige was launched decades ago with the formation of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. It has become one of the most powerful and little known organizations in our political system. 

Funded by libertarians and conservative business interests, the Federalists have for years been recruiting and training lawyers to become judges in our state and federal courts. Those recruited are groomed to be conservative legal thinkers bound by the literal texts in constitutions and amendments. They give no room to modern notions of constitutional interpretation that take social and cultural changes into account when making important decisions. 

Take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for example. It was written to allow slave owning white citizens to keep arms against possible slave insurrection at a time when the average muzzle loading rifleman was at the top of his game if he could get off one shot a minute. Federalist literal constitutional interpretation of this Amendment makes ignores the facts that no one can own slaves anymore or that AR-15 rifles with high capacity magazines and bump stocks can deal death at hundreds of shots a minute. To these limited legal thinkers, this translates easily into banning most forms of gun control legislation as a violation of the original text. 

Our whole system of law is designed to maintain the status quo and apply the brakes to legal innovations. Unfortunately, the maintenance of things the way they are is not sufficient for the Federalists who want to return to a time long past when hierarchical gender roles were clear, white supremacy was the law of the land and government was supposed to stay out of your business.

With the election of conservative legislatures and executives, Federalist judges in waiting have finally achieved their nirvana. With Trump acolytes in control of the Senate, we will soon see a solid majority of Federalist trained or sympathetic Justices in control of the United States Supreme Court. 

Conservative controlled legislatures in state and federal governments will soon pass more laws challenging established precedents involving abortion rights, civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, voting rights and many governmental regulations setting up disputes for final resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade provides another example. It established a framework to end illegal abortions and save women’s lives. It did not allow unlimited abortions on demand, as many countries do. It has been used to strike down state and federal laws that limited access to early term abortions. We will soon see outright bans passed in many so-called “pro-life” states and the challenges to them will ultimately be heard by the Federalist dominated Court where they will receive a friendly reception. 

The only potential brake on the wholesale revision of constitutional law the Federalists embrace is found in an often-overlooked canon of judicial interpretation known as “Stare Decisis.”  Simply put, it means the Court should not overturn a prior decision of the same body unless there is a compelling reason to do so. A decision must have been so wrongly decided in the first place that no present court would make the same decision. As with most rules governing interpretation of the laws, there are many exceptions that the Federalists will use to rid us of those pesky precedents they do not like.

This brings us to President Trump’s recent nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh brings not only impressive Federalist Society credentials and experience, he also penned an impressive law review article advancing the startling proposition that a sitting president should not be subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution for illegal acts committed in office. For Judge Kavanaugh impeachment is the only remedy. This had to be seen as a “get out of jail free” card for this president. 

Needless to say, the partisans will pull out all the stops to pressure those few GOP Senators who don’t fear Trump’s tweets and those Democrats elected in Trump country.  It should make for an interesting confirmation process in the Senate. Stay tuned.

Democracy Dollars

Democracy Dollars for Real Democracy

Modern political campaigns have become dominated by large donations from mega-donors like the Koch brothers and George Soros or large corporate interest driven political action committees and labor unions. Going where the money is has skewed the political agendas of both the left and right and eliminated the voices of everyday people politicians are supposedly elected to serve. 

Two Supreme Court decisions have enshrined these large, dark money donations into our constitutional landscape by making money into “protected” political speech. Those rulings probably will not be revisited, much less reversed, anytime soon. The challenge has become how to dilute the impact of the large donors by giving everyday working people something of value that can be solicited and won with a discussion about issue based platforms politicians run on and promise to enact.

Many working people now are disillusioned with politicians and the political process and believe their individual voices are not being heard by those beholden to large money donors. Many live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford even a modest political contribution. Those feeling disenfranchised stay away from the polls, feeling their voices no longer matter. Younger voters tend to not even bother to register.

The city of Seattle may have found a solution. The city came up with “Democracy Dollars.” It is simple, elegant, scalable to national proportions and completely constitutional. 

Seattle collects property taxes, as do all municipalities. City leaders decided to add a small amount to each property tax bill, about $11 on a $500,000 home, to fund a voucher program that started initially with Seattle city council and city attorney races. Each registered voter was then given four $25 vouchers to use on those races. Those running for those seats could opt into the voucher program or choose not to, relying instead upon the regular campaign finance rules. Those candidates who opted in had to agree to spend no more than $300,000 on the election. 

Seattle collected $3 million a year in property taxes to pay for the voucher program starting in 2016. Seattle residents spent $1.4 million in vouchers in the last election. The remaining balance will be carried forward for future election cycles. The program is set to expand to more races in coming years as the fund surplus grows. 

A recent study shows that only 8,200 residents gave money to Seattle city races in 2013. In 2016, more than 25,000 residents gave vouchers and money to candidates who ran in those same races. A younger more diverse electorate became involved politically with the implementation and growth of the voucher program. 

The voluntary nature of candidate participation makes the voucher program constitutional. Candidates cannot be forced into a public funded election system under current Supreme Court rulings, unless they agree to public funding for their campaigns.

The Democracy Dollar system scales up well to a national level. Two Yale Law professors wrote the outline in 2017. Given the numbers of registered voters, a voucher system could generate just about the same amount of aggregated individual donations as special interests pump into the system in large contributions. In 2012, all candidates for federal offices and their nominally “independent” supporter groups spent about $7 billion on their races. That went down to about $6.8 billion in federal races last year. With $100 vouchers, registered voters could pump $6.5 billion into the same races.

This year Rep. Ro Kanna, (D-CA) and former Senator Russ Feingold put together a federal solution called the Democracy Dollars Act. It provides 50 “Democracy Dollars” to every registered voter for use in federal elections, $25 for presidential elections, $15 for Senate races and $10 for House campaigns. 

These amounts seem small but when multiplied by millions of voters, the power of the PACs and dark money donors become diluted. Think about a fundraiser for 100 people where you can raise $2500 for a presidential candidate with the best issue based agenda. The system turns individual voters into someone the candidate has to convince in order to obtain that voter’s voucher support. 

If you want a democracy where each voter really has a voice, support Democracy Dollars voucher systems everywhere.

Attorney-Client Confidentiality Has Limits

The Trump-Cohen Predicament

The FBI raid on the office, home, apartment and safety deposit box of Attorney Michael Cohen and the seizure of his files, hard drives and recordings sure has caused a lot of consternation in Washington. 

As a former criminal defense lawyer, I can say with certainty that to obtain judicial approval for a search warrant application targeting a lawyer’s office, any lawyer’s office, the prosecutor has to go above and beyond the usual showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched. The application must also show that the lawyer whose files and records are to be seized was both aware that the criminal activity documented in his files took place and that he was either directly involved in the criminal activity or that his services were being used to shield the criminal activity. 

These extra hurdles exist to protect one of the most sacrosanct legal protections, the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. The things clients tell and give to their lawyers are protected from forced disclosure so that the lawyer can expect honesty from his clients and be better prepared to defend their interests. These communications are protected first by the rules of evidence that prevent the information in the lawyer’s files from being used against the client in court and also prevents the lawyer from being compelled to be a witness against his client. The confidentiality of attorney-client communications is also protected by rules governing lawyer conduct and provides an additional barrier to disclosure of information the lawyer obtained from or about the client. 

Using these protective rules, some organized criminal elements began to hire lawyers to help them conduct illegal activity and protect against the lawyer becoming a government informer. Recall the days of the mob families with their lawyer consiglieries made famous in the Godfather and you get the idea.

In order to prevent lawyers from providing cover to or profiting from illegal activities by their clients, courts and legislatures changed the rules of evidence to add a “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege and bar associations changed their ethical rules to prohibit the same kind of activity. 

The approval of the search warrant for Attorney Cohen’s files and documents added an additional level of judicial scrutiny because it had become well known that Mr. Cohen’s main client was the President of the United States for many years prior to his recent election and had continued in that relationship after the election as well. 

There is yet another layer of confidentiality in play. Normally, lawyers are loath to make public statements about representation of their clients. Making confidential information public, removes the privilege that otherwise might have prevented forced disclosure of the information. Additionally, lawyers do not usually make public disclosures about confidential information involving their clients without first discussing the pros and cons of the disclosures with and obtaining the client’s consent to the disclosures in advance. Once the Stormy Daniels door was opened, it could never be closed. 

Federal search warrants issued for lawyers’ offices involve yet another layer of scrutiny to protect confidential information from being disclosed erroneously. Federal prosecutors use “taint teams” of lawyers who are not involved in the case in which the warrant was used. These teams go through all of the information seized and make an initial determination which evidence falls within the scope of the underlying criminal investigation and then exclude from further examination or use by the prosecution team of evidence related to other clients represented by the lawyer and information unrelated to the criminal activity outlined in the warrant application. 

Attorney Cohen and other lawyers for President Trump asked the supervising judge in the case to let them have the first look at what was seized and make the call about what should be shared with the prosecutor. That request was denied, but the judge still has the option to appoint a completely neutral “special master” to either make the initial review or oversee the work of the “taint team” to make sure the privilege is not violated. 

President Trump’s attack on the FBI’s seizures as “un-American” and against the rule of law demonstrate just how worried he is about what Mr. Cohen’s files and recorded conversations might contain. Many suggest that the material seized may very well be more damaging to the President than anything that might come out of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. So far, President Trump has avoided any direct connection to Russian election fraud even while campaign staff and other subordinates have been indicted and convicted of illegal activities. 

The saga got even more interesting when Mr. Cohen was required to identify his other clients so that the supervising judge could evaluate the scope of his privilege claim. He readily gave up the name of a prominent GOP donor who had retained him to make secret hush money payments to the donor’s mistress who had become pregnant. Cohen initially asked not to divulge the name of the third client, but the judge refused and ordered disclosure. The fact of a lawyer’s representation of a client is not confidential. Mr. Cohen then revealed that his third client was Fox News personality Sean Hannity, one of President Trump’s biggest supporters, who had been railing against the FBI seizures from the minute they took place.

The evidence sought by the search warrant included information related to the now very public payment made by Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 election and to other “fixes” Cohen had undertaken on Mr. Trump’s behalf to quash damaging information from coming to light before the election. Federal charges of money laundering, illegal election campaign contributions, and others easily come to mind as possible criminal violations that could land Mr. Cohen behind bars and sweep away what remains of the Trump presidency as well. Time will tell.

A Blue Wave Approaches

Scott Walker is Right

A Blue Wave is Coming                     

Tuesday’s election results, both local and statewide, show that a majority of voters are not happy with the current GOP leadership and policy choices and are looking for more moderate, if not progressive, leadership. The shocking local result was the “yes” vote on the City of West Bend street referendum where voters actually agreed to a modest increase in property taxes to fix too long neglected city streets. 

In a post-election tweet Tuesday night, Governor Walker tried to rally his base with a prediction of a Democratic wave swamping his ship in the Fall and a desperate plea for money after Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet beat Judge Michael Screnock by double digit numbers.  Walker campaign team staff ran Screncock’s campaign and traditional GOP backers, like the NRA and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, contributed vast sums for TV ads, all to no avail. Screnock even lost to Dallet in his own home county. Walker’s pick for a circuit court seat in very red Waukesha County also lost. Dallet ran a liberal backed campaign against special interest money in politics and the current GOP results driven majority on the Court. She won handily in the cities and saw the red turn purple and even blue in many former GOP strongholds across the state. Those defeats sent a clear signal that voters, even in traditionally red areas, are no longer lining up for the Walker/NRA agenda.

In the other statewide race, a last minute liberal led charge saved the State Treasurer from extinction at the hands of the GOP legislative majority. Clearly, the legislative leadership wanted to be rid of their only constitutionally mandated financial watchdog so they could continue to loot the treasury and send tax windfalls to their crony supporters with no one else having a handle on the purse strings. Voters saw through the ploy and rejected the constitutional amendment that would have killed the office. Another blue defeat for the Walker led crew.

Walker’s miscalculation about calling special elections in two districts with vacant legislative seats undoubtedly helped swing voters, especially those feeling disenfranchised by GOP voter suppression tactics. When he lost legal challenges to his decision brought by former Democratic Attorney General Eric Holder, the legislature started to bring forward quickie legislation to change the special election rules only to abandon the effort when Walker caved and called the required special elections. The blatant power grab and disenfranchisement of local voters in those districts showed just how low the GOP leaders are willing to stoop in order to maintain power. 

One of the mantras of the far right ever since the famous “no new taxes” pledge took hold is that voters are sick of increasing taxes. West Bend’s alt-right Mayor and Council were so afraid to raise property taxes to fix the city’s crumbling streets, that they sought cover in the advisory referenda questions the voters answered clearly. The referenda question answers told the Mayor and Council that it would be acceptable to raise property taxes modestly, but not too much, in order to fix the streets and to try and persuade the county to help by sharing part of the county sales tax revenue with the county’s municipalities. District 7 Alderman Adam Williquette’s defeat at the hands of a candidate who ran on a “let’s fix the streets” platform should seal the deal. Time will tell.

The West Bend School Board race brought another bell weather election result. In the recent past, tea party extremists with anti-public school, anti-science agendas, have dominated the board. Last year’s school board election changed the board to a pro-public school, more teacher friendly majority and Tuesday’s election delivered a final and resounding rejection of the evangelical Christian attempt to subvert and privatize our public schools. Chris Zwagart and Kurt Rebholz ran on a pro-teacher, leave curriculum development to the experts and sound governance platform. They brought in convincing majorities against an incumbent who developed an alliance with an anti-evolution, anti-teacher zealot. It should not have been as close a result as we saw, but voters again rejected the extremist positions. One of the issues in the race is what to do about the aging elementary school in Jackson. The new majority has a mandate to fix the problem and the ability to convince majorities in the district to replace the old building with a new one. 

Our new school board majority can reject “no tax increases for schools” arguments by pointing to the 50 plus public school referenda approved by Wisconsin voters on Tuesday while only 6 failed. There is a clear mandate in those results showing property taxpayers are willing to pay more to support quality public education. They supported both operational and capital referenda, some with fairly large price tags, even after the GOP leadership passed new laws making it significantly more difficult for local school boards to raise property taxes for public schools.

Tuesday’s election results continue the momentum from the recent special elections where progressive Democrats made further inroads into previously red districts. It must not go unnoticed that our own Dennis Degenhardt, the former CEO of Glacier Hills Credit Union and Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party of Washington County carried the City of West Bend in the special election for our Assembly seat in the race against former County Board Chair, Rick Gundrum. 

I believe Scott Walker for once. A blue wave is going to swamp his ship in November.