Cindy Archer is filing a lawsuit. He should be held personally liable, and taken to the cleaners. In a sane world, he’d be jailed.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Elizabeth Price Foley.
31 thoughts on “The Democrat Thuggery In Wisconsin”
Comments are closed.
citing a grab bag of potential offenses as justification to vacuum up the internal communications of Mr. Walker’s aides, apparently for anything that could be used against the Republican governor.
It’s appropriate to have this post next to one about Hillary Clinton’s emails. The GOP is no stranger to floating “a grab bag of potential offenses as justification to vacuum up internal communications” in hopes of finding dirt on a future presidential candidate.
What a vile comparison.
Maybe I’m getting old, and have forgotten. Can you remind me of that time the Republicans battered down Hillary Clinton’s door and ransacked her home?
Ms. Archer does not claim that anyone battered down her door. And wouldn’t you enthusiastically support a warrant to search Ms. Clinton’s home?
Only because she let them in. They were threatening to do so. I would support a warrant to get the server, yes. Not to ransack the house.
Of course they threatened to break down the door; I assume that the police will do that to anyone who refuses to let them execute a search warrant.
I would support a warrant to get the server, yes. Not to ransack the house.
And if Ms. Clinton said the server wasn’t there, you’d expect the police to turn around and go home? Of course they wouldn’t — if they have a search warrant to look for the server, they’d turn the house upside-down. If you support issuing a warrant to search for that server, that’s what you’re supporting.
It is possible to look for a server without “turning the house upside down.” And in the case of Ms. Archer, there was no valid basis for the search. It was a fishing expedition and intimidation.
And in the case of Ms. Archer, there was no valid basis for the search.
Apparently a judge disagreed.
It was a fishing expedition and intimidation.
That’s a fair description of the Benghazi committee, which is busy investigating things (e.g. Ms. Clinton’s familiarity with fax machines) that have absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. It is yet another GOP Clinton investigation, 100% focused on partisan political gain.
The Benghazi committee is entirely uninterested in Mrs. Clinton’s familiarity with fax machines.
Tu quoque is not a valid reply.
And if, in addition to the server, the search warrant covered backup tapes, printouts, etc., then how exactly are they supposed to find them without looking through closets and drawers?
You seem to have this idea that when your side uses the power of the state to compel the target of an investigation to turn over personal information that may be used to incriminate them, it’s a polite and tidy affair, while when the other side does it it’s Gestapo jackboots and thuggery. But it’s the very same mechanism, no matter who uses it.
Let’s see here.
The Secretary of State commits a series of felonies and it is wrong to investigate them but private citizens break no laws and are subjected night time raids and years of investigations that never turned up anything because they basis for the investigation wasn’t probable cause that a crime took place but rather a political witch hunt.
There was no justifiable suspicion for the Democrats to do this to their political opponents.
It is also rather galling when the Democrats openly coordinated their political campaign in WI with elected officials, government workers, DA’s offices, the judicial system, the Democrat media, and Democrat activist groups.
This doesn’t pass the disparate impact analysis smell test.
It is possible to look in a closet and drawer (though who would be stupid enough to look in a drawer for a server is a separate issue) without tearing everything out of them.
The Secretary of State commits a series of felonies and it is wrong to investigate them but private citizens break no laws and are subjected night time raids
You appear to know the result of investigations before they even begin. Mere mortals don’t have that gift.
It is possible to look in a closet and drawer (though who would be stupid enough to look in a drawer for a server is a separate issue) without tearing everything out of them.
If you don’t look for servers (or, say, their storage media) in drawers, then of course criminals are going to hide things in drawers.
And yes, it should be possible to search drawers without leaving clothes on the floor. I’m all for less disruptive police searches, regardless of the alleged crime or criminal. Would you be posting about the outrage of dumping the contents of Lois Lerner’s dresser drawers on the carpet if a judge were to issue a search warrant for her home?
I would be pointing out that it was unnecessary, yes. Of course, Ms. Archer hadn’t been destroying evidence, or pleading the 5th, so I don’t think the situations are comparable.
I can’t believe you are not outraged by your own party conducting SWAT raids to persecute dissidents.
We all remember the WI protests and the in your face coordination between Democrats activist groups, elected politicians, government workers, DA’s offices, and judges. When are the Democrats going to round up their own people who broke the law in such a flagrant way? Or is this another case where laws only apply to certain groups like with the old Democrat Jim Crow laws?
And since there was never any wrongdoing on the Walker campaign’s part, not only should this abuse of power end but those involved should go to jail for carrying out the stasi like pogrom for so long.
I can’t believe you are not outraged by your own party conducting SWAT raids to persecute dissidents.
What Ms. Archer describes isn’t a SWAT raid, it’s a search of her home, authorized by a judge. Yes, it’s an awful thing to be on the receiving end of, but my understanding is that it’s a routine part of law enforcement.
since there was never any wrongdoing on the Walker campaign’s part, not only should this abuse of power end but those involved should go to jail for carrying out the stasi like pogrom for so long
I’m not endorsing the WI investigations — I don’t know much about them. But you’re setting an odd standard here. The fact that criminal wrongdoing hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean that the investigators should go to jail, any more than Darrell Issa’s long line of fruitless investigations justify putting him behind bars. The standard for punishing overly zealous investigators is whether they broke the law and violated subjects’ rights in the course of their investigations, not whether they upset the targets of those investigations without securing convictions.
Ms. Archer thinks her rights have been violated, and she’s filed a lawsuit to make that claim in court. That seems like the proper recourse.
Is your surname Crow, perchance?
Punishment isn’t simply the result of finding someone guilty. The punishment begins by dragging someone into to the law enforcement and judicial system. Punishment is having your privacy and liberties taken from you by the coercive power of the state that can compel you do things you don’t’ want to do at the point of a gun. The punishment is a judicial system that is purposely designed to suck money out of your pocket book and time that could be devoted to more constructive endeavors.
You forget, democrats are masters of doublethink.
“I’m not endorsing the WI investigations”
Doesn’t read that way. Your words say that you support such actions.
But at least Archer didn’t get sent to a camp right? Just had her home raided in the middle of the night by Democrat party stormtroopers.
Is it any wonder why Obama has been building closer ties with Cuba and Venezuela? Is it still a mystery why he supported the socialist coup in Honduras? Democrats are electing Socialists openly and embracing the use socialist tactics to persecute dissidents.
Liberal fascists love using the brute power of the state to harass and crush their political enemies. They can’t imagine that same power being used against them. Government power is a blunt instrument yielded by corrupt naives. It doesn’t care who it destroys.
They can’t imagine that same power being used against them.
Exactly. Most of the commenters here are cheering on politically-motivated criminal investigations into public figures they oppose (Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner), but are in shocked disbelief that such investigations could be aimed at public figures they support.
It’s not just that her home was raided/searched/turned upside-down, it’s that she was also put under a gag order to never speak about the raid/search with anyone, at all, because it was a sealed “John Doe” investigation.
Such investigations are typically used to slowly round up and build a case against higher and higher tiers of cronies to work up to il capo. Even in that context, it’s highly problematic on 4th Amendment concerns.
Used in this manner, however, it’s wholly and utterly vicious.
Show of hands from those who think that Hillary would remain silent if she was served with a “John Doe” search warrant.
Okay, stop laughing about Hillary being investigated in the first place. Now, seriously, do you think she would comply with a gag order on a search warrant, even if they DIDN’T use a SWAT team to ransack her home and point guns at her and her young children in the process?
You are right. Those gag orders were especially viscious.
Where are all of those Democrat civil rights protestors to protest their own party’s abuses? Well, they have dehumanized the opposition with racist stereotypes and other attacks to the point where Democrats want the government to attack them.
Ask enough questions, and you will get the answer, “They deserved it.”
Okay, stop laughing about Hillary being investigated in the first place
Yeah, it isn’t as if she’s ever been investigated by her political enemies.
She’s never been investigated by the authorities in this administration. And never will be.
Are you so partisan that you cannot recognize the naked abuse of power? I pity you.
Once again, Jim shows indifference towards a too powerful and ever expanding government abusing its power, since to him either political party could abuse the power. He’s a Democrat second, he’s a totalitarian first.
Indeed. It’s very obvious when his only response is that someone is mean to Hillary. His words tell me that he is only against government overreach when it is done to his side.