Mo McDonnell
Mo McDonnell

by James A. Bacon

More interesting testimony from the McDonnell trial yesterday. In the balance, the defense bolstered its case. But it was not entirely convincing.

The other Maureen. Mo McDonnell, Bob McDonnell’s little sister, was a successful business executive who had worked for IBM, Regent University and Amerigroup, culminating with a salary of $540,000 in 2012 and accumulating savings of more than $1 million. Mo testified that she had more than enough money to cover the cost of maintaining the troubled MoBo Real Estate Partnership, undercutting the prosecution’s argument that Bob borrowed money from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams out of desperation to keep the real estate partnership afloat. Indeed, when her bother decided to repay the loans to Williams, she was the one who fronted him the money to do so.

Although she could have covered any shortfall herself with a $150,000 payment she received when she left Amerigroup, she explained, she and Bob decided that interest rates were so low that it made more sense to borrow the money so she could invest her own funds at a higher rate of return.

Really? I’m not sure that passes the smell test. She is asking jurors to believe that it made more sense to borrow money from Jonnie Williams, even though Bob knew how it would look if the loan were made public and even though he had discussed with Williams (if we are to believe Williams) ways to avoid disclosure. Any reasonable person would conclude the exact opposite, that it made far more sense for Bob to borrow the money from his sister in a transaction that would have created no questions — as he ultimately did when he repaid Williams. If I were the prosecution, I would hammer that hard. It is not a convincing explanation. My hunch: There is more to the story, and we haven’t heard it yet.

Poor Maureen. Mo McDonnell and Kathleen Scott, a special assistant to the governor’s wife, provide new details on the first lady’s state of mind. The story of Po’ Maureen’s out-of-control behavior has been so consistent throughout the trail that there is little point in enumerating all the anecdotes here. But one round of testimony advances us to a new level of understanding.

Although McDonnell defended his wife to others, he acknowledged that she had a problem.  As Mo testified (as reported by the Virginian-Pilot):

The first lady once reduced her to tears with a biting comment during a weekend family gathering in 2012, McDonnell’s sister testified. She told her husband she wanted to leave.

“Bob came up and apologized and begged me to stay,” she said. “He said he was working on it. He was trying to get her help.”

As I have observed in previous posts, it is obvious that Po’ Maureen was suffering from depression, mood swings, hysterical outbursts and other signs of mental illness. This testimony confirms that while Bob coped by withdrawing and tuning her out, he also recognized she had a problem. I would not be surprised if testimony reveals that she sought psychiatric treatment and at some point took medication.  The McDonnells may not choose to release this information because they consider it private and shameful. They should not. Millions of Americans suffer from depression and related disorders. Suffering from depression is not a moral failing. (The behavior resulting from depression can be but the depression itself is not.)

Acknowledging Maureen’s mental illness would not excuse illegal or unethical conduct, especially on Bob’s part, but it would would put the McDonnells in a different light than the prosecution’s explanation, that Bob joined in a calculatingly immoral conspiracy with his wife to commit fraud. Also, the Maureen-the-depressed-wife seems less harsh and demeaning than the Maureen-the-bitch defense.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

12 responses to “Mo Maureen and Po’ Maureen”

  1. You can excuse Maureen the wife if you want but this is the most bogus story I have ever heard and it just stinks to high heaven.

    you say that the idea that Bob’s sister having money _undercuts_ the prosecution claim that Bob “had” to borrow from Williams – then you turn right around and admit – that it fails the smell test.

    how in the world does that _undercut_ the prosecution – any more or less than the “Maureen the whacked out wife made Bob do really questionable things with Williams when his sister was the obvious place to go and not mess with Williams at all to start with?

    You think this is a “prosecution” …. “problem”?

    on what planet?

    are we so lost in the legal weeds that we can’t see just how bizarre this whole thing is from the get go?

    This is not the work of a professional Governor – no matter how you want to cut it .. or “understand” it.

    This guy was/is .. an arrogant fool… he’s doing stuff that makes no sense what-so-ever no matter how hard you try to see it from his eyes.

    You can throw out the quid-pro-quo – this fool doesn’t even know how to go about a REAL quid-pro-quo!

    What we know now – is that the professional staff was really running Virginia while Bob and Maureen were doing the 1% version of sniffing glue or whatever.. this is not a story of a competent person going about the business of governing and getting distracted by his loony wife, .. Bob was already there with her.

    it’s just inexplicable.

    just as inexplicable to me is that the McDonnells refused the plea deal – and were willing to throw the dice and go through a trial where all of this was bound to come out.

    Obviously neither one of them are intellectual titans …

  2. Jim:

    I hope your wife manages the finances in your family.

    Mo McDonnell didn’t want to loan brother Bob 15% of her investment portfolio because she thought she could get a higher return in, let’s say, the equity market. Turns out she was right now doesn’t it.

    Jonnie Williams was willing to loan McDonnell money presumably with a written note and a market reasonable interest rate.

    So, Bob takes Williams’ note instead of his sisters’.

    And, somehow, this doesn’t pass your smell test. Because a loan would look bad. But a free Rolex is OK?

    Loans look a lot better than gifts in my mind.

    As for Jonnie Williams’ testimony about hiding the loan – consider the source.

    By Virginia’s abysmally low standards for the ethical behavior of elected officials I don’t see where McDonnell did anything wrong. And if McDonnell violated the honest services provision of federal law then so did every other governor in memory.

    1. jesus – DonR – they were PARTNERS in the same properties and neither she nor Bob thought money from Williams was any different than from her or some other provider – only the “rates” were the difference? good gawd o’mighty…

      When we think a loan from Williams is just like any other available loan – I think someone has gotten into the stash of stupid pills, myself..

      Oh and Don.. do we still need more than one term for Gov in Va now?

      😉

      1. Neither of them thought that taking a loan from Jonnie Williams was wrong. Yes, that’s correct. In fact, nothing in Virginia law makes it wrong. Kaine and Warner took hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts. Nobody seems to think that was unseemly. Williams wanted favors. Here’s a clue for you – so did every other gift giver to Warner, Kaine and McDonnell. “It’s just business”. That’s perhaps the only true thing Jonnie Williams has said in the last decade.

        The feds offered McDonnell a plea deal if he plead guilty to failing to document the loan from Williams on his application for another loan. The president of the bank where the application was made said 1) McDonnell didn’t have to disclose that loan because it was a loan to a business, not McDonnell and 2) it was only a preliminary, unsigned application anyway, people often revise their initial application with new facts.

        The bottom line is that the “crime” the feds wanted McDonnell to plead guilty to was not a crime. And that was their best charge?

        So now we move into the netherworld of honest services fraud. Here is the entire law as written:

        “For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”

        If McDonnell never provided the quid pro quo then I guess it’s honest services fraud. And I further guess that the same law could have been applied against Warner and Kaine as well as almost every elected member of the Virginia General Assembly.

        Also, I see the US Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and blocked Virginia from issuing same sex licenses. I thought you and Mark Herring were absolutely, completely sure that the Virginia law was unconstitutional. So sure that it was OK for Herring to actively work for the people trying to overturn that law. It seems the US Supreme Court wasn’t so quick to determine that a decision favoring gay marriage was inevitable. Unlike Red Herring they actually want to hear the case first.

        Our state government is truly a clown show of epic proportion.

        1. isn’t it wrong in Va/Fed law if you don’t disclose the loan?

          Yes – Warner and Kaine and others could have done the loan but they
          would have had to disclose it – and it’s that disclosure that would give them pause – especially if it led to discovery of other undisclosed loans and gifts.

          It’s the disclosure DonR… I admit it’s weak and problematical but it’s the supposed foundation of the Va law – that you take the questionable money but you do disclose it and let the voters decide.

          Once you take the money and don’t disclose -you have violated not only the letter but the spirit of the law.

          re: same-sex

          No. Herring knew it was going to go to the SCOTUS and soon.. he saved Va taxpayers a ton of money – unlike the Cooch…

          I’m fine with the way that Herring handled it – this is not about mixed marriage – it’s about equal treatment under the law – for anyone who wishes to take advantage of the laws that benefit couples. I’ve known several couples like that in my years and it’s good for them

          1. larryg:

            My understanding of the loan disclosure issue was that McDonnell failed to disclose the loan on his personal loan application to the bank in Virginia Beach. If that understanding is wrong – I’d be happy to be corrected. If that understanding is correct – he did nothing wrong, no less illegal.

            I believe the prosecution is past the question of “quid pro quo” since they can’t prove a quid pro quo. They are now reduced to honest services fraud. This is prosecutorial overreach exemplified. I’ll let the lawyers on this blog opine but the whole area of honest services fraud is so flimsy that I have to wonder which VA governor hasn’t been guilty of this.

            One of two things will happen:

            The McDonnells will walk or ..

            Every politician and former politician in Virginia will look up the statute of limitations on honest services fraud.

          2. DonR – money, loans and gifts not disclosed – unlike other GOvs who did get money, loans and gifts and did disclose per the law.

            in terms of Quid-pro-quo – the legal definition and requirements -you should read this:

            http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/dc-circuit-upholds-conviction-of-former-abramoff-lobbying-associate.html

            and in general – what happened in the Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay convictions-you might be surprised about the threshold.

            You’re essentially arguing that even though the McDonnells had INTENT to not disclose and there is no smoking gun quid-pro-quo that they really did not actually break the law.. the courts have a different standard.

            I’ve always felt that the legal case was weak but that there is no question as to both of them’s behavior and intent – to skirt the law – as weak as it is and how they were willing to have all of it come out including impugning HER character to ostensibly preserve his image – is terrible. These folks have no scruples.. in my view… were undeserving of being in the Gov office and will end up like Abrahoff, Delay and Phil Hamilton in terms of the public perception of their actions – not matter the precise legal determination.

            You’ve attempted to compare the McDonnells behavior to Kaine and Warner but both of them – fully disclosed the things that Bob and Maureen did not – as required by Va law.

  3. DonR – go look at this:

    Statement of Economic Interests: Gifts and Payments for Meetings/Publications

    http://www.vpap.org/candidates/profile/sei/gifts/5666?year=2013

    Now, I’d like to ask you what the difference is between this list of gifts and money that he DID disclose – and the ones with Williams that he did not?

    Why did McDonnell disclose all of these and not the ones from Williams?

    are you claiming that McDonnell didn’t do anything that Kaine and Warner did? if you go look at the VPAP pages for Kaine and Warner -you’ll find similar lists of gifts and money…

    so how do you know that Kaine and Warner also had undisclosed gifts and money that make their behaviors the same as McDonnells?

    Methinks you are playing fast and loose with the facts here guy.. you’re essentially accusing Kaine and Warner of the same behaviors – without a scintilla of evidence – you know zero about what they have not disclosed –

    and this is the difference between McDonnell being in court and Warner/Kaine never have. Are you blind to this or is it you think they’re all guilty but only one got caught or what? Do you the same view of Gilmore and Allen and other govs?

    1. “Do you the same view of Gilmore and Allen and other govs?” Yes, absolutely.

      You need to think through the honest services fraud statute. It’s only 28 words long. McDonnell will not be convicted of failure to disclose. That’s a Virginia law and the penalty is … nothing. Cuccinelli failed to disclose and what happened to him?

      The question is honest services fraud and if McDonnell is guilty then so is every ex-governor in modern history.

      http://m.tricities.com/news/opinion_columns/article_fa125840-1cf3-11e4-a2cd-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm

      “State law left it entirely to McDonnell to decide which gifts to disclose because the law left it entirely to him to decide whether gift-givers qualified as friends or family, both of whose generosity did not have to be reported. This allowed McDonnell to erect a screen behind which he could conceal much of what he and his family received from Williams.”

      1. who exactly in Virginia would charge the McDonnells with violating it’s disclosure laws? Herring?

        alright, so DonB’s perspective is that the Va law is so bad that all elected Gov are essentially allowed unethical conduct which would actual be illegal in other states ….

        correct?

        I STILL THINK that the McDonnells went further down that rat hole..and “gamed” what little ethics and laws that Va did have.

        Basically, they’re being disingenuous and dishonest about their behavior – trying to blame it on others and even each other… what kind of idiots would – do what they did and then turn around and go through a trial that exposes it all to the public?

        What kind of Gov – given a choice of where to get a loan – picks the one that looks like it could be a bribe?

  4. The bottom line is, for me, that at the end of the day our former governor has disgraced himself, personally and probably financially. His questionable political ethics aside, what kind of a man would, as Jim noted in his last post, throw his no doubt foolish wife under a bus to save his skin, when he had a chance to settle this matter some time ago with a rather minor admission of guilt and limited punishment? A sordid story.

    1. yes. All the chatter about did he “technically” do a legal wrong – just pales in comparison for me – in terms of Bob and Maureens behavior …

      they both could have walked away with one plea conviction and none of this would have ever come out that has, in my view, just totally destroyed both of their reputations … and if DonB is correct – the McDonnells are no worse than Kaine and Warner in behavior but boy who has ended up tarred and feathered by their own choice?

Leave a Reply