Gov. Scott Walker speaks Monday during a Memorial Day event at Wood Cemetery on W. National Ave. in Milwaukee. Credit: Mike De Sisti

By of the

A legal civil war broke out Wednesday among targets of a John Doe probe, as a conservative group sought Wednesday to block prosecutors from having settlement talks with Gov. Scott Walker's campaign.

In a letter sent Wednesday, the Washington, D.C., attorney representing the Wisconsin Club for Growth and one of its directors questioned whether a special prosecutor in the case is negotiating with the GOP governor's campaign to seek concessions that the club might oppose.

The club and its treasurer, Eric O'Keefe, filed a federal lawsuit in February against special prosecutor Francis Schmitz and others contending the secret investigation into the 2012 recall campaigns violated their rights to free speech. This month, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa in Milwaukee halted the probe as he considers the group's claims.

In Wednesday's letter, club attorney David Rivkin asked Schmitz's attorney whether Schmitz was attempting to reach a settlement, which he said would violate Randa's order. Specifically, Rivkin raised the question of whether a settlement might preclude Walker's campaign from associating with the Wisconsin Club for Growth.

"Let me be perfectly clear: a settlement that seeks, in any fashion, to further the John Doe investigation by violating Mr. O'Keefe's or the Club's speech or associational rights would be a blatant violation of the preliminary injunction," Rivkin wrote to Randall Crocker, Schmitz's attorney. "Your client cannot, via settlement or other maneuvers, attempt to circumvent the injunction — at least, he cannot do so without seriously risking a judgment of contempt."

In response to Rivkin's letter, Schmitz's attorneys filed a motion Wednesday with Randa seeking clarification of his injunction, saying they wanted to confirm they were free to engage in settlement talks.

"Mr. Schmitz has and will continue to comply with the orders of Judge Randa and the state courts as he understands them. No action taken by Mr. Schmitz is in violation of any order," Crocker said in a statement.

The moves were touched off by a broadside attack on Walker and Schmitz that was posted Tuesday on the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page.

Until now, the newspaper's editorial page has defended Walker against what it says is an unconstitutional violation by prosecutors of his campaign's free speech rights. In Wednesday's editorial, the newspaper attacked Walker, alleging that his attorney was negotiating with prosecutors at a time when they are facing legal setbacks.

"Sounds like Mr. Walker has to decide whose side he's on — his own, or the larger principles he claims to represent," the editorial reads.

A source with knowledge of the probe confirmed to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Wednesday that other conservatives caught up in the probe are worried that the attorney for the Walker campaign, Steven Biskupic, is not being aggressive enough with prosecutors and not acting in their best interests.

Biskupic, a former U.S. attorney, had no comment on the anonymous allegations and neither did Walker, who at an event Wednesday morning in New Berlin cited a judge's order of secrecy in the case.

"As I pointed out before, the bottom line is, per the law, people who know anything about it are prohibited from talking about it, and people who don't know anything about it shouldn't be talking about it. So either way I don't talk about it," Walker told reporters.

Leaks and litigation

Shortly after Walker, a Republican, won his June 2012 recall election, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm launched a secret probe to look into whether the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other conservative groups illegally coordinated with the campaigns for Walker and candidates for state Senate. R.J. Johnson, who did not respond to a request for comment, is an adviser to both Walker's campaign and the Wisconsin Club for Growth.

Chisholm is a Democrat, and Schmitz, the special prosecutor overseeing the investigation, describes himself as a Republican who voted for Walker.

John Doe investigations are overseen by judges and allow prosecutors to compel people to produce documents and give testimony. The inquiry is being conducted under secrecy, though details have spilled out through leaks and a wave of litigation surrounding the investigation.

A three-judge panel of the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is considering aspects of Club for Growth's lawsuit, including requests from prosecutors to overturn Randa's order blocking the probe and to dismiss the lawsuit outright.

In spite of the secrecy order, O'Keefe spoke to the Wall Street Journal editorial page last year about receiving a subpoena from authorities in early October.

Rivkin did not respond to questions about whether his client or firm had spoken to the Wall Street Journal prior to Wednesday's editorial. In a statement, Rivkin said the editorial shows the Club is not in cahoots with candidates.

"While the Club fights for its First Amendment rights to speak out on the issue, the Walker campaign apparently seeks to negotiate a settlement with the prosecutors that will keep the issue out of the spotlight," Rivkin said. "This shouldn't be surprising: The business of political campaigns is to elect candidates, but the business of issue advocacy groups is to advance policy beliefs, plain and simple. The John Doe prosecutors still don't understand this fact, even when proof of it is staring them in the face from across the negotiating table."

Schmitz and Biskupic are no strangers to each other. Both are former federal prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee.

Along with former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John Franke, Schmitz and Biskupic were among the three finalists for the U.S. attorney job in 2001. Then-President George W. Bush chose Biskupic for the appointment.

Schmitz and state reserve Judge Gregory Peterson, who is overseeing the John Doe probe, both declined to comment on any potential negotiations in the case.

'Face-saving' exit

In addition to the federal skirmish, prosecutors are fighting in state courts, where unnamed targets have sought to shut the Doe down. They are also appealing a ruling by Peterson quashing subpoenas issued to unnamed parties caught up in the investigation. Peterson has stayed that ruling while it is on appeal.

The Wall Street Journal urged Walker not to engage in any possible settlement talks with prosecutors who "need a face-saving legal exit."

"Mr. Walker is facing a rough re-election fight this year, and perhaps he and his lawyers want to remove any chance of a September or October legal surprise," the editorial reads. "Mr. Walker might think he can help himself with a settlement, but he'd be letting down his allies if he did so in a way that lets the bogus theory of illegal coordination survive....Mr. Walker is a hero to many for his fight against public unions, but he will tarnish that image if he sells out the cause for some short-term re-election reassurance."

Rick Esenberg, an attorney and president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, said he was skeptical that the Walker campaign was entertaining making significant concessions to prosecutors. Any talks would likely stem from prosecutors seeking a way to save face after the difficult rulings by Randa and Peterson, he said.

"I can't imagine why the Friends of Scott Walker would have any interest in doing that," he said of concessions, referring to Walker's campaign by its official name.

Jeremy Levinson, a Democratic campaign finance attorney in Milwaukee, countered that both judges' rulings ran contrary to what was until now the prevailing interpretation of Wisconsin law. Prosecutors still "may well have a case," he said.

Esenberg and Levinson also disagreed on whether Randa's order would prevent prosecutors from having settlement talks with Walker's campaign.

"This thing has created some pretty bizarre questions," Levinson said.

In the coming weeks and months, the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago are expected to help answer those questions. The fallout, the Journal Sentinel has reported, could affect everything from the 2014 state elections and how campaign finance laws are interpreted to the rules the authorities will have to follow when investigating their next case of routine embezzlement.