Deep Thoughts: FBI probe target’s cash & the NCGOP

 

 

After our last story,  some knowledegable folks in the areas of law enforcement and the practice of law asked some questions of us (likely rhetorical, methinks).

The drivebys described the subpoenas regarding Greg Lindberg and Eli Global as  dealing with: “an investigation of drug offenses, crimes against financial institutions, or money laundering crimes,”  

Judging from that description, it sounds like cash transactions originating from Lindberg or his firm  might be considered buy federal authorities as “ill-gotten gains,” and therefore be subject to forefeiture by federal law enforcement.  

The drivebys also reported that the NCGOP got $1.9 million from Lindberg and his company.  What happens when (or if) the feds determine that money was indeed “ill-gotten gains” and come looking for it?  Do Dallas and his Grandpa HAVE $1.9 million to give them? 

If they do have $1.9 million to turn over to federal authorities, what impact will the loss of that cash have on the state GOP’s finances?  

(For what it’s worth, state Democrats and Dan Forest were also beneficiaries  of  cash from Lindberg and his firm.  That doesn’t make it any better, or any worse.) 

Another interesting question:  Dallas Woodhouse told the drivebys Lindberg’s donation was given based on his “interest in the NC Supreme Court.”   That would make one think Lindberg sought to have his $1.9 million earmarked for the 2018 Supreme Court races.   Then-Justice Barbara Jackson was the only GOPer on the ballot for the high court in 2018.

Campaign finance reports show Jackson got a whopping $825 from the NCGOP.  (Jackson claimed via Facebook that Hayes and Woodhouse told her they had nothing else to give her, prior to the November 2018 vote.)

 If the donor wished his money to be used for her race, WHY WASN’T IT? What happened to Lindberg’s $1.9 million?  (Did state GOP operatives mislead Mr. Lindberg?)

5 thoughts on “Deep Thoughts: FBI probe target’s cash & the NCGOP

  1. I was told that donations to the party could not be earmarked for a specific use ? unless it was a corporate donation that was taken and used for the building fund ? someone please correct me if I am wrong ?

    This at least is what I was told by a one time party treasurer when I inquired about setting aside funds to cover annual expenses and protect them from from campaign expenditures so after elections the state party would never be left with a negative account to cover the upcoming monthly expenses after an election cycle

    1. Regardless of whether it could be earmarked to the extent that it legally had to be used for that purpose, there is also the issue of basic integrity. If you raise money intended for a certain purpose but refuse to use it for that purpose and instead use it for something else, you are a fraud and a cheat.

      1. Yea I get you point. And if money was taken for a purpose it should be used for that purpose or returned. But what I really want to know is if say the party hires a person and starts a fund raising mailer to take donations to pay that persons salary for the year and hold that money aside for that reason only. this type of example I was told was not legal and that no money donated to the party could be earmarked for any cause other than corporate donations to the building fund

  2. Look at all the money the GOP raised on “defunding Obamacare root and branch.” Or on border security for that matter. The GOP is a fraud.
    The bill Trump just signed weakens ICE, allows corrupt city’s in Texas to block the construction of the wall, and is a form of amnesty to those illegals who have children living at home. And, Thom Tillis voted a big Yes, Cruz, Lee, Paul all voted against it. Anyone know why Trump didn’t take a clean CR then declare a national emergency. I’ll say it again, the Republican Party is as fake as any Star Wars movie.

  3. Dallas and Grandpa only had $825 for Barabara Jackson?

    I guarantee you they spent way more than that trying save Mike Clampitt’s reelection in NC119.

    Hmmm…. State Supreme Court Justice versus one General Assembly district? That math doesn’t make sense.

Comments are closed.