This was no surprise. Since the decisions overturning some of the Enron convictions the Court has signaled that it wanted more precise language about what was and was not fraud or bribery so that prosecutors did not have too much leeway in deciding what was and was not criminal activity. This can be fixed, but it’s not like there is anyone running around in the streets to tighten up the “honest services” law. It actually requires a few minutes of your attention to understand it, and a lot of outrage to get legislators to put constraints on their own behavior.
4 Likes
This. They seem willing to ignore the chilling effect on state regulators who see that their boss is chummy with the guy whose business they think should be shut down.
It reminds me of one of those wonderful unguarded moments that crop up from time to time. During Bill Clinton’s Presidency, an enterprising reporter was asking him why big donors should enjoy increased access to the President. Clinton started to say, “Well, why shouldn’t major donors be able to get the ear of…” Then - and you could almost see the light dawning - he quickly backtracked and agreed that it shouldn’t be that way. He knew the system was a mess, and that he actually was a part of it, but was self-aware enough to understand that saying it out loud was a bad idea.
9 Likes
@ Jeffery Skilling —Ken Lay’ s partner in crime.
2 Likes
Exactly. One thing I see all the time is the way there is a double-standard when it comes to these kinds of charges. Republicans tend to fight tooth and nail for their guys. Dems usually accept the look of impropriety and unacceptable ethical failings when one of our own crosses the line into the mere appearance of wrongdoing. Very few Dems come out to support a person that looks guilty let alone is guilty, unlike the Repubs.
In Siegelman’s case, so much political shenanigans were involved by Rove, the Bushies, Attorney General Gonzales, from the top on down, to make sure a full hearing on the political import of his conviction by all these folks who had their fingers in the pot, never saw the light of day. Their interference still needs a full hearing.
There seems to be a rule of thumb in political bribery cases…Dems get jail time in terms of years and huge fines, Republicans get probation, home confinement perhaps, and community service, reduction in fines…or in most cases, let off the hook.
7 Likes
The SC decision aside, McDonnell remains a sleazy hose bag.
7 Likes
This article isn’t very good. It doesn’t explain the court’s reasoning. My guess is it boils down to something simple like, he didn’t actually do anything official for the guy bribing him. You need an Actus Reus to convict somebody of a crime. In this case he took the bribes but their was always the question of exactly what he did in return.
Supreme Court or not, he still shouldn’t have done what he admitted he did. It had, and always will have, the appearance of corruption.
Anyone keeping score? This is one for Mitchie’s ghouls. It would not be happening with Judge Garland in place.
1 Like
He’s a sleazy bastard. That aside, I watched the case closely and I can’t think of one thing he did for Williams that he didn’t do for others in the same situation. The prosecutor relied on what appeared to be the idea that it was implicit that he would do something extra in return for the favors. Williams obviously believed it to be true, but I never saw any proof in the trial that he actually DID anything above and beyond in exchange.
He’s still sleazy and it was only a matter of time. Personally, I think his wife has almost no concept of boundaries, but she’s not the public official. I’m not sure what happens now. I’m not surprised by this ruling.
5 Likes
Are you kidding me? So it’s okay to turn a governor’s office into a den of graft?
Was his wife’s conviction overruled, too?
Here’s a quote from John Roberts that sheds some light on the decision:
“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” Roberts wrote. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”
Basically, the SC is looking for a more precise definition of “bribery” before convicting anyone of it.
3 Likes
This falls into line with how terribly drafted Virginia’s law is related to this matter. I have to look, but I’m thinking they updated it since the trial.
Then it would have been 8 to 1. Same outcome–not “bribery” unless you actually do something for the money you take.
I agree that you need to follow the money. But $400 per hour is far below what experienced Supreme Court advocates charge. Start at double that and go up from there.
Don’t blame it on the transvaginal.
Then I would take the blue pill.
Gonna get me some.
It’s Ok If You’re An A$$hole Republican?
Isn’t that a bit redundant?
1 Like
Twas ever thus…
Oh, I see.
You’re under the impression that there has been a change on that front.
You would be mistaken.
1 Like