Supreme Court unanimously rules for former Va. governor McDonnell
Source: Washington Post
The decision was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
If the court below determines that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Governor McDonnell of committing or agreeing to commit an official act, his case may be set for a new trial, Roberts wrote. If the court instead determines that the evidence is insufficient, the charges against him must be dismissed. We express no view on that question.
Roberts added: There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the governments boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/27/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-for-former-va-governor-mcdonnell/?utm_term=.f70f1f1716c9&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-local%252Bnational
Eugene
(61,938 posts)Rec for importance, not approval.
Igel
(35,337 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They didn't find fault with McDonald and the liberals uphold the law so I am cool with this outcome. I find the abortion case more important.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,582 posts)Another link:
U.S. Supreme Court vacates Bob McDonnell's convictions
Craig234
(335 posts)And that is a problem.
When it's one of your own.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,141 posts). . . that he received nothing, IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE!
Illinoisans know he was dirty. Always was.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Craig234
(335 posts)And explicitly offering one thing for money. That is an extremely rare case in how bribery usually works.
Which is why you can so quickly identify that one case - because it sticks out, the exception that proves the rule.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Moostache
(9,897 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Long as miscreants are occasionally embarrassed without actual penalty, they can make off with the swag? Is that the theory of deterrence? White-collar crime pays, except in the unlikely event you are exposed your reputation may suck? That might bother your mind during your cushy retirement years?
kacekwl
(7,021 posts)Governor or Senator or Officer for get out of jail card.
underpants
(182,868 posts)What could have been. He could have been the anti-Trump
From the soap opera that played out here in Richmond it was clear that the McDonnell's were broke. If he (or his wife) had just waited he'd be pulling in HUGE money from at least one of the big law firm/lobbyists downtown.
AND
He was an almost perfect candidate. Lifetime Commonwealth's Attorney (D. A.), direct ties to Pat Robertson, Army National Guard -deployed I think, former Governor in swing state. If he'd gotten some money in his pocket and wanted to get back in Trump wouldn't have happened or at least McDonnell would have been brought in to stop him. His conviction, in my opinion, set the ball rolling on where we are now.
Response to underpants (Reply #9)
Post removed
underpants
(182,868 posts)but I meant more in terms of the GOP wouldn't want someone who was in the midst of a criminal case.
24601
(3,962 posts)errors by the trial court.
No party wants candidates tied up in the criminal justice system. It's just another negative that provides plenty of information for opponents and makes it less likely someone will run for, or win, a nomination.
But what happens when we have a candidate locked-in - and then the criminal justice system kicks in? Counting on a candidate to gracefully drop out seems like a losing strategy.
underpants
(182,868 posts)Too expensive. But hey maybe they will.
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)the bar for bribery keeps getting higher. They won't even hear the case of a former Alabama governor in prison for a lot less. The Supreme Court is so far removed from reality It's funny how people think that "liberal justices" must be right all time. The Supremes voted 9-0 to keep Eugene Debs in prison for his anti-war stance, including Brandeis. He was later pardoned by Harding.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Nitram
(22,853 posts)law. Blame the law, not the judges.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Did this court just nullify Virginia's anti-corruption law(s) by declaring a "First Amendment" "right" to bribery?
Nitram
(22,853 posts)The Supreme Court not only rules on constitutional issues, it is also the court of last appeal in cases that rise through the court system appeal by appeal. Based on the wording of the legislation the Feds used to charge the governor, the court unanimously ruled that the governor made no "official acts" in return for the gifts he received. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for one, would never compromise her understanding of the law for political reasons. It would be up to Congress and/or the commonwealth of Virginia, to tighten up the language in the legislation to include the type of activity that the governor engaged in.
nadine_mn
(3,702 posts)In this specific case, SCOTUS ruled that the lower Courts' interpretation of what constitutes an official act was too broad. McConnell is def a sleaze bag.
But if you substitute a normal human, take my Governor Mark Dayton and instead of big tobacco make the "briber" me as a normal citizen you can see where that over broad interpretation is problematic.
So I do the "tawdry" stuff (love that word) - make gifts of cars and watches. I am also very interested in the impact a new marina built in my hometown will have on a rare species of lake trout. I form a non profit and want the University of Minnesota to launch a study on it. U of M ignores my repeated requests (because they are overwhelmed with such requests) and I write a letter to Gov Dayton complaining and urging him to do something.
Gov Dayton makes a call to the U, says hey can you meet with my constituent, in fact I can schedule one here. U of M says sure and we meet and talk fish. The lower Court ruled that is enough to constitute bribery. SCOTUS said hold up...the Gov just initiated a meeting. He didn't tell the U to launch a study, he didn't put forth a bill to launch a study .. He just initiated a meeting between two parties. Or if instead of scheduling a meeting, Dayton invites me and my group to the fishing opener along with other people. Lower court said that would be a bribe (I switched state ball with state fishing opener which is way more important). That isn't really him taking action or decisions on my groups behalf... that's just him doing his usual thing.
Does it look bad that I made several gifts to him, including a new boat? You betcha. But he didn't do anything in his official capacity that would be considered acting or influencing law, a court case, etc on my behalf.
That is why it was a unaminous decision...the scope was too broad. Anything could be considered an official act because the Governor is an official and he acted. There needs to be more to it.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)in VA where a Norfolk official is going through the same thing. I'm sure Channel 3, 10, and 13 are going to be leading with this tonight
Nitram
(22,853 posts)...is based on a careful reading of the legislation concerned. However, a politician who was once expected to run for president could never win the presidency now.
angrychair
(8,732 posts)As a former citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia when McDipshit was governor, this is a travesty of justice.
There was extensive investigative reporting done and almost all of it came up during the trail, this guy is a serious dirtbag.
You can shade in any manner you want, like "unanimous decision", but this guy is a criminal.
More importantly it will and does have far reaching implications when it comes to bribery and racketeering laws and "conduct in office" laws.
This was the dinner bell to an all you can eat buffet for political figures.
elleng
(131,073 posts)Has anyone mentioned Governor Siegelman's situation, vis a vis McDonnell?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Hey, when is Don Siegelman going to get his release?
elleng
(131,073 posts)Jim Zeigler says reversal of Virginia governors graft conviction could free Don Siegelman.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027962496
harrose
(380 posts)It's not their job to set guilty Rethugs free.
Nitram
(22,853 posts)Congress needs to tighten up the legislation to include the acts the governor committed in this case.