stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
Dean Zimmermann
to Tom, discuss, Dave, Michael
More options Aug 25 (17 hours ago)
Tom: it is no secret that the $6000 is in the Redistricting Lawsuit Fund
account and has been there for months. Tom Taylor and Bruce Shoemaker are
in charge of that account. This has been common knowledge for a long time,
so I am surprised to see it even being discussed, as if there were some
question about it.
Peace,
Dean Zimmermann
C: 612-388-1311
H: 612-724-3888
2200 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Surely the most important task for all of us is to leave behind a planet
that is fit for our great grandchildren to live on. So all of our personal
actions, as well as our political policies, must be tempered with an eye to
long term sustainability, not short term profit or expediency. As we
struggle to solve the day to day problems -- crime, jobs, budget shortfalls,
homelessness, traffic congestion, and air quality, we will look to solutions
that serve both our immediate needs and lay the foundation for the
post-petroleum economy.
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Cleland
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:09 PM
To: discuss@mngreens.org
Cc: Dave Bicking; Michael Cavlan
Subject: Fw: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
I'm about ready to let go of the Zimmermann case, but not before I make a
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
Tom Cleland
to Tom, deanzimm, discuss, Dave, Michael
More options 3:53 pm (10 hours ago)
Dean,
Thank you for responding. I wasn't sure if you wanted to answer questions
personally during this difficult time.
I'm still relatively new to the list serve. I was unaware that the $6000 had
been accounted for. I put the question out to this list serve on August 15
and again on the 17th, and nobody responded.
I'm cc'ing Tom Taylor. I don't have Bruce Shoemaker's email address. Please
forgive me Dean, but if they or someone else could verify things on-list or
off-list, I would appreciate that.
This would mitigate things considerably. I would mention it when discussing
it with others, and suggest others do the same.
Tom Cleland
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Zimmermann"
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
Tom: it is no secret that the $6000 is in the Redistricting Lawsuit Fund
account and has been there for months. Tom Taylor and Bruce Shoemaker are
in charge of that account. This has been common knowledge for a long time,
so I am surprised to see it even being discussed, as if there were some
question about it.
Peace,
Dean Zimmermann
C: 612-388-1311
H: 612-724-3888
2200 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Surely the most important task for all of us is to leave behind a planet
that is fit for our great grandchildren to live on. So all of our personal
actions, as well as our political policies, must be tempered with an eye to
long term sustainability, not short term profit or expediency. As we
struggle to solve the day to day problems -- crime, jobs, budget shortfalls,
homelessness, traffic congestion, and air quality, we will look to solutions
that serve both our immediate needs and lay the foundation for the
post-petroleum economy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Cleland
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:09 PM
To: discuss@mngreens.org
Cc: Dave Bicking; Michael Cavlan
Subject: Fw: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
I'm about ready to let go of the Zimmermann case, but not before I make a
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Cleland"
To: "Dave Bicking"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
> Dave Bicking,
>
> I'm still hoping you or someone else can answer the following questions:
>
> 1. Did the F.R.E.E. group eventually open up a new account?
> 2. Did the money end up in there?
>
> Also:
>
> 3. Of the $7200, how much was seized in the raid?
> 4. When did Dean attempt or succeed in getting the money to F.R.E.E., in
> relation to the FBI confrontation of Dean and the subsequent raid? My
> understanding is that the raid occurred shortly after the primary finance
> reporting deadline.
> 5. Other than the Leventhal testimony, was there any other independent
> verification of when Dean's check to F.R.E.E. was written?
>
> If less than $7200 was seized in the raid, and the remainder did not go to
> F.R.E.E., I don't think it's too late to try to get it to F.R.E.E. or
> whatever the next best thing is, even if that's the court. Better to have
> a bigger credit card debt than to have that remaining money unaccounted
> for.
>
> Tom Cleland
> cc: gp list serve
>
>>>>
>
> I can see both sides.
>
> Dave, regarding the gerrymandering lawsuit fund, you said, "Dean had no
> way
> to pass the money along until the group opened up a new account."
>
> Did the group eventually open up a new account, and did the money end up
> in
> there?
>
> If a similar situation occurs in the future, I would recommend suggesting
> that the developer give the money directly to the lawsuit fund, making
> clear
> that no favors are expected. If the developer persists on giving to the
> candidate, I believe the appropriate Green response is to hold a press
> conference and try to shine a bright spotlight on what the developer is
> trying to do.
>
> Going forward, I'm not sure what the rest of the party can do to reassure
> the public that we are "the incorruptables." Release our campaign funding
> disclosure reports early? Put our budgets on our web sites?
>
> Tom Cleland
> Golden Valley
> Cavlan Campaign Volunteer
>
> http://tomstream.blogspot.com/2005/09/advice-for-dean-zimmerman.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Cc:
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:21 AM
> Subject: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
>
>
>> Dave Bicking, thank you! We who know Dean and Jenny are aware that he
>> would
>> never, ever do anything to incriminate himself or hurt the GP. You've
>> explained the case so clearly. I can only wonder why Dean's lawyer
>> couldn't have
>> done the same. And to Aaron Klemz :there is no limit in real personal
>> loyalty.
>>
>> --Dori Ullman
>> Campaign Manager
>> The Committee to Elect Michael Cavlan
>> to the US Senate 2006
>>
>> The civility of no race can be perfect whilst another race is degraded.
>> It
>> is a doctrine alike of the oldest and of the newest philosophy, that man
>> is
>> one, and that you cannot injure any member, without a sympathetic injury
>> to all
>> the members": Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1844
>>
>> --Dori
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Bicking"
> To:
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:22 AM
> Subject: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
>
>
>> I'm concerned about commentaries on Dean's case, within the
>> Green Party and elsewhere, that I believe are based on lack of full
>> knowledge or understanding of the facts. It is understandable,
>> because it is not easy to be fully informed, and because one is
>> certain to be mis-informed if your knowledge comes from media
>> coverage.
>>
>> This is largely due to failings of Dean's friends and his defense
>> committee. We should have been compiling and posting all the
>> information we have, in some place that is accessible to Green
>> Party members and others. We intend to do that, but of course it
>> is already too late. I will help work on that. Right now, I have just
>> a little time, so I will tackle just a few issues.
>>
>> First of all, contrary to what Julie says, it is NOT illegal to take
>> large sums of cash from a developer. I would also argue (and here
>> I would expect and respect some disagreement), that it was also
>> not unethical in this case. The relevant issue is not the money
>> changing hands, or whether it is cash or checks. The issue,
>> legally and ethically, is the intent. That is what makes it a bribe or
>> not.
>>
>> No one disputes that money changed hands. That didn't keep the
>> prosecution and the media from showing and talking endlessly
>> about the tapes of Gary Carlson giving Dean cash. Yes, those
>> tapes look bad. That is because it was the FBI that controlled the
>> timing and location, that supplied the props, that wrote and
>> rehearsed the script, and did the filming. They intended it to look
>> as bad as possible.
>>
>> This case is NOT primarily about campaign finance. Though it is
>> right for us to point out that campaign finance reform would help
>> avoid corruption, that is not the major issue here. Of the four
>> counts, only one, the $1200 cash in four envelopes, has anything
>> to do with campaign contributions. The two more serious, and
>> difficult, charges have to do with contributions to a charitable group
>> (the redistricting lawsuit fund). And the fourth charge, of which
>> Dean was acquitted and which was obviously ludicrous from the
>> start, had to do with the retaining wall.
>>
>> Regarding the campaign donations, Dean did exactly what would
>> be expected, and exactly what the rules require: He set aside the
>> envelopes and did not deposit the money into the campaign
>> account, until he could determine who the money really came from,
>> and whether it was a legal and ethical contribution. That money
>> never went into his campaign, and Dean never benefitted from it -
>> nor did he intend to unless he was confident it was legitimate. This
>> is what all candidates do or should do. It happened twice in my
>> campaign that I can remember, that we received a contribution from
>> someone we did not know well, and we held on to the money until
>> we could check and make sure it was legal and proper.
>>
>> Dean did do one thing wrong - in the heat of the campaign,
>> overwhelmed with all the work, neither he nor his treasurer nor his
>> campaign staff dealt with the envelopes within the 10 days required
>> by campaign finance regulations. This is a very minor campaign
>> finance violation. I think anyone who has been a candidate could
>> sympathize.
>>
>> The other money that exchanged hands was not for Dean or for his
>> campaign. It was of no direct benefit to Dean or his campaign,
>> unless Dean had simply taken the money for himself rather than
>> giving it to the fund for the redistricting lawsuit. The FBI was
>> clearly hoping that Dean would do just that, so that they would
>> have a case for bribery, and for Dean using the money for personal
>> gain. Dean disappointed them - he did what was legal and ethical.
>> That didn't stop them from distorting facts and prosecuting him on
>> a flimsy and unsubstantiated case.
>>
>> Remember that Dean was not obligated to pay the bills for the
>> redistricting lawsuit. He was just one plaintiff, one person out of
>> the group which jointly committed to going forward with the suit.
>> He had no personal debt for that lawsuit. Being a good guy,
>> though, he felt a personal responsibility to help raise the funds. So
>> he comes across someone who is willing to contribute, someone
>> wealthy for whom $5000 is a small amount.
>>
>> Dean never asked for the money in cash - that was the FBI's
>> decision. When Gary Carlson gave him the cash, he "immediately
>> stuffed it deep into his pants pocket." The FBI repeated that
>> phrase over and over. It was part of their pattern of taking purely
>> innocent acts and making them sound bad - because they had no
>> real case. If you were in public in a restaurant in south Mpls and
>> you were handed $5000 cash, would you wave it around, fan
>> through the bills, or even leave it sitting on the table? No, and
>> Dean is no more an idiot than you or I - he got that cash out of
>> sight as quickly as possible.
>>
>> Should he have refused the cash right there? Possibly - but
>> consider for a moment. First is the issue of whether it is a good
>> idea, sitting in public, to discuss or argue about the $5000 in cash
>> that one of you is going to leave the restaurant with. More
>> importantly, Dean is NOT taking the money for himself. Who is he
>> to refuse a significant contribution that is going to a good cause?
>> Shouldn't he at least consult with the leaders of that group as to
>> what they feel is proper? Should he alone decide whether the
>> lawyers get paid for at least some of the important work they did?
>> No, the proper thing is to consult with others. In the Green Party
>> we work that way - concensus rather than one person making
>> important decisions all alone, especially on the spur of the
>> moment. The money could always be returned if that were the
>> decision of the larger group.
>>
>> Dean proceeded to do the right thing. He told the lawyer, Larry
>> Leventhal, that he had received this contribution to the group. He
>> tried to give the money to the group - he even wrote out a check for
>> the full amount. But due to dysfunction within the group - no bank
>> account, etc., Dean had no way to pass the money along until the
>> group opened up a new account. Dean is not even the "bumbler"
>> that some apologists make him out to be. It was the group's fault,
>> not his, that he kept the money temporarily.
>>
>> That's all I have time for, and that's enough for one post anyway.
>> Maybe later I'll explain other issues, such as entrapment. In partial
>> response to Aaron's post, yes, I would respond the same way if it
>> were a Democrat. Fair is fair. And, having recently learned much
>> more about Joe Biernat's case, I believe that he too was unjustly
>> railroaded by the FBI. Everyone talks about the 3 council
>> members convicted of bribery. Unlike Dean, the FBI never even got
>> a bribery conviction in his case, yet he still went to jail. It is an
>> interesting case, and the real story tells us a lot about the FBI.
>>
>> In response to Julie's post, it is a fact that Dean never received one
>> cent of personal gain from any of the acts he was convicted of. It
>> is my strong conviction, from reviewing the entirety of the case as
>> well as from knowing Dean, that he NEVER intended any personal
>> gain. That is why I believed it was essential that the Green Party
>> statement contain the phrase, "we believe that he was never
>> motivated by personal gain."
>>
>> It is important for the Green Party to maintain the highest
>> standards of integrity, and to hold our candidates to that standard.
>> It is equally important for us to be loyal and supportive to
>> candidates and officeholders who ARE maintaining high standards,
>> and who are being deliberately persecuted. Our candidates and
>> members deserve that, and we should never ditch someone just for
>> the benefit of appearances (for our "credibility"). Which of these
>> two we do in this case should depend upon the actual facts and
>> our best interpretation of them. I hope I have contributed to that.
>>
>> Dave Bicking
>> long-time friend of Dean's,
>> GP candidate for Mpls City Council in 2005
>>
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2006, at 6:18, Julie Risser wrote:
>>
>>> I think party spokespersons should stick to facts - The one sentence
>>> in the release that was along the lines of "we believe this wasn't for
>>> personal gain...." or some such statement should have been dropped. It
>>> is true all the money poured into politics is much greater with the
>>> two major parties - BUT - by not acknowledging straight out that
>>> taking large sums of cash from a developer is illegal in the press
>>> statement and that the jury found this to be the case I think we
>>> really do hurt our credibility.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Klemz wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hello:
>>> >
>>> >I know I'm probably stepping off a cliff on this one,
>>> >but I can't not say something about this any longer.
>>> >
>>> >What would the Green Party's response be if Barbara
>>> >Johnson or Don Samuels were caught on tape receiving
>>> >7200 dollars in cash donations from a developer? How
>>> >would we interpret such a trial of a Democrat where
>>> >the evidence was produced (on tape)? And what would be
>>> >our response to a conviction of a Democrat council
>>> >member for bribery given these facts?
>>> >
>>> >I don't know Dean Zimmermann well, but in my very
>>> >limited interactions with him, he seems like a
>>> >wonderful person. I don't wish him ill - he's done
>>> >great things for the Green Party and for the city in
>>> >my opinion. We're a small enough circle of people that
>>> >there's a personal connection and affection between
>>> >political leaders in the GP and their supporters,
>>> >which is a fantastic attribute. But there's a limit to
>>> >personal loyalty, and that's what this letter is
>>> >about.
>>> >
>>> >I seriously can't believe that every public statement
>>> >equivocates on the acts that were documented in this
>>> >trial with one of the following types of arguments:
>>> >
>>> >A) The acts documented there pale in comparison to the
>>> >political corruption present elsewhere in our
>>> >political system.
>>> >
>>> >Obviously, this statement is true on its face, but
>>> >this cannot be used as an excuse to justify actions
>>> >that on their face contravene nearly every principle
>>> >the GP espouses publicly and privately regarding the
>>> >acceptance of money from donors. Maybe I missed it,
>>> >but aren't we supposed to hold ourselves to higher
>>> >standards than the corrupt political status quo? Don't
>>> >we express that in our platform?
>>> >
>>> >B) There was no explicit quid pro quo for the
>>> >acceptance of the donation.
>>> >
>>> >As a legal argument, this may be the strongest
>>> >argument that I've seen, but as a political argument,
>>> >this sucks. In the corrupt status quo, flows of money
>>> >from developers and political interests rarely have
>>> >express quid pro quos attached to them, but we abhor
>>> >them nonetheless because they are emblematic of the
>>> >corruption we see.
>>> >
>>> >C) It was entrapment.
>>> >
>>> >Once again, this is a legal argument that might work
>>> >to excuse an action from illegality, but the fact
>>> >remains that one of the GP's most public and respected
>>> >figures accepted over 7000 dollars in cash donations
>>> >from a developer on tape. No donation is compulsory -
>>> >it would have been right and correct to say "no."
>>> >
>>> >How do we expect to survive as a party that imposes
>>> >higher standards on ourselves because of our belief
>>> >that money has corrupted our political system when we
>>> >excuse the actions of one of our most public champions
>>> >that contravene those standards? I am willing to be
>>> >told that my understanding of these facts is incorrect
>>> >- but my understanding is that the fact that Dean
>>> >Zimmermann accepted over 7000 dollars in cash from
>>> >Carlson is not in dispute.
>>> >
>>> >The GP's statements in the wake of this conviction are
>>> >disconcerting to me, and in my opinion, eviscerate the
>>> >one of the central premises of our existance, that we
>>> >stand for clean politics free from the taint of money.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Before you respond, please do me the favor of
>>> >remembering a few things and trying to answer a few
>>> >things.
>>> >
>>> >1) How would we respond if a Democrat were to be
>>> >convicted of accepting bribes? Or for that matter,
>>> >were to have been acquitted under similar
>>> >circumstances and facts? If we cannot respond
>>> >consistently regardless of party to corruption cases,
>>> >we have forfeited our high ground.
>>> >
>>> >2) I have no motive to impugn the GP or Dean
>>> >Zimmermann. I don't know him well enough to have any
>>> >agenda against him. I know that many of you do know
>>> >him far better than I do. I offer this only because I
>>> >fear that this personal connection has colored our
>>> >judgment in a negative way.
>>> >
>>> >3) This is, indeed, a crisis of conscience for the GP.
>>> >Many who wonder at our corrupt political system will
>>> >see our response to this as a sign of where we stand,
>>> >and I fear that what we've said so far is sending the
>>> >message that we'll ignore the influence of money among
>>> >our own and criticize it in other places. And frankly,
>>> >that is the hypocritical attitude that made me leave
>>> >the D's and vote Green in the first place. Was I
>>> >wrong?
>>> >
>>> >Truthfully, I thought a long time about this before I
>>> >posted, and I do so out of concern rather than hate or
>>> >the desire to hurt anyone. I hope that, at least,
>>> >comes through as you've read this.
>>> >
>>> >Sincerely,
>>> >
>>> >aaron klemz
>>> >minneapolis/cooper
>>> >
>>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> >"I am not sure what a revolution in the academy will look like, any
>>> >more than I know what a revolution in the society will look like. I
>>> >doubt that it will take the form of some great cataclysmic event.
>>> >More likely, it will be a process, with periods of tumult and of
>>> >quiet, in which we will, here and there, by ones and twos and tens,
>>> >create pockets of concern inside old institutions, transforming them
>>> >from within. There is no great day of reckoning to work toward.
>>> >Rather, we must begin _now_ to liberate those patches of ground on
>>> >which we stand - to "vote" for a new world (as Thoreau suggested)
>>> >with our whole selves all the time, rather than in moments carefully
>>> >selected by others." - Howard Zinn, "The Uses of Scholarship"
>>> >
>>> >Aaron Klemz, Minneapolis, Minnesota
>>> >aaronklemz@yahoo.com
>>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> >
>>> >__________________________________________________
>>> >Do You Yahoo!?
>>> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> >http://mail.yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Tom to Gmail
Lydia Howeel
to tomcleland, discuss
More options 6:32 pm (7 hours ago)
Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so, WHAT HAPPENED?
We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal with. It seems
that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
Linda Mann
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Gypsycurse7@cs.com to Gmail
Tom Cleland
to Gypsycurse7, discuss
More options 10:42 pm (3 hours ago)
Apparently it ended up there, but the jury may have felt it was too late.
Also, as I understand it, Dean tried to write a check to FREE early on, but
the jury may not have been convinced the check was authentic or timely.
In the end, it looks like the developer didn't get any special treatment,
and the money did not go to benefit Dean or his campaign, so then I guess it
really was "nothing for nothing." If I was the judge and knew the $6000 was
accounted for, I would go easy on Dean.
Tom Cleland
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
- Show quoted text -
> Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
> account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so, WHAT
> HAPPENED?
> We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
> sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal with. It
> seems
> that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
>
> Linda Mann
>
- Show quoted text -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Tom to Gmail
Betsy Barnum
to Gypsycurse7, tomcleland, discuss
More options 10:50 pm (3 hours ago)
- Show quoted text -
At 06:32 PM 8/25/06, Gypsycurse7@cs.com wrote:
>Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
>account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so,
>WHAT HAPPENED?
>We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
>sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal
>with. It seems
>that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
As far as the jury was concerned--and this is what the FBI apparently
wanted--the critical issue seemed to be the secret videotape that
showed Dean slipping an envelope filled with thousands of dollars in
cash into his pocket. As well as his words on tape advising the
sleazy developer how to contribute more by getting it from family
members, friends, etc. And his words, "money, money, money," never
mind that the tone was joking. That's pretty much all they needed to
see. The current atmosphere in our country is highly suspicious of
politicians on every level. This jury needed just a gentle push to
see this act as corruption, even though the proof of "quid pro quo,"
which is the definition of bribery, was not there.
What the FBI did, as I was quoted as saying to the StarTrib the day
the verdict came down, looked a lot like entrapment. This wasn't like
a drug sting, where the drug dealers are known to be doing illegal
activity, and the sting is just to catch them in the act. Dean had
not accepted bribes or done anything corrupt that would lead to him
being investigated. The FBI had no reason to suspect him of having
done so. He was targeted because the FBI, counselled by the sleazy
developer, knew he was deeply in debt over the redistricting lawsuit
and thought he might be a "soft target." They were right.
What Dean did in accepting the money and in not being able to account
for some of it was wrong and unethical. It wasn't criminal. And
since the judge instructed the jury (this I read in one of Randy
Furst's articles in the Strib) that if they thought Dean had been
entrapped they must find him not guilty, I can't understand why more
wasn't made of this. Trying to get a law-abiding citizen to commit a
crime by presenting him with a huge temptation and all sorts of
pressure to do it is what entrapment is, in my lay understanding.
I wish Dean hadn't done it. The image of this incident throughout our
state and everywhere else that it has been reported, is that a Green
former public office-holder is guilty of corruption and bribery. For
all those who don't know the details, the jury conviction means it's
true. That's how our legal system works. We know he's not a criminal,
but to the rest of the world he is.
And along with that is the image of a Green former public
office-holder handling money in ways that are not at all in keeping
with Green principles on this issue, which is one of our strongest
differences with other parties, and failing to live up to the key
value of personal responsibility. Dean will have to live with his
conviction; we'll all have to live with what he did for some time to come.
If one of the results of this tragedy is that all Green
office-holders and candidates redouble their efforts to be upright
and transparent in their handling of money, the suffering of Dean,
Jenny, their family and friends and the GPMN will have some redeeming value.
Betsy Barnum
Minneapolis
