JUDGE HAYNES: You can’t offer somebody a bribe and then they don’t take it.
MR. LOWELL: Absolutely.
JUDGE HAYNES: But I actually have a little different question. You are about to run out of time. I’m having trouble understanding how guaranteeing a loan for somebody’s house has anything to do with the campaign contribution.
MR. LOWELL: You could, perhaps, properly instructed, come to the conclusion whether it does or doesn’t, but here is what the record shows. The banker who made both the $40,000 loan for the campaign and the $100,000 loan for the judge who was in a controversy with his wife over this particular house said they were made at the same time and indicated that it was addressed to the bank at the same time during the campaign cycle, first. Second, it was Mr. Minor’s theory of defense that that was his intent. At the very least, Judge, at the very least have two —
JUDGE HAYNES: I understand the concept of the campaign contribution. You have to be careful calling that a bribe because everybody makes campaign contributions. Whatever their hopes may be that this person will be a favorable official to them doesn’t constitute a bribe. But I don’t — I just cannot see, yes, a judge has to live somewhere and if they are living on the street that might hurt their reelection, but that just seems a little bit of a stretch to me.
H/t The Raw Story 4/2/1
Magnolia Tribune
