2760555SO03_BlagojevichBy Peter Galuszka

How many times have you seen on this blog the comments or headlines regarding the McDonnell case as “No quid for the quo” as if that somehow absolves the former governor and his wife of any legal problems and brings them to automatic innocence?

Well, before we all become over-Baconated in amateur interpretations of federal law that might not be quite right, consider this from the morning’s New York Times about the McDonnells’ arraignment yesterday.

“Experts on corruption law said that prosecutors do not have to show that  Mr. (Jonnie) Williams (of Star Scientific) received state contracts, or that the McDonnells promised specific gifts in return for his gifts.

“’They don’t have to prove an explicit quid pro quo,’ said Josh Berman, a former prosecutor of corruption cases in the Justice Department. The McDonnells are charged with ‘honest services fraud’—a lesser charge than bribery. It requires that prosecutors show only ‘a connection between the goodies, the loans and the official action,’ Mr. Berman said.

“The indictment is largely a detailed timeline of Mr. Williams’ gifts and what the McDonnells did to promote a dietary supplement he made, Anatabloc.”

So, dear readers and corruption sleuths, you might want to reconsider the argument by McDonnell apologists that their charges could be applied to any public official doing his or her job. For one thing, the regular stream of gifts over a two year period from Williams certainly suggests some kind of understanding.

It’s not exactly like taking a one-time-only 10-day tropical holiday at someone’s island vacation house. The McDonnells sought and accepted a wide range of gifts including loans that the former governor apparently did not own up to when he was seeking bank financing. And you don’t need to show a clear “quid pro quo.”

I went to the Wiki and looked up “honest services fraud.” Here is a list of how it has been applied in recent cases:

“Several notable figures have been charged with or convicted of honest services fraud. Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in 2006 to honest services fraud in addition to conspiracy and tax evasion; he was convicted in 2008 of further charges of honest services fraud in addition to further charges of conspiracy and tax evasion.[26] Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted in 2006 of honest services fraud, in addition to securities fraud.[26] Former Illinois governor George Ryan was convicted in 2006 of honest services fraud, in addition to racketeering, tax fraud, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal agents.[27] Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was convicted in 2006 of honest services fraud, in addition to conspiracy, bribery, and obstruction of justice.[28] Duke Cunningham, a former Congressman from California, was convicted of corruption charges including honest services fraud.[26] Bob Ney, a former congressman from Ohio, was convicted of corruption charges including honest services fraud.[26] Newspaper magnate Conrad Black was convicted in 2007 of honest services fraud, in addition to obstruction of justice.[29] Former Alaska state legislator Bruce Weyhrauch was convicted in 2007 of honest services fraud in addition to bribery and extortion.[30] Former New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was convicted in 2009 on two counts of honest services fraud.[31] Mary McCarty, a former Palm Beach County Commissioner, is currently serving a federal prison sentence for honest services fraud.[32] New Jersey political boss Joe Ferriero was convicted in 2009 of conspiracy and two counts of mail fraud.[33] Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was indicted in 2009 for allegedly conspiring to commit honest services fraud, as well as for allegedly soliciting bribes.[34] Former Alabama state legislator Sue Schmitz was convicted in 2009 of three counts of mail fraud and four counts of fraud involving a program receiving federal funds.[35][36] Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan originally pled guilty to honest services fraud and conspiracy in the Kids for cash scandal. The pleas were later withdrawn.”

I rest my case.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

4 responses to “McDonnells: Don’t Need “Quid” for “Quo””

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    The whole “no quid pro quo” defense is pretty ridiculous.

    People who never even spoke to the McDonnells suddenly become best friends of the family once Bob McDonnell is elected.

    The CEO of a struggling company buys the governor a Rolex watch, pays for wedding expenses and loans the family a small fortune.

    The CEO of Orion Air donates money to three key legislators and then offers one of the legislators a job. Orion Air gets a special tax break not available to its in-state competitors.

    I guess all these businessmen suddenly develop “man crushes” on politicians for no discernible reason. The business men then cement their bromance with the politicians by showering them with gifts, donations and jobs.

    Through all this Bill Howell doesn’t see any reason for the ethics commission to have subpoena power and Jim Bacon wonders why there isn’t more hard evidence of a quid pro quo.

    It’s the Virginia Way, Peter.

    Honest to goodness – when the General Assembly convenes its annual session Judy Collins’ Send in the Clowns should be playing while our “legislators” file into the chamber. Call it truth in advertising.

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Don the Ripper,
    I don’t know about the Virginia Way. If you have lunch with Bacon, he usually wants to split the check. If it’s the Virginia Way, shouldn’t he pay your share, you know, to buy influence?

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Wait until Bacon gets elected to some office or another. There will be no more splitting the check. You’ll pay and the costliness of the venue will skyrocket.

      By the way – Bacon told me he would never accept a Rolex as an elected official. He prefers Omegas.

  3. Here’s an honest question.

    If the McDonnells personal financial affairs were in good order and/or they had significant assets – like many politicians like McAuliffe is said to have…

    … would they have engaged in that behavior?

    or… were they in such financial straights because of their prior and existing bad financial habits?

    and I agree with the quo thoughts… the idea that public officials could take large sums of money but not be suspected of wrong doing…because you can’t show how they returned the favor… good lord!

    we want government in Va that works that way?

    why don’t we just enshrine it in the Va Code: ” you can take all the influence money you want as long as you do good as hiding how you repaid the favor”?

    this is foolishness.. we just need one simple law – no money or things of value – period. If you take it.. then you go to prison.

Leave a Reply