Patterico's Pontifications

9/6/2020

Former Employees: DeJoy Illegally Reimbursed Employees for Campaign Contributions

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:42 am



The Washington Post has this blockbuster story:

Louis DeJoy’s prolific campaign fundraising, which helped position him as a top Republican power broker in North Carolina and ultimately as head of the U.S. Postal Service, was bolstered for more than a decade by a practice that left many employees feeling pressured to make political contributions to GOP candidates — money DeJoy later reimbursed through bonuses, former employees say.

Five people who worked for DeJoy’s former business, New Breed Logistics, say they were urged by DeJoy’s aides or by the chief executive himself to write checks and attend fundraisers at his 15,000-square-foot gated mansion beside a Greensboro, N.C., country club. There, events for Republicans running for the White House and Congress routinely fetched $100,000 or more apiece.

Two other employees familiar with New Breed’s financial and payroll systems said DeJoy would instruct that bonus payments to staffers be boosted to help defray the cost of their contributions, an arrangement that would be unlawful.

Many people in Trump’s orbit turn out to be criminals, and it looks like DeJoy is no exception, because this isn’t just “unlawful” in some technical civil sense — it’s a federal (and state law) felony:

Although it can be permissible to encourage employees to make donations, reimbursing them for those contributions is a violation of North Carolina and federal election laws. Known as a straw-donor scheme, the practice allows donors to evade individual contribution limits and obscures the true source of money used to influence elections.

Such federal violations carry a five-year statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitations in North Carolina for felonies, including campaign finance violations.

Also a federal felony: lying to Congress.

Oh well, it’s just a story based on anonymous sources with nothing substantive to back it up. Fake News! Oh, um, except …

A Washington Post analysis of federal and state campaign finance records found a pattern of extensive donations by New Breed employees to Republican candidates, with the same amount often given by multiple people on the same day. Between 2000 and 2014, 124 individuals who worked for the company together gave more than $1 million to federal and state GOP candidates. Many had not previously made political donations, and have not made any since leaving the company, public records show. During the same period, nine employees gave a combined $700 to Democrats.

Those would be good people for investigators to talk to, wouldn’t they?

I’m sure Bill Barr’s DoJ will get right on this … as soon as he can find time in his busy schedule of lying about voter fraud.

In a normal administration, someone would immediately step down after a story like this, and hire a good criminal lawyer. But in the Trump administration, committing felonies just shows that you’re on the team.

Ah, well. The North Carolina Attorney General is a Democrat and not in Trump’s pocket. And Trump can’t pardon state law crimes.

To paraphrase Lenny Briscoe from “Law & Order”: Sweet dreams, pal. There’s no statute of limitations on murder North Carolina campaign violation laws.

97 Responses to “Former Employees: DeJoy Illegally Reimbursed Employees for Campaign Contributions”

  1. Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Many people in Trump’s orbit turn out to be criminals,

    Apparently, Trump and DeJoy were likeminded, and shared many of the same views re running the government like a business where profits are everything. Anyway, that so many in Trump’s orbit end up being exposed as corrupt and having committed illegal acts has become commonplace. Birds of a feather have always flocked together.

    Here’s the report on DeJoy/Trump:

    Relatively unknown outside of GOP circles in North Carolina, DeJoy became a part of the President’s large circle of unofficial advisers in his role as a prolific fundraiser for Trump. DeJoy had been tapped as the finance chair for the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte, a high-profile position generally reserved for confidants or financial bundlers.

    DeJoy was Trump’s preferred pick when the agency’s board of governors tapped him earlier this year to run the centuries-old Postal Service like a private enterprise, and one source close to DeJoy said he was easily convinced to accept it. Unlike several recent postmasters general who came up through the agency, DeJoy is a government novice whose connection to the mail is primarily commercial.

    His company, New Breed Logistics, contracted with the USPS for 25 years, providing supply chain services. Another Post Office contractor, XPO Logistics, acquired New Breed in 2014 and named DeJoy to its board. Ethics experts have raised conflict-of-interest questions about DeJoy continuing to hold a multimillion-dollar stake in XPO — questions similar to those about Trump’s unclear financial interest in his own private company.

    The similarities between Trump and DeJoy don’t end there. Both are New York natives who are known to speak their minds loudly and without regard for the rules. DeJoy’s house in North Carolina, where Trump attended a fundraiser in 2017, resembles a castle — complete with a rotunda, a two-story kitchen wing, and a staircase painted with 24-carat gold leaf.

    Most importantly, DeJoy shares the President’s view that government should be approached more like a business, and he seems to have little patience for bureaucratic niceties.

    Dana (292df6)

  3. I thought you’d write about this – in my mind I thought you’d comment on either this or the insanity of the president of the United States telling his cult to doxx Lauren Powell for having the temerity to have invested in a magazine that wrote something mean about him. (Apologies if that’s OT).

    But about the topic in hand – I’m actually surprised that people in this administration had the foresight to figure out that hobbling the USPS would help his election chances.
    They were expectedly ham handed about it as usual – but figuring out that throwing the election into turmoil by screwing up the delivery system of mail in votes was pretty slick.
    A competent group would have gotten it done quietly and effectively – so I guess we can thank god for small mercies.

    Doubter44 (347d19)

  4. Doubter44 (347d19) — 9/6/2020 @ 11:31 am

    I’m actually surprised that people in this administration had the foresight to figure out that hobbling the USPS would help his election chances.

    Because that’s probably not ehat they had in mind

    Mail ballots coming in late has been known to be a problem for years. And all that DeJoy did was increase the average time in days for mail to be delivered (while having mail delverd earlier in the day)

    Now this: He probably never promised any employee they would be reimbursed, never told them they would be, and never reimbursed anyone exactly, but still took it into account when calculating the amount of bonuses. And how could this be prevented?

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  5. @4

    Now this: He probably never promised any employee they would be reimbursed, never told them they would be, and never reimbursed anyone exactly, but still took it into account when calculating the amount of bonuses. And how could this be prevented?

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2) — 9/6/2020 @ 11:40 am

    It’s interesting that no one, yet, offered explicit proof that DeJoy made that explicit promises…

    But!

    In my old job, we noticed better raises and bonuses if we donated directly from our paycheck to the United Way, in some cases by almost 50% more than the years when one of us didn’t participate in that.

    Not sure if all of that was illegal (definitely unethical), but how would you prove something like that?

    Still… left an awful taste about that job.

    whembly (c30c83)

  6. jerry nadler, who pushed for susan rosenberg’s release, so she could be atop a 2 billion extortion scheme, that pays 12.5 % to the dnc, oddly how no major publication touches this on their news section,

    miss powell, having given 500 k to the democrats, the presider of this festival, that includes fauci, and the clinton’s right before this dubious story, that’s not suspicious as all,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  7. But in the Trump administration, committing felonies just shows that you’re on the team.

    Actually, I think they have a monthly quota to meet.

    Dave (1bb933)

  8. Yes, money is fungible. From reimbursements to entitlements. It is all shady. The differences in the shades is there is public money shady, and then there is private money shady. But Republican donated money is the worst kind of shady of all.

    felipe (023cc9)

  9. 90% of the cdc employee contributions go to democrats, another reach around. Same with the treasury unions that enablef the smothering of the tea party. Same with the tech giants who determine which group is favored and who is silenced.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  10. I’m all for enforcing the rules against everyone.

    If the rules aren’t going to be enforced against everyone, then they should not be enforced against anyone.

    MJN1957 (0140eb)

  11. you must absolve podesta and weber, who actually lobbied for russia, but not manafort, jim wolfe gets off with a slap on a wrist for leaking a fraudulent fisa, same for clinesmith, painting an intelligence asset as a soviet spy,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  12. The part I hate the most is that although the corrupt criminal traitor is still a joke as a President, it’s not funny anymore. It’s the putting a rattlesnake in somebody’s bedroll kind of a joke.

    nk (1d9030)

  13. I’ll worry about this when WaPo owner Bezos quits getting a postal subsidy for Amazon.

    Instead of buying political power by taking over national rags, maybe Bezos and Lauren Powell can put their names out there and run for office. I respect anyone who does.

    beer ‘n pretzels (3a693d)

  14. I’ll worry about this [story of incredible GOP corruption] when [democrats aren’t bad too].

    Gee I wonder how parties got so corrupt.

    Dustin (825e2c)

  15. Stated another way:

    Trump fans, imagine Joe Biden wins and puts Lois Lerner in charge of the IRS and she starts filming HR Block commercials from her office, and starts posting tax returns on twitter. Ted Cruz and Nikki Haley and Ivanka Trump criticize her corruption.

    Will they be taken seriously? Or will their justified ethical concern seem insincere, if they tolerated BS?

    it’s time to stop digging this hole

    Dustin (825e2c)

  16. Uhh, Dustin, Lois Lerner already had her dalliance with corruption. We all know how seriously it was taken by the media with its thumb on the scales and the Obama/Biden administration. But, yeah, corruption started with Trump.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8f1e47)

  17. Uhh, Dustin, Lois Lerner already had her dalliance with corruption.

    whoooosh

    Dustin (825e2c)

  18. but if you interpret the world for ways to defend your team you might miss what’s happening. Blinders blind

    The people who are most threatened and concerned by Biden’s administration will be the ones who enabled the worst of it.

    Dustin (825e2c)

  19. HR Block is boy scouts compared to the workarounds that Jackson Hewitt will do for you.

    urbanleftbehind (160cbc)

  20. Will they be taken seriously? Or will their justified ethical concern seem insincere, if they tolerated BS?

    It depends whether they just tolerated the BS, or sold their souls and become the BS themselves? There’s a distinct difference. Neither is a flattering picture, but those who betrayed their own ethics and foundational principles to get a cut of the pie and keep their hands on the lever of power deserve more than just disdain. When Trump is no longer in office, there will be a reckoning, whether legally if crimes were committed, or with the electorate when the next election happens.

    Dana (292df6)

  21. This must happen a lot, and people get away with it a lot, otherwise they’d stop doing this. Of course, Democrats never get caught by the press in this, so it’s hard to say.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  22. It depends whether they just tolerated the BS, or sold their souls and become the BS themselves? There’s a distinct difference.

    I agree. I recall the last administration was really effective at managing the news. If you’re cynical, the birther angle benefited Obama almost as much as it benefited Trump. We’re going to have years of ‘But Trump was worse’ in every mistake the Biden administration makes (if they win… i think Trump will win).

    Dejoy is just a real bad example for the GOP. He’s like a cartoon.

    Dustin (825e2c)

  23. Yhe walls are closing in, Trump won’t be able to wriggle out of this one, he’ll definitely be doing jail time for this one.

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  24. IRS Chief Makes More Than $100,000 Per Year Off Trump Property, Documents Show
    The commissioner of the IRS—who is responsible for releasing President Trump’s tax returns to Congress—owns two rental properties at the Trump International Waikiki that he profits off of while in office, according to new documents obtained by a watchdog group in Washington, raising new questions about his withholding of Trump’s tax returns as the president goes to court to keep them hidden.

    Commissioner Charles Rettig’s personal financial disclosures for the past two years, analyzed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, show that the IRS commissioner earns $100,000-200,000 per year from his properties at the Trump-branded Hawaii resort, which he purchased in 2006 before the hotel officially opened.

    Rettig, who failed to disclose his connection to the Trump property when first appointed, told House lawmakers in 2019 that it was ultimately his decision—under the supervision of Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin—whether or not to turn over Trump’s federal tax returns to Congress, as House Democrats have requested.
    …….

    Rip Murdock (b2603f)

  25. Hahahahahaha… beer ‘n pretzels respects “anyone who runs for office.”

    Contest: who can find the funniest/most reprehensible person beer ‘n pretzels respects?

    Leviticus (002f17)

  26. Hanlon’s Razor tells me that any US Mail changes that lead to vote slowdowns are the result of incompetence, not malice. Especially with this administration. That this guy got his job through a corrupt practice does not change that, and in fact makes it more likely.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  27. Points awarded for originality – the low-hanging fruit like “David Duke” or “Vermin Supreme” will not net you much.

    Plz to preface with “beer ‘n pretzels respects: [name, and ideally short bio].”

    Leviticus (002f17)

  28. raising new questions about his withholding of Trump’s tax returns as the president goes to court to keep them hidden.

    1) why? He makes the same amount either way, and he has made this money since the resort opened (under the now-typical dual-purpose hotel room setup).

    2) No IRS Commissioner worth his salt would turn over the president’s tax returns to Congress at the first blush of a subpoena. Particularly when federal courts have ruled that he ought not to. Handing over tax returns to ANYONE not entitled to them would be a crime. Not committing a crime due to any form of influence is not itself a crime.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  29. And, besides, Nancy Pelosi had her hair washed at the hairdresser without a mask on.

    nk (1d9030)

  30. Ever notice how many breakfast restaurants are never coming back?

    mg (8cbc69)

  31. I Googled, so any entry of mine should be disqualified, but this one actually rang an independent bell in my memory:

    Dead Kennedys frontman and punk musician Jello Biafra attempted to become the Green Party candidate in 2000, but lost out to Ralph Nader. That could be because he chose death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal as his running mate. Or it may be his radical stance on a few issues.

    Biafra promised to enact a maximum wage, abolish the military, withdraw from NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and lower the voting age to five. He also planned to end the War on Drugs by legalizing basically every drug from marijuana to heroin. In a Biafra-run nation, slum lords would be sentenced to live in their own buildings and polluters would be forced to, “inhale and swim in the mess they’ve made until they clean it up.”

    nk (1d9030)

  32. Contest: who can find the funniest/most reprehensible person beer ‘n pretzels respects?

    Leviticus (002f17) — 9/6/2020 @ 7:40 pm

    This is a trick

    🍊👱‍♂️👎

    Dustin (825e2c)

  33. beer ‘n pretzels respects: Jello Biafra.

    Strong start nk.

    Leviticus (002f17)

  34. Oh sweet, Leviticus has a regular algonquin round table going.

    beer ‘n pretzels (47187c)

  35. beer ‘n pretzels respects: Byron Looper

    I’m sure there are better ones. Let’s keep this going, guys.

    beer ‘n pretzels (47187c)

  36. David duke is only a fan of the squad, even the iranians dont let him crash on thir catch spike lee cast topher grace in his film which suggests he didnt find him particularly scary then

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  37. When I see that no one has even mentioned Vernon Love Supreme, I have to wonder how seriously people are taking this challenge.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  38. Doh! Just noticed Leviticus dismissed Vernon in passing @27. Disrespectful, but it’s a mention.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  39. Providing weapons to the sinaloa and zeta cartels, so that gun ownership would be proscribed in this country is that bad.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  40. Jonathon Albert ‘The Impaler’ Sharkey — former wrestler and self-proclaimed vampire.

    Sharkey has filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for President of the United States twice as an Independent candidate (in 2004[14] and in 2008[15]) and once as a Republican candidate (in 2012[4][5]). He has run for Congress in at least three states—his home State of New Jersey (1999–2000, Republican),[16] Indiana (Reform Party, 2000)[17] and Florida (2001–02, Republican).[18] In 2006, he ran for governor of Minnesota.[19]
    ****
    Sharkey was investigated by the United States Secret Service for threatening to impale President George W. Bush. Agents visited Sharkey at his home for questioning. A spokesman for the Secret Service said that he didn’t believe the investigation was an overreaction.[20] He has also been jailed in Tennessee for making threats against an Indiana judge. Investigators confiscated two rifles and a wooden stake with spikes at his house. While in Tennessee he had reportedly attempted to set up a colony for vampires.

    nk (1d9030)

  41. So Cooper just randomly asked about something that the Washington Post later has a scoop on as the election goes into the final stretch? That’s not suspicious at all. Nor is the timing of some random thing anonymous sources claim Trump said two years ago without proof. Why gosh the Democrats just have such luck!

    Come on, man.

    George Gooding (07970d)

  42. A Washington Post analysis of federal and state campaign finance records found a pattern of extensive donations by New Breed employees to Republican candidates, with the same amount often given by multiple people on the same day.

    So the Washington Post has discovered donation bundling and is trying to make it sound nefarious by not just stating that this is donation bundling and that it’s always been known DeJoy was a bundler.

    What’s missing is the hard evidence of the illegal part of the allegation. Why are you such a sucker for the media lately, Patterico?

    I mean right here they’ve hoaxed you into believing that evidence of legal donation bundling is evidence of something else they don’t provide evidence for.

    Come on, man!

    George Gooding (07970d)

  43. mg at #30, that trend might be exaggerated back east due to the ghoulish govnas who crushed the main customer base like a compacted aluminum can. Most in my town are surviving on curbside and goodwill, but let’s see after no more UI supplement and the white collar layoff wave.

    Old-school breakfast restaurants were dying since about the late 00s here, either due to hipsterfication into elevated brunch-y concepts, or going low brow to match the help.

    urbanleftbehind (321612)

  44. George, surely you would agree that paying people who donate to donate gets around donation limits, and is not at all the same as donation bundling.

    And the evidence is provided in multiple places in this post: employees say this was done, and financial records support that this happened.

    Am I suggesting he should be locked up without a trial? Of course not; but there is more than enough “hard evidence” to warrant an investigation.

    Nate (5efffe)

  45. 4. 5. whembly (c30c83) — 9/6/2020 @ 11:51 am

    In my old job, we noticed better raises and bonuses if we donated directly from our paycheck to the United Way, in some cases by almost 50% more than the years when one of us didn’t participate in that.

    Not sure if all of that was illegal (definitely unethical),

    I don’t think it violates any law to do that. Anyone can contribute to United Way – the company may have done it that way because they might want to hide the contribution from their accountants, and stockholders and because somebody is getting some credit for raising money that they would not if they simply arranged for the company to gve that amount of money.

    There are two legal problems with doing that with regard to a political campaign.

    First, it is illegal for a corporation to make a contribution toward a federal election campaign and has been since 1907. Second there are limits in the size of personal political contributions since April 7, 1972. That creates the incentive for illegal straw donors. It’s hard to prove.

    The limits can be exceeded by contributions to special funds, like Trump’s “recount” fund, which he has also already used for legal expenses that are in some way related to the election. That’s all besides PACs which are not supposed to co-ordinate.
    but how would you prove something like that?

    Still… left an awful taste about that job.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  46. but how would you prove something like that?

    It needs t be ether testimony, or written documents saying the bonus has been increased by X number of dollars becase of politiccal contribution, or a very precise quid pro quo.

    New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner pleaded guilty to this, early on in the era of limited campaign contributions from an individual.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/20/us/steinbrenner-pardoned-by-reagan-for-72-election-law-violations.html

    The official, who spoke on the condition of not being identified, said Mr. Reagan signed the pardon on Wednesday. Mr. Steinbrenner, whose public berating of his players has often upstaged the team, was convicted in the election law case in 1974. He was fined $15,000 but did not go to jail….Mr. Steinbrenner negotiated a plea agreement in 1974 under which he agreed to plead guilty to two charges, a felony and a misdemeanor. He acknowledged conspiring to violate Federal election laws and trying to ”influence and intimidate” employees of his shipbuilding company to lie before a grand jury about a $100,000 contribution to the 1972 Nixon re-election campaign.

    There are loopholes, so nobody does this intentionally nowadays except amateurs who don’t consult lawyers. The candidate, or his campaign manager, will know who gave a lot.

    Still… left an awful taste about that job.

    is appointments looks alittle bit political. Postmaster General, till 1969, useed to be aSenate confirmed political appointment. LeJoy got the job because he promised he could cut costs without damaging the postal system. One Democrat had to agree.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  47. https://www.nj.com/yankees/2011/05/former_yankees_owner_george_st.html

    Former Yankees owner George Steinbrenner blamed illegal Nixon campaign contribution on bad advice

    Updated Mar 31, 2019; Posted May 09, 2011

    …The FBI released documents today stating that New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner assisted the agency in two investigations — one of them apparently a terrorism probe — in the years leading up to his pardon by President Ronald Reagan on a campaign-contributions conviction. ..

    ….Steinbrenner pleaded guilty in 1974 to a conspiracy to funnel corporate campaign contributions to politicians, and to making a “false and misleading” explanation of a $25,000 donation to Nixon’s campaign and trying to influence and intimidate employees of his shipbuilding company to give that false information to a grand jury.

    Five years after his conviction, Steinbrenner sought a pardon.

    “Applicant advised that this corporate contribution was made after he received legal advice from corporate counsel, both inside and outside (Steinbrenner’s) American Shipbuilding Company, that this corporate contribution was legal,” stated a 1979 FBI memo, following a bureau interview with Steinbrenner. The memo also quotes Steinbrenner as saying he wouldn’t have made the contribution had he known it was illegal, and that his lawyers should have been more thorough in their legal research.

    Steinbrenner also claimed he never told any employee to lie about the corporate campaign donation, nor suggest that they should repeat his version of the facts.

    “Applicant stated his past conviction has been and continues to be a source of embarrassment to him,” the memo said.

    The files also include his application for a pardon, in which the Yankees owner says the conviction prevented him from voting, hurt his business interests, and limited his participation in civic, charitable and community affairs. He argued that a pardon “would permit me to contribute more of my services to the community.”

    Then-baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn suspended Steinbrenner for two years after his 1974 plea, calling him “ineligible and incompetent” to have any connection with a baseball team.

    “Attempting to influence employees to behave dishonestly is the kind of conduct which, if ignored by baseball, would undermine the public’s confidence in our game,” Kuhn wrote in a 12-page ruling. The suspension was later reduced to 15 months.

    December’s release showed that Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox expressed “extreme interest” in the criminal investigation of Steinbrenner. Then-FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley relayed Cox’s concern in a memo on Aug. 16, 1973, to the bureau’s Cleveland office, saying agents needed to make sure the probe received “the same, immediate and preferred handling” as other criminal cases then growing from the Watergate scandal.

    Another FBI memo said the “investigation is to be afforded highest priority and security.”

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  48. Greg craig fixer for haitian oligarcgs architect of the elian rendition, later obama white house counsel fixed a case in the ukraine, judge jackson bent over backwards to make sure he could not be convicted.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  49. So a kennedy family retainer went after a nixon donor. Yes thats imminently fair.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  50. Steinbrenner was a goniff. I wonder how much the pardon cost him and how he “bundled” those contributions. New York values.

    nk (1d9030)

  51. I mean right here they’ve hoaxed you into believing that evidence of legal donation bundling is evidence of something else they don’t provide evidence for.

    Yes! It’s a coincidence that all these donations happened, followed by “bonuses”, along with multiple sources saying that DeJoy wanted them to make donations to his preferred Republican candidates and causes. It’s also a coinkydink that DeJoy took multiple steps to slow snail mail to even more of a snail’s pace. No corruption there, or anywhere. Move along, folks.
    Fortunately, for the donations, it’s nothing that a state criminal investigation can’t sink their teeth into.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e)

  52. I join beer ‘n pretzels in my interest in the topic of bad politicians. Here is my contribution: William A. Clark of Montana (1900)

    On April 23, 1900, after hearing extensive testimony from ninety-six witnesses, the committee returned a report unanimously concluding that William Clark was not entitled to his seat. The testimony detailed a dazzling list of bribes ranging from $240 to $100,000. In a high-pressure, well-organized scheme coordinated by Clark’s son, Clark’s agents had paid mortgages, purchased ranches, paid debts, financed banks, and blatantly presented envelopes of cash to legislators. In addition, the winning margin in Clark’s election had been secured by the votes of eleven Republican legislators under suspicious circumstances. Clark did not enhance his position when he admitted that he had destroyed all his personal checks that dealt with campaign transactions. The committee cited a number of previous bribery cases, especially that of Samuel C. Pomeroy and Alexander Caldwell in 1872-1873, as precedents for declaring an election void if bribery on behalf of the winner could be proved even if no proof was found that the candidate knew of the actions. The report also noted the precedent from the Pomeroy case that, if the winner “clearly participated in any one act of bribery or attempted bribery, he should be deprived of his office,” even if “the result of the election was not thereby changed.” While concurring in the committee’s conclusion, two members tried to reduce the impact of the anti-Clark testimony by pointing to the unlimited sums that his rival, Marcus Daly, had invested in an effort to block Clark’s election. That observation, however, did little more than confirm the way in which corruption totally pervaded Montana politics without exonerating Clark.

    On May 15, 1900, as the Senate prepared to vote on Clark’s right to retain his seat, the beleaguered senator rose to speak. Predictably, Clark complained about the procedures of the committee, the admissions and omissions of evidence, and the machinations of Marcus Daly. He contended that the Senate had lost sight of the principle of presumption of innocence and concluded that the committee had not shown that bribery sufficient to alter the election results had occurred. At the conclusion of his remarks, Clark, clearly aware that he did not have the necessary votes to keep his seat, resigned.

    BUT, upon his return, the Montana legislature “— in which most of the winning candidates had received financial support from William Clark —” elected him to the Senate for the same term he had filled earlier. Clark served his 7 year senate term and went back to Montana.

    I wonder: Who here thinks Clark was a “good” politician because he achieved his goal through any means possible?

    DRJ (aede82)

  53. Great story, DRJ, and a reason for the 17th Amendment.

    nk (1d9030)

  54. George Gooding says:

    So the Washington Post has discovered donation bundling and is trying to make it sound nefarious by not just stating that this is donation bundling and that it’s always been known DeJoy was a bundler.

    What’s missing is the hard evidence of the illegal part of the allegation. Why are you such a sucker for the media lately, Patterico?

    I mean right here they’ve hoaxed you into believing that evidence of legal donation bundling is evidence of something else they don’t provide evidence for.

    Come on, man!

    Nate tries to explain:

    George, surely you would agree that paying people who donate to donate gets around donation limits, and is not at all the same as donation bundling.

    And the evidence is provided in multiple places in this post: employees say this was done, and financial records support that this happened.

    Am I suggesting he should be locked up without a trial? Of course not; but there is more than enough “hard evidence” to warrant an investigation.

    If DeJoy tells an employee “I’ll get it back to you down the road” (which I’m sure you recognize as a quote from the article you carefully read) then he is hiding the “true source” of the contribution, which is a felony under the governing case law (see this decision).

    You frankly don’t appear to be open to discussing this using reason or logic; you come at me with a “what happened to you” insulting sort of tone that both saddens me and seems very familiar among people who used to be my friends. Surprise me by engaging my arguments without insults, or fulfill my expectations by continuing to be insulting.

    But if you’re going to do the latter, why not just do us both a favor and get out of my life for good now, so that the sum total of my life will contain a greater number of happier moments? I’ll remember you as you were and you can remember me as I was, and we can both forget that the other proved to be a great disappointment.

    I’d love for the former to be true, but experience has taught me realism and realistic expectations, and when a comment reads the way yours did, I typically know which direction the train is headed, and I’d like to get off as quickly as possible. Thanks for understanding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  55. meanwhile john kelly’s aide makes the 11th person who denies joy powell’s in kind contribution, but never mind,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  56. sorry 15th person, in the room, how often do dem bundlers get pinched, it’s like cicada rare,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  57. how often do dem bundlers get pinche

    How many corrupt bundlers start running the postal service after it’s clear the election will depend very heavily on it, and start disabling the postal service in ‘enemy’ precincts, while the president explains that on the basis of making absentee voting harder?

    The idea that now was the time to rip up all those machines, now when people are staying at home, why are you OK with that? Think about the true cost of that in human terms.

    The GOP lost its purpose on family, accountability, budget, national defense, just for incremental advantage for Trump. Any whatabout you bring up only shows how important it is to be have credibility. ‘Let’s make Lois Lerner look normal’ is not an effective plan.

    Dustin (825e2c)

  58. Anecdote- back in the 1970s senior execs, including my own father, were “pressured” from the very top by the oil company he was employed with to contribute to the Republican congressman representing the district where the firm’s home offices were located. Vividly recall discussion about it over dinner on evening.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  59. ^on = one

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. 58. Dustin (825e2c) — 9/7/2020 @ 11:10 am

    s start running the postal service after it’s clear the election will depend very heavily on it,

    I think his candidacy for the job was before this became such a big issue. He was appointed back in May and started in mid-June. It does look political.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/18/gop-and-trump-ties-run-deep-on-the-us-postal-services-board-of-governors.html

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  61. 61. I think this is simple.

    Biden is for ending fracking, but just not yet. Which makes him a moderate. The idea that there’s aclimate emergency, which however, can be at least partially averted by extreme action, is popular among younger voters who have been exposed to climate propaganda in schools. It was responsible in some way for Markey winning last week’s Massachusetts Senate primary against Kennedy (you may recall the Markey Waxman bill of 2010 that would have halted the rise of the oceans and begun the healing of the planet but that failed to get a vote in the Senate, after which Obama gave up.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act

    This issue is the number one candidate for causing the loss of control of Congress by the Democrats in 2022.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  62. 64. Trump doesn’t tell the same kind of lies as Fidel Castro did and he doesn’t have a chorus of intellectuals defending him and lying about what he does.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  63. @63,

    This issue is the number one candidate for causing the loss of control of Congress by the Democrats in 2022.

    foreshadowing there, Sammy? And would a Biden or Harris presidency be a pre-requesite?

    urbanleftbehind (321612)

  64. If he did something illegal, he should be tried and prosecuted, as long as illegal bundlers for democrats are also tried and prosecuted. The problem is, no one trusts justice to be impartial anymore. Is Patterico allowed to investigate wrong doing by Democrats, given who he works for? I suspect if the person is politically connected, he would be taken off the case, if he is at risk of actually getting a conviction.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  65. The media isn’t interested bringing to light illegal actions by democrats unless they are forced to. This is very convenient for the never Trump cultists.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  66. What do you think would happen if Trump fired all federal prosecutors as a previous democrat president did? I suspect the majority of federal prosecutors are democrats, because only democrats are allowed to fire prosecutors.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  67. 66. urbanleftbehind (321612) — 9/7/2020 @ 1:05 pm

    ? And would a Biden or Harris presidency be a pre-requesite?

    Yes, because there wouldn’t be any risk of the bill, or any bill like it, passing into law, with a Republican president and the Democrats wouldn’t even try.

    If Biden wins, the Republicans probably regain control of the Senate or the House or both in the 2022 election. Especially if they’ve abolished the filibuster rule in the Senate.

    But the Republicans are not likely to be able to undo any bill that was signed into law unless it’s really, really terrible and the electoral loss is big. If Biden is still president in 2023, he might be open to modifying that at least a little.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  68. 67. 1DaveMac (4cc9b4) — 9/7/2020 @ 1:27 pm

    Is Patterico allowed to investigate wrong doing by Democrats, given who he works for? I suspect if the person is politically connected, he would be taken off the case, if he is at risk of actually getting a conviction.

    I think he;s already off the “case”, or any case. I think he’s handling appeals now. Old cases.

    Not that he was doing anything that was likely to impact any politician, but these days, with anti-prosecution DAs, who knows what crimes or criminals a DA might not want investigated?

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  69. What do you think would happen if Trump fired all federal prosecutors as a previous democrat president did?

    Trump did do that, and there was hardly any coverage on it. The other 47 slots were vacant or the US Attorneys resigned before he could sack them.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e)

  70. Trump did do that, and there was hardly any coverage on it. The other 47 slots were vacant or the US Attorneys resigned before he could sack them.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e) — 9/7/2020 @ 1:57 pm

    And just like that, Davemac no longer thought this was a huge deal.

    Dustin (825e2c)

  71. No, it is still a huge deal because it means that it is more likely that if democrats are guilty of the same offense, they will also be prosecuted.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  72. Plus, if they successfully prosecute this guy, it will put democrats on notice.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  73. No, it is still a huge deal

    It’s a huge deal for a president to fire all your attorneys?

    what was the election for then? If he thinks they have a different philosophy, isn’t this what the voters wanted?

    this isn’t like firing the NY USA because he’s about to arrest Ghislaine or firing Comey ‘because of the Russia thing’.

    Dustin (825e2c)

  74. Yes, that is exactly why all us attorneys should resign when a new president comes into office.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  75. My support for any political candidate is based on their policies, and thus I am able to defend my vote based on the policies I support. Anything else is pointless virtue signaling. I believe you can make a good case for going back to the old spoils system for all civil service positions. The idea that civil servants are non partisan has become extremely suspect.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  76. Thus, if the voters decide Biden should be president, they should get what they voted for good and hard, as quickly as possible.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  77. No, it is still a huge deal because it means that it is more likely that if democrats are guilty of the same offense, they will also be prosecuted.

    Bill Clinton did the same thing. The only time it was a “huge deal” was when GW Bush did it after the 2006 midterms, which was unprecedented at that stage of a presidency. And even then, the reaction was really only from partisan Democrats.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e)

  78. So you are saying the media and the democrats did not make it a huge deal when Trump fired the U.S. attorneys?

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  79. I remember it being made a big deal, I just didn’t realize the other positions were already vacant.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  80. Yes, that is exactly why all us attorneys should resign when a new president comes into office.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4) — 9/7/2020 @ 2:43 pm

    I don’t see why that’s an absolute. But if there’s a major shift, it’s something to be expected. Some moderate presidents wouldn’t care. But Reagan to Bush 41 was a long time.

    So you are saying the media and the democrats did not make it a huge deal when Trump fired the U.S. attorneys?

    What are you talking about exactly? Just that someone criticized Trump? Or was this claimed to be a scandal? Are you lumping in Trump firing a guy over ‘the russia thing’? Can you be a little more clear about the ‘huge deal’?

    Dustin (825e2c)

  81. @82-
    From Wikipedia:

    Initial media reports described Sessions’ move as abrupt and unexpected, but not unprecedented.[1][49][50] Slate’s Leon Neyfakh accused media outlets of sensationalizing Sessions’ actions, which he said were “nothing particularly unusual or surprising”, and noted the mass firings of U.S. attorneys accompanying each presidential transition.[2] National Review pointed out that Janet Reno began her tenure as President Bill Clinton’s attorney general in March 1993 by firing U.S. attorneys for 93 of the 94 federal districts, this being more than twice as many as Trump attorney general Sessions fired on Friday.[51] The Washington Post contrasted the Trump administration’s decision with those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who replaced U.S. attorneys gradually.[52]

    Rip Murdock (b2603f)

  82. Davemac is probably correct that someone out there did make a huge deal out of pretty much everything Trump has done. Just because I don’t like Trump doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of liberal bias in the media. They are both bad faith actors that make it that much harder to discuss anything.

    But a story ‘contrasting’ two different ways to do something is just information.

    I’m imagining Trump firing almost everyone in the government on day one. Might have been a more sincere reform effort if you think about it.

    Dustin (825e2c)

  83. Trump says he’s open to investigating Louis DeJoy over GOP contributions
    …….
    When asked about the report, Trump said he would be open to an investigation, but stressed that he wasn’t familiar with the details. When asked whether he would be OK with DeJoy‘s being dismissed if he were found to have violated campaign finance law, Trump said yes.

    “If something can be proven that he did something wrong, always,” Trump said.

    The president defended DeJoy as “a very respected man,” but his openness to an investigation contrasts with strong pushbacks against other suspicions of him or his inner circle throughout his administration.
    ………
    The campaign finance allegations were already enough to raise the eyebrows of North Carolina’s attorney general, Josh Stein, who said on Sunday that they were worthy of an investigation.
    ………
    Given that Stein is a Democrat, something actually might happen.

    Rip Murdock (b2603f)

  84. Patterico et al, where’s the evidence of DeJoy either promising kickbacks for donations or giving bonuses specifically to serve as payback for donations – aside from yet another assortment of anonymous sources? There is no hard evidence provided, for something which there should be documentary evidence for (bonuses).

    Donations made on the same day by multiple people is exactly how a bundling would go down, isn’t it? How are people being lured into believing that’s evidence of anything illegal? Just because the newspaper makes it seem like it?

    Come on, man, do better.

    George Gooding (07970d)

  85. @88-
    That’s what a grand jury is for. As long as the laws are on the books, they need to be enforced.

    Personally, I believe most campaign finance laws (with the exception of donations by foreign entities) are unconstitutional, particularly the reporting requirements. It’s nobody’s business who I donate my money to. That’s why I give my donations to dark money groups that don’t need to report contributors.

    Rip Murdock (b2603f)

  86. Nomad, no that isn’t how bundling works.

    Documentary evidence and people involved claiming it happens is ample cause to investigate.

    You’re trying too hard, you know it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, so maybe someone should check out if it’s a duck.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  87. George Gooding ignores my admonition not to be insulting and says “Come on, man, do better.” Here’s part of his brilliant analysis:

    Patterico et al, where’s the evidence of DeJoy either promising kickbacks for donations or giving bonuses specifically to serve as payback for donations – aside from yet another assortment of anonymous sources? There is no hard evidence provided, for something which there should be documentary evidence for (bonuses).

    George Gooding, meet “anonymous source” David Young:

    “Louis was a national fundraiser for the Republican Party. He asked employees for money. We gave him the money, and then he reciprocated by giving us big bonuses,” said David Young, DeJoy’s longtime director of human resources, who had access to payroll records at New Breed from the late 1990s to 2013 and is now retired. “When we got our bonuses, let’s just say they were bigger, they exceeded expectations — and that covered the tax and everything else.”

    Donations made on the same day by multiple people is exactly how a bundling would go down, isn’t it? How are people being lured into believing that’s evidence of anything illegal? Just because the newspaper makes it seem like it?

    Come on, man, do better.

    I guess we’ll see whether state authorities interview the employees who say the bonuses were promised as reimbursement as several people claim, including one who is not anonymous despite your false statement to the contrary, and whether the subpoena the financial records that the reporters appear to lack access to but which employees including the non-anonymous individual named above had access.

    In the meantime, stop misrepresenting the facts of the article, and stop insulting me. We have two strikes. Third one and you’re out.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  88. 85. Rip Murdock (b2603f) — 9/7/2020 @ 3:43 pm

    The Washington Post contrasted the Trump administration’s decision with those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who replaced U.S. attorneys gradually.[52]

    They have four year terms if left out to serve them.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  89. 91.

    ,,,,He asked employees for money. We gave him the money, and then he reciprocated by giving us big bonuses,” said David Young, DeJoy’s longtime director of human resources, who had access to payroll records at New Breed from the late 1990s to 2013 and is now retired. “When we got our bonuses, let’s just say they were bigger, they exceeded expectations — and that covered the tax and everything else.”

    David Young doesn’t say they were promised they’d be reimbursed. In fact he does say they did not know in advance how big their bonuses would be.

    When we got our bonuses…they were bigger, they exceeded expectations

    So till they got the bonus they had no idea what the bonus would be. And DeJoy may have over-reimbursed them. They took account of taxes and then some.

    So this is like what whembly said @5:

    In my old job, we noticed better raises and bonuses if we donated directly from our paycheck to the United Way, in some cases by almost 50% more than the years when one of us didn’t participate in that.

    Now, there, there probably wasn’t any law broken there because there is no issue of straw donors.

    and then there’s what DCSCA says @59:

    back in the 1970s senior execs, including my own father, were “pressured” from the very top by the oil company he was employed with to contribute to the Republican congressman representing the district where the firm’s home offices were located. Vividly recall discussion about it over dinner on evening.

    This one is not linked to bonuses, but perhaps it was to fear of loss of promotions.

    Perhaps there needs to be a version of the Hatch Act for corporate employees. So that they couldn’t be asked by their employers or people connected with their employers, for help in a political campaign.

    Simpler, of course, would be allowing for larger contributions, and the government giving ungarnishable dollar for dollar tax rebates for contributions up to a certain size (he most impartial way of public financing)

    Perhaps they’d avoid so much time raising money and they wouldn’t need to make things look like a crisis or call up possible donors personally. This would make politics in the United States altogether better. The post-Watergate reforms made things a lot worse – in fact they virtually institutionalized corruption what with PACs and increased partisanship what with stronger political parties. (which could take larger contributions and dole them out to candidates. Politicians also can dole out large amounts from their own campaign funds.

    Sammy Finkelman (b66da2)

  90. So you are saying the media and the democrats did not make it a huge deal when Trump fired the U.S. attorneys?
    That’s not how I remember it. It lasted a news cycle and media/Democrats moved on to other things. The announcement was made on a Friday and, by Saturday, it moved to Preet Bharara refusing to step down.

    Paul Montagu (a2078e)

  91. This is very convenient for the never Trump cultists.

    If “Never Trumpers” are cultists, who is their object of cult worship? Whom do they reflexively, unconditionally defend, in the same way that Trumpists (and anti-anti-Trumpists) reflexively defend Trump at all costs, including the cost to their own dignity and credibility?

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  92. Radegunda, I am guessng that other people like me who don’t support Trump are the last people who would ever be inclined to sacrifice their integrity for any politician. I feel strongly about the electorate’s repsonsibility to hold every elected officials’ feet to the fire, and hold them accountable as much as is possible. That so many are willing to sacrifice credibility and even decency to defend the indefensible Trump reminds me that far too many people look to government and its representatives to give them something, and to take care of them. They are happy to idolize Trump while ignoring or rationalizing all the qualities that they would loudly disdain and turn away from in a Democrat. This unwillingness to be an equal-opportunity critic weakens America.

    Dana (292df6)

  93. It sounds like DeJoy was involved in a massive RNC effort to boost donor lists. However, reimbursing donations made by employees in the form of bonuses appears highly questionable and may in fact be illegal. It at least raises suspicions and should be investigated. If any campaign finance laws were broken, they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    The RNC effort was highly successful, especially during Obama’s second term in office and throughout Clinton’s doomed campaign, as it enlisted many small donors, raised hundreds of millions, and allowed the GOP to take control of Congress and the White House. But that was then, this is now.

    Trump announced for reelection shortly after his inauguration, much earlier than any previous president. He boasted a $1.2 billion war chest and squandered most of it by campaigning early, holding rallies and various functions, travel expenses, spending heavily on advertising, caps, shirts, signs, buttons, what have you. Now, as this election cycle enters the home stretch, his campaign is cash-strapped.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-trump-s-billion-dollar-campaign-lost-its-cash-advantage/ar-BB18Nx36?ocid=msedgntp

    The RNC has spent $800 million, with $350 million going to pay legal fees, and the donor pool has dried up. That’s because the biggest money-draws from donors are at in-person events and functions, which the pandemic has disallowed. The extensive network the RNC set up is no longer effective in the current environment. Because Trump craves the roar of the crowd and disdains impersonal teleconferencing, without a live audience, his fundraising advantage has all but vanished.

    Biden, in contrast, bunkered down when the pandemic struck and took to holding Zoom conferences. Say what you will about this bargain basement strategy, but a 90-minute Zoom conference costs very little to produce and has the potential to raise millions. That’s exactly what happened. Biden raised a record-setting $350+ million in July alone. Now his campaign is more well-funded for the crucial months of September and October than Trump’s is. Biden can afford television ads leading up to the debates, whereas Trump cannot.

    It’s a lesson in frugality. Trump wasted his war chest, while Biden, adapting to circumstances, built his.

    I’m not saying this will determine the outcome of the election, but I will say that in politics, money is everything. As hard as it is to believe, Biden played it smart. Trump played it stupid. The RNC, following his lead and in thrall to his delusions of grandeur, foolishly tossed way every advantage they had. This is what happens when a party stupidly nominates and elects the “king of debt,” it ends up bankrupt. No morals, no principles, no values, nothing left but a hollow shell of its former self. All there is is false proclamations of prosperity, outright lies, and complete denial of failure. Not just in the United States, but on the World Stage.

    I don’t know yet who I will be voting for in this election, but I can tell you this, I will be voting against every Republican. This current GOP, which I have supported ever since I was first eligible to vote in 1980, has utterly betrayed me, in every way imaginable. I am done with them now.

    I am not too keen on the Libertarian Jorgensen. I do not like or trust Biden-Harrison, but I dislike and distrust Trump-Pence even more. So I’m a conservative-libertarian with no party to vote for.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2628 secs.