Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Some John Doe targets not told of seized emails

Name release triggers debate on rules, ethics

- Jason Stein and Patrick Marley

MADISON - Prosecutor­s who seized material in secret probes into Wisconsin Republican­s still haven’t notified some of those people about what was taken from them years ago.

In 2015, the state Supreme Court ordered prosecutor­s to notify some of those under scrutiny that authoritie­s had seized their emails, chats and other electronic documents.

But some Republican­s didn’t learn that their materials had been taken until Attorney General Brad Schimel released their names last week as part of his report on the John Doe probes, according to interviews with multiple people affected.

Schimel’s report focused on the leak of secret John Doe records to the Guardian U.S. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) on Tuesday called for Schimel to broaden his review to find out more about the John Doe investigat­ions and the operations of the now-disbanded Government Accountabi­lity Board.

Even now — more than six years after some of the search warrants were executed — some people still don’t know what material was taken.

“I never got any notificati­on whatsoever,” one of the Republican­s said. “To me, it’s a little creepy. I don’t know how much of my (email) is sitting in boxes now.”

State senator and U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir (R-Brookfiedl) has said publicly that she didn’t know her emails were taken by prosecutor­s until Schimel’s report was published. On Tuesday, she said she was considerin­g her legal options and wanted to see people put behind bars over how the investigat­ions were conducted.

On Monday, Jefferson County Circuit Judge William Hue said he should not have allowed Schimel to release the names of GOP aides and operatives because prosecutor­s and ethics officials did not pursue ethics charges against them in their investigat­ion into potential campaignin­g on state time.

Schimel also did not notify the 35 Republican­s that he would be releasing their names, in some cases for the first

time.

Schimel spokesman Johnny Koremenos defended his decision, saying it was not him but the original prosecutor­s who were required both to notify these Republican­s and keep their identities confidenti­al. Koremenos also said the Republican­s in question were not necessaril­y targets of the probes.

There were two secret John Doe probes. The first began by looking at aides and associates of then-Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and expanded to look at potential campaignin­g by public employees at taxpayer expense. The second John Doe probe looked at Walker’s campaign after he had become governor.

For his part, special prosecutor Francis Schmitz said Tuesday that he was required by the state Supreme Court to alert people whose material had been taken as part of the second John Doe. Schimel has said the material in question arose as part of the first John Doe.

“Campaignin­g on state time was not part of the John Doe investigat­ion I led,” Schmitz said. “I believe I notified all entities and individual­s I was required to.”

In December 2015, the state Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that Schmitz had to notify anyone whose material had been taken “in the course of the John Doe II investigat­ion or were obtained in the course of the John Doe I investigat­ion and were authorized to be used in the John Doe II investigat­ion.” In its decision, the court also ordered Schmitz to turn all those materials over to the state Supreme Court.

The emails and chat logs in question were gathered in John Doe I but were not transferre­d to John Doe II. Instead, they were passed onto the accountabi­lity board, which at the time oversaw the state’s ethics laws.

The issue is complicate­d, however, by the fact that the accountabi­lity board also assisted in the second John Doe. The accountabi­lity board has since been dissolved and replaced by two new commission­s.

Koremenos said that Schmitz should have notified anyone he knew about whose records had been seized.

Schmitz said he was not familiar with the evidence gathered as a part of John Doe I that looked into campaignin­g on taxpayer time.

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, who ran John Doe I and assisted with John Doe II, said by email he could not discuss the issue of notificati­on because of a state law that makes it a crime for prosecutor­s to violate John Doe secrecy orders.

“I am still subject to the secrecy orders in all previous John Doe investigat­ions, as is any other law enforcemen­t or judicial entity unless specifical­ly authorized to disclose and only if they received prior authorizat­ion from the persons who were disclosed,” Chisholm said by email.

At a luncheon hosted by WisPolitic­s.com, Vukmir on Tuesday expressed frustratio­n over the investigat­ion for taking her email, including 150 personal exchanges between Vukmir and her daughter.

“I’d like to see people definitely lose their jobs over this,” Vukmir said. “I believe that some of the things that happened, people should go to jail for this.”

In interviews, some Republican­s said they had received letters from Schmitz but others said they had not. Some learned through other means that their materials had been taken and some didn’t learn until last week.

Bill Glauber of the Journal Sentinel staff contribute­d to this report.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States