In 2001, the State Journal uncovered evidence that both statehouse caucuses in Wisconsin were committing campaign finance violations, ultimately resulting in the convictions of Sens. Chuck Chvala, D-Madison, and Brian Burke, D-Milwaukee, as well as Reps. Scott Jensen, R-town of Brookfield, Steve Foti, R-Oconomowoc, and Bonnie Ladwig, R-Mount Pleasant. These elected officials broke the law, and were punished accordingly.
Michael Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations for his role in trying to cover up Donald Trump’s alleged affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Cohen also implicated the president as being the one who requested these illegal payoffs. If evidence shows the president was behind these payoffs, why should Trump be treated any differently than the caucus scandal players in Wisconsin?
The stakes are higher than we might realize, given Bret Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1974, the Supreme Court rejected then-President Richard Nixon’s efforts to thwart a subpoena for his testimony to the Watergate special prosecutor. Kavanaugh has clearly indicated his belief the executive branch should have broad powers, suggesting the Watergate case may have been wrongly decided.
Our country was founded on checks and balances. The potential to lose those with the unfolding situation with this president alongside Kavanaugh’s appointment is grave.
Regina Vidaver, Madison