If Singh isn't prosecuted in Oregon he won't have to cut a favorable deal. If he doesn't have to cut a favorable deal then he d won't have to roll on anyone ie throw co-conspirators under the buss. No co-conspirator's then the DPO and their minions are off the hook; Shazam !
Yes, because in essence DPO and aligned groups are their client. They're the ones who keep them in power and/or in the jobs they have. Unless and until there is an actual threat posed to their positions/livelihoods by someone or something outside DPO world, that's their client.
...and Oregon media has broken its neck looking the other way. It leads to a question: has anyone trolled the political contributions to desperate Tina for other weird money? Gosh, you'd think someone with subpoena power (and the state's alternative-media weekly in her pocket) might want to do that, since she's retiring and won't have to belly-up to the political contributions bar.
Oregon voters, being stupid, actually have a viable new AG in Will Lathrop. Think they have the brains, not to mention the guts, to elect him?
If Lathrop looked like Rayfield, and vice versa, he'd stand a much better chance. As it is, too many Democrats will look at Lathrop and read "not our tribe," especially when seen side by side with someone who could be the dictionary illustration of a white upper middle class liberal professional man.
Thanks for staying on this Mr. Eager. 'Money is the root of all evil' or something to that effect, seems especially so in politics. The forgotten story is the many that lost investments through these schemes, I guess neither major party cares about the little guy.
sounds like the state of Oregon is embracing lawlessness. perhaps we need a posse comitatus to come to our rescue. how does a citizen recall its criminal leaders?
Do you think the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Dan Rayfield, has any interest in doing the right thing in this case? And can his opponent, Will Lathrop, be persuaded to make this a big issue in the campaign?
Is there anyone in Oregon's Establishment (I use that term loosely) who would confront ORDOJ Criminal Justice Division Chief Counsel Michael Slauson (whose email address is publicly available at the Oregon State Bar's member directory) or his boss the A.G. over Slauson's obtuse framing of the issues in a way that lets Singh off the hook?
Is there anyone with credibility in the right places who could write an open letter to Slauson making the same arguments you're making here?
Is it known whether any other states are pursuing campaign finance violations against Singh arising out of the same scheme?
This next part is both in the weeds and inside baseball, but bear with me:
"The second problem with Slauson’s framing is that he, and ORDOJ throughout its investigation, incorrectly believes, apparently, that ORDOJ would need to prove that Singh knowingly made the contribution in a false name. In fact, ORS 260.402(1), the portion of the statute that prohibits making donations in a false name, does not require the criminal act be committed “knowingly,” or by any other state of mind. ORS 260.402(2) prohibits knowingly receiving political contributions in a false name, but the legislature chose not to require that same state of mind when making a contribution."
At issue: Did the officials violate campaign finance laws by accepting a contribution from a foreign entity? Mueller determined he could not bring criminal charges.
Mueller analyzed whether such information could constitute something of value, and thus a contribution: "A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign 'documents and information' of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money. It expressly prohibits 'a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value.' The phrases 'thing of value' and 'anything of value' are broad and inclusive enough to encompass at least some forms of valuable information."
But he said he could not prove the participants knew their conduct was illegal at the time the event took place.
Here's the text of 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals:
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Now, we're dealing with different statues and different types of campaign finance violations, yet the common thread is an implicit requirement of guilty knowledge when there's no such condition in the text of the statute.
How does that happen? Were Mueller and Slauson relying on case law? Lordy knows Mueller wouldn't have been motivated to spin his findings in a way that benefited Trump and his people.
Well this is simple
If Singh isn't prosecuted in Oregon he won't have to cut a favorable deal. If he doesn't have to cut a favorable deal then he d won't have to roll on anyone ie throw co-conspirators under the buss. No co-conspirator's then the DPO and their minions are off the hook; Shazam !
Yup.
The DOJ and the Attorney General have forgotten that their clients are the People of Oregon, not those in the Democrat Party of Oregon.
Yes, because in essence DPO and aligned groups are their client. They're the ones who keep them in power and/or in the jobs they have. Unless and until there is an actual threat posed to their positions/livelihoods by someone or something outside DPO world, that's their client.
...and Oregon media has broken its neck looking the other way. It leads to a question: has anyone trolled the political contributions to desperate Tina for other weird money? Gosh, you'd think someone with subpoena power (and the state's alternative-media weekly in her pocket) might want to do that, since she's retiring and won't have to belly-up to the political contributions bar.
Oregon voters, being stupid, actually have a viable new AG in Will Lathrop. Think they have the brains, not to mention the guts, to elect him?
If Lathrop looked like Rayfield, and vice versa, he'd stand a much better chance. As it is, too many Democrats will look at Lathrop and read "not our tribe," especially when seen side by side with someone who could be the dictionary illustration of a white upper middle class liberal professional man.
No evidence? It should read, “No evidence we can allow to see the light of day”.
For the Party Oregon Comrades!
Thanks for staying on this Mr. Eager. 'Money is the root of all evil' or something to that effect, seems especially so in politics. The forgotten story is the many that lost investments through these schemes, I guess neither major party cares about the little guy.
sounds like the state of Oregon is embracing lawlessness. perhaps we need a posse comitatus to come to our rescue. how does a citizen recall its criminal leaders?
I guess Democrats are above the law.
Do you think the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Dan Rayfield, has any interest in doing the right thing in this case? And can his opponent, Will Lathrop, be persuaded to make this a big issue in the campaign?
Is there anyone in Oregon's Establishment (I use that term loosely) who would confront ORDOJ Criminal Justice Division Chief Counsel Michael Slauson (whose email address is publicly available at the Oregon State Bar's member directory) or his boss the A.G. over Slauson's obtuse framing of the issues in a way that lets Singh off the hook?
Is there anyone with credibility in the right places who could write an open letter to Slauson making the same arguments you're making here?
Is it known whether any other states are pursuing campaign finance violations against Singh arising out of the same scheme?
This next part is both in the weeds and inside baseball, but bear with me:
"The second problem with Slauson’s framing is that he, and ORDOJ throughout its investigation, incorrectly believes, apparently, that ORDOJ would need to prove that Singh knowingly made the contribution in a false name. In fact, ORS 260.402(1), the portion of the statute that prohibits making donations in a false name, does not require the criminal act be committed “knowingly,” or by any other state of mind. ORS 260.402(2) prohibits knowingly receiving political contributions in a false name, but the legislature chose not to require that same state of mind when making a contribution."
This echoes part of the Mueller report:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At issue: Did the officials violate campaign finance laws by accepting a contribution from a foreign entity? Mueller determined he could not bring criminal charges.
Mueller analyzed whether such information could constitute something of value, and thus a contribution: "A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign 'documents and information' of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money. It expressly prohibits 'a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value.' The phrases 'thing of value' and 'anything of value' are broad and inclusive enough to encompass at least some forms of valuable information."
But he said he could not prove the participants knew their conduct was illegal at the time the event took place.
(CBS Evening News 9 key takeaways from the Mueller report July 23, 2019 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robert-mueller-report-9-key-takeaways-2019-07-23/ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the text of 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals:
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, we're dealing with different statues and different types of campaign finance violations, yet the common thread is an implicit requirement of guilty knowledge when there's no such condition in the text of the statute.
How does that happen? Were Mueller and Slauson relying on case law? Lordy knows Mueller wouldn't have been motivated to spin his findings in a way that benefited Trump and his people.