In Jesse Benton Case, DOJ Says a Trump Pardon Does Not Blot Out Guilt

In 2016, GOP fundraiser Jesse Benton was convicted and sentenced for effectively using a donation to an IA State Senator to win support for Ron Paul’s 2012 Presidential campaign. In the very same period, according to an indictment obtained September, he was working to arrange for and cover-up a Russian donation to Trump’s SuperPAC.

Trump gave Benton a pardon for the initial campaign finance crime on the same day he pardoned Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Charles Kushner (among others).

As part of pretrial motions in his case, he and the government are fighting about whether the government can use the prior conviction to show that Benton already knew about one of the campaign finance laws in question and had, in the past, covered up the true source of campaign donations. The government maintains that it should be able to use the prior crime to impeach him because the pardon does not “blot out” his prior crime.

Although Defendant moves to preclude the government from using his prior conviction to impeach him under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, based on the fact that the conviction was pardoned, his brief is devoid of case law regarding the issue, and he makes no attempt to establish the requisite predicates under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(c). See ECF No. 35, at 7-8. As laid out in the government’s motions in limine, under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(c), evidence of a conviction that has been pardoned is only inadmissible where the pardon was based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated or the pardon was based on a finding of innocence. The plain language of Defendant’s pardon does not indicate that the pardon was based on either a finding of actual innocence or rehabilitation. See Zinman v. Black & Decker, 983 F.2d 431, 435 (2d Cir. 1993) (“We have construed Rule 609(c)(1) strictly, interpreting it to bar admission of a prior conviction only when there has been an express finding that the person convicted has been rehabilitated.”); Watkins v. Thomas, 623 F.2d 387, 387 (5th Cir. 1980) (allowing impeachment by pardoned convictions where defendant’s pardons “were not the consequence of subsequent proof of innocence” but rather defendant was pardoned “because he performed undercover activities in the service of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.”). The explanation for the pardon provided by the White House similarly does not indicate that the pardon was based on either a finding of actual innocence or rehabilitation. See Ex. F (Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Grants of Clemency). Moreover, while pardons mitigate the offender’s punishment, “the granting of a pardon is in no sense an overturning of a judgment[.]” Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 232 (1993). Courts have made clear that a pardon “does not ‘blot out guilt’ in any literal or uncritical sense[.]” Richards v. United States, 192 F.2d 602, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (citation omitted); see also Bjerkan v. United States, 529 F.2d 125, 128 n.2 (7th Cir. 1975). As such, and for the reasons laid out in the government’s motions in limine, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion and permit the government to impeach Defendant with his prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609 should he take the stand.

Given the sheer number of corrupt pardons Trump gave, it’s an important argument — one that is also appearing in Philip Esformes’ case, whom the government wants to retry on health care fraud charges on which the jury hung but for which Trump did not grant Esformes a commutation.

Here, the argument is even easier: There’s no contest that Benton committed the prior acts, there’s no contest he violated his probation by allegedly engaging in further campaign finance crime, there’s no contest his past conviction would have made him well aware of the legal obligations the accurately record such donations.

But it may clarify the status of all the corrupt pardons Trump has granted.

Benton’s case is being tried before Trump appointee Trevor McFadden.

54 replies
  1. Ruthie says:

    I understand the importance of a ruling in the government’s favor, but won’t Benton appeal if so, all the way to the SC if necessary? It’s interesting/frightening to imagine how the SC would rule.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Maybe because the ‘net is slow this AM, but I’m of the opinion to make SCOTUS’ reactionaries rule on these kinds of cases to show their cards. One thing to remember about blackmail in its various forms is that it counts on the fear of the targets to call the bluffs. We see it in the reports about how the MAGA cultists will rise up in revolt and the ways they try to intimidate people they don’t like. Lately, they’re using the tactic of pounding on doors to see if the voters ‘exist’ and develop ‘evidence’ of fraud. It’s being run in KS now and had been tried in AZ during the Fraudit.

      Bluffs have to be called, and it will be painful.

      As for the pardon effect here, what the government appears to be saying (correctly) is that Benton was aware his actions were criminal since he’d been tried and convicted. Pardons do not exonerate or expunge the record (they also don’t include an admission of guilt as bmaz has pointed out before) so for Benton’s lawyers to pretend it’s a tabula rasa now is bullcrap. The conviction exists until the record is formally expunged.

      • Rugger9 says:

        The nonsense regarding elections is getting worse, KS did a recount on something that lost by almost 2:1, we have GQP candidates with 3% of the vote screaming elections are rigged and demanding recounts and other anti-democracy behaviors. It’s part of the process of working the refs, so to speak and needs to be pushed back on every chance we have. For those who think third parties are the way, the GQP needs to be crushed first since splitting opposition to their plans means the GQP will succeed. Look how the ‘Human Bowling Jacket’ (h/t Charlie Pierce) was elected twice as ME’s governor, because his opponents split the vote and LePage won with 38% or so of the vote.

        In Benton’s case it has been less than ten years since the crime and six years since he was convicted for it. We’re not looking at a case here where the laws had radically changed between then and now and Benton’s lawyers ought to be sanctioned for it since they are trained to know better.

        • KP says:

          Jayhawker here. In another bit of the virtual world, I mentioned (again) that one should be careful what they wish for. The well-funded, NOT grassroots, groups opposing actual liberty, freedom, and one’s personal autonomy from interference, ARE KNOWN TO INCLUDE terrorists AND murderers. By knocking on someone’s door, they are on private property, and the occupant(s) may well know their own lives are at stake, if they ‘disappoint’ those ‘canvassers’ with their replies. THEY have caused the too-easy access to weapons, THEY have encouraged ‘open-carry’ laws, they have encouraged ‘stand your ground’ laws throughout the country. None of that, though, is germane when one, fearing for their life, and the lives of their loved ones, IN THEIR OWN HOME, might believe they need to protect their own lives. Kansas is typical of any Great Plains, or ‘west of the Mississippi’ vast, wide-open, and mostly empty here. ‘Outdoor’ activities are learned practically from birth. *Even girls* often learn to handle guns, and learn to shoot, some even to enjoy hunting. Of course, ‘they’ usually don’t think things through. They ‘know what they know, and that’s that’. what did the guy say in some old tv show? ‘i pity the fool.’ well, like those fools gored and stomped by wild bison, nah, i say ‘bravo bull’ :P

    • Rugger9 says:

      I’m not so sure about that given how long Vlad’s been running things and his background. Also, the state media is blaming the Ukrainians (who answered with a flat ‘No’ instead of winking about it) but that would entail that Ukraine has the ability to hit targets in the middle of Moscow without detection (requires native Russian speakers without accents, etc.) in a place where Vlad knows all and controls all access to munitions. It is unlikely especially relative to the favorite Soviet tactic of maskirovka where a false flag event is staged to generate outrage and vengefulness. Given who, where and when this is more likely a plot by the FSB.

      She was a piece of work in her own right, so not many tears will be shed for her. Adam Silverman at Balloon Juice has a decent writeup.

      • Rugger9 says:

        The other thing to consider is that Dugin had been critical of how Vlad’s military minions have conducting the war, which marked him for a message from on high. There is no similar correlation for Ukraine this time around (although Dugin was pretty rabid in 2014) and Zelenskyy seems to be good about staying focused on who his principal enemies are right now. A rear-echelon gadfly is not worth the trouble of expending a deep-cover asset on a hit.

    • nord dakota says:

      I like to think “last sentence” could/would also imply the results of a criminal conviction, but I wish I weren’t pundamentally challenged. I’m also hopeless when it comes up with suggesting captions for New Yorker cartoon of the week. I swear I did have one good enough it should have been picked once, but not even a finalist.

      • Alan Charbonneau says:

        “I swear I did have one good enough it should have been picked once, but not even a finalist”

        I know the feeling. I thought my entry in the Bulwer-Lytton contest a few years back was a work of genius; the judges thought otherwise.

        What do you think?

        It was a “too quiet” kind of night the kind you’d find in a poorly-written detective novel authored by a guy with too little talent, too much of a flair for the dramatic, and too little concern for the reader who, he assumed, would be a middle-aged, overweight, bleach blonde lying on a Santa Monica beach trying to sip her once-cold but now tepid beer without getting sand down her gullet.

  2. Silly but True says:

    Corrupt power aside, Benton did commit “prior offenses,” against the government but those prior offenses are pardoned to which he got a reprieve.

    Prosecution is chicken-s’ing the plain Constitutional language on this one. The better, more straightforward angle would be to argue that the pardon is invalid, because as long as it exists for Benton, he’ll be entitled to reprieve on it. This is relatively basic Art. II interpretation which likely will go up to SCOTUS.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Good luck with that “invalid pardon” argument. I’ll wait at the bus stop with Vlad and Estragon.

      • Silly but True says:

        Oh, I’m not suggesting it’s a good strategy, but I sti think it has better chance of succeeding than what they’re pushing here if they continue to try to push it.

        They let Manafort off on his “pardon-proof” commingled civil/criminal fines and recompense after the pardon.

        There’s no way that this will be able to contribute to any increased penalty.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          “The better, more straightforward angle would be to argue that the pardon is invalid,” sounds like you’re pushing an argument that can only fail.

          • Silly but True says:

            It very well may, but still has a better chance than government trying to mint limits on what the Constitution states as “reprieve” when there are no such limits that exist in some simple text.

            It’s not that I think arguing the corrupt pardon angle ought to nullify it will end up working. But it has better chance than arguing that when the Constitution says a reprieve, it was just joking.

      • Chuck M. says:

        Didi and Gogo are the names of my 11yo (afaik) Plecostomas (Standard), who are growing too big for their tank, and need to stop waiting (and growing).

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    One would hope that McFadden recognizes the limits on a pardon’s reach. Harms were done by the crime. The pardon allows them to go upunished, but does not undo them or the knowledge about how they were done.

    The law is full of similar examples. Double jeopardy stops the government from prosecuting someone a second time for a crime for which a jury has already found him not guilty – even if that person confesses to the crime after the fact. But it doesn’t pixie dust away that person’s knowledge and experience. Tax law might ignore one entity in a chain when calculating the tax liability of its parent. It does not mean that other laws, such as labor or environmental rules, do not apply to it.

  4. TooLoose LeTruck says:


    That copy of ‘Weinstein’s Evidence Manual’ I bought is already paying off!

    I was able to find Rule 609, Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction:

    ‘Rule 609 governs the use of criminal convictions for impeachment. There is no entirely satisfactory solution to the use of convictions to impeach.’

    In other words, there is no one, definitive, clear cut answer to this one?

    Couple of questions, if anyone feels inclined to answer them, and apologies if they’ve already been answered on other days.

    1. How does the word ‘impeachment’ work in this context? I looked up a definition of it and it seems to refer to public officials and was Ben ever an actual elected official, apart from being a political consultant?

    2. I imagine this one has been discussed here before, but why are Trump’s pardons considered ‘corrupt’? Not trying to be flip, just trying to make sure I really understand what I’m reading.

    • nord dakota says:

      “Impeach” applies to things other than public officials. A witness can be impeached, for example.

      transitive verb

      1: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor
      specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
      After Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached, finished his chaotic and disgraceful administration, Grant was the inevitable successor.
      — Richard Brookhiser
      2: to cast doubt on
      especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of
      impeach the testimony of a witness
      The Husby’s credit rating was impeached because IRS managers were unable to stop the … computer from generating false information.
      — David Burnham
      A basic rule of evidence permits any witness to be impeached by establishing that she made a prior statement inconsistent with the current testimony.
      — Jack H. Friedenthal et al.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        The second meaning – impugning or casting doubt on a witness’s testimony – is the one you want.

        Trump’s pardons are considered corrupt because he issues most of them for corrupt purposes. The pardon itself, because it is constitutionally authorized without express limits, is valid and the recipient is entitled to its benefits.

        But if it is issued to further a crime, it might be evidence of obstruction or another crime by the president. The logic is sound but untested, because so much of Trump’s conduct as president is unprecedented.

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          Thank you for taking the time to answer me, Earl…

          Is thee any legal consequence for someone like Barton here?

          What does it mean if Barton can be impeached here?

          As far as the logic being ‘sound but untested’, we’re in uncharted waters here, aren’t we?

          I know when a politician is impeached, it’s not really a conviction; Trump was impeached twice but was never convicted in either trial.

          In this context, what does impeachment mean for Barton?

          • Alan Charbonneau says:

            IANAL, but if the govt is trying him for a crime and they can “impeach” (cast doubt upon) his testimony should he claim to not be aware of the legal requirements. IOW, they’d be able to demonstrate that he knew better—or, as Marcy put it, “… his past conviction would have made him well aware of the legal obligations the accurately record such donations”.

            If prosecutors are able to impeach him in this new trial, it becomes easier to convict him. This is due, in part, to the fact that they will be able to demonstrate that he knew he what he was doing was illegal.

      • TooLoose LeTruck says:

        Thank you, Nord…

        I was familiar w/ the use of the word ‘impeachment’ in a political context but when I went looking for a different or broader definition (outside a specifically political usage) I didn’t find anything… i should have kept looking.

        I’m still not quite clear on what impeachment means here…. I understand the part about ‘impugning or casting doubt on testimony’ but once that’s been established, what comes next?

        • vvv says:

          I give this as a sometime example to witnesses during trial prep:

          If in your under-oath deposition testimony you stated the moon is made of green cheese,
          and then in your under-oath trial testimony you say the moon is made of blue cheese,
          the cross-examiner will prove up the prior inconsistent testimony in contrast to your current testimony (likely using a transcript in this example – “didn’t you on a prior occasion, under oath and represented by counsel, state this instead of that; page X, line Y” ).

          At this point (assuming the transcript is not contested), impeachment has been perfected, altho’ the witness can possibly be rehabilitated upon questioning by their counsel if they can explain away the prior inconsistent testimony (“I was sick, I didn’t understand the question, I was referring to that moon not this moon, it tasted like blue cheese but later I looked and saw it was green, *etc.*”)

          A good cross-examiner can anticipate and perhaps prevent rehab; *ex*., re the cheesy moon, an immediate follow-up question: “You obviously understood what we were talking about as you answered the question quite clearly both times, but which answer was the lie, blue cheese or green cheese?”

          Impeachment is, for a trial lawyer, fun stuff, and doesn’t even require words. In the course of a serious injury case involving willful and wanton conduct I once had an adverse witness come across the deposition table and try to assault me when I questioned his prior statement. A witness turning red and refusing to answer may also be arguably impeaching, twice.

          • Savage Librarian says:

            So, about the difference between perjury and impeachment:

            Perjury is an intentional misstatement?

            Impeachment appears to be a false statement, but could be just someone misremembering, and perhaps biased?

            • vvv says:

              Perjury is an intentional lie (or perhaps omission) under oath. A witness caught in perjury is by definition impeached.

              But impeachment needn’t be an outright lie, just an inaccuracy, a contradiction, and exaggeration … and as I stated above, even demeanor.

              FWIW, I’ve been a trial atty since – a long time – and I’ve never once in a civil case seen a prosecution for perjury. (I don’t do much criminal.) Makes sense though as civil cases are generally about money or equitable relief. The liar usually loses or greatly devalues their position – that could mean losing money, or custody, *etc.* As opposing counsel, I dare not say “perjury” in front of a jury (could be grounds for a mistrial and if I catch/prove ’em doing it I’m already winning) but another fun thing is the rare occasion one can call a witness on the stand a liar, and get away with it, usually over vociferous objection.

              I have a nasty custody case coming up for trial quite soon in which I am confident I shall have the opportunity to do that just that, multiple times. (Hint to nasty parents – don’t in your texts coach your kid to lie to the GAL, police and Court when the kid takes the phone to the other parent’s house during weekend visitation – they have to sleep sometime. Also, bad enough telling your kid I’m an asshole in those same texts, but calling the GAL and the judge the B-word ain’t gonna help you none, neither.)

    • bmaz says:

      Perfect! Keep at it, you are just scratching the surface. This is wonderful.

      The pardon power is plenary, so while we may consider them “corrupt”, they may not be illegal.

      • TooLoose LeTruck says:

        Thank you for the encouragement!

        It is DENSE reading…

        ***gets out machete, starts whacking away… muttering under breath… “man, this is underbrush is THICK”…

        Oddly, I find it… reassuring… that the people who actually run the system, so to speak, try to be so exacting in what they say… compared to the damn near incoherent babbling heads you see on television or the internets, who think they know so damned much…

        I now keep a dictionary and a pad of paper w/ me when I read “Weinstein’s”… it’s not that I don’t recognize the words I come across, it’s more of a case of going, “okay, why EXACTLY this word, right here?’

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, it is a very good thing you are doing! And exactly why I almost explode sometimes when people say “we know this, it is already proved!” And “slam dunk” etc. My question is always “courts are not the internet, how are you going to get that into evidence in a real court?”

          Seriously though, please keep at it. And keep giving the feedback from that work here.

          • KP says:

            Pardons are a good thing, basically, which is much the reason we have them available. but i’ve been of the thinking a ‘pardon,’ was simply that, and did not imply ‘innocence,’ nor even ‘not guilty;’ and, by accepting a pardon, one (whether by gosh or by golly) confirmed the conclusions of the jury’s deliberations? As mentioned, there are means and procedures to pardon after the fact, that DO state, infer, or imply, the pardoned offense was wrongly concluded. None of drumpf’s were based on those rules/regulations, as far as what I read here, and around. I am happy to learn about the ins and outs, if I’m mistaken or partially mistaken in what I’ve believed pardons are about.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Colloquially, a pardon might imply guilt or conviction. Legally, it does neither. Pardons are often issued to correct a miscarriage of justice. They are sometimes, but rarely, issued before prosecution (Nixon).

              You’re correct that until Trump, presidential pardons were normally issued after a formal review process, run by a pardon office. It considered the crime, the sentence or time served, the perp’s contrition and attempts to make good, etc.

              As he does with most things, Trump disregarded that process entirely. He gave pardons whimsically, but most often to people who protected him or who modeled corrupt conduct similar to his own.

      • TooLoose LeTruck says:

        One more thought…

        So the use of the word ‘corrupt’ to describe many of Trump’s pardons has no real legal bearing here?

        • bmaz says:

          Probably not. But that is a hard question. The pardons would stand, because the pardon power is plenary. Could it be part of some other crime? Maybe. And then it all starts getting quite messy.

          • TooLoose LeTruck says:

            ‘And then it all starts getting quite messy…’

            It certainly sounds it…

            There’s a famous quote that comes to mind here, from Christopher Isherwood I believe, who co-wrote the screenplay for ‘The Loved One’…

            ‘The truth is more of a liquid than a solid…’

            I gather that ‘s why lawyers, and the law in general, try to be so exact in what they say.

            You try and try to parse messy human behavior out into specifics, and the ‘truth’ can just run thru your fingers, like water…

            Thank you to everyone today who answered my questions!

            This site is such a wonderful resource, and yes, I will continue to hack my way thru ‘Weinstein’s’…

  5. nord dakota says:

    My edit timed out re: corruption
    Think of historical uses of the word, not just stuff like self-dealing, with maybe a bit of Aristotle (by way of Aquinas) thrown in. The final cause of an object is its purpose. Classic Aristotle example: man takes a walk in the morning and his bowels move. The walk may have been an efficient cause of the bowel movement, but unless he took the walk in order to relieve constipation the final cause was to get to the Agora. I suppose with a non-corrupt pardon the final cause would be that a person who had become corrupted in some way became uncorrupted such that the non-corrupt pardon ordains that, but just as important was not undertaken for the purpose of maintaining the corruption (as it rot) of the pardonee or the pardoner.

    They argument here is that they all continue to stink.

  6. OldTulsaDude says:

    Not trying to start a row but receive clarification for a layman that ex parte Garland holds that the pardon touches the sentence and the guilt. Incorrect?

  7. bmaz says:

    You are both sock puppeting and whinging. All your comments will now be in moderation until approved. Do NOT bitch at us. That is not going to work here.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Len Leo has some new toys to play with: the proceeds from a $1.65 billion sale of a company donated to one of his organizations.

    Private electronics switching company, Tripp Lite, was sold by its conservative billionaire owner, Barre Seid, to Irish-American multinational Eaton Corporation. (Long based in Cleveland, Ohio, Eaton formally reincorporated for tax purposes via reverse merger in Ireland.) This took place in March 2022. So far, so typical.

    The tax dodge and political mayhem arise because Seid first donated the company to a special purpose political advocacy vehicle, Marble Freedom Trust, organized by Len Leo. Seid donated shares worth US$1.6 billion. Eaton paid Marble US$1.65 billion. The difference might be transaction costs. My conjecture is that the philanthropic Seid was paid a finders fee for arranging the deal, but this might be a legacy project. Mr. Seid is 90 and has no immediate family.

    Len Leo and his causes now have a fat piggy bank. The fascists will come calling. Mr. Leo, no doubt, knows what he wants in exchange for his support.

    • Nick Caraway says:

      I think Dkos got this from the Times. In any event… what struck me is that Barre Seid donated the whole company, not just some of the shares. Seid first ran the sale of all of the company’s shares through an Irish conglomerate, taking advantage of that country’s low corporate taxes. No capital gains tax paid, at all. Therefter the funds got routed back to the US, to Leo’s Marble Freedom Trust. Sweet for Leo/ Marble, insult to injury to the rest of us.

      Sullivan & Cromwell earned the money they got for structuring this transaction, that’s for sure. I know, lots of corporations run their profits through Ireland to avoid taxes (think, for example, Apple, which has in some recent tax years nominaly held its IP in Ireland and booked the related profits there). The Irish corporate tax haven is not exactly a new thing, but I hadn’t heard of a major political donation being run through that country to avoid US tax before. Maybe others here have.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        They did get it from the NYT, which I think I noted elsewhere, but it’s behind a paywall/registration requirement. There are two tax scams in play here, both legal. Eaton’s reverse merger with Cooper allowed it to move the site of its incorporation to Dublin, while keeping its de facto head office in Cleveland, giving it a lower tax rate while not effecting its staff and operations.

        Offshore re-incorporations have been popular for a couple of decades. Eaton did its ten years ago. They are politically risky, because the company maintains the benefits of operating in its original host country, while cutting taxes paid to it by moving the site of its formal incorporation to an offshore tax haven in Europe, the Caribbean, or Bermuda.

        The second scam is the donation by Seid to Marble, which is tax-free. Presumably, that would allow Seid to offset any finder’s fee he might have taken for arranging the sale in that manner, with a lot left over to offset any other income over several years. (At 90 Seid may not care, but billionaires usually do.) Eaton wouldn’t care, so long as it obtained the requisite pass-through contractual provisions it needed from Seid and/or Tripp Lite.

        Sullivan & Cromwell didn’t need to be very creative in structuring this transaction. The creativity was in persuading Seid to donate his company and put its value into Len Leo’s hands – and into those of his principal patrons.

  9. Rugger9 says:

    OT: Looking forward to the analysis of Individual-1’s latest motion to delay reviews by DoJ of the M-a-L search from two weeks ago now. Popehat (currently EnoughTreesHat) and Steve Vladeck are taking the knives to it on Twitter. Refresh often, it’s good reading.

    • Rayne says:

      Yeah, very worrisome since both my kids have dogs and I’m going to be dogsitting off and on this month. Not good. Just glad I’m not heading north soon, will be a major problem with duck and deer season coming up.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      That might be because in Art. II, sec. 2, clause 1, the president’s power to grant pardons for offenses against the United States excludes “Cases of impeachment.”

      That would include all impeachments, which are rare events. That is, a president could not override a congressional conviction on impeachment to pardon the impeachment and removal from office.

  10. Just Some Guy says:

    It’s worth noting that Jesse Benton is Rand Paul’s nephew. Additionally, another pardon granted by Trump was to Christopher 2X for decades-old convictions, a Louisville-based Black anti-violence activist who has, bizarrely, been championed by Rand Paul (cynically, in my view). Trump probably doesn’t know 2X from a hill of beans.

    I wish that Kentucky news media would bother covering the obvious corruption involving a nephew who’s been both Paul and McConnell’s campaign manager being indicted twice for the same crime (and being convicted of it once already), but of course the news media would rather point out that Charles Booker, Paul’s opponent, is not getting much help from DSCC.

Comments are closed.