Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Corporations made "soft" money contributions which were legal to Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC).
However, particular amounts were earmarked to go to specific Texas state candidates, which certainly violates the spirit of the law prohibiting corporations from donating to candidates 60 days before an election - and which may be ruled to violate the letter as well.
TRMPAC sent money to RNSEC which was legal.
Reportedly with a note attached specifying which amounts were to be returned for distribution to which candidates, which may be ruled conspiracy to break the law.
Individuals made "hard" money contributions which were legal to Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC).
True, but irrelevant.
RNSEC sent money to candidates which was legal.
Except the particular amounts sent to specific candidates just happened to match the amounts & individuals specified by the corporations - could it be conspiracy to flout the law?
TRMPAC did not send money to candidates which would have been illegal.
Not directly, but apparently indirectly. The question is does passing it through the RNSEC erase its fingerprints sufficiently?
Corporation Political Action Committees (PAC) are legal. Your employer may well have one. Maybe you've even worked on the committee.
They are legal as long as they don't contribute to Texas candidates 60 days before an election.
Individual contributions are legal. You may well make such contributions. Maybe you've even solicited for them.
Are they part of this case or just thrown in to muddy the waters?
How can there be a "crime" if everything was legal?
There may be a crime if conspiracy to launder money can be proven.
How can there be a "conspiracy" to commit a crime if there was not even a crime?
The conspiracy would committing the crime without appearing to commit it and with helping the coverup.
The "crime" here seems to be a politically motivated District Attorney with nothing better to do but waste local tax payer money.
Enforcing campaign laws seems suitable.
The "conspiracy" here seems to be to disrupt the national political process by discrediting a key Republican leader.
Wooo, shades of White Water!