Judge throws out 4 of 5 charges against Jesse Benton

[Kurt Evans]

--

[hells_unicorn]

Yep, whenever a fishing expedition is engaged in by the Feds, they'll always manufacture the whole "lying to federal investigators" B.S., which is absurd considering the Judge just said that there wasn't anything illegal done. One of the great things about being a federal investigator is being given the right to lie in court and get away with it, a luxury also afforded to federal prosecutors. This is the reason why everybody is afraid of going to court, and also one of the reasons why I refuse to EVER swear an oath in a court room, let alone engage in the old Anglican superstitious gesticulations with the bible that go with it.

I wonder what all of the anti-Benton people have to say about this.

[timosman]

I would say "You got lucky. This was close.", but I will wait for the final ruling.

[specsaregood]

I'm happy for him. As to lying to federal investigators... if its been found legal for federal investigators/police to lie to everybody else, then I think the reverse should be legal as well.

[hells_unicorn]

I'm happy for him. As to lying to federal investigators... if its been found legal for federal investigators/police to lie to everybody else, then I think the reverse should be legal as well.

It definitely should be that way, but Federal Agents are actually not subject to entrapment laws the way state and local police are. If you're a Fed, you can literally cancel somebody's freedom with a few phone calls, provided that you have a judge that will rubber stamp all of your charges, which sadly is becoming more and more common.

[angelatc]

I would say it's good to have a relative in the US Senate.

[Chester Copperpot]

i wonder why everything in the courts has to do with "electricity'.. "circuit" courts... people get "charged" etc

[hells_unicorn]

I would say it's good to have a relative in the US Senate.

It's probably also good to have not actually done anything, though despite this he may well get hit with the last charge, which will probably damage his future job prospects. It's curious how many people here seem cool with the government trumping up bogus charges and potentially ruining someone's life simply because they don't like the person that it's happening to.

[William Tell]

The judge dismissed all charges against Benton except for a count of lying to federal investigators, according to Politico... Both Pauls had questioned the timing of the indictment, which was handed down shortly before the first Republican presidential primary debate of the 2016 election cycle. So if he had said nothing to the feds this case would be closed.

[65fastback2+2]

ok, lets put some logic with this.

If you've done nothing wrong, and a judge rules you innocent, and then rules you guilty of lying...but you did nothing wrong...that means benton would have had to of lied and said he DID do something wrong lol.

You cant lie about being innocent. smh.

Benton probably just didnt over-expose the truth and the feds just wanted to hammer him with something.

[specsaregood]

ok, lets put some logic with this.
If you've done nothing wrong, and a judge rules you innocent, and then rules you guilty of lying...but you did nothing wrong...that means benton would have had to of lied and said he DID do something wrong lol.
You cant lie about being innocent. smh.
Benton probably just didnt over-expose the truth and the feds just wanted to hammer him with something.

The judge did not rule that he was guilty of lying.

[specsaregood]

also john tate:


The judge also threw out all four counts against John Tate, another Paul family aide who works with Benton on America’s Liberty PAC. A six-charge indictment still stands against a third Paul aide, Dimitri Kesari.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/jesse-benton-some-charges-dropped-campaign-fraud-case-214616

[William Tell]

ok, lets put some logic with this.

If you've done nothing wrong, and a judge rules you innocent, and then rules you guilty of lying...but you did nothing wrong...that means benton would have had to of lied and said he DID do something wrong lol.
No, I don't think so.


You cant lie about being innocent. smh.

I think saying anything they consider false could potentially get you convicted of lying. I imagine if you said you were wearing an orange hat on friday, when it was actually yellow hat they could technically convict you.

[CPUd]

ok, lets put some logic with this.

If you've done nothing wrong, and a judge rules you innocent, and then rules you guilty of lying...but you did nothing wrong...that means benton would have had to of lied and said he DID do something wrong lol.

You cant lie about being innocent. smh.

Benton probably just didnt over-expose the truth and the feds just wanted to hammer him with something.

It is probably something like telling them he didn't send an email/text when they have records showing otherwise, while at the end of the day, whether he sent it or not had no relevance to the case.

[William Tell]

It is probably something like telling them he didn't send an email/text when they have records showing otherwise, while at the end of the day, whether he sent it or not had no relevance to the case.

Yeah, that's a good guess.

[hells_unicorn]

So if he had said nothing to the feds this case would be closed.

Or the Feds could have charged him with obstructing justice. If the Feds want to indict a ham sandwich, they'll resort to finding a way to make having mustard a crime to make it happen. I've sort of taken to referring to constitutional rights as privileges because they aren't always rights depending on who is in charge.

[JohnGalt23g]

Lesson Number One: When federal investigators, be it from the FBI or US Attorney's office, or whatever, start asking you questions, you shut the hell up and wait for your attorney...

[Occam's Banana]

Yep, whenever a fishing expedition is engaged in by the Feds, they'll always manufacture the whole "lying to federal investigators" B.S., which is absurd considering the Judge just said that there wasn't anything illegal done.

Well, it's no more absurd than the police practice of arresting someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest" ...


I'm happy for him. As to lying to federal investigators... if its been found legal for federal investigators/police to lie to everybody else, then I think the reverse should be legal as well.

Law enforcement officials should not be treated the same way as criminals and other mundanes.

After all, they're law enforcement officials!

Why do you hate justice?

[Spikender]

This reminds me of a situation where all charges against someone can be dropped except for resisting arrest. Why not resist if I know I've done nothing wrong?

Someone would say "Well why resist if you did nothing wrong? It can all be sorted out later". After seeing the horror stories of some of these people dying in lock up without food or medication, people still have the gall to ask why you wouldn't want to go to jail. It's a risk I'm not willing to take.

[Jackie Moon]

i wonder why everything in the courts has to do with "electricity'.. "circuit" courts... people get "charged" etc

http://www.gifdivision.com/uploads/4/6/0/3/46032175/11_-_ovwyeh4.gif


The judge did not rule that he was guilty of lying.

Right, he still might beat that charge... it just wasn't thrown out with the others.

[helmuth_hubener]

I beat him to the thread (yes!), so allow me to say:

This is exactly what AF predicted would happen.

[phill4paul]

I beat him to the thread (yes!), so allow me to say:

This is exactly what AF predicted would happen.

Yup...


You watch what happens...

He'll skate on the actual FEC charges, but he's going to go to jail on a USC 1001 conviction.

If any statement he made to the everfucking feds during the course of the investigation turns out to be false, for any reason, then that is considered prima facie evidence of guilt.

If he hung around here and listened to nutcases like me, he might have picked up the idea to dummy the fuck up and NEVER talk to cops, ever.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?479648-DOJ-indicts-Jesse-Benton-and-John-Tate/page8

[Spikender]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?479648-DOJ-indicts-Jesse-Benton-and-John-Tate/page8

Holy shit, thanks to you two for reminding me of that post.

AF is too good at what he does.

[phill4paul]

Here's a little more on WHY the judge dismissed the charges....


U.S. District Judge John Jarvey dismissed John Tate from the federal case, saying the charges against him were based on information the government obtained during FBI interviews last year. Tate consented to the interviews but only after signing a document known as a proffer agreement, in which prosecutors agreed that if charges were brought they would not offer in evidence any statements made by him "except in a prosecution for false statements, obstruction of justice in the current investigation, or perjury ..."

During the interviews Tate, a longtime aide to the former Texas congressman, said he was unaware of any payments to Sorenson and stated there were no payments from the Paul campaign. Tate claimed the government breached the agreement by charging him with conspiracy, causing false records, causing false campaign expenditure reports and a false statements scheme, using his statements in the FBI interview as evidence before the grand jury which indicted him.


Jarvey said prior courts have ruled proffer agreements are part of constitutional due process protections that must be upheld. His ruling allows the government to refile the dismissed charges separately but prosecutors can't use the proffer statements in bringing the charges.

"The decision regarding the dismissed counts will be made at a later date post trial," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice which is prosecuting the case.

Since Benton signed a similar proffer agreement four charges against him also were dismissed. Benton now faces one count of lying to the FBI. His attorney declined to comment.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/10/09/charges-dropped-against-ron-pauls-former-campaign-manager

[Kurt Evans]

--

[hells_unicorn]

(1) I think Jesse is basically a good person, and I think he probably believed he was acting within the letter of the law.

(2) Kent Sorenson's eleventh-hour betrayal of Michele Bachmann carried a stench that may have cost Ron more Iowa votes than it got him, and embracing Sorenson's endorsement strikes me as a serious tactical and moral error.

(3) Constitutionally, that tactical and moral error is none of the federal government's business.

(4) This is a textbook example of selective prosecution.

(5) The prosecutors offered statements in evidence after promising in advance not to offer them in evidence. They lied.

1. I think so as well, but remember, a lot of "good" people go to prison for holding the wrong opinion in these United States of America.

2. Agreed here as well, but hindsight is always 20/20 and Ron was probably happy to get all the help he could.

3. In principle, you are correct, but Uncle Sam has no principles, so this is a moot point from their standpoint.

4. Indeed, the result of giving too much power to prosecutors.

5. Prosecutors lie as a matter of general practice, this has been the case for quite a while actually. If a prosecutor isn't lying to someone, it's the exception, not the rule, and when all is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of prosecutors are burning in hell.

[Galileo Galilei]

It's OUTRAGEOUS for a prosecutor to claim and then use proffered testimony in a grand jury as evidence of an alleged overt act that allegedly furthered and alleged conspiracy.

Think about it.

[hells_unicorn]

It's OUTRAGEOUS for a prosecutor to claim and then use proffered testimony in a grand jury as evidence of an alleged overt act that allegedly furthered and alleged conspiracy.

Think about it.

Ethically it's outrageous, but it happens a lot more often than people know, and it usually only makes the news if the defendant has high-profile connections. It's even more outrageous that often times judges will allow this crap without so much as batting an eye.

In the justice system's current state, the only way to get a fair trial is to have a judge that is either a 100% constitutional originalist, or otherwise has an extreme level of skepticism towards the police and prosecutors alike and won't let crap like this slide.

[Matt Collins]

Lesson Number One: When federal investigators, be it from the FBI or US Attorney's office, or whatever, start asking you questions, you shut the hell up and wait for your attorney...Unless like Martha Stewart, he didn't know he was talking to a federal investigator. Remember, THAT's why Martha Stewart went to jail, for lying to people who were pretending not to be feds.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yep, whenever a fishing expedition is engaged in by the Feds, they'll always manufacture the whole "lying to federal investigators" B.S., which is absurd considering the Judge just said that there wasn't anything illegal done. One of the great things about being a federal investigator is being given the right to lie in court and get away with it, a luxury also afforded to federal prosecutors. This is the reason why everybody is afraid of going to court, and also one of the reasons why I refuse to EVER swear an oath in a court room, let alone engage in the old Anglican superstitious gesticulations with the bible that go with it.

I wonder what all of the anti-Benton people have to say about this.

^^^read that again lurkers

Don't ever talk to police, it can only ever hurt, whether you're innocent or guilty - it never helps.

[Natural Citizen]

Yup...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?479648-DOJ-indicts-Jesse-Benton-and-John-Tate/page8


Heh. He sure nailed that one. Yep. He sure did alright.

[eleganz]

The anti-bentons are awfully silent today.

[phill4paul]

The anti-bentons are awfully silent today.

What are you expecting? Some kind of apology. A retraction of our statements that we didn't, and still don't, want Jesse anywhere near the campaign?

You are not going to get it. The disenchantment with Benton started long before the indictment.

[Badger Paul]

A six-charge indictment still stands against a third Paul aide, Dimitri Kesari.

Which sets up the case rather nicely. Kesari did all the dirty deeds and Tate and Benton covered up for him. Even if Benton and Tate are convicted on just one charge, lying to the Feds is still serious enough to be doing some time in the pen.

[Badger Paul]

"They claim the government is targeting them only, pointing out that Sorenson also was secretly paid by Bachmann's campaign yet none of those staffers face prosecution. "

That's because they didn't launder the cash to make the payments.

The whole thing was so stupid. There was no reason on earth or in heaven to pay Kent Sorenson a f'ing cent. None! That's why the Bachmann people screamed bribery, because they were paying him under the table, so the only reason for him to switch sides was a bribe. She screamed bloody murder and it cost Paul Iowa. That's the bottom line.

[Matt Collins]

She screamed a bloody murder and it cost Paul Iowa. That's the bottom line.No, the media cost Ron Iowa by puffing up Santorum at the last minute.

[Badger Paul]

"No, the media cost Ron Iowa by puffing up Santorum at the last minute."

Well, there was some weight behind their hot air given VanderPlatts endorsement of Santorum and all 20 Duggars running around Iowa in matching clothes plugging for Santorum too. Throw on top of that sandbox fight between Paul and Bachmann over the bribing of a state senator for his endorsement and its no wonder voters surged away from her and towards Santorum, who basically held the same views and undecided voters decided not to take a risk on Paul given the negativity and attacks against him (remember he was getting hit the "newsletters" crap at the same, a problem Benton and his minions in the claque should have dealt with months before.)

[phill4paul]

No, the media cost Ron Iowa by puffing up Santorum at the last minute.

MSM = convenient scapegoat. Does media influence elections? Hell's yes! But, if this is just a fact of life we may as well just throw in the towel, right? Boots on the ground = grassroots. The only thing that can counter MSM and it's status-quo drivers.

[Anti Federalist]

For the love of God, DO NOT TALK TO COPS.

[lfrml]

For the love of God, DO NOT TALK TO COPS.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to clarify if you mean this under almost any circumstances.

1.) If my house was burglarized or my car stolen, should I not report it because things might just get worse?

2.) If I witnessed a crime (like a stabbing), should I not give police details that might help catch the attacker?

Until the stories of the last couple of years changed my opinion, in the past I would have always cooperated with the police.

[phill4paul]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to clarify if you mean this under almost any circumstances.

1.) If my house was burglarized or my car stolen, should I not report it because things might just get worse?

2.) If I witnessed a crime (like a stabbing), should I not give police details that might help catch the attacker?

Until the stories of the last couple of years changed my opinion, in the past I would have always cooperated with the police.

Spend 45 minutes. Really.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Anti Federalist]

Almost any circumstances.

In the two examples you gave, I would not do so without legal representation.

For instance: knew a fellow in NJ whose house got robbed. He duly reported the items that were stolen stolen to the cops. He was later arrested when it was determined that one of the rifles he reported stolen was a "prohibited" firearm under NJ law.

He ended up not doing time, but had a felony arrest record and lost his FOID and almost his job.


I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to clarify if you mean this under almost any circumstances.

1.) If my house was burglarized or my car stolen, should I not report it because things might just get worse?

2.) If I witnessed a crime (like a stabbing), should I not give police details that might help catch the attacker?

Until the stories of the last couple of years changed my opinion, in the past I would have always cooperated with the police.

[phill4paul]

Almost any circumstances.

In the two examples you gave, I would not do so without legal representation.

For instance: knew a fellow in NJ whose house got robbed. He duly reported the items that were stolen stolen to the cops. He was later arrested when it was determined that one of the rifles he reported stolen was a "prohibited" firearm under NJ law.

He ended up not doing time, but had a felony arrest record and lost his FOID and almost his job.

He's lucky they didn't ping him with a 101 code enforcement violations when they came to take his statement.

If you aren't doing anything wrong.....:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

This video should be mandatory viewing for every single US citizen over the age of 12.


Spend 45 minutes. Really.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Anti Federalist]

He's lucky they didn't ping him with a 101 code enforcement violations when they came to take his statement.

If you aren't doing anything wrong.....:rolleyes:

This fellow was "Mr. Law and Order" too.

He thought he was in compliance, that the firearm in question had been "grandfathered" when new restrictions went in place.

Doom on him.

[Anti Federalist]

//

[phill4paul]

This fellow was "Mr. Law and Order" too.

He thought he was in compliance, that the firearm in question had been "grandfathered" when new restrictions went in place.

Doom on him.

Doom on every one of us brother. A thief may steal our property but the government can steal our lives.

[angelatc]

Y
I wonder what all of the anti-Benton people have to say about this.

Just for posterity's sake, my husband said he hopes Benton gets a stiff penalty for the lying thind, because he's still a dick.

[phill4paul]

Just for posterity's sake, my husband said he hopes Benton gets a stiff penalty for the lying thind, because he's still a dick.

I don't. It's bullshit. I hope no one ever gets caught up in the Fed spiderweb because due to my my dislike. I hope he skates. On this charge.

[69360]

Benton didn't do anything that any other political campaign has and will do. He just made the mistake of talking to the cops and getting caught.

[65fastback2+2]

It is probably something like telling them he didn't send an email/text when they have records showing otherwise, while at the end of the day, whether he sent it or not had no relevance to the case.

i agree this is probably it.

I was talking from the standpoint of the actual convictions and actual evidence...not whatever made up stuff the government tried to pin on him

[erowe1]

i wonder why everything in the courts has to do with "electricity'.. "circuit" courts... people get "charged" etc

That battery of words is current, but met with some resistance. They have their positives and negatives. I don't have the power to be a transformer of them. Might as well let them be static.

[phill4paul]

Benton didn't do anything that any other political campaign has and will do. He just made the mistake of talking to the cops and getting caught.

It is soooo awesome when ethical people use unethical means to throw it back in the face of unethical f*ckers. Really shows them how their unethical tactics mean nothing in the face of ethical tactics that will prevail. Even by using unethical tactics.

[cindy25]

isn't the ultimate solution to abolish the FEC?

[Anti Federalist]

I don't. It's bullshit. I hope no one ever gets caught up in the Fed spiderweb because due to my my dislike. I hope he skates. On this charge.

I cannot stand Benton or "Bentonism", but I gotta agree with this.

I wouldn't wish cops and feds on my worst enemy.

[Matt Collins]

MSM = convenient scapegoat. Does media influence elections? Hell's yes! But, if this is just a fact of life we may as well just throw in the towel, right? Boots on the ground = grassroots. The only thing that can counter MSM and it's status-quo drivers.
I agree, and we got really close. I mean we almost won it, we were on track to win it. But with the race being so tight, the media was able to swing it a couple of points, and that is what made the difference.

[Badger Paul]

"I agree, and we got really close. I mean we almost won it, we were on track to win it."

So what was the point then of trying to get Kent Sorenson's support? Was he an influential person like VanderPlatts? Did he have a bloc of voters or organization ready to help RP win Iowa? Why? This "Tea Party" SOB betrayed Paul from the very beginning for supporting Bachmann and as it turned out he did so only because he was getting paid. A scum sucker like that does not deserve any kind of attention let alone laundering money to pay him for his support. Not only is it disgusting and demeaning to what RP stood for, it was also stupid politics. Kent Sorenson's support was not going to win the Iowa caucuses for Ron Paul any more than it was helping Bachmann at the time. Yet Paul supporters spend more time trying to deal with him than boning up to get out the vote for Paul. Brilliant.

You know what this tells me? Neither you nor anyone else in the claque are very wise or clever Collins. If a so-called amateur like myself could see how dumb this scheme was from my home (as well as countless others, I'm sure) why you think you're some sort of font of political wisdom is beyond me. Blame the media all you want but the truth is, you fellows just aren't that bright and things just fell apart as a result.

[Matt Collins]

"I agree, and we got really close. I mean we almost won it, we were on track to win it."

So what was the point then of trying to get Kent Sorenson's support? Was he an influential person like VanderPlatts? Did he have a bloc of voters or organization ready to help RP win Iowa? Why? This "Tea Party" SOB betrayed Paul from the very beginning for supporting Bachmann and as it turned out he did so only because he was getting paid. A scum sucker like that does not deserve any kind of attention let alone laundering money to pay him for his support. Not only is it disgusting and demeaning to what RP stood for, it was also stupid politics. Kent Sorenson's support was not going to win the Iowa caucuses for Ron Paul any more than it was helping Bachmann at the time. Yet Paul supporters spend more time trying to deal with him than boning up to get out the vote for Paul. Brilliant.

You know what this tells me? Neither you nor anyone else in the claque are very wise or clever Collins. If a so-called amateur like myself could see how dumb this scheme was from my home (as well as countless others, I'm sure) why you think you're some sort of font of political wisdom is beyond me. Blame the media all you want but the truth is, you fellows just aren't that bright and things just fell apart as a result.
I was not involved in the Iowa effort in any way other than the Ames Straw Poll in late summer of 2011.

[helmuth_hubener]

I was not involved in the Iowa effort in any way other than the Ames Straw Poll in late summer of 2011.

But what you did do, is pick the wrong friends.

[Crashland]

This reminds me of a situation where all charges against someone can be dropped except for resisting arrest. Why not resist if I know I've done nothing wrong?

Someone would say "Well why resist if you did nothing wrong? It can all be sorted out later". After seeing the horror stories of some of these people dying in lock up without food or medication, people still have the gall to ask why you wouldn't want to go to jail. It's a risk I'm not willing to take.

The police are not the judge and jury. There is such a thing as a lawful arrest even if you are ultimately found to be innocent...

IMO, resisting arrest because you fear being harmed by police is self-contradictory, because resisting dramatically increases the chances of you being harmed.

[erowe1]

The police are not the judge and jury. There is such a thing as a lawful arrest even if you are ultimately found to be innocent...


If you are innocent of any crime, then how could it be wrong of you to resist me if I tried to arrest you?

[Crashland]

If you are innocent of any crime, then how could it be wrong of you to resist me if I tried to arrest you?

For the same reason you are compelled to have your things searched or seized when there is probable cause.

[erowe1]

For the same reason you are compelled to have your things searched or seized when there is probable cause.

If you are innocent, then why would it be wrong for you to resist having me search or seize your things?

[twomp]

For the same reason you are compelled to have your things searched or seized when there is probable cause.

If you aren't doing anything illegal then what's wrong with letting the government read your email?

[Crashland]

If you aren't doing anything illegal then what's wrong with letting the government read your email?

I don't have a problem with your emails being searched if there is probable cause that you have committed a crime and that those emails are relevant to that crime, and a warrant has been issued. All of the above CAN happen even if you have not committed a crime.

[Crashland]

If you are innocent, then why would it be wrong for you to resist having me search or seize your things?

Do you think warrants are unlawful because you haven't yet been convicted? The police aren't the judge and jury. And not just the police, anyone can perform a lawful arrest even if the person insists they are innocent. If it is in question, the courts can determine whether the arrest was in fact lawful.

[hells_unicorn]

Do you think warrants are unlawful because you haven't yet been convicted? The police aren't the judge and jury. And not just the police, anyone can perform a lawful arrest even if the person insists they are innocent. If it is in question, the courts can determine whether the arrest was in fact lawful.

I agree in principle with the point that there is a lawful basis for probable cause and arrest warrants. Where I disagree is on whether an individual has the right to resist if said factors are being acted upon unlawfully. Police are not the judge and jury, but they also should not be exempt from entrapment laws, which sadly they are at the federal level. Similarly, while prosecutors are afforded a certain degree of latitude in order to try criminals, they should not be exempt from perjury laws, which presently they are.

Both law enforcement and prosecutors are capable of becoming tyrants if they are given too much power, and the flagrant abuse of law that has been observed of late should clue people in on the fact that America has some real problems in this department.

[Crashland]

I agree in principle with the point that there is a lawful basis for probable cause and arrest warrants. Where I disagree is on whether an individual has the right to resist if said factors are being acted upon unlawfully. Police are not the judge and jury, but they also should not be exempt from entrapment laws, which sadly they are at the federal level. Similarly, while prosecutors are afforded a certain degree of latitude in order to try criminals, they should not be exempt from perjury laws, which presently they are.

Both law enforcement and prosecutors are capable of becoming tyrants if they are given too much power, and the flagrant abuse of law that has been observed of late should clue people in on the fact that America has some real problems in this department.

100% agree.
I think, you are within your right to resist an unlawful arrest. But it is not always clear whether or not a court might find that the arrest was lawful, especially since the person being arrested may not be aware of all contextual information at the time. If it is obviously an unlawful arrest (as in, you think a court would side with you) AND it appears to be a dangerous situation, then I think it would be appropriate to evaluate whether or not it is worth the risk (of both the physical danger and the risk of the courts not going in your favor) to resist, which you would be within your rights to do.