Tom Horne Testifies, Channels Bill Clinton

14. "Independent expenditure" means an expenditure by a person or political committee, other than a candidate's campaign committee, that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, that is made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate or committee or agent of the candidate and that is not made in concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, or any committee or agent of the candidate. Independent expenditure includes an expenditure that is subject to the requirements of section 16-917, which requires a copy of campaign literature or advertisement to be sent to a candidate named or otherwise referred to in the literature or advertisement.

An expenditure is not an independent expenditure if any of the following applies:

(a) Any officer, member, employee or agent of the political committee making the expenditure is also an officer, member, employee or agent of the committee of the candidate whose election or whose opponent's defeat is being advocated by the expenditure or an agent of the candidate whose election or whose opponent's defeat is being advocated by the expenditure.

(b) There is any arrangement, coordination or direction with respect to the expenditure between the candidate or the candidate's agent and the person making the expenditure, including any officer, director, employee or agent of that person. For the purposes of this subdivision, serving on a host committee for a fund-raising event does not presumptively demonstrate any arrangement, coordination or direction.

(c) In the same election the person making the expenditure, including any officer, director, employee or agent of that person, is or has been:

(i) Authorized to raise or expend monies on behalf of the candidate or the candidate's authorized committees.

(ii) Receiving any form of compensation or reimbursement from the candidate, the candidate's committees or the candidate's agent.

(d) The expenditure is based on information about the candidate's plans, projects or needs, or those of his campaign committee, provided to the expending person by the candidate or by the candidate's agents or any officer, member or employee of the candidate's campaign committee with a view toward having the expenditure made.

Horne can quibble and split hairs all he wants, but if Horne was not coordinating, then coordination between a candidate and an IE practically is impossible, and the law should be junked as unenforceable.

Which may not be a bad idea, but while we still have some laws in this regard, politicians should give lip service to obeying them. Particularly, aspiring and current Attorneys General.

Kathleen Winn testified prior to Horne, and for most of her time under oath, she acquitted herself with poise. But under cross examination by Fields, she stumbled in explaining calls between herself and Horne, and the e-mail in question.

She, like Horne, forwarded the e-mail chain on without paying attention to it, she claimed. This time to Murray. Which makes absolutely no sense, even though Winn said the ad "was done."

I like Winn. She has a sense of humor, and moxie. But I believe she was being a good soldier in 2010, and is being one now. And perhaps you could say that's admirable in a way, if the general she was serving was someone other than Horne.

There are other issues. Winn's attorney Larry Debus has taken exception, and that's putting it mildly, to the testimony of FBI agent Brian Grehoski, even going so far as to accuse him of perjury.

I'll address this further in another post, but this sideshow seems concocted to help Horne and Winn skate. (Debus did not seem disturbed by holes in Winn's affidavit, which was made under oath.)

Indeed, Debus, when dealing with another issue regarding Grehoski, who was not allowed by the FBI to testify about every aspect of the overall Horne investigation, admitted that he wanted to get the defense's inability to cross-examine as it pleased before the court of appeals.

Indeed, much of what Debus and Horne and Winn's other lawyers were doing was laying the grounds for an anticipated appeal.

Both sides will submit written closing arguments March 13, and rebuttals on the 17th. Eigenheer will then render a judgement, which will go to Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who will make the final decision on whether to accept or reject it.

Polk has ordered that Horne and Winn pay back $400,000 to BLA contributors, and the hearing this week happened because Horne and Winn are challenging Polk's order.

After Eigenheer sends her recommendation to Polk and Polk makes a final call, the matter could end up in superior court on appeal.

If I had to wager right now, I would bet that Eigenheer finds the defendants in violation, being that the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence.

Eigenheer's no dummy. She's the ALJ who wrote an opinion rejecting Maricopa County Bill Montgomery's order on this same subject because Monty had violated the process laid out in Arizona law. The superior court upheld Eigenheer's ruling there.

She was paying close attention to all of the testimony this week, taking copious notes.

How she could not find that Horne is guilty as sin is beyond me.

If Horne loses, Horne, Winn, BLA or a combination of the three will face a possible fine of $1.2 million.

Can you imagine? Heck, Horne may have to sell another piece of property.

Got a tip for The Bastard? Send it to: Stephen Lemons.

My Voice Nation Help
21 comments
danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

hold on a minute.............so Tom Horne, the guy who thinks he's smarter than everybody, doesnt understand a email? the guy smarter than everybody else, doesnt know how to cut and paste messages, or even select content? wouldnt that be kind of like "dont open an email if you dont know who its from"??? if you are an elected official and you get an email you dont understand......................why would you forward it with your name attached to it? also if you dont read it or understand it................how do you know  who to forward it to?  Tom knew who to forward it to, 

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Horne's done. It's official.

He just admitted he violated the law. The same law he swore to uphold.

Boot him out. Now.

DNichols
DNichols

Arizonan's Do you know how to:

#1  Lie.

#2  Cheat.

#3. Steal.

#4. Want to be a Bigot.

#5. Help cover up, and hide Corruption

#6. Cook Record Books.

#7.  Use others around you as Scape Goats..

#8. Accept Bribes.

If you answered yes to any or all of these questions please run for Political Office in Arizona.

This message is in no way affiliated with the M.C.S.O., the Attorney Generals Office, the Maricopa County Attorneys Office, or the G.O.P. Party, and or G.O.P. Extremist wing Nuts or Neo Nazi's.

FRONTERA
FRONTERA

Campaign finance law is not always easy to understand ,but from what I have been reading hear, it sure looks like Horne violated the law. It is about time Arizona gets an AG with integrity . This is why I will vote for Rotellini.   

Cozz
Cozz topcommenter

Calm, you bet, Horne like all politicians are professional liars and can lie through their teeth as calm as can be.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

""I absolutely did not give any input in the ad," Horne declared. "We never talked about it...I'm absolutely certain. We knew we could not and we did not."

Shades of NJ Gov. Christie? 

slappy
slappy

A thought bubble over Horne's head would read, I got this...She really digs me. 

slappy
slappy

A thought bubble over Judge Eigenheer's head would read:  This guy is so full of shit. 

slappy
slappy

A thought bubble over Judge Eigenheer's head would read: This guy is so full of shit. 

teknik
teknik

I want to see some perjury  here, obvious lies under oath are obvious.

royalphoenix
royalphoenix

5 hours of calls in 13 days, who is Horne trying to B.S. Horne is a shining example of what is wrong in this state. peace

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

Friends, real estate and Arizona "prison" state?

Mark  Goldman, friend of Chuck Coughlin, High Ground lobbyist / CCA?  Or Mark Goldman, friend of Andrew Thomas, who testified in the Arizona Supreme Court disciplinary hearings against Andrew Thomas / Lisa Aubuchon (both disbarred April 2012) and Rachel Alexander (sanctioned)? Who are all these people?  

Real estate transactions? Who's handling the real estate transactions and land deals for the jails, prisons, detention centers in the state of Arizona?  Just saying... as Arizona has ramped up to become the "dumping" grounds for other states' prisoners, creating liabilities for Arizona's taxpayers. Meanwhile, the conservative states have cut their prison population, reformed draconian sentencing laws and saved THEIR taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars -- while, our elected officials are denigrating their offices and wasting taxpayers dollars on their soap operas?

Reminds us... (Clinton hearing) while the media and the nation were focused on the semen on the "blue dress", Bin Laden was planning eventual attacks --  the ancient monuments in Afghanistan, followed by 9/11. 

What is really going on behind the scenes in Arizona? The office of the Attorney General has been disgraced and lacks credibility under its current leadership. Real estate deals about what? The public has a right to know about these "land" deals.  Who's investigating this?

TommyCollins
TommyCollins topcommenter

Deny, deny, deny.


But, at least he didn't feign having 'the flu' and he didn't use the 'I don't recall' stature of the local shurf.


He simply tried to lie his way out of the conspiracy.


Lame.


As always.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

lol i was waiting for him to say "i did not have relations with that woman..we just like to hang in bed at lunch"

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

Mr. Lemons, Excellent reporting! Have to come here to find the truth.

DNichols
DNichols

Horne:

"I did not criminally conspire with that Woman, Mrs. Chenal, ur I mean Winn."

"What is is?"

taxintim
taxintim

@Cozz  And that is the real reason lie detector test are inadmissible. If everything you say is a lie, then there is no difference to detect.

DNichols
DNichols

@ david-saint01

I wonder when they were "wrapping up the property swap", what other property they swapped?

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@royalphoenix  What applies to the people should apply to those in a position of awesome power and trust.

Reminder: Arizona's zero tolerance policies - preponderance of evidence send ordinary people straight to jail, where they wear jail stripes for their court appearances, not silk jackets and coiffed hair.

Those who enable the accused are treated as if they committed the crime as well. Like "felony murder", even though the person was sitting in a car blocks away and didn't even know it was going to happen and a person was shot and killed.

The system, the prosecutors and lawmakers created for "others", should apply to them. And especially, the top State prosecutor -- the state attorney general. The AG's office has NO credibility and has been turned into a mockery.

The top prosecutors are in a position of trust and awesome power over the people and the federal and taxpayers dollars that pour into the state.

The AG grandstands at the podium that he will take this case --Debra Milke -- to the U.S. Supreme Court myself!! -- after a higher court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, overturned her conviction and sentence, and gave Arizona's justice system a scathing opinion. 

Until Arizona's prosecutors get the same punishment, they want for "others", there will not be equal or fair justice in the state. 

Whose paying for the team of defense lawyers that the ordinary person could never afford for themselves, not even one of them?





Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...