Agreed. And it seems to be the definition of “quid pro quo.” The “he gave $200k and nothing has been done” emails are damning. I don’t care about his party; he’s a guilty bastard.
Rank and file government employees have to follow the law, and there are very real consequences for not doing so. Why should McDonnell not have to follow the same rules everyone else does?
Can someone explain how his wife can have been involved in a crime? Is the wife of a governor automatically a government official? Or is she, somehow, bound by federal law in ways that people not married to the governor are not? What if she had been his girlfriend instead of his wife?
I haven’t followed too closely, but maybe some type of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. She’s an accomplice in his crime, that sort of thing.
According to the indictment, in various ocassions Maureen was the person initiating contact with the contributors and mentioning gee how nice it would be to have X or Y thing or how bad were their finances doing, and sure we would be so happy to speak to whoever. So she was a coparticipant in the activity that was later deemed illegal. Bob reportedly had been offered a plea deal that would not involve her, instead he felt he could fight the whole shebang but in the process threw her under the bus.
I got a kick out of his statement to the media. It was some blather about how he trusts in Jesus Christ, or something like that. Religion and morality: no connection!
It was also pretty distasteful that their go-to line of defense spouted by both transvaginal Bob and the daughter was that mom was crazy. So much for keeping your marriage vows sacred and being a family man! Whatever happened to “Leave my wife out of this, I’m the one you want, I did it all”?
Didn’t help Ethel much, did it?
Which marriage vow requires that a man accept legal blame for his wife’s criminal actions?
You might be thinking of the now archaic laws of coverture, which did have a similar effect. As humorously invoked by Oliver Twist’s workhouse manager, Bumble:
Are you somehow picturing that in today’s world, there is some sort of marriage vow that requires a man to claim criminal responsibility for a criminal act committed by his wife?
Nm
How many of you were blaming the district attorney and the grand jury when they came back with a no bill, just very few weeks ago?
This just goes to show you, as long as it benefits ‘your guy’ it’s A-OK!
Most government employee ethics regulations include a concept of “covered relationship” which typically include relationships that involve substantial financial mingling. Typically this would be household members and close relatives, but may include others if you have shared finances for whatever reason.
I’m not sure what their criminal liability is (and I’m sure it varies), but you can definitely be held accountable for their actions. You can’t make bribery legal by just handing the money to a guys wife instead.
I’m not a lawyer and can’t cite the specific laws, but do you seriously think they’ve never thought this one through?
Again this is something every governerment employee faces-- and it does come up-- and they all have to follow the same rules. You can’t use public office for private gain (outside of your official compensation). It’s a pretty simple concept.
No.
The indictment accused McDonnell of specific criminal acts in his own right, and the jury convicted him.
But if the indictment had simply accused his wife, and failed to offer any evidence of McDonnell’s own knowledge and own actions, then he could not have been convicted. No person is vicariously criminally liable for another’s actions without some criminal act of his own.
“What about conspiracy?” I hear you think.
A conspiracy is an agreement amongst two or more people to break the law. Members of the conspiracy are generally criminally liable for each crime any of the conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy. But each has a criminal act of his own: the agreement to break the law in the first place.
“What about felony murder?”
Same concept: you may be liable for the murder committed by another person, but only because your own agreement to commit a qualifying underlying felony placed you in the position where another’s murder inures to your detriment.
McDonnell’s guilt was proved by showing that McDonnell, himself, did guilty stuff.
If the only evidence of wrongdoing were McDonnell’s wife’s, then McDonnell can’t be found guilty.
“You can’t make bribery legal by just handing the money to a guys wife instead.” If that happens it means you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy’s wife knew about it. If you cannot show this, then there’s no conviction.
I like how you pick the most pointlessly snarky remark and try to make a federal case out of it. :rolleyes:
Bob is a family man who (presumably) loves his wife, has tried to push his version of morals onto others, and chastises people who don’t follow his brand of Jesus worship. Bob should have, in order to save his wife, taken on all responsibility, seeing as how they both profited from “her” crimes, and she didn’t murder someone or something like that. That would have been the Christian thing to do. Instead, he said his wife is hysterical and is all her fault. What kind of Christian is that? Good thing it didn’t work
This is Great Debates. If you didn’t mean your remark to be factual and in support of a debate, then please make that clear.
Cite? What specific Christian teaching is that?
And if the answer is not, “Roman Catholic,” then please explain how it’s relevant to a view of how McDonnell, a Roman Catholic, should have acted.
My understanding is that it is the wife’s Catholic duty to obey her husband, whereas his include providing her material support, protection, and moral guidance. No?
No.
From what source did this understanding arise?
Saint John Paul II’s 1982 commentary on Ephesians 5:21 (a passage that sometimes produces confusion along the lines you suggest) provides the Catholic view:
And even if your understanding were correct, it would not support Yogsooth’s formula.
OK, not being Catholic I missed JP’s reinterpretation of Ephesians 22. And I guess I’m not familiar with the contents of his approved Catechism either.
^ 5:22, that is.