Discussion for article #241615
Letās face it, paying money to someone in power to get a favorable outcome just isnāt illegal anymore. (Money is speech! First Amendment! Woo hoo!)
4 Likes
Who the f*ck cares about Rand Paul anymore?
2 Likes
Would raND be IN the TOP 3 Were IT NOt for these indiCtments being handed DOWn around the TIME of the FIRSt debate? I guess weāll Never know.
2 Likes
WHAT JUDGE AND WHO APPOINTED HIM? You should know by now that this is mandatory, basic, bare minimum information your audience demands, TPM.
2 Likes
Thereās not much difference between lying to federal investigators and knowingly submitting false campaign reports to cover up your shenanigans.
ETA:
The indictment said that Mr. Benton and his colleagues paid Mr. Sorenson in monthly installments of $8,000. They then concealed the payments as audiovisual campaign expenses, transferring them to a film-production company and then to another company that Mr. Sorenson controlled.
The sound of the wrist slapping is deafening!!!
3 Likes
The ONE WHere THE PResIDEnt WHO appointed oNE of the JUdges in Des Moines, IOWa, DUh.
Thatās largely true, but from what Iāve read, heard and understand, that doesnāt explain these rulings. This is oversimplified, but I think nonetheless it still captures the judgeās thinking.
Thereās a body of legal precedent, somewhere between a line and an acre depending on the jurisdiction, that basically stands for the proposition that after-the-fact behavior can be used as evidence of a guilty mind. In some settings, itās like an inference that a juryās allowed to draw, or it isnāt. And whether or not the jury gets the chance is up to the judge presiding over the trial.
The key is what slot in the indictment that the inference might be used to fill in. It canāt be used to substitute for the a missing necessary element of a crime. For example, on a case involving bank robbery, the fact that the person charged was seen running away from the area as cop cars showed up at the front of the bank canāt substitute for proof that the bank was actually robbed, or that the robber used or threatened to use a gun, or that that person was in any way involved in what went on inside the bank. OTOH, if all the other evidence is present to allow the jury to āfindā that a bank robbery happened, and the way it played out strongly suggests the robbers would have used a look-out stationed around the entrance to warn about cops, in THAT scenario being seen running away from the front as cop cars arrive COULD support a reasonable conclusion that the runner ran because he figured to be taken as working as a look-out in the heist.
For a judge to dump charges before they ever get to a jury, like happened here, means the judge figured the prosecution was expecting evidence of a guilty mind from lying to the grand jury to do a whole lot more work in filling in holes in the indictment than was fair or reasonable. And Iām generally inclined to agree.
But hereās the thing: there should be no sympathy at all for someone lying to a grand jury and thus finding himself charged with other crimes. While itās not ALWAYS true that people lie āonlyā for rational or traceable reasons, our entire concept of criminal responsibility falls down if we simply give up ĀÆ_(ć)_/ĀÆ on trying to connect guilty mind evidence to guilt of what.
So even if the judgeās rulings here are reasonable (I think so.), I still say this is all on Benton for being a dick.
2 Likes
The guy he is accused of BRIBING has ADMITTED he took the money!
Which āFederal Judgeā was it and who appointed him?
1 Like
Judge John A Jarvey, appointed by George W Bush
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2mrlm2cpf/iowa-southern-district-court/usa-v-benton-et-al/
http://www.plainsite.org/judges/iowa-northern-district-court/john-a-jarvey/
Where, when, who, . . . . Hate to say, but TPM regularly fails these basics.
1 Like
ā¦great minds and all that.
This guyās pretty darned conservative, but in the old-fashioned sense: by the book, no creativity or pizzazz, but at least no surprises - a very predictable judge, stolid and unimaginative, while a reliable court administrator.
Heās sat continuously as a judge for nearly 30 years. He doesnāt have any history of crazy or corrupt rulings. Heās generally well-thought of by the circuit bar and fellow judges. Heās been Chief Judge for a time, which in part a reflects his professional reputation.
Like I posted above, from what Iāve seen the rulings are 'not unreasonable. IOW, while they are not necessarily what another competent well-meaning judge would decide, they are still logical and rationally defensible.
Someone above noted to the effect that because the dude alleged in the indictment as the bribee admitted being bribed, that ends all concerns about the āguilty mindā evidence being used inappropriately. Without going into the depth this deserves (Weāre all free to check out the materials filed on the dismissal applications.), that aināt necessarily so.
Again, Iām not saying Iād rule the same way, or I agree with the rulings. Plus there could well be room to argue on appeal, EXCEPT for this being on an issue where the appeal courts are inclined to ādeferā to the trial judge.
1 Like
He lied and heāll still hang. Scooter LIbbyās old cell is available.
Sadlly, people in Kentucky 
Yeah, he is far from out of the woods on this. And the other guy is still facing a burglary investigation in CT, for even more political shenanigans.
1 Like
There was something I saw the other day where insider trader charges were overturned by a federal appeals court. And I got to thinking that some things may just be difficult t prove. Since we donāt get to see the actual evidence we can only speculate as to a juristās motives if it seems to go in a sharpish direction.
The funny thing is, that it has had no affect on little squirrel head himself, Ryand was going nowhere before and he is still headed there now.
Heās the next one out of the race.