In the popular excitement over the content, other questions and concerns occurred to me, in no particular order, in addition to the ones getting all the attention.
1. Does this conversation represent a pay-to-play situation? There are numerous legislators on the democratic side of the aisle, and union leaders, not to mention ordinary not-billionaire, not 'well-connected' citizens who cannot get to speak or meet with Scott Walker, much less 20 minutes worth of his time during a supposed legislative crisis. Walker was reported to have been EAGER to speak with David Koch.
2. On the right, there is a lot of agitation that Ian Murphy, by pretending to be David Koch, committed some form of identity theft, or fraud, by pretending to be someone he was not. I don't know what the legalities are in this situation, but I find this to be the most blatant hypocrisy on the Right. They certainly had no problem whatsoever with someone misrepresenting who they were when it was done by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles trying to entrap ACORN, or others. Either this kind of deceptive conduct is wrong, or it deserves a standing ovation; the right doesn't get to have it both ways - something to applaud when it is done by someone on the right, but condemned when it is done on the left. Additionally, it does not appear that Ian Murphy altered the recording or added anything to it to create an impression other than what results from hearing the unaltered, nothing-else-added-afterwards recording. THAT cannot be said for O'Keefe or Giles, or any of their imitators on the right.
3. Making a recording without announcing he was doing so was wire fraud or some other related crime by Ian Murphy for not telling Governor Scott that he was being recorded. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on tv, but someone else has researched the answer to that one for me, explaining it is not a crime and why:
NPR's Frank James writes :
"By the way, it appears the recording would be legal if the call originated in New York because both that state and Wisconsin are "one-party consent" states in which only one person on the call, the recording person in this case, need to consent to the recording."4. Was it illegal to conspire to insert 'agent provacteurs' into the protesters? I don't think talking about something on which you do not act goes that far. But it is certainly not ethical conduct, and the Madison police are not satisfied with the answers provided by Governor Walker so far.
Dee J. Hall, at the Wisconsin State Journal writes:
Madison Police Chief Noble Wray Thursday asked Gov. Scott Walker to explain his "troubling" and "unsettling" statements captured in a secretly recorded phone conversation that he "thought about" planting troublemakers among the thousands of peaceful demonstrators at the Capitol.5. By appearing to accept, or at least consider, a celebratory free trip, Governor Walker appears to be accepting a kind of pay-off for his actions from the person he believes to be a campaign contributor. This is not just my own impression:
"I spent a good deal of time overnight thinking about Governor Walker's response, during his news conference yesterday (Wednesday), to the suggestion that his administration 'thought about' planting troublemakers among those who are peacefully protesting his bill," Wray said in a statement issued this morning." I would like to hear more of an explanation from Governor Walker as to what exactly was being considered, and to what degree it was discussed by his cabinet members.
"I find it very unsettling and troubling that anyone would consider creating safety risks for our citizens and law enforcement officers. Our department works hard dialoging with those who are exercising their First Amendment right, those from both sides of the issue, to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure they can demonstrate safely.
"I am concerned that anyone would try to undermine these relationships. I have a responsibility to the community, and to the men and women of this department — who are working long hours protecting and serving this community — to find out more about what was being considered by state leaders."
“There clearly are potential ethics violations, and there are potential election law violations and there are a lot of what look to me like labor law violations,” said Peg Lautenschlager, a Democrat who served as Wisconsin’s attorney general after serving for many years as a U.S. attorney. “I think that the ethics violations are something the (state) Government Accountability Board should look into because they are considerable. He is on tape talking with someone who he thinks is the funder of an independent political action committee to purchase advertising to benefit Republican legislators who are nervous about taking votes on legislation he sees as critical to his political success.”
Regarding another part of the conversation, where the caller posing as David Koch promises to bring the governor to California as a reward when and if the budget repair bill passes, the former attorney general noted the tenor of the conversation.
“Scott: Once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time,” says the caller identified as David Koch.6. Regardless of the legalities, Walker's conversation has almost certainly affected the willingness of the absent 14 Democratic Senators to return to the state capital for negotiations. Walker seems to have clearly demonstrated that he does not act in good faith, and he may have violated labor relations laws above and beyond his behavior to the political minority:
Walker replies: “All right, that would be outstanding.”
“When an elected official in Wisconsin is offered a trip somewhere to have a good time, and he responds by saying ‘that would be outstanding,' ” said Lautenchlager, “it certainly sounds like something ethics investigators should look into.”
Lautenschlager reviewed the tape of the phone call and the transcript at the request of The Capital Times. She noted a pattern of instances where the governor seemed to put his personal political agenda ahead of his duties as the state’s chief executive.I would have thought that Walker's more direct statements to the public had demonstrated a refusal to negotiate over matters covered by an existing contract from the present to June 30, 2011. I can only wonder if Governor Walker consulted with his current state AG for as long as he spent consulting with the fake David Koch.
Lautenschlager noted, in particular, the governor’s reference to displaying a photo of former President Ronald Reagan at the dinner where he explained plans for his budget repair bill — which seeks to strip state, county and municipal employees of their collective bargaining rights, restructure state government in a manner that dramatically extends the power of the governor, undermine the BadgerCare and SeniorCare programs, and sell off publicly owned power plants to private firms like Koch Industries.
“He essentially parallels what he’s going to do to organized labor with what Ronald Reagan did to the air traffic controllers,” said Lautenschlager, referencing the former president’s firing of striking controllers in 1981. “By doing that at this time, when the contracts for state employees are still in effect, it looks as if he’s signaling a willingness to commit an unfair labor practice violation by refusing to negotiate.”
Lautenschlager noted a body of labor law that prevents employers from using threats of layoffs as a negotiating tactic with unionized workers.
The recorded phone call may have concluded, but I don't think the full course of this prank, and its consequences, is over yet.
The Koch Bros (and family) have been messing with US politics for some time.
ReplyDeleteDaddy Koch was one of the founders of the John Birch Society.
In the smiley face version of extreme right wingery, Libertarianism, the Koch's were founders of the Cato Institute and other Libertarian groups.
That means they were aprties to the McDonald-Heller decisions that reinterpreted the Second Amendment from the US v Miller decision (here interpeted By Justice William O. Douglas, who was a member of the Court that decided Miller):
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179.
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150-51 (1972)
WHile it's nice to see the Kochs exposed, I doubt the extreme right really cares since they are too easily distracted by religion, guns, and abortion.
That kind of tactic, while it may not be illegal, is - I believe - unethical. And it doesn't make any difference whether it is carried out by a lefty or a righty.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this is just another instance of the internet-motivated trend to hide real identities behind an avatar or screen name. I've yet to see a public purpose served by such anonymity.
My feelings about this are more mixed.
ReplyDeleteI also have serious ethical issues with what Murphy did, but I also believe that revealing in such a very practical manner the difference in how a huge campaign donor in effect could buy access to Walker was important.
This apparently started out to be something silly on the part of Murphy, a practical joke like the guy from Canada who pretended to be Sarkozy calling Palin last election cycle. He didn't expect to get where he did, and nearly revealed himself several times during the conversation. I think as just a joke this was reprehensible, something that was intended only to hurt someone for a laugh - that is terrible. And like you, I agree that it is terrible no matter who does it.
Instead, it revealed some valid areas for public concern that I don't think would or could be demonstrated any other way, which weighs in the balance of considering theehtics of this, on the other side of the scale.
As to the point you raise about serving a public purpose by an avatar or a screen name, at least in blogging, there is I believe a justification.
When such a potentially large population are your readers, you have to deal with some people behaving badly - and not restricting themselves just to words either. Pen has had someone want to see him dead. Our mutual friend, a rigth wing blogger who got us both started in blogging has been threatened and had a stalker who turned up at his home, where he lives with his children.
Just in the past 24 hours, on the penigma email contact site, wrote that he wanted to see me "ostracized", and "driven to the point of political extinction like the Nazis and the KKK" and calling me a bigot, for my quite moderate position on gun restrictions like funding and full participation by all states in the NCIS. I thought that seemed a bit excessive, which is certainly that person's privilege. I welcome communication; I'm not going to run away in a tizzy from words.
But I worry about how people might behave when they cross that threshold where words become actions, or the person who isn't willing to use words to express their feelings.
I know that both Pen and I share our actual identities, when we feel it is required, privately. But so long as the above examples are true, given the violence in our society, I think there is a very legitimate purpose to screen names and avatars, with the caveat we make ourselves accountable and accessible for our words.
Your second point is full of ignorance and the same kind of misinformation you claim to have started this blog to prevent...when you feel it's the Right doing it.
ReplyDeleteYour counter-examples, both of people inventing identities to go undercover and expose wrong-doing, don't qualify as even similar to Murphy's ID theft. Y'see, David Koch _exists_. He's not a made-up ID. Murphy used his ID to get to Walker because he knew that no made-up ID would do. OK, maybe this says something about Walker, but it definitely says something about Murphy: He stole Koch's identity, and then used it to wheedle a recording out of the Governor of a State in deep financial trouble. Then he used that recording to try to affect Walker's ability to deal with the financial problems. Further, since he used the telephone to put forth the stolen ID, he not only performed ID Theft (within the legal definitions of US Code) but added Wire Fraud to the crime.
Just a prank? US Code doesn't think so. It defines what Murphy did as a crime, and does so quite clearly. Blogging on the subject without bothering to do the background research is disingenuous, as well as sad. Just one more disinformation ploy of a left-winger, it seems.
The founding fathers recognized that a Democratic Republic would involve a majority of people denying the minority their rights. When Democrats do dishonest things, the media, and now you, portray it as being OK, just a prank. When Republicans do dishonest things, the media, and now you, clamor for their destruction. Odd how one-sided that is.
The least you can do, if you are going to put yourself forward as the one to Dispel Misinformation is to research your facts and put them forth truthfully, rather than hide behind conjecture and "truthiness."
But, there's no surprise that you don't, since your stated purpose is to dispel misinformation from the Right... with no mention of dispelling misinformation from 'your side'.
Maybe it's time you considered coming clean and stating your real bias in your intro.
Your third point is right up there with your second point: Yes, people have said that they _think_ that recording the conversation was wire fraud, and it isn't. That's been made clear many times even before you made this post.
ReplyDeleteWhat _is_ wire fraud comes from the fact that Murphy employed ID theft _and_ an electronic communications system to do it. This is not so easy to argue away, since it is A) Federal Law in the US Code, rather than a question of one state's laws against another and B) very clearly stated.
I suggest, if you really want to fill some space about things that are worth consideration, you could substitute questions like this one:
Since US Code is quite clear about ID Theft (containing new language inserted by a Senate and Congress which were Democrat-controlled at the time which broadens the definition of ID theft, although Murphy's crime was already covered) and makes it clear that using a stolen ID over the phone is Wire Fraud, why hasn't anyone in the Federal Government done their job and looked into it?
The usual response to this question is "If Governor Walker hasn't complained, Law Enforcement can't do anything." This is not true: It is a Federal Crime, and the Attorney General is under obligation to at least look into it. It certainly hasn't escaped detection if I could figure it out!
So why has the Federal Government given Murphy a free pass to perform ID Theft and Wire Fraud? And to whom will they give that free pass next?
I made it clear Tiobinist in this post that I have problems with what Ian Murphy did.
ReplyDeleteHis original intent was to be funny, not to steal information. I do not condone identity theft OR deception, but I also don't believe that we need additional laws passed just to protect Governor Walker from being a jerk and a fool.
You do not clarify if you are an attorney; other attorneys have commented here who appear to disagree with your assertions.
I do bust the left for plenty of things; frankly, I see more of it coming from the right - and that is an observation supported by organizations like factcheck.org and politfact.com in the past two elections - the time during which I have been blogging.
If you think I do not, then you haven't been reading here nearly long enough.
Further, what I see on the right is a very small number of people who are rich using their money to deny all the rest of the people - right or left - their representative and constitutional rights.
Can you deny that was revealed here, with the Koch brothers?