Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Lawyers Guns & Money, Pt. 2: The Twisted Trail of the Frank Vennes Jr. Presidential Pardon

A Ripple in Stillwater Exclusive Report



By Karl Bremer

Convicted money launderer and gun/cocaine trafficker Frank Elroy Vennes Jr. filed his application for executive clemency—a presidential pardon—with the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Pardon Attorney on July 12, 2000.

On that same day, John D. Raffaelli, one of Capitol Hill’s leading lobbyists with The Washington Group, sent a letter to Bruce R. Lindsey, assistant and deputy counsel to President Bill Clinton, in support of Vennes’ petition for a pardon.

Raffaelli had spent four years as counsel to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX). He got to know Vennes through Walter Mondale, who as a U.S. Senator was good friends with Bentsen. Mondale had asked Raffaelli to help Vennes with his pardon petition at the request of his son, former State Senator Ted Mondale, who knew Vennes.

Ted Mondale joined Tom Petters’ Petters Group as an executive vice-president in 1998, so it’s likely he met Vennes through his work there. Mondale’s campaign for governor in 1998 received a $2,000 donation from Vennes—Frank’s first political contribution.

Ted Mondale did not respond to phone and email requests for an interview about Frank Vennes Jr. Walter Mondale’s Minneapolis law office, Dorsey & Whitney, said Mondale was too busy for an interview.

‘A PRETTY GOOD TALKER’
“My involvement with Frank Vennes began and ended in 2000,” recalls Raffaelli. Walter Mondale asked Raffaelli to “help (Vennes) figure out how Washington works” as a favor for Ted. “I met (Vennes) several times in the process. He came to D.C., told me his story, gave me his materials.”

Vennes’ story impressed Raffaelli. “I was touched by him and thought it was certainly worth it to look at it.” Vennes told him he needed a pardon because “at that time, he was doing a prison ministry thing. He couldn’t go into any federal prison because of his conviction.”

After examining the record of his conviction, he says, “It really does look like a pretty strong case of entrapment.”

Raffaelli referred Vennes to Margaret Colgate Love, a private practice attorney who served as U.S. Pardon Attorney under the Clinton Administration from 1990-1997. Love now represents pardon applicants, and she ended up representing Vennes in his pardon petition process.

“I didn’t have any idea how the pardon process works,” says Raffaelli. “I had never been asked to recommend one before … I compared it to trying to get the church to approve an annulment.”

Raffaelli wrote his letter of recommendation for Vennes to the White House on July 12, 2000—the same day the OPA received Vennes’ pardon application.

“There are a number of unusual and questionable governmental actions surrounding the original conviction of Mr. Vennes,” Raffaelli wrote. “But more importantly, since his release from prison, he has been a model citizen and humanitarian. His story is very compelling ... I am confident that President Clinton will find him a worthy applicant for a pardon.”

When he met with Vennes, Raffaelli says, “He seemed like a guy who was pretty proud of what he did in business. I talked to him quite a bit. I probed him quite a lot about what he was doing. I guess he was a pretty good talker.”

When informed of the details of Vennes’ most recent indictment on fraud and money laundering charges, Raffaelli replied sorrowfully: “I’m still just shocked … I’m really sick about Frank.”

President Clinton never acted on Vennes’ pardon petition.

Vennes’ pardon petition was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office November 6, 2000, returned to the Office of Pardon Attorney November 27 and then referred to the FBI on March 29, 2001. It already had been referred to Vennes' probation officer and the U.S. Attorney's office in North Dakota where he was prosecuted--standard steps in preliminary investigations of pardon petitions.

Vennes made his next political contribution on October 25, 2001—$1,000 to Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, who was running in his first campaign for the U.S. Senate. He followed up with another $1,000 to Coleman two days later, and his brother Gregory Vennes gave another $1,000.

Vennes made his first donation of $250 to Tim Pawlenty in December 2001($250), and his and his brother’s family dropped another $8,000 into Pawlenty’s campaign in January 2002. Vennes’ personal lawyer, Craig Howse, gave $550 to Pawlenty in February.

On May 1, 2002, Vennes took the unusual step of making restitution to the federal government on the remainder of the $100,000 he lost in the money-laundering scheme. Restitution had been reduced to $50,000, which Vennes had paid off in 1996.

“Since his release from prison, Mr. Vennes has been very active in the Christian faith and in conveying the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible to others,” wrote Leo F.J. Wilking, Vennes lawyer, in an affidavit to U.S. District Court in North Dakota.

“Although Mr. Vennes is under no legal obligation to make any further payment on the Order for restitution,” Wilkings noted, “he has the financial resources to do so and feels he has a moral obligation to make such a payment.”
Copy of a check for $47,822.64 from Frank Vennes Jr. to the U.S. Treasury, which was placed in his pardon petition file.

"The defendant's motion is indeed a pleasant surprise," wrote District of North Dakota U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley in a May 2, 2002 response to Vennes' payment. "Mr. Vennes had no legaal obligation of any kind to make this offer. His willingness to do so represents genuine rehabilitation."

Vennes cut a check to the U.S. Treasury for $47,822.64. A copy of the affidavit and the check were placed in his pardon petition file.

The Vennes money pipeline continued to flow to Republicans. Vennes gave $10,750 to the Minnesota House Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC) in June 2002, $8,000 to Norm Coleman’s Rally for leadership Fund in July, and $3,000 to the Republican Party of Minnesota in August. Colby Vennes, Frank’s son, chipped in $2,000 to the Pawlenty’s gubernatorial campaign in August.

Vennes’ pardon petition was referred back to the U.S. Attorney’s Office September 4, 2002.

THE KARL ROVE CONNECTION
On December 20, Senator-elect Coleman wrote a letter to “President George W. Bush c/o Karl Rove” on behalf of himself, Governor-elect Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota GOP Chair Ron Eibensteiner supporting Vennes’ petition for a pardon. By then, Vennes and his family and lawyer had contributed more than $35,000 to Coleman, Pawlenty and Republican Party committees.

“Being well-acquainted with Frank and his wife Kim, I want to encourage President Bush to give Frank a pardon,” Coleman wrote. “Frank is a very successful businessman, known for his integrity and fine character. He has shared his success with others by being seriously involved in a number of faith-based outreach organizations and being a more than generous financial contributor to those organizations. His efforts and contributions have had a significant influence for the good of Minnesota. Frank is indeed an example of successful rehabilitation.”

Coleman went on to write that he wanted to join “my friend, (former Minnesota GOP Chairman) Ron Eibensteiner and Governor-Elect Tim Pawlenty in urging President Bush to grant Frank Vennes a Presidential Pardon.”

The roles of Pawlenty and Eibensteiner in seeking a pardon for Vennes are unclear; Freedom of Information Act requests did not turn up pardon letters from either. Pawlenty has refused to respond to repeated requests for explanations of his relationship with Frank Vennes Jr. or his role in Vennes’ pardon request.

This wasn’t the first time that the paths of Pawlenty, Coleman and Rove had crossed. Pawlenty and Coleman each came to their respective races in 2002 as a result of Rove’s and Vice President Dick Cheney’s intervention in 2001. Pawlenty originally had intended to challenge Paul Wellstone for the U.S. Senate, but then on April 18, 2001, according to a Star-Tribune report, Rove called Pawlenty and urged him not to run for Senate. Pawlenty intended to go ahead with his plans, but a second call from the White House—this one from Dick Cheney—changed his mind.

"On behalf of the president and the vice president of the United States, [Cheney] asked that I not go forward. . . . For the good of the party, for the good of the effort (against Wellstone) I agreed not to pursue an exploratory campaign," Pawlenty said at a news conference.

The White House confirmed that Bush, Cheney and Rove had discussed the Minnesota Senate race and that Coleman enjoyed strong support in the White House.

Less than a month later, after Coleman sent his first letter of support for Vennes to Rove, Vennes’ file was referred to the Deputy Attorney General.

Vennes wrote a $10,000 check to the House Republican Campaign Committee in May 2003.

Normally, according to sources familiar with the process, the Deputy Attorney General would sign off the OPA’s recommendation and send it on to the White House. In this case, however, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson sat on it for six months and then returned it to the OPA.

Vennes made an end-of-the-year 2003 campaign contribution of $5,000 to Coleman’s Northstar Leadership PAC, and the spigot kept flowing from various members of the Vennes family to Pawlenty and the GOP. Frank Vennes dumped another $10,000 on the HRCC in August 2004.

On December 3, 2004, Coleman wrote a second letter urging approval of a presidential pardon for Vennes, this time to Samuel Morison and Roger Adams in the Office of Pardon Attorney.

“I personally know Mr. Vennes and find him to be trustworthy, extremely dedicated to his community and compassionate about serving others less fortunate than himself, and a talented successful businessman,” Coleman wrote.

Coleman touted Vennes’ numerous business endeavors and his work with faith-based groups and prison ministries. He stated unequivocally that “Mr. Vennes’ moral and ethical standards more than justify your consideration of his pardon application; the pardon will eliminate the continuing stigma of a conviction which limits Mr. Vennes’ ability to reach out and share with others in similar situations as Mr. Vennes’ past. Mr. Vennes’ faith is very real.”

Four weeks later the Vennes file was referred back to the FBI for a second time, where it stayed for only a week before being returned to the OPA January 6, 2005.

On April 11, 2005, Frank, Gregory and Stephanie (Gregory’s wife) Vennes gave $5,000 each to the HRCC.

On April 29, Frank’s file was sent back to the Deputy Attorney General, and Roger Adams in the OPA sent a memo to Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey with an apparent recommendation to approve it.

Then, on June 30, 2005, four members of the Vennes family, including Frank, made their only donations to a Democrat—$2,000 each to U.S. Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar.

Vennes’ file was referred back to the Office of Pardon Attorney from the Deputy Attorney General in December 2005, apparently one more attempt to get the Pardon Office to recommend a denial.

CAMPAIGN CASH FOR BACHMANN
Within the next two weeks, the Vennes family gave $2,250 to Pawlenty, and then Bachmann got on the Vennes gravy train with a whopping $16,800 from Frank, Kimberly (Frank’s wife), Gregory and Stephanie Vennes before the end of the year.

Six members of the Vennes family, along with Vennes lawyer Craig Howse, jump-started Tim Pawlenty’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign with $2,000 each in January. In March, Vennes’ case was referred to the FBI for a third time. That was followed by a flurry of activity in April between the FBI, Pardon Attorney and Deputy Attorney General.

On April 10, 2006, Roger Adams in the Office of Pardon Attorney sent a memo to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty with what appears to be a recommendation to deny Vennes’ pardon and asking for “your review and signature.”

On April 18, Adams sent a memo to Harriet Miers, counsel to the President, which appears to recommend denying pardons in two separate cases.

“Attached are two letters of advice signed at the direction of the Deputy Attorney General recommending that the President (redacted) pardon in the following cases,” Adams wrote. Because the Pardon Attorney signed them, it appears the recommendation to the White House was to deny both pardons. Vennes was one of them.

On June 1, 2006, a little over a month after his petition was referred to the White House, Frank Vennes gave $50,000 to the Minnesota House Republican Campaign Committee. On June 28, he dropped another $10,000 into the Bachmann Minnesota Victory Committee. Lisa Howse, Craig Howse’s wife, donated a total of $9,200 to Bachmann’s campaign committee and victory PAC that same day. And on July 26, Frank Vennes threw another $10,000 at the Minnesota GOP. In the midst of all these political contributions, Karl Rove appeared at a July 21 fundraiser for Bachmann in Stillwater, Bachmann’s hometown.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove gets the bum's rush from Stillwater after attending a July 21, 2006 fundraiser for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

It appears Vennes’ case was referred back to the Pardon Office by the White House in July 2007 and then to the FBI for a fourth time, according to OPA documents. The White House, according to an Oct. 6, 2008 email sent from Ronald Rodgers in the OPA to Kenneth Lee in the White House, had asked the OPA to “take a second look” at Vennes’ pardon petition sometime prior to July 1, 2008.

After receiving a total of $38,000 in campaign contributions from the Vennes family and Frank’s lawyer’s family over the previous 24 months, Bachmann wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for Vennes’ pardon on December 10, 2007. Vennes was not then and never had been a constituent of Bachmann’s. That was the same month that Vennes suspected that Petters was running a fraudulent operation, according to information obtained by federal investigators through secretly recorded conversations in 2008.

“As a U.S. Representative, I am confident of Mr. Vennes’ successful rehabilitation and that a pardon will be good for the neediest of society,” Bachmann wrote to the Office of Pardon Attorney. “Mr. Vennes is seeking a pardon so that he may be further used to help others. As I know from personal experience, Mr. Vennes has used his business position and success to fund hundreds of nonprofit organizations dedicated to helping the neediest in our society.”

Bachmann noted that Vennes needed a pardon because he “still encounters the barriers of his past and especially in the area of finance loan documents.” Bachmann has refused to further explain the nature of her “personal experience” with Vennes or provide clarification of the finance loan documents to which she refers in her letter.

THE HOME STRETCH
According to documents obtained from the Office of Pardon Attorney, on March 7, 2008, Vennes’ pardon petition was returned from the FBI for the fourth and final time.

Three weeks later, Vennes’ lawyer, Craig Howse, donated another $1,000 to Bachmann’s campaign.

Ronald Rodgers, who had taken over as Pardon Attorney after Adams left in December 2007, sent a memo to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip on June 3 with an apparent recommendation to deny Vennes’ petition.

On June 24, Mark Krickbaum, counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, sent a memo about Vennes’ case to Rodgers that stated "Per the DAG’s instructions (redacted)," an apparent reference to a directive to change the pardon denial to a pardon approval.

Rodgers responded to Krickbaum the next day in a memo that stated: “In response to the DAG’s instructions conveyed via your memorandum of June 24, 2008, the proposed report has been revised to recommend that the President (redacted) executive clemency in the form of a pardon to Frank Elroy Vennes Jr.” The reference to a revision of a “proposed report” appears to be a reference to the OPA’s earlier recommendation to deny Vennes’ pardon.

On June 30, Vennes and his wife sweetened Bachmann’s campaign fund with $9,200 more and Craig and Lisa Howse gave another $2,000 to Bachmann.

July 1, the day after the Vennes’ and Howse’s final donations of $11,200, Rodgers sent a final memo to the Counsel to the President that read: “Attached is a report signed by the Deputy Attorney general (redacted) executive clemency in the form of a pardon for Frank Elroy Vennes Jr.”

Vennes’ pardon petition remained at the White House, apparently awaiting the end-of-term pardon approvals by the president. It was returned to the Office of Pardon Attorney October 24 following the raids on Vennes’ homes in Minnesota and Florida.

Based on secret FBI recordings of conversations of Tom Petters from September 8, 2008, it’s now known that Vennes was expecting his pardon to be granted.

In those recordings, made by Petters associate and cooperating FBI witness Deanna Coleman while she was wearing an FBI wire, Petters discussed Vennes’ fears of going to jail in the Ponzi scheme:



PETTERS: A month ago. He (Vennes) said I think you’re gonna go down. That was when I said what do you mean I’m gonna go down. He goes I just think one of us should be saved. I am going to get a pardon next year and I said,  I said oh, so you should be saved but I shouldn’t. And I said, I said, well, I’ve got news for ya. I don’t think we were both goin’ down and I think I’ve got a plan with Fortress and I have a plan with these guys overseas and that’s when I got them to start believe again.

COLEMAN: Good.

PETTERS: Now I got ‘em believing that we can get him a way out.

Petters couldn’t have been more wrong. Two weeks after that conversation took place, the homes of Tom Petters and Frank Vennes Jr. were raided by federal agents, their assets were seized and the whole Ponzi scheme came tumbling down. Petters was convicted and is now serving 50 years in Leavenworth Federal Prison. Vennes was indicted on charges related to the Petters Ponzi 33 months later on April 20, 2011.


Additional research and artwork by Ken Avidor.

In Part 3 of “Lawyers Guns & Money,” Ripple in Stillwater looks at how the case of Frank Vennes Jr. raises questions about the integrity of the presidential pardon process and how it might be improved.

Read Part 1 of "Lawyers, Guns & Money" here.



22 comments:

  1. This is a great story about the role of money in influencing both parties. But it's a better story, of course, about money influencing the Republicans.

    I absolutely love the fact that the as-yet unsworn Norm Coleman took it upon himself to write, on Senate stationery, to Karl Rove (who had just annointed him the Republican candidate and a loser against Paul Wellstone) and ask for a pardon for Vennes in 2002. I mean, really, Norm didn't even have an office yet. Norm probably typed it himself in St. Paul.

    These people were falling all over themselves to ingratiate themselves with Vennes. I would LOVE to depose Norm just on what he said in his letter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This is a great story about the role of money in influencing both parties. But it's a better story, of course, about money influencing the Republicans."

    No kidding. When he was in his early phase of lobbing money at Ted Mondale, he was still known as the reformed con who got religion and who would go on to make full restitution on the $100,000 -- the sort of guy who would be seen as worthy of a pardon. (That reminds me: Where was he getting his money to do all of that?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the end Vennes will be found not guilty. Why no follow up on Ted Mondale, high profile democratic family, for comments, surely he cant still be too busy to talk. Interesting all the positive comments about Vennes' high character from so many people, even regards to the suspicious nature of the case brought against him in his 1980's conviction. Follow up a little more on that story for us readers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In Chri$t there is no East (Republican) or West (Democrat).
    Thanx Karl for illuminating us on the failure of campaign donation laws.
    In this case - money talks pardon walks.
    And we wonder why the country is in such a financial mess.
    There's a hole in the taxpayers arm where all the money goes...Jesus Christ died for nothin' I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Anonymous: "Vennes will be found not guilty in the end."

    Says who? What would you base that assertion on- facts or hope? The evidence against him that's already public is pretty damning. It would be silly to ignore it as some kind of conspiracy against him. The feds have a 97% conviction rate. It's not looking good for Frank Vennes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually it is based on facts. What public evidence? Is the public evidence you propose accurate? Is there a whole lot more to the story? If the evidence is so damning, it has been out for almost 3 years, why no charges until recently? Six people in jail with deals cut for information all an attempt to get Vennes, yet nothing from those admittedly key players to charge him. Then the government releases his receivership based on having no evidence. Finally last ditch effort to make a case comes recently, with no evidence just a hope that they could get some conviction for all the effort put in to getting him. Tape recordings which do not match the affidavit, giving a false testimony to Vennes' involvement. Let's just say i think you will be surprised by the outcome when all the curtains are opened on this play.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Anonymous:

    Wow Anon... can I call you Anon? Where can I even begin? Every assertion you made was based on assumption and misinformation. Rather than systematically deconstructing all that nonsense you spewed onto that comment, why don't you take any one of the statements you made and try to back it up with anything that has a shred of substance to it? No point in showing you why you're wrong until you make a reasonable attempt at being right.

    Of course, calling you out probably makes me a Republican. That's really the only reason I disagree with you. Has nothing to do with you being an idiot.

    Vennes will have justice served to him regardless of whether or not you understand the reasons why. Just do yourself a favor and do your homework.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Peter for your baseless commentary. I have asked very simple questions but apparently you dont have the intellectual capacity to wrestle with them. You describe for me the evidence refered to and then i will help dismantle it for you. Believe me i have done extensive research unlike you. But i am sure that is not a task you really want to take on. By the way do you know Mr. Vennes, personally? Either way i guess everyone will have an opinion on this and as they say "thats why they play the game", or in this case, have a trial.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Anonymous

    It's hard to know where to start, given that your version of events is so skewed. I can't answer why it took almost 3 years to charge Vennes, but it isn't all that uncommon for a federal investigation as intricate as this to take as long as it has. See: John Edwards, Rod Blegojevich, Enron's Ken Lay, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, etc. The 6 people sitting in jail cut deals to get Petters, not Vennes. We don't know that any of those 6 may not also be used to testify against Vennes. What should concern you, as a Vennes fan, is the Michelle Palm (Arrowhead) plea deal and Prevost and Herrold (Palm Beach) plea deals. They have confessed to crimes in their business dealings with Vennes and are cooperating. And we both know who they are testifying against. The government released the receivership based on there being no charges- which is quite different than there being no 'evidence', as you say. There was evidence back then, and obviously there is more evidence to become public. The audio files, like the one in this story, which were played in court are not different than the account in the original affidavit. It is quite simple to listen to the tapes and draw the conclusion as to which section of the original affidavit it pertains to. If you truly have listened to the tapes, and are still and ardent supporter of Vennes... well then maybe the saying is true: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. And this idea of a 'last ditch effort' of charges. Really? You actually believe the US Attorney just slapped together some trumped up bunko charges just to 'save face'? Has it occurred to you how stupid of a move that would be? It would be better to just have left him alone than go forward with some iffy case built on a wishy washy vendetta.

    Answer this: Why in the world would Tom Petters- clearly not knowing he was being recorded- say all that stuff about Vennes being scared of going to jail, or that Vennes had seen the little paper manufacturing plant, or that Vennes knows some of the P.O.'s were fake, or that Vennes thinks Petters is going down...? Why are his longtime friends and business partners confessing to crimes involving their business transactions with Vennes? What is the blockage in your mind that makes these things not hold weight with you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Quick comment, in a recording with Coleman wearing a wire, and Petters,Prevost,Harrold, and Vennes unaware, why would the conversation be so guarded as to the reason for there situation. The only recordings where schemers are talking openly about the scheme is without Vennes present. The only reason is that those involved in the ponzi scheme had to know that there was at least one person present who was unaware. Not rocket science and as for the other comments you refer to they were ramblings of Petters, no proof that they were even said to Petters, no prosecutor or jury is going take that as evidence. As for Prevost and Herrold they didnt know either, their guilty pleas are not for knowing it was a ponzi scheme.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Their guilty pleas are for lying to investors about the due diligence done in order to solicit funds from investors. They LIED and CONCEALED and FABRICATED false assurances of their fiduciary duty to investigate the legitimacy of the deals they were financing. There is no reason to lie if the deals are legitimate. THEREFORE, they 'knew or should have known' that they were in a ponzi scheme.

    Prevost and Herrold and Vennes are on tape- coaching Petters on how to pass an audit. They are using double talk, because they are not stupid, like Tom was. Prevost is quoted as saying, in effect, 'We should not be here, we did not give you this list of questions that the auditor will want to know- this did not come from us.' They admit that they know there are serious problems. They admit that they have not reported it and are doing everything they can to buy time, which means they were concealing the problems from their investors- while continuing to solicit new funds. THAT is a ponzi scheme.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dude one more thing, when petters says he knows some of the po's were fake again that is petters talking. Consider this, there is a difference in fruadulant PO's and simply bad PO's. Much like mortgages. They will have the same affect in the end to the investor. In the recordings Petters was constantly telling them he made some bad business deals he wasnt paying attention to business, he never said to these supposive partners that they were fraudulent in that conversation with them, and that is what they thought the problem was. Think of the dialogue with the Fortress guy he is trying to pawn everything off on, he didnt tell him they were fraudulent. I would tell you to listen to the 45 minute version of that conversation and assess it with an open mind, thats what i did. Regardless none of us will be on the jury so it really doesnt matter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wasn't asking if Tom's quote's would be taken as evidence in a court of law. I was asking you, why it doesn't cause you to think that maybe, just maybe, it is true. It's easier for you to believe that Tom made all that up than to believe that Tom was just talking freely to a confidant?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The question from Deanna was: Does Frank know all these P.O.'s are FAKE? That is FAKE, as in made up, fabricated, non-existent. Not 'bad' like a mortgage. FAKE. FAKE. And Tom said yes, he knows some of them are FAKE. Couple that with Tom stating that Vennes had seen Bob White's 'little paper manufacturing plant' And the subsequent move of White's office out of the building (why would they move his office if Tom made up the story about Vennes seeing it) you know that FAKE means FAKE- not 'bad'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No it doesnt because as you know it is not evidence. Is this Tom Petters we are talking about the guy that was making up elaborate stories to everyone in the waning days about how he was going to make things right with them. Not credible in any sense. By the way what to think about Coleman getting out of prison next month already? Not to muddy the water but earlier you said that the six in prison cut deals to convict Petter and not Vennes, i would say the only deals they were there to cut would have been to get Vennes, the tapes did Petters in without anything else. It was Vennes they wanted and none of them could help.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm going to stop here and no longer clutter up Mr. Bremer's comment section bantering with someone so loose with logic. Anonymous, you are in for a rough ride. Get off the ship, it is sinking.

    Mr. Bremer, excellent work.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Back to Anon:

    Baseless commentary? I merely pointed out what should have been blaringly obvious to you: there's a difference between your assumptions and fact. It's a difference you are clearly unable to discern.

    Your questions reflect your ignorance, which is fine; everyone starts somewhere. But your wild (and yes, baseless) conspiracy theories reflect your stupidity, which I find difficult to excuse. I see Dude did a decent job pointing out the obvious problems with your claims.

    Anonymous: "Believe me i have done extensive research unlike you" Really? You sound like a child. Yes, I have followed this. No, I don't believe you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

    It's fine to have an opinion. I have mine, you have yours. It's just that yours makes you wrong, that's all.

    Dude was decent enough to point out to you the error in your reasoning. I, however, would like to see you hang yourself with your own stupid words. So why don't you then? Here's a reminder of the assertions you made. Perhaps you can grace us all with your understanding and explain why these things are true:


    "In the end Vennes will be found not guilty."
    ---- Oh really? And for what reason is that?

    "Six people in jail with deals cut for information all an attempt to get Vennes, yet nothing from those admittedly key players to charge him."
    ---- Oh so those 6 were pleaing out to assist on Vennes? Sure that's not Petters you're thinking of?

    "Then the government releases his receivership based on having no evidence."
    ---- They did huh? What's the source on that?

    "Finally last ditch effort to make a case comes recently, with no evidence just a hope that they could get some conviction for all the effort put in to getting him."
    ---- Where are the whistle blowers buddy? Or is right-wing media suppressing them?

    "Tape recordings which do not match the affidavit, giving a false testimony to Vennes' involvement."
    ---- Really they don't??? Where was that?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I didn't Chase you away did I?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon is either praying or asking Frank what to say next. This is obviously not a person that can think for him/herself.

    Where do these idiots come from?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Perhaps Anon (as well as Frank) are hoping that Mad(am) Bachmann moves into the White House. It's their last gasp at getting the long sought after pardon as well as other residual paybacks. Kinda scary thinking that Bradlee Dean might end up the White House pastor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey Anonymous!! Vennes was indicted on 24 more counts. How do you like them apples? You seem to have disappeared. Remember when you acted like an authority on the Vennes case, stating that you have researched it? Remember that? And then remember when you were made a fool of by two commenters here? And, how do you like how you have been made to look infinitely more foolish now that the indictment has been quadrupled? Show yourself! Defend this man some more! Like I said, get off the ship, it is sinking...

    ReplyDelete