Support Farheen hakeem, was Sierra Club Endorses Jeff Hayden for House 61B Seat
From:
Tim Salo
Date:
Oct 16 17:44 UTC
Short link
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Mr.
Zimmermann's appeal provides a nice summary of the
facts and of the legal reasoning.
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/12/071062P.pdf
Bill McGaughey wrote:
> There have been a number of postings related to Dean
> Zimmermann’s conviction for bribery. Most suggest that
> Dean committed a serious crime
This discussion is about our expectations for ethical
behavior on the part of elected officials in Minneapolis
and elsewhere. The activities for which Mr. Zimmermann
was convicted are an important benchmark against which to
judge ethical behavior. Some appear intent upon setting
a lower ethical standard for elected officials.
> and, by implication, does not deserve our sympathy.
Why on earth should our level of sympathy for the accused
or for the guilty affect our ethical expectations for elected
officials?
> The postings as a group are long on interpretation and short on facts.
Indeed. As will be shown shortly.
> Dean Zimmermann was convicted of bribery.
True.
> Bribery, in essence, means that an elected official
> his or her vote for money - money that goes into the
> official’s personal account.
Not true.
The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: "Each count alleged
that Zimmermann knowingly and corruptly solicited something
of value with intent to be influenced or rewarded in connection
with business with the government of the City of Minneapolis in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B)."
Your "interpretation" conflicts with a plain language reading
of the law and with the findings of a federal district judge
and three federal circuit judges.
> A bribe, then, consists of two elements: (1) The official
> must have voted in the way that the giver of money wanted
> him to vote. (2) There must have been an expectation that
> the money was given for the purpose of committing the official
> to vote in a certain way.
Not true. Again, the appeals court disagrees with your
narrow and novel "interpretation".
> Someone wrote that Zimmermann “coached” Carlson on how
> to evade the law. This is an interpretation. I need facts.
At your service. From the appeals court ruling:
Zimmermann talked about trying to raise more money for
his campaign and referred to the contribution limit of
$300 per person. He suggested having Carlson donate in
the names of his "cousins."
... Carlson gave Zimmermann $1200 in campaign contribution
envelopes with the names of four straw donors. Carlson told
Zimmermann that he had given the "donors" a little extra so
that they would verify that the contributions were theirs.
Carlson went to Zimmermann's home on August 31, 2005. While
there Carlson gave Zimmermann $1000 in an unmarked campaign
contribution envelope and suggested that the money was from
people who wanted Zimmermann reelected. Carlson told
Zimmermann to write in the donor names himself and stated,
"That's for getting us the zoning over there," referring to
the zoning for the development of the new Somali mall.
Zimmermann replied "So . . . alright."
.