It’s been a busy few weeks for my little blog. I’ve been getting several requests for information about Beto O’Rourke from different news outlets and what I believe are opposition researchers. Apparently, many are wondering if Beto will make the 2020 Democrat Primary even more crowded. As I was sending out copies of different things to different people about Beto, I thought I should check the federal court system to see if there were any documents I may have missed.
I found something that to my knowledge everyone missed.
The extreme right-wing publication Breitbart, formerly led by Steve Bannon who worked for a time for Donald Trump, intervened in the criminal case against Charlotte’s, Beto’s mom’s business.
As a reminder, Melissa O’Rourke, Beto’s mom pleaded guilty on behalf of her company, Charlotte’s money laundering case in May 2010. According to the plea agreement, Charlotte’s accepted over 1 million dollars in cash “from at least four” other customers in addition to $630,745.28 from one “particular customer” from 2005 through 2008. To this date, no one has identified the “particular customer.”
Also, it remains unclear how a company, Charlotte’s, can plead guilty to money laundering while no one working at the company or the owners are implicated. It boggles the mind that a non-human can launder money.
During the run up to the Ted Cruz-Beto O’Rourke showdown last November there were numerous entities looking for controversial information about each of the candidates. As I scrolled through the Pacer data, I found out that Breitbart intervened in the O’Rourke criminal case in October. Breitbart asked the court to unseal two court documents in the case.
For those who do not know what Pacer is, it is the federal court repository of court documents.
The two documents that Breitbart was seeking access to were the “Statement of Reasons” and the “Amended Statement of Reasons.” Breitbart argued first-amendment rights to see the documents. Apparently, Breitbart was hoping the documents would reveal who the “particular customer” was.
Charlotte’s, though Melissa O’Rourke, responded in court filings that Breitbart was not entitled to the documents because the documents “would not contain any information sought by Breitbart.”
The court ruled in favor of Breitbart and unsealed the two documents.
The two documents are proforma court documents that contain places to check off items.
The two unsealed documents are “Statement of Reasons”. Both documents are identical except for their document ID and filing date. In Pacer, the second document is labeled “amended” but I am not sure what was amended as both seem identical to me.
The first one was filed on May 13, 2010 and the second one was filed on June 8, 2010.
Both have checked off the line; “The record establishes no need for a presentencing investigation report” and the convictions do not carry “a mandatory minimum sentence.” They both add that “Sentencing Guidelines offense levels do not apply to corporations.”
As an aside, maybe Chapo Guzman should have considered using a corporation to peddle drugs to save himself the potential for minimum sentencing guidelines because it looks like corporations are not required to serve a minimum prison sentence!
But I digress.
The probation range, according to the two documents is “0 to 5 years” and the fine range is “$500,000.00 or twice the pecuniary or loss from the offense.”
Finally, the documents conclude that “Restitution Not Applicable.”
Breitbart did not get the name of the individual who paid $630,745.28 in cash to Charlotte’s. Beto refuses to answer who the client was.
If you want to read more about the money laundering case, click here.
As the 2020 elections get closer, I expect I’ll get more calls for information and documents and the news reports and opposition researches will produce more details for us to follow.
The question is, will Beto O’Rourke run for president, attach himself to another candidate as the VP, or stay out of the fray this time around.
In September I shared with you the story of the plan for Beto to run for president. (link) It’s no longer a secret, the question is whether the plan is for later, or if it has been modified as the result of Beto’s unprecedented challenge of Ted Cruz.