Tom Woods: My Memories of Jesse Benton

[erowe1]

Why should one "cover-up" unless one knew what the were doing was, if not illegal, simply immoral?

I'm lost from what Galileo is saying. But if they did something illegal according to Iowa law and covered it up because of that, then it could be that the cover up would get them in trouble with the feds while the initial crime wouldn't have.

 

[jjdoyle]

This is a federal investigation, not an Iowa investigation. There is no legal basis for a bribery charge. You have misunderstood the statute.

Nope. There is 100% legal basis for the bribery charge in Iowa. We just don't know if it would extend to more than one staffer with Ron Paul 2012.
"722.1 BRIBERY.
A person who offers, promises, or gives anything of value or any benefit to a person who is serving or has been elected, selected, appointed, employed, or otherwise engaged to serve in a public capacity, including a public officer or employee, a referee, juror, or jury panel member, or a witness in a judicial or arbitration hearing or any official inquiry, or a member of a board of arbitration, pursuant to an agreement or arrangement or with the understanding that the promise or thing of value or benefit will influence the act, vote, opinion, judgment, decision, or exercise of discretion of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity commits a class "D" felony. In addition, a person convicted under this section is disqualified from holding public office under the laws of this state."

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-...llinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=722#722.1

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Feds can use evidence uncovered by state officials and vice versa.

The last thing the Feds want is a state to steal their glory. LOL Iowa.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Nope. There is 100% legal basis for the bribery charge in Iowa. We just don't know if it would extend to more than one staffer with Ron Paul 2012.
"722.1 BRIBERY.
A person who offers, promises, or gives anything of value or any benefit to a person who is serving or has been elected, selected, appointed, employed, or otherwise engaged to serve in a public capacity, including a public officer or employee, a referee, juror, or jury panel member, or a witness in a judicial or arbitration hearing or any official inquiry, or a member of a board of arbitration, pursuant to an agreement or arrangement or with the understanding that the promise or thing of value or benefit will influence the act, vote, opinion, judgment, decision, or exercise of discretion of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity commits a class "D" felony. In addition, a person convicted under this section is disqualified from holding public office under the laws of this state."

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-...llinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=722#722.1

This law does not apply to Sorenson, that's why the statute was not used against him. This statute refers to actions of a public official acting in his capacity as a public official.

See key line: ".... of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity...."

 

[jjdoyle]

This law does not apply to Sorenson, that's why the statute was not used against him. This statute refers to actions of a public official acting in his capacity as a public official.

See key line: ".... of the person with respect to the person's services in that capacity...."

Three felonies a day:
"In a 566-page report filed with the Iowa Senate on Wednesday, Mark E. Weinhardt, a specially appointed independent counsel to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, reports that Sorenson received money from Bachmann-controlled political action committees by filtering the funds through two separate consulting firms."

"Senate ethics rules prohibit legislators from receiving payment – either directly or indirectly – from political action committees."

"A senator shall not accept employment, either directly or indirectly, from a political action committee or from an organization exempt from taxation
under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6), or 527 of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in
activities related to the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office."

and upon lying about it:

"Such false statements would constitute felonious misconduct in office, which is a class D felony."

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Three felonies a day:
"In a 566-page report filed with the Iowa Senate on Wednesday, Mark E. Weinhardt, a specially appointed independent counsel to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, reports that Sorenson received money from Bachmann-controlled political action committees by filtering the funds through two separate consulting firms."

"Senate ethics rules prohibit legislators from receiving payment – either directly or indirectly – from political action committees."

"A senator shall not accept employment, either directly or indirectly, from a political action committee or from an organization exempt from taxation
under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6), or 527 of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in
activities related to the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office."

and upon lying about it:

"Such false statements would constitute felonious misconduct in office, which is a class D felony."

The Ron Paul campaign is not a PAC, its is a campaign. Lying to the government is not bribery. I am arguing that Sorenson is not guilty of taking bribes, and you are making NO SENSE.

 

[kylejack]

The last thing the Feds want is a state to steal their glory. LOL Iowa.

That could be, but the Feds also can't prevent a state from enforcing its own laws. Once those documents unseal the state can use them.

 

[jjdoyle]

The Ron Paul campaign is not a PAC, its is a campaign. Lying to the government is not bribery. I am arguing that Sorenson is not guilty of taking bribes, and you are making NO SENSE.

I didn't say the Ron Paul campaign was a PAC, did I? That's not the issue.

If Kent Sorenson had taken payment directly from the Ron Paul campaign, you might be correct. Kent Sorenson didn't though. It was a shell company payment, to a shell company he setup on his own I believe, and paid himself from that company. So, it was a redirect through two other shell companies, with funds from Ron Paul 2012. Not directly to him (other than the check, but I don't think that was cashed), but directly to him.

 

[Deborah K]

I didn't say the Ron Paul campaign was a PAC, did I? That's not the issue.

If Kent Sorenson had taken payment directly from the Ron Paul campaign, you might be correct. Kent Sorenson didn't though. It was a shell company payment, to a shell company he setup on his own I believe, and paid himself from that company. So, it was a redirect through two other shell companies, with funds from Ron Paul 2012. Not directly to him (other than the check, but I don't think that was cashed), but directly to him.

And the check may not have been cashed, but it was written out to him from the campaign just the same - for what?

 

[phill4paul]

And the check may not have been cashed, but it was written out to him from the campaign just the same - for what?

Don't ask these questions or you will be accused by Galileo of using the same tactics the government does.

 

[Carlybee]

And the check may not have been cashed, but it was written out to him from the campaign just the same - for what?

Read this link....I can't copy and paste at the moment. This was from last year when it all came up. Scroll down and read the alleged emails. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/08/ron-paul-campaign-accused-of-trying/. Open secrets is supposed to be non partisan but I have my doubts so use your own due diligence.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Read this link....I can't copy and paste at the moment. This was from last year when it all came up. Scroll down and read the alleged emails. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/08/ron-paul-campaign-accused-of-trying/. Open secrets is supposed to be non partisan but I have my doubts so use your own due diligence.

Got it for ya:

The Ron Paul presidential campaign may have been involved with negotiations to offer financial compensation to an Iowa state senator in exchange for his endorsement and support in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, according to emails obtained by OpenSecrets.org

The negotiations appear to have involved several top Ron Paul 2012 officials, including Jesse Benton, pictured with Ron Paul at right, who was the campaign’s political director. Benton is married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter and is currently managing Senate Minority LeaderMitch McConnell‘s 2014 campaign.

In an Oct. 29, 2011 email, a representative of Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, a Republican, asks the Paul campaign to provide Sorenson with $8,000 per month in salary for him, $5,000 per month in salary for a Sorenson ally, as well as $100,000 in contributions for a newly created PAC that Sorenson planned to use to support conservative candidates for Iowa state office.

In exchange, the email, which was allegedly written by Aaron Dorr, executive director of Iowa Gun Owners, says Sorenson would abandon his support for Rep. Michele Bachmann‘s campaign, endorse Paul, campaign for him and provide access to an email list of Iowans who support homeschooling.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I didn't say the Ron Paul campaign was a PAC, did I? That's not the issue.

you cited a statute about illegal PAC donations.

Also, a PAC payment to Sorenson is not a bribe, it would be in violation of a campaign finance regulations. Not quite as sensational as a bribe. None of this will affect Rand Paul in 2016.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

That could be, but the Feds also can't prevent a state from enforcing its own laws. Once those documents unseal the state can use them.

State officials will almost always defer to the Feds when they show up.

 

[jjdoyle]

you cited a statute about illegal PAC donations.

Also, a PAC payment to Sorenson is not a bribe, it would be in violation of a campaign finance regulations. Not quite as sensational as a bribe. None of this will affect Rand Paul in 2016.

If I was Sorenson, I would have HOPED for a bribe charge only. It's apparent this is much more based on his plea deal (obstruction of justice). As the bribe only, as already mentioned before, would have been only up to 5 years in prison and up to a $7,500 fine. Instead, he's getting up to 5 years for one, and up to $250,000, and up to 20/25 years and up to another $250,000 for the second.

How far up will this go? There are multiple staffers listed in the complaint by name that we do know.
And in 2016 this could very easily be used by a PAC to attack Rand in Iowa. I don't think it would do much outside of Iowa, but it's already being used against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky now by a PAC.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

If I was Sorenson, I would have HOPED for a bribe charge only. It's apparent this is much more based on his plea deal (obstruction of justice). As the bribe only, as already mentioned before, would have been only up to 5 years in prison and up to a $7,500 fine. Instead, he's getting up to 5 years for one, and up to $250,000, and up to 20/25 years and up to another $250,000 for the second.

How far up will this go? There are multiple staffers listed in the complaint by name that we do know.
And in 2016 this could very easily be used by a PAC to attack Rand in Iowa. I don't think it would do much outside of Iowa, but it's already being used against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky now by a PAC.

It won't go very far, I know you are hoping for it though. The plea deal is just for a shorter sentence, not for dropped charges.

 

[jjdoyle]

It won't go very far, I know you are hoping for it though. The plea deal is just for a shorter sentence, not for dropped charges.

No, my issue isn't even really with this, though it does show incompetence and dishonesty with the campaign. My real issue is with Ron Paul 2012 lying to supporters for months. And no, you don't know how far it will/won't go. You have no clue what is in the sealed documents, which were part of the plea deal. You already stated you didn't read them, and I know you aren't a mind reader based on the post you just did. You have no clue what I'm hoping for.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

No, my issue isn't even really with this, though it does show incompetence and dishonesty with the campaign. My real issue is with Ron Paul 2012 lying to supporters for months. And no, you don't know how far it will/won't go. You have no clue what is in the sealed documents, which were part of the plea deal. You already stated you didn't read them, and I know you aren't a mind reader based on the post you just did. You have no clue what I'm hoping for.

I doubt if there is much in the sealed documents. Sounds like a snow-job.

 

[Badger Paul]

"it is not illegal to hire people for your campaign."

Then why launder the money then?

Sorenson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge so the Feds can see what he knows. That's the deal. Otherwise they would have brought more serious charges against him and he would be doing serious time in the can.

What are you, his brother?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

"it is not illegal to hire people for your campaign."

Then why launder the money then?

For a mole, a good way to discredit Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. Word has it, the NWO is getting perturbed with McConnell, he has been too cozy with the Pauls, the Tea Party, & the pro-liberty crowd in recent months.