John Doe update- sorry Scotty, it's not going away

After a word-salad answer from Gov Walker in light of the John Doe developments yesterday (basically, Scotty said "I can't talk about it, and others shouldn't talk about it," without saying why), the Walker Campaign decided to clarify today. And didn't quite succeed, as Jason Stein in the Journal-Sentinel accurately reported today.

The statement by Friends of Scott Walker was attributed simply to the campaign and not to any individual, and appeared to deal only with the federal lawsuit, not the state investigation in which both the Club for Growth and Walker's campaign are targets.

"Neither Governor Walker nor his campaign committee are parties to the federal lawsuit. This means they have no legal standing to reach a settlement or deal in their lawsuit," the statement reads in full.

A spokeswoman for Walker did not respond to questions clarifying the statement.

Good catch Mr. Stein. The folks in the Walker campaign are absolutely running scared right now, and as I mentioned yesterday, there's no way they can end up looking good in this, settlement or no settlement.

And their buddies at Club for Growth also are running scared, as they ducked questions for two weeks from the prosecution asking what parts of the John Doe could continue to be prosecuted and discussed with others, and what couldn't. For example, the John Doe prosecutors (who are the Defendants in the suit mentioned) mentioned that Club for Growth lawyers (the "Plaintiffs" mentioned below) previously indicated that their case on "First Amendment" issues was different than the state cases which deal with potential criminal breaking of coordination and other election laws.

As you know, our client is a named party in state court proceedings arising from the John Doe investigation. Those state court proceedings now include State of Wisconsin ex rel. Francis Schmitz v. Honorable Gregory Peterson, et al., (2014AP000417-W, 2014AP000418-W, W2014AP000419-W, 2014AP000420-W, 2014AP000421-W); State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Francis D. Schmitz, et al. (2013AP2504-W, 2013AP2505-W, 2013AP2506-W, 2013AP2507-W, 2013AP2508-W); and State ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Francis D. Schmitz, et al. (14AP296-OA)

Based on the language you used in your letter of May 14, 2014 – “we do not believe . . . that the injunction precludes your client’s participation in legal proceedings” – you have led me to believe that Plaintiffs do not believe the injunction precludes our client’s participation in the above-listed state court proceedings. Please confirm that is Plaintiffs’ position. Of course, regardless of the developments in these above-listed state court proceedings, our client and my firm have and will fully comply with Judge Randa’s order.

Now the Club for Growth people are claiming that's not what they meant, and that basically they should be allowed to associate with whoever they wish. It shows again that the Club for Growth people are trying to make John Doe an excuse to further gut campaign finance laws, particularly those involving disclosure of donors and "independent issue ads." And that might be a very different direction than Scott Walker wants to go, as he cares more about staying in power and keeping his buddies in power by any ways necessary over having any core ideology (as we've seen throughout this guy's career).

This thing feels like there is more info to come, regardless of how much the Walker campaign wants it to go away. The Koch-related leakers that gave the info that became part of the Wall Street Journal's editorial Tuesday night have made sure this John Doe issue WON'T go away, and will drag on Scott Walker's re-election chances no matter how it ends up.