Reporters are often of two minds when covering a long running story like the one of former Republican state Senate candidate Mark Tate.
For some, it's an exciting ongoing challenge that promises interesting copy no matter what the day brings.
But for those who live in the Cheap Seats, bringing a long-running story to an end looks a lot like the end of "The Lord of The Rings." Having barely escaped the Crack of Doom with his life, Frodo looks to Sam and realizes with sudden relief that his task is over.
But even as you lie on the rocks and wait for the eagles to come and carry you back from the courthouse to Cheap Seats HQ, it's a good idea to remember that you'll never make everyone happy.
Over at Too Conservative, commenter NSVGOPER takes me to task for not asking some critical questions of Tate. Read the whole post for context, but in a nutshell, the commenter wonders if I asked some critical questions of Tate.
I broached the subject of converting campaign funds to personal use during our "exit interview" earlier this week, and Tate said in no uncertain terms using words that I can't print here that no, he didn't. It's worth pointing out that none of the indictments charged Tate with converting funds to personal use, either.
As to loan issues, they were resolved to be either computer errors on the part of the State Board of Elections or paperwork errors, which have since been corrected, by Tate.
As to contributions that were reported incorrectly, they were legion. Tate admitted that from day one, as we've reported to no end. The checks from his lawyers Edward MacMahon were logged incorrectly. Tate's team says that has all been corrected to the satisfaction of the State Board of Elections.
NSVGOPER's fourth question has also been asked and answered. Yes, Tate wrote checks from his campaign funds to his restaurant. But that's a lot more common than most people realize. When a candidate owns a business and uses business resources for the campaign, they have two choices -- report it as an in-kind donation, or reimburse their business.
Some candidates take the practice a step further and reimburse themselves for campaign expenses paid out of pocket. I've read thousands of Virginia campaign finance forms, and it's not uncommon to see candidates write themselves a check for several tanks of gas, cell phone bills and other expenses they incur.
Question five is a bit touchier than the others. Tate has said time and again that his first contact with Loudoun County Sheriff's Office was a call the night before the indictments were handed down in 2007. Special Prosecutor Matthew Britton backed that up in open court, telling a judge that the sheriff's office had no notes nor any other written investigative materials to present to the defense.
If the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office interviewed Tate about the case, then the investigator took no notes during the interview, or somebody's not telling the truth.
At the end of the day, there's always more information about any story than we can cram into a small space and still interest the general public. Hopefully this helps to settle any lingering questions about the whole affair.
Maybe it'll get that eagle over here faster, too.
For some, it's an exciting ongoing challenge that promises interesting copy no matter what the day brings.
But for those who live in the Cheap Seats, bringing a long-running story to an end looks a lot like the end of "The Lord of The Rings." Having barely escaped the Crack of Doom with his life, Frodo looks to Sam and realizes with sudden relief that his task is over.
But even as you lie on the rocks and wait for the eagles to come and carry you back from the courthouse to Cheap Seats HQ, it's a good idea to remember that you'll never make everyone happy.
Over at Too Conservative, commenter NSVGOPER takes me to task for not asking some critical questions of Tate. Read the whole post for context, but in a nutshell, the commenter wonders if I asked some critical questions of Tate.
Ah, but I did ask all of those questions more than once over the past year once we managed to find out what exactly Tate was being charged with -- which turned out to be no mean feat. So, without further ado, questions and answers.Before you assume he is innocent, someone should ask him some questions? Garren Shipley never did - or at least he has never mentioned it in his articles. Here are some questions to be asked:
1) Mark - did you ever deposit campaign checks into your personal account?
2) Did you report loans from yourself to your campaign that were not actually made?
3) Did you ever report loans or contributions from others that were never made? For example, from your attorney?
4) Did you ever write any checks to yourself from your campaign account?
5) Were you ever interviewed by the Sheriff's Office and shown what their case was about?
I broached the subject of converting campaign funds to personal use during our "exit interview" earlier this week, and Tate said in no uncertain terms using words that I can't print here that no, he didn't. It's worth pointing out that none of the indictments charged Tate with converting funds to personal use, either.
As to loan issues, they were resolved to be either computer errors on the part of the State Board of Elections or paperwork errors, which have since been corrected, by Tate.
As to contributions that were reported incorrectly, they were legion. Tate admitted that from day one, as we've reported to no end. The checks from his lawyers Edward MacMahon were logged incorrectly. Tate's team says that has all been corrected to the satisfaction of the State Board of Elections.
NSVGOPER's fourth question has also been asked and answered. Yes, Tate wrote checks from his campaign funds to his restaurant. But that's a lot more common than most people realize. When a candidate owns a business and uses business resources for the campaign, they have two choices -- report it as an in-kind donation, or reimburse their business.
Some candidates take the practice a step further and reimburse themselves for campaign expenses paid out of pocket. I've read thousands of Virginia campaign finance forms, and it's not uncommon to see candidates write themselves a check for several tanks of gas, cell phone bills and other expenses they incur.
Question five is a bit touchier than the others. Tate has said time and again that his first contact with Loudoun County Sheriff's Office was a call the night before the indictments were handed down in 2007. Special Prosecutor Matthew Britton backed that up in open court, telling a judge that the sheriff's office had no notes nor any other written investigative materials to present to the defense.
If the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office interviewed Tate about the case, then the investigator took no notes during the interview, or somebody's not telling the truth.
At the end of the day, there's always more information about any story than we can cram into a small space and still interest the general public. Hopefully this helps to settle any lingering questions about the whole affair.
Maybe it'll get that eagle over here faster, too.
Subscribe to this
blog's feed
Comments policy
Comments are cleared by nvdaily.com during daytime work hours Monday - Friday. We will not publish posts that contain the following:Post your comment
Registration required
You must register if you would like to post a comment, a review, sign up for an e-mail newsletter or enter a Club Clickit drawing. Here's how:Step 1: Click on the SIGN IN OR REGISTER HERE link.
Step 2: An e-mail confirming your registration will be e-mailed to you. Open that e-mail and click on the link provided to confirm your registration.
Step 3: Now you can interact with our site.
Cookies
When you registered, a cookie was set on your computer so that your username would be recognized when you interact with our site.If you have already registered, and your username does not show up above the interactive form, you will need to sign in. Click on the SIGN IN OR REGISTER HERE link to sign in.
Questions? E-mail info@nvdaily.com