Good.
If you read the linked article it is pretty clear the whole thing is NOT completely innocuous. McDonnell used his office to promote products and he accepted payment for it. He got in trouble for doing illegal things for payment. Calling the payments ‘gifts’ doesn’t fool anyone. I can’t figure out if he was just too dense to understand that what he was doing was wrong or so used to being corrupt that he didn’t think he would get caught.
In any case, the McDonnells really showed off their classiness here. Part of the defense was to show that the wife was such a complete bitch that poor, poor Governor Bob couldn’t think straight about right and wrong.
Do you not understand what constitutes bribery in the United States?
I do. What I am questioning is relating what McDonnell did for Williams, in an informal, unofficial capacity, to “bribery”. Lots of politicians do access and connection peddling in return for money, that’s practically the definition of the whole political fundraising industry.
No they don’t.
Yes, they do. Big donors expect, and receive, access to the candidate and better connections through him.
I’m not an expert in federal corruption law, but I have taken some classes on what you can and cannot do when dealing with federal employees. (Which I realize he wasn’t.) Strictly speaking you can’t give them rides to the airport. Letting them drive a hot car for even three hours would be, I’m sure, way illegal.
I guess Terr’s next book will be called “I, the Jury.”
Campaign donors, maybe. (But even in that case there are lines that should not be crossed.) This guy wasn’t giving to the campaign. He was giving to the family directly. That’s different.
How is that relevant? As I pointed out, he was not a federal employee, and there were no laws in Virginia at the time that prohibited any of those gifts at all.
Strictly legally - apparently (although I guess we will see when it is appealed). But in general, ethically - how exactly is that different?
It is not different ethically. The law isn’t ethically consistent, but the governor of a state is expected to know that.
I guess that’s why there are limits set pretty low, so no one would be ready to prostitute their office for $2600.
The jury didn’t agree.
And whether he was using his office or not would seem to have been a question of fact for the jury.
(I admit I have not carefully researched these issues, however).
He wasn’t convicted for receiving gifts – he was convicted for receiving gifts plus doing things, using his status as governor, that benefitted the gift-givers. Either of those things apart from each other would be legal, but according to the prosecution’s argument, both together are not.
That’s not the issue. You can certainly lend your Ferrari to any federal or state employee whenever you like. The point is that you can’t then ask them to speed up your passport application, Social Security card replacement, or FDA clinical trial review. You might as well say that we can’t convict bank robbers because there is no law prohibiting you from withdrawing funds from a bank. The devil is, as ever, in the details (though frankly you are glossing over rather salient “details” here.)
Let’s say I give a $200 campaign contribution to a congressman. Then I ask the congressman to look into the situation where my mom is not receiving her social security check on time. Almost certainly, this would not be illegal – otherwise I might have to choose between engaging in a constitutionally protected activity (making a campaign contribution) and making a rather reasonable request of an elected official.
There are certainly times where a campaign contribution could be viewed as being less than fully above board, or indicative of the more unseemly aspects of our political system. But if the law were to say that campaign contributions and official actions cannot be tied together whatsoever, are you really saying that I committed the crime of bribery, mostly on account of having supported a political candidate and then having a rather reasonable interaction with the candidate on a routine matter? God forbid someone exercising a political right ever actually be required to call on an elected official with a request for help, or they could be facing jail time! I just don’t see how a law could distinguish between a campaign contribution that’s routine and one that seems unseemly.
That’s a way different matter than giving a congressman a $200 gift as a personal matter and then asking for some assistance, in my view. That’s just simply criminal, because the official is taking a personal profit on routine government business.
The jury was given instructions that are controversial (and are basis for the appeal that is coming).
From the link I gave above: “To decide whether there was a clear tradeoff for the gifts, Judge James R. Spencer told the jury that they shouldn’t just consider actions that fell under McDonnell’s job description — they could consider any actions “that a public official customarily performs,” or even just something that could advance a long-term goal.”
Ask Voyager. In his post, he seemed to insist that no you cannot, at least to federal employee.
He said “when dealing with federal employees”. I assume he means in the context of a business relationship, not just some random dude.
All very nice and good - except McDonnell was not accused of doing anything like what you’re describing. He didn’t speed up any applications. He didn’t appoint anyone anywhere. He didn’t direct any government funds to the company. Nothing like that. All he is accused of is facilitating the connection of the businessman to some government officials. And AFAIU showing up at some company events.