Jesse Benton, Dimitri Kesari, and John Tate have been convicted

[kylejack]

In the payment for endorsement scheme.

https://twitter.com/GrantMRodgers/status/728264693903548417
https://twitter.com/GrantMRodgers/status/728266201034461190
https://twitter.com/GrantMRodgers/status/728266927982792706

[Brian4Liberty]

Hillary Clinton could hand out those big 4 foot checks in exchange for endorsements on national TV every day of the week and there would never be an indictment or prosecution. She could also take huge bribes in exchange for favors. Oh wait, everyone knows about that already.

[phill4paul]

A court of law has determined he is innocent. When it comes to breaking the law, that is all that matters.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?483985-Key-Ron-and-Rand-Paul-advisor-Jesse-Benton-acquitted-in-Iowa-corruption-trial

What say you now Matt Collins.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?483985-Key-Ron-and-Rand-Paul-advisor-Jesse-Benton-acquitted-in-Iowa-corruption-trial

What say you now Matt Collins.

My first thought was double-jeopardy, but I assume they found some way around that. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[Matt Collins]

Here are the details to the story:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/05/05/former-ron-paul-aides-guilty-payment-scandal-kent-sorenson-michele-bachmann-jesse-benton-dimitri-kesari-john-tate/83968234/



If a court of law found them guilty then under the law they are guilty.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here are the details to the story:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/05/05/former-ron-paul-aides-guilty-payment-scandal-kent-sorenson-michele-bachmann-jesse-benton-dimitri-kesari-john-tate/83968234/



If a court of law found them guilty then under the law they are guilty.

Guess they were extra motivated to hunt down political corruption...


The trial was a rare second try for the federal government to convict the operatives after an earlier prosecution last year ended with mixed results. A grand jury indicted the three operatives on several charges that were first announced on Aug. 5, including conspiracy, causing false records, causing false campaign expenditure reports and false statements scheme.

But U.S. District Judge John Jarvey dismissed the charges entirely against Tate and all but one charge against Benton ahead of a trial that began in October.

The dismissals, which left the door open for new prosecutions using different evidence, came after Jarvey found prosecutors wrongly used evidence gathered in FBI interviews with Benton and Tate to secure indictments from the grand jury. Both operatives participated in the interviews after signing so-called proffer agreements that bar prosecutors from using their statements as evidence against them in a wide variety of charges, according to the Associated Press.

Benton was acquitted at the first trial of a single count of lying to FBI agents.

Interesting. So dismissing the charges before a trial that would probably result in a loss for the prosecution allows them to regroup and try it again.

[cajuncocoa]

Hillary Clinton could hand out those big 4 foot checks in exchange for endorsements on national TV every day of the week and there would never be an indictment or prosecution. She could also take huge bribes in exchange for favors. Oh wait, everyone knows about that already.
I never did care for the "she did it, so I should be able to get away with it too" defense. Maybe Hillary's judgment day is yet to come. I hope it does, but if not, that still doesn't excuse Jesse Benton.

[Brian4Liberty]

I never did care for the "she did it, so I should be able to get away with it too" defense. Maybe Hillary's judgment day is yet to come. I hope it does, but if not, that still doesn't excuse Jesse Benton.

Not meant as a defense at all. More a statement about unequal enforcement of the law.

[younglibertarian]

Wonder if Ron ever knew about this.

[phill4paul]

Wonder if Ron ever knew about this.

I doubt it. This was handled at the RonPaul, Inc. level. I don't think he payed much attention to the day to day operation.

[LibertyEagle]

I think this is sad.

[timosman]

They should have invited Sorenson to give a 1hr speech for the staffers at a heavily discounted rate. Or that would be illegal too? :confused:

[phill4paul]

Wonder if Ron ever knew about this.

From 2014.


On the stand, Mr. Paul seemed barely to know who Mr. Sorenson was. He recalled being annoyed by the suddenness of a news conference called for Mr. Sorenson to endorse him in December 2011, days before the Iowa caucuses.

He denied any knowledge of payments made for the endorsement. Asked by the defense if he felt victimized by former aides, Mr. Paul, a lifelong critic of federal overreach, grew animated. “I blame the government,” he said. “How can I be a victim of my staff?”

Mr. Paul said he took a dim view of all political endorsements, recalling a 1996 race for Congress, when Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the House, lined up endorsements for a rival in the Republican primary. Mr. Paul said his sole endorsement was by the baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan — and he won.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/14/ron-paul-testifies-reluctantly-at-trial-of-his-former-aides/

[Peace&Freedom]

Not meant as a defense at all. More a statement about unequal enforcement of the law.

Indeed. if this were Hillary who was facing these charges, they would still be "investigating" the matter years later, with no wrap up in sight.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah they probably shouldn't have done it, but you do realize that? ....

1 - this law is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate campaigns

2- this is purely politically motivated. The case against Jesse was already thrown out previously, but they decided to try again.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah they probably shouldn't have done it, but you do realize that? ....

1 - this law is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate campaigns

2- this is purely politically motivated. The case against Jesse was already thrown out previously, but they decided to try again.

When is the sentencing? Do you know?

[New York For Paul]

Endorsements tend to be overrated. Reagan was barely endorsed by anyone early on. Well many people tried to warn the campaign about problems.

[erowe1]

Yeah they probably shouldn't have done it, but you do realize that? ....

1 - this law is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate campaigns

2- this is purely politically motivated. The case against Jesse was already thrown out previously, but they decided to try again.

You're probably right.

But the good news is that we hopefully won't have to ever worry about Benton's slimy paws touching another campaign of Rand's. Don't you agree?

[phill4paul]

Endorsements tend to be overrated. Reagan was barely endorsed by anyone early on. Well many people tried to warn the campaign about problems.

Yeah, well that was $73k worth of overrated donated by thin pockets.

[Feelgood]

Yeah they probably shouldn't have done it, but you do realize that? ....

1 - this law is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate campaigns

Constitution? What's that?

[helmuth_hubener]

Yeah they probably shouldn't have done it
Oh, what a bold, courageous denouncement of corruption, Mr. Collins. What a strong stand you have against corruption and deceit. Remind me to make you head of the Ethics Committee.

You picked the wrong friends, Collins. You picked the wrong friends. These guys were, and are, bad news. They're slimy. You knew that. Everybody knew that. Everybody who ever worked with them knew that. And you are very much tarnished by your association with and defense of them.

[TNforPaul45]

I never did care for the "she did it, so I should be able to get away with it too" defense. Maybe Hillary's judgment day is yet to come. I hope it does, but if not, that still doesn't excuse Jesse Benton.

THANK you!

[Matt Collins]

Oh, what a bold, courageous denouncement of corruption, Mr. Collins. What a strong stand you have against corruption and deceit. Remind me to make you head of the Ethics Committee.

You picked the wrong friends, Collins. You picked the wrong friends. These guys were, and are, bad news. They're slimy. You knew that. Everybody knew that. Everybody who ever worked with them knew that. And you are very much tarnished by your association with and defense of them.
No, I had no idea about any of this until it was public actually. In fact they were very adamant about following FEC rules and not deviating from them. As I said they shouldn't have done this, but the law they were convicted under is unconstitutional.

[Anti Federalist]

Just another day in AmeriKa...

[acptulsa]

Oh, what a bold, courageous denouncement of corruption, Mr. Collins. What a strong stand you have against corruption and deceit. Remind me to make you head of the Ethics Committee.

You picked the wrong friends, Collins. You picked the wrong friends. These guys were, and are, bad news. They're slimy. You knew that. Everybody knew that. Everybody who ever worked with them knew that. And you are very much tarnished by your association with and defense of them.

Oh, I'm sure the way he's wandering around Ron Paul Forums lobbing bricks at Ron Paul for giving Republicans lukewarm endorsements is also taking the shine off...

[heavenlyboy34]

Here are the details to the story:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/05/05/former-ron-paul-aides-guilty-payment-scandal-kent-sorenson-michele-bachmann-jesse-benton-dimitri-kesari-john-tate/83968234/



If a court of law found them guilty then under the law they are guilty.

Bullshit. Courts of law routinely find innocent people guilty. http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/

[Matt Collins]

Bullshit. Courts of law routinely find innocent people guilty. http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/
No, read what I wrote. I said that they are guilty under the law. The law now considers them guilty whether they perpetrated the act or not.

[erowe1]

Well, if Benton gets any prison time, I just hope Collins is allowed to have conjugal visits.

[Anti Federalist]

Leave it to the professionals, they said.

You grassroots kooks are making us look bad, they said.

Endorsements are meaningless, shut up and sit down, they said.

[Anti Federalist]

No, read what I wrote. I said that they are guilty under the law. The law now considers them guilty whether they perpetrated the act or not.

Pffft...the law is an ass.

And what law?

I would bet a month's pay that no law was broken, a law in the sense that a bill was presented to Congress, voted on and approved, sent to the Senate, voted and approved and then signed by a President.

No, what I bet they are going to jail for is noncompliance with a government fatwa, a dictate decreed by the FEC.

Issued in a dictatorship

[presence]

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, May 5, 2016



Three Members of 2012 Presidential Campaign Staff Guilty of Concealing Campaign Expenditures to State Senator Three members of a 2012 presidential campaign committee were convicted by a federal jury in Des Moines, Iowa, on all counts of an indictment charging the concealment of campaign expenditures made to secure the endorsement of an Iowa State Senator.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Assistant Director in Charge Paul M. Abbate of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.
“Concealing and falsely reporting campaign expenditures undermines the integrity and transparency of the federal election process,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “When political operatives secretly buy an elected official’s political support, it undermines public confidence in our entire political system.”
“Violating campaign finance transparency laws by falsifying expenditure records and reports deceives the public and facilitates corruption,” said Assistant Director in Charge Abbate. “The FBI will aggressively investigate those who corrupt the integrity of our democratic process. I want to thank the special agents, analysts and prosecutors who worked diligently to see this case through to today’s result.”
Jesse R. Benton, 38, of Louisville, Kentucky, and John M. Tate, 53, of Warrenton, Virginia,

were convicted of conspiracy,
causing false records to obstruct a contemplated investigation,
causing the submission of false campaign expenditure reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and
engaging in a scheme to make false statements to the FEC.


Dimitrios N. Kesari, 50, of Leesburg, Virginia, was convicted of the same offenses, except causing false campaign expenditure reports, for which he was previously convicted by a jury in a separate trial in October 2015.

Chief Judge John A. Jarvey of the Southern District of Iowa noted that he would schedule sentencing for a later date.
The defendants were the senior leadership of a campaign for a candidate in the 2012 presidential election. According to the indictment, former Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson initially supported one candidate in the 2012 presidential election, but between October and December 2011, negotiated with the defendants to switch his support to their candidate in exchange for money. On December 28, 2011, at a political event in Des Moines, Iowa, Sorenson publicly announced his switch of support.
Evidence at trial proved that the campaign expenditures to Sorenson were made in monthly installments of approximately $8,000 each and ultimately amounted to over $70,000. The defendants concealed the payments by causing them to be recorded – both in campaign accounting records and in FEC filings – as campaign-related audio-visual expenditures, and by causing them to be transmitted to a film production company and then to a second company that was controlled by Sorenson. The conspirators concealed their campaign’s payments to Sorenson from their candidate and also from the FEC, the FBI, and the public.
Trial evidence showed that in response to criticism of Sorenson’s change of support from one candidate to the other, the conspirators arranged for Sorenson to issue public statements denying allegations that he was offered money for his endorsement and noting that the campaign committee’s FEC filings would show that it made no payments to Sorenson.
On August 27, 2014, Sorenson pled guilty to causing a campaign committee to falsely report its expenditures to the FEC and to obstruction of justice. He has not yet been sentenced.
The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, with assistance from the Omaha, Nebraska, Field Office and the Des Moines Resident Agency. The case is being prosecuted by Director Richard C. Pilger of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch, Deputy Chief J.P. Cooney, and Trial Attorney Jonathan I. Kravis.



16-537


Criminal Division (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/)



Updated May 5, 2016

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-members-2012-presidential-campaign-staff-guilty-concealing-campaign-expenditures-state

[presence]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001


18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally



(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

[Matt Collins]

No, what I bet they are going to jail for is noncompliance with a government fatwa, a dictate decreed by the FEC.

Issued in a dictatorship
Yes, that is my point. The law they broke is an unconstitutional law to begin with.

[angelatc]

Yes, that is my point. The law they broke is an unconstitutional law to begin with.

State' rights

[Anti Federalist]

I received a rep comment on my above post that states that it was IA law they were convicted under.

But then I read this in the OP:


Benton, Tate and Kesari all left the federal courthouse in Des Moines

Federal jurors returned guilty verdicts Thursday

I'm left to ask, what "law" was violated, and if it was state law, why are the fedcoats prosecuting it?

ETA - In regard to presence's post: the OP also says they were acquitted of the Sec 1001 charges.

[presence]

hmm... confused then, I thought it was section 1001... I'll dig deeper

[LibertyEagle]

Leave it to the professionals, they said.

You grassroots kooks are making us look bad, they said.

Endorsements are meaningless, shut up and sit down, they said.

What the heck is your point, AF? That throwing snowballs at the media, or doing wholesale mailouts to Republican voters that linked to "911 was an inside job" videos, would somehow have won the day?

[LibertyEagle]

Oh, I'm sure the way he's wandering around Ron Paul Forums lobbing bricks at Ron Paul for giving Republicans lukewarm endorsements is also taking the shine off...

What I have seen him do is to remind people that RP also made some not-so-great endorsements, when some here are attacking other individuals for doing same. It seems that people don't want to be reminded of that fact.

[presence]

http://i.imgur.com/ab8iK8r.png



18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)





US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)
Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)


prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/351) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372)
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.






18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)





US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)
Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)


prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3)
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a
principal.






18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)





US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)


prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1518) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1520)
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 802(a) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ204/html/PLAW-107publ204.htm), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 800 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=116&page=800).)











18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 18 - APPENDIX
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Rule 52 - Harmless and Plain Error
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov (http://www.gpo.gov)

Rule 52. Harmless and Plain Error

(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.
(b) Plain Error. A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention.
(As amended Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)




see 30104 and 30109 here
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section30104&num=0&edition=prelim
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:52%20section:30109%20editi on:prelim%29

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001


18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally



(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

[Anti Federalist]

What the heck is your point, AF? That throwing snowballs at the media, or doing wholesale mailouts to Republican voters that linked to "911 was an inside job" videos, would somehow have won the day?

My point is the same that I have been making for years now.

The "professionals" thought the grassroots were a bunch of kooks and an embarrassment.

They made it clear that they neither wanted nor needed our "help", starting in 2012 and running right through to 2016 (but they'll take our money, thank you very much).

That discouraged and "disenfranchised" the loose but vibrant coalition we had assembled starting in 2007.

So much so that there was no energy at all in 2016.

And the result was a failed Paul campaign that was over before NH.

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks, I stand corrected, it does appear to be "law".

+rep

And also goes to show there is no such thing as this anymore:

[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb


http://i.imgur.com/ab8iK8r.png













https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[Anti Federalist]

What I have seen him do is to remind people that RP also made some not-so-great endorsements, when some here are attacking other individuals for doing same. It seems that people don't want to be reminded of that fact.

Going on Hannity's show to endorse Mitt Romney over your own father because of "politics", more than likely on the advice of one of these now convicted felons, is much more than "not so great".

That is Chernobyl level lack of foresight and planning.

[LibertyEagle]

My point is the same that I have been making for years now.

The "professionals" thought the grassroots were a bunch of kooks and an embarrassment.

They made it clear that they neither wanted nor needed our "help", starting in 2012 and running right through to 2016 (but they'll take our money, thank you very much).

That discouraged and "disenfranchised" the loose but vibrant coalition we had assembled starting in 2007.

So much so that there was no energy at all in 2016.

And the result was a failed Paul campaign that was over before NH.

Oh bullshit, AF. They always wanted help from the grassroots. But, they wanted the grassroots to help the campaign on the things that all successful campaigns must do. Things like phone-banking, handing out campaign literature door-to-door, canvassing, getting out the vote, etc. What you seem to be talking about is the grassroots doing WHATEVER THE HELL THAT THE GRASSROOTS WANTED TO DO and to hell with whether it contradicted with what the campaign was doing, or harmed it. Yeah, that doesn't work and it has NEVER worked.

Working against your candidate's campaign is what the competitors do; it isn't what people do who support the candidate.

[Anti Federalist]

What the heck is your point, AF? That throwing snowballs at the media, or doing wholesale mailouts to Republican voters that linked to "911 was an inside job" videos, would somehow have won the day?

And 9/11 was an inside job.

The release of the redacted documents will prove that.

Saudi involvement and inside protection within the US government.

Inside Job.

That said, would it do us any good?

Of course not...Idiot AmeriKa does not want the truth.

[LibertyEagle]

Going on Hannity's show to endorse Mitt Romney over your own father because of "politics", more than likely on the advice of one of these now convicted felons, is much more than "not so great".

That is Chernobyl level lack of foresight and planning.

Yeah, I agree. But dragging him through the mud afterwards for months, if not longer, is not so brilliant either; unless said person intended to stick a knife in the candidate's back and twist it.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh bullshit, AF. They always wanted help from the grassroots. But, they wanted the grassroots to help the campaign on the things that all successful campaigns must do. Things like phone-banking, handing out campaign literature door-to-door, canvassing, getting out the vote, etc. What you seem to be talking about is the grassroots doing WHATEVER THE HELL THAT THE GRASSROOTS WANTED TO DO and to hell with whether it contradicted with what the campaign was doing, or harmed it. Yeah, that doesn't work and it has NEVER worked.

Working against your candidate's campaign is what the competitors do; it isn't what people do who support the candidate.

You can jump up and down and scream bullshit all you want.

I know what I saw in NH.

[LibertyEagle]

And 9/11 was an inside job.

The release of the redacted documents will prove that.

Saudi involvement and inside protection within the US government.

Inside Job.

That said, would it do us any good?

Of course not...Idiot AmeriKa does not want the truth.

So, it's good to work against the candidate, mailing out things to prospective voters with the candidate's name on them, that are not in the candidate's platform, eh?

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, I agree. But dragging him through the mud afterwards for months, if not longer, is not so brilliant either; unless said person intended to stick a knife in the candidate's back and twist it.

I made my case, vented my anger then mostly left it alone.

You will find no record of me posting over and over, every day, about the subject.

But I will admit that, and the cold shoulder that "we" got from the official campaign, and the complete soldiering of the Northern Pass issue in NH, left a foul taste in my mouth and lot of other people's as well.

And they sat out 2016.

And you see what the result was.

[Anti Federalist]

So, it's good to work against the candidate, mailing out things to prospective voters with the candidate's name on them, that are not in the candidate's platform, eh?

No, I admitted that it probably wouldn't do any good.

At the same time, so what, fight through it move on.

The harm it may have done was more than offset by the enthusiasm and work done that was productive.

[LibertyEagle]

I made my case, vented my anger then mostly left it alone.

You will find no record of me posting over and over, every day, about the subject.

But I will admit that, and the cold shoulder that "we" got from the official campaign, and the complete soldiering of the Northern Pass issue in NH, left a foul taste in my mouth and lot of other people's as well.

And they sat out 2016.

And you see what the result was.

You're talking Ron's campaign with respect to the Northern Pass issue, right?

As I recall, you were none to fond of Rand and posted about that many, many times. So, excuse me if I doubt the only reason you or your comrades sat it out in '16 was because of Ron's campaign. Which by the way, were entirely different people than Rand's.

[Anti Federalist]

You're talking Ron's campaign with respect to the Northern Pass issue, right?

As I recall, you were none to fond of Rand and posted about that many, many times. So, excuse me if I doubt the only reason you or your comrades sat it out in '16 was because of Ron's campaign. Which by the way, were entirely different people than Rand's.

No, I think you are recalling wrong.

I met Rand at the Fanueil Hall "Tea Party" rally back in 2007.

I was impressed by his speech then and supported his campaign for Senate, with donations.

My one and single negative issue with Rand, was that damn endorsement, its timing and content.

That called into question any number of issues of judgement, in my mind.

But past my initial anger at that, I don't recall saying much...I sat on my hands mostly, outside of donating during a couple of the lukewarm "money bombs".


Which by the way, were entirely different people than Rand's

Right, precisely my point.

You see how reliable and enthusiastic those people were.

I mentioned "money bombs"...hell the "straights" couldn't break a million on any of them, IIRC.

That's who the campaign jettisoned all us kooks in order to go and court and whisper in their collective ears.

Great plan, that. :rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

You're talking Ron's campaign with respect to the Northern Pass issue, right?

Yes.

I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt, that, had they run with that, from a property rights/anti-eminent domain perspective, he could have won NH.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes.

I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt, that, had they run with that, from a property rights/anti-eminent domain perspective, he could have won NH.

He might would have, but he still would have lost the nomination and badly.

[Anti Federalist]

He might would have, but he still would have lost the nomination and badly.

Well, we don't know that...but all I could do is what I could do in my home state.

He probably would have lost the general as well, since he is very wrong about one thing.

Freedom is not popular, people do not want it and will actively fight against you to get it.

[Anti Federalist]

So, it's good to work against the candidate, mailing out things to prospective voters with the candidate's name on them, that are not in the candidate's platform, eh?

I was just going through a file folder I keep filled with clippings and memorabilia, from both campaigns.

Unless I'm mistaken, the only instance of a mailer going out with any reference to 9/11 was the "super flyer".

Am I correct in this?

Or were there others I missed?

[Matt Collins]

Going on Hannity's show to endorse Mitt Romney over your own father False... Ron was no longer seeking the nomination.

[Matt Collins]

The "professionals" thought the grassroots were a bunch of kooks and an embarrassment.

They made it clear that they neither wanted nor needed our "help", starting in 2012 and running right through to 2016 (but they'll take our money, thank you very much).

That discouraged and "disenfranchised" the loose but vibrant coalition we had assembled starting in 2007.Only half-wrong.... they wanted the real kooks out, those who hurt the cause and embarrassed the candidate, but the solid activists were the backbone of the campaign.






So much so that there was no energy at all in 2016.

And the result was a failed Paul campaign that was over before NH.No, that was different reasons... the way that Rand endorsed Romney hurt him, and his lack of attention to the grassroots (and in some cases actively disenfranchising) is what caused him to be a non-starter.

I don't think he could've beaten Trump, because he wasn't willing to out-do him, but he still should not have done worse than Ron did in '08 in Iowa, and that's what happened.

[LibertyEagle]

I was just going through a file folder I keep filled with clippings and memorabilia, from both campaigns.

Unless I'm mistaken, the only instance of a mailer going out with any reference to 9/11 was the "super flyer".

Am I correct in this?

Or were there others I missed?

Yes, I think that's correct. Although, supporters weren't shy to link him to it.

[presence]

I believe that if we ever get the full truth, we’ll find out that our government had it in the records exactly what the plans were, or at least close to it.

[Anti Federalist]

False... Ron was no longer seeking the nomination.

You can say "false" all you want, Collins, and you can also kiss my ass all you want.

"The Campaign" was still sending out letters and emails with Ron's name on it, looking for donations to continue.

So, that leaves us with only two options:

1 - Rand threw his dad under the bus and chose Romney over his old man for purely political points, that turned out to be worthless.

2 - Ron Paul grifted and scammed thousands of well meaning people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by disingenuously sending out messages to donate and continue the effort in 2012.

It's one or two, pick one.

Anything else is bullshit and spin.

[Anti Federalist]

Only half-wrong.... they wanted the real kooks out, those who hurt the cause and embarrassed the candidate, but the solid activists were the backbone of the campaign.

So, who decided who the "real kooks" were?

You?

These convicted felons?

God?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, I think that's correct. Although, supporters weren't shy to link him to it.

Many of his supporters are people just like me, that have smelled a rat since day one WRT to what happened on 9/11.

Ron Paul's number one attribute is his political honesty.

It would make sense that people who want the truth and honesty would support him.

I cannot, in a million years, imagine him as president and keeping the missing 9/11 paperwork secret.

[pcosmar]

I cannot, in a million years, imagine him as president and keeping the missing 9/11 paperwork secret.

I heard a statement from his mouth,, and I know of no tube.

He said he would open the books,, with regard to CIA activities.. and end the agency.

I still remember it and my reaction to it. It was scary bold.

[Matt Collins]

So, who decided who the "real kooks" were?It was fairly obvious

[dannno]

It was fairly obvious

So you don't believe in a kook spectrum?

[jmdrake]

My first thought was double-jeopardy, but I assume they found some way around that. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Double jeapordy only applies if you've been tried and found innocent. If the charges against you are dismissed then double jeapordy does not apply. Yeah...it kinda makes absolutely no sense.

[Brian4Liberty]

Double jeapordy only applies if you've been tried and found innocent. If the charges against you are dismissed then double jeapordy does not apply. Yeah...it kinda makes absolutely no sense.

Convenient option for the prosecution. "Looks like we might lose this one. Drop or dismiss, we'll try again after discovering more evidence."

[K466]

These guys are hard to defend, but what they did (trade) was consistent with libertarianism and therefore should be legal.

I don't care if the law is constitutional (it's probably not).
I don't care if they broke the law decree (probably did).
I don't care if Ron Paul knew about it.

All that matters is whether they should have the right to do it.

[phill4paul]

These guys are hard to defend, but what they did (trade) was consistent with libertarianism and therefore should be legal.

I don't care if the law is constitutional (it's probably not).
I don't care if they broke the law decree (probably did).
I don't care if Ron Paul knew about it.

All that matters is whether they should have the right to do it.

I didn't see the trade-off as worth it. In the scheme of things $75k may not be much but that was a hard come by for many supporters with thin wallets. Personally if I'd have known this is what they were doing with the money then I might not have put as much in the kitty.

[presence]

I heard a statement from his mouth,, and I know of no tube.

He said he would open the books,, with regard to CIA activities.. and end the agency.

I still remember it and my reaction to it. It was scary bold.


Ron Paul wants to eliminate the CIA and the FBI WTF?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZKLvEOp9c

Ron Paul: End Torture, Shut Down the CIA!
http://personalliberty.com/ron-paul-end-torture-shut-cia/

Ron Paul CIA Using The Drug War To Fund Covert Ops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz1UTnT8NZA

Ron Paul Exposes CIA & Federal Reserves's drug running business on Alex Jones TV 1/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjwHHKp3GE

Ron Paul On The FBI And CIA 1980
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=26f_1318473658

1988 Ron Paul talks about the CIA trafficking drugs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGL96FIiZkU

Ron Paul on CIA drug running - 1/23/10 speech Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv1vvRv1EW0

[phill4paul]

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the CIA and the FBI WTF?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZKLvEOp9c

Ron Paul: End Torture, Shut Down the CIA!
http://personalliberty.com/ron-paul-end-torture-shut-cia/

Ron Paul CIA Using The Drug War To Fund Covert Ops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz1UTnT8NZA

Ron Paul Exposes CIA & Federal Reserves's drug running business on Alex Jones TV 1/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjwHHKp3GE

Ron Paul On The FBI And CIA 1980
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=26f_1318473658

1988 Ron Paul talks about the CIA trafficking drugs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGL96FIiZkU

Ron Paul on CIA drug running - 1/23/10 speech Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv1vvRv1EW0

Where the hell is a candidate like Ron this election cycle? No one has the brass like Ron. There may never be another like him.

[pcosmar]

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the CIA and the FBI WTF?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZKLvEOp9c

Ron Paul: End Torture, Shut Down the CIA!
http://personalliberty.com/ron-paul-end-torture-shut-cia/

Ron Paul CIA Using The Drug War To Fund Covert Ops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz1UTnT8NZA

Ron Paul Exposes CIA & Federal Reserves's drug running business on Alex Jones TV 1/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtjwHHKp3GE

Ron Paul On The FBI And CIA 1980
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=26f_1318473658

1988 Ron Paul talks about the CIA trafficking drugs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGL96FIiZkU

Ron Paul on CIA drug running - 1/23/10 speech Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv1vvRv1EW0

did not have video

I heard it from the man's mouth live in person.

it sent chills and Irie.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Hillary Clinton could hand out those big 4 foot checks in exchange for endorsements on national TV every day of the week and there would never be an indictment or prosecution. She could also take huge bribes in exchange for favors. Oh wait, everyone knows about that already.

If you are a connected member of the elite you can get away with murder (oh, yeah, they did already...)

[ChristianAnarchist]

Where the hell is a candidate like Ron this election cycle? No one has the brass like Ron. There may never be another like him.

Once every 200 years, I guess...

[groverblue]

What are the penalties? Prison time, fines, etc...

[Valli6]

What are the penalties? Prison time, fines, etc...
^This, and can they appeal?

[Anti Federalist]

It was fairly obvious

So you do not care to answer the question.

You know what I think is "kooky"?

Running a "pay for endorsement" scam right in the middle of one of the mostly closely watched and monitored election cycles in the history of the country, while managing the campaign of a man the system would like nothing more than to crucify, and then, like a dumb-ass, shoot your mouth off to cops and investigators when they come around with questions.

That's more than kooky, that's fucking crazy.

But what the fuck do I know, I'm just an ignorant and paranoid kook, amirite?

But I'm a kook that's not going to fucking prison today.

[timosman]

So you do not care to answer the question.

You know what I think is "kooky"?

Running a "pay for endorsement" scam right in the middle of one of the mostly closely watched and monitored election cycles in the history of the country, while managing the campaign of a man the system would like nothing more than to crucify, and then, like a dumb-ass, shoot your mouth off to cops and investigators when they come around with questions.

That's more than kooky, that's fucking crazy.

But what the fuck do I know, I'm just an ignorant and paranoid kook, amirite?

But I'm a kook that's not going to fucking prison today.

Was there any upside to this swindle worth the risk? :confused:

[Anti Federalist]

Was there any upside to this swindle worth the risk? :confused:

None that I can see.

Stupid move top to bottom, as far as I'm concerned.

I dunno though, maybe this how "professionals" do it.

[JK/SEA]

None that I can see.

Stupid move top to bottom, as far as I'm concerned.

I dunno though, maybe this how "professionals" do it.

the Tom Brady effect.

[K466]

I didn't see the trade-off as worth it. In the scheme of things $75k may not be much but that was a hard come by for many supporters with thin wallets. Personally if I'd have known this is what they were doing with the money then I might not have put as much in the kitty.

Agreed. Was only addressing the legal situation.

[Matt Collins]

So you do not care to answer the question.
Actually yes I have.

And yes, the actions here were an embarrassment, even though the law they are being charged under is pretty much unconstitutional.

You know what I think is "kooky"?

Running a "pay for endorsement" scam right in the middle of one of the mostly closely watched and monitored election cycles in the history of the country, while managing the campaign of a man the system would like nothing more than to crucify, and then, like a dumb-ass, shoot your mouth off to cops and investigators when they come around with questions.

That's more than kooky, that's fucking crazy.

But what the fuck do I know, I'm just an ignorant and paranoid kook, amirite?

But I'm a kook that's not going to fucking prison today.
I don't disagree. Granted every other campaign was doing the same thing, but that doesn't mean that ours should have been.

Do keep in mind though that they weren't charged for that, they were essentially charged for covering it up.

[Natural Citizen]

I don't disagree. Granted every other campaign was doing the same thing, but that doesn't mean that ours should have been.

Do keep in mind though that they weren't charged for that, they were essentially charged for covering it up.

If they would have kept their mouths shut they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

[Anti Federalist]

If they would have kept their mouths shut they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.


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

[Warlord]

Ron Paul knew it all. Shame not enough people saw him as presidential material

[ChristianAnarchist]

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

Watch it -- Again and again. I've had my wife and son sit through it with me and it's a fantastic video...

[Anti Federalist]

Watch it -- Again and again. I've had my wife and son sit through it with me and it's a fantastic video...

Outstanding.

I have done the same, whole family watched it at dinner years ago.

I must have posted that 100 times if once.

Please, everybody, take 45 minutes and watch it.

Required viewing in a police state.