Major NC campaign donor tries to get bribery charge tossed, may argue entrapment
In federal court, an attorney for N.C. insurance magnate Greg Lindberg tries to get bribery charges dismissed by arguing the definition of a bribe.
Posted — UpdatedEven if Greg Lindberg offered $2 million in campaign donations to state Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey if he'd reassign a deputy commissioner poking around Lindberg's companies, that doesn't mean he committed bribery, attorney Rajesh Srinivasan argued.
"Simply replacing one decision maker with another decision maker does not result in a decision," Srinivasan said.
U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn didn't tip his hand on a ruling, which he said should come "fairly quickly," but he questioned the breadth of Lindberg's defense.
If Lindberg can pay an elected official to replace one employee, what about all of his employees, Cogburn asked. Could Lindberg just do that over and over again?
"Probably not, your honor," Srinivasan replied. "All we have here is a single request."
But a motion Lindberg's team filed in his case last week points at another strategy: Arguing that Causey entrapped him.
In a subpoena request, attorneys seek a wide swath of internal Department of Insurance communications regarding Lindberg's companies. The motion focuses in particular on communications between Causey, Deputy Commissioner Michelle Osborne and Jackie Obusek, the regulator Lindberg allegedly tried to remove.
The motion states Obusek, "potentially at Mr. Causey's direction, had been targeting Mr. Lindberg and his companies in an unfair manner" and suggests Causey orchestrated Lindberg's downfall because he supported Causey's predecessor, Wayne Goodwin, in the 2016 election Causey ultimately won.
"That scheme ultimately was used to improperly induce the government to investigate the defendant in order to remove the defendant as a political opponent," the motion states.
Goodwin is now chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, and he announced Tuesday that he'll run next year to return as insurance commissioner.
Lindberg's motion predicts that the state will attempt to quash the new subpoena and asks the judge to decide the issue quickly to leave time for those arguments and for document review ahead of the scheduled February trial.
As for the underlying entrapment argument, federal prosecutors addressed some of that in a recent filing. Causey did indeed ask Lindberg "What's in it for me?" in a private meeting.
"Lindberg responded, without hesitation, with an offer of one to two million dollars for the commissioner's 2020 re-election campaign," prosecutors said in their September filing.
Lindberg and his co-conspirators then "pressed the commissioner for progress on the removal" and assured Causey "they were upholding their end of the bargain." Lindberg's teams wasn't just seeking Obusek's reassignment, prosecutors say, but offered up a Lindberg employee as her replacement.
That employee, John Palermo, faces bribery and conspiracy charges in this case, as does John Gray, a Lindberg consultant.
Srinivasan said Tuesday that a conviction would infringe on Lindberg's First Amendment rights and that the new precedent could affect a wide range of people, allowing the government to prosecute the most minor offers of quid pro quo.
A voter could tell a city council member he'll vote for them only if they get rid of a chief of staff who failed to respond to complaints about a pothole, Srinivasan said. Or a voter could pressure a legislator to force out a legislative aide over sexual harassment allegations, or a law clerk could offer a federal judge a cup of coffee because he or she wants to work on a particular case, Srinivasan told Cogburn.
Prosecutor James C. Mann argued that it was Lindberg's team, not the government's, interpretation of the law that would lead to ridiculous excess.
Under their arguments, "Mr. Lindberg could come in and pay my boss to dismiss me," Mann said.
Mann is a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C., which is prosecuting this case with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Charlotte.
Cogburn told attorneys for both sides that their arguments and written briefs were "excellent." He said the case will add to the public understanding of what is, and isn't, a bribe under federal law, adding that, in modern politics, there are many legal ways to for money to change hands and people to get what they want.
"People need to know what is illegal," Cogburn said.
Related Topics
• Credits
Copyright 2024 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.