I truly don’t understand how a governor asking or pressuring his subordinates to take meetings is not an official act.
If your boss directs or urges you to take a meeting with someone, do you typically blow that off as not being a work-related issue?
I haven’t followed the case closely, but even the NYT article you linked to in the OP says he was accused of more than that.
Here is the list of all “favors”: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/26/gifts-favors-listed-in-former-governors-case/?page=all
Can you point out which one was “more than that”?
For one thing, he and his wife held meetings and discussions with gubernatorial staff about the gift-giver’s business.
I don’t see it in that list - not anything more than “facilitating the connection of the businessman to some government officials”. Can you point it out?
I’ll chime in with my opinion:
These all seem like official actions to me. Once again, if your boss asks or urges you to take a meeting with someone, do you feel free to dismiss that as a non-work related request? I think a governor asking his officials to take meetings is, in fact, an official act.
Here:
Bob and Maureen discussing/arranging to discuss “antabloc issues” and “studies” with gubernatorial aides.
Huh? The “studies” in question were not, AFAIU, government studies. And “antabloc issues” is pretty vague, wouldn’t you say? Certainly not something you should be able to hang a prison sentence on. And the discussion is with aides. Why shouldn’t the governor discuss absolutely anything with his aides? Those are not government officials - they have no official function AFAIU except to aid the governor in making decisions - right?
I don’t think this would matter, since it’s just part of establishing a patter (AFAIU) of the McDonnell’s using their status and staff to benefit the gift-givers.
Not alone, most likely. But in concert with everything else? Then perhaps.
They’re not government officials, but they are governor’s staff, and they should only be aiding the governor with official government business, AFAIU.
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/management-resources/governors-office-functions.html
A variation is to appoint aides in the areas of greatest concern to the governor or where there are no department or agency heads directly responsible to the governor. In addition, these policy aides often act as ambassadors to interest groups and the business community.
Seems like the “ambassadors to the business community” part is exactly what was being used here.
Yup. If a government employee host a Tupperware party it is fine - unless that government employee is living in government housing, like the governor does.
IIRC the defense proposed a reading of the law (which I’d guess was like Terr’s) but the judge rejected it.
Certainly so – and using this official capacity to benefit a gift-giver fits the definition of corruption, according to the prosecution (and the jury). If there had been no gifts, this would have been fine. If they had been political campaign donations rather than gifts, it probably would have been fine. But because there were gifts in addition to this pattern, apparently it was not fine.
I think the idea that people being paid by the government to assist a governor in making a decision could escape being called an “official” is a plain loopy idea.
For example: do you believe that President Obama’s Chief of Staff could take vast sums of money from lobbyists for his own personal enrichment on the basis that he’s not a government official? Nonsense.
Jury was convinced. We will see about the appellate court, where this is heading, based on the jury instructions.
Sure. I’m not even sure the jury was right, according to the law – it does seem like tons of politicians probably are “guilty” of similar things (just off the top of my head, I mean).
Not that it’s necessarily okay, though – it has the appearance of corruption to me, at least, and I would be fine with outlawing this behavior nationwide.
Pretty much where I come down. Whether this is legal or not, it shouldn’t be - if that means political fundraising as usually practiced is crippled, more the better. I like the idea that this case might act as a warning shot over the bow. Anything that will make other governors start looking nervously over their shoulders re: political contributions and the propriety thereof is probably a good thing.
How many different articles do you need to have explained to you? The NYT article you linked to originally says what the charges against the McDonnells were, what they were convicted of, what the jury was asked to decide, and even provides a summary of the prosecution’s arguments. I am not a lawyer and I don’t know any more about the case than the NYT reporter – in fact, I’m sure I know much less about it – so if you can’t figure out from the article what the McDonnells were accused of then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
The rule is pretty much that you can’t take anything (above a trivial limit) if it appears that the reason you were given this this thing is your position as a federal employee.
So your friend can give you a birthday present, and if they are handing out free hats at the ball park you can take one, but if some one says “you work in cancer research? My daughter got cancer let me take you out to eat.” or if you are a speaker at a high school career day and they give you a $50 gift certificate for speaking you can’t accept.
These limits don’t apply near very top of course.
Well, apparently, one of the people he met with was the Secretary of Administration…the Virginia Office of Administration is the one that manages state employee health plans, to try to get the Virginia state health plan to cover Antabloc. And the researchers that he tried to get to study Antabloc effects were researchers at State Universities, who are government employees.
What it comes down to, and what the whole idea behind the theft of honest services charges are, is that the Governor of Virginia is compensated for his job…he gets a salary, a pension, a government house, a government car, etc. He shouldn’t be taking extra compensation from private individuals to do his job. His taking money to shill a supplement at a corporate meeting probably isn’t criminal. But his taking money to use government resources on behalf of the company, or to try to push state employees to work for the benefit of the company probably is, and that’s what he was convicted for.
Well let me be the one to say “Since you weren’t in court and thus don’t really know what you’re talking about, why are you second-guessing the duly appointed jurors who did hear all the testimony and see all the evidence? Do you think all 12, plus the judge, are idiots or liars or something?”.
Seems like every thread of this type gets that comment sooner or later but I didn’t see it in this thread yet, so there ya go. No need to thank me and I forgive you without you even asking; I got a big heart like that. 