FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/15/2016 3:30:49 PM PST by Perdogg
The Supreme Court will hear former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell's appeal of his public corruption convictions.
The justices said Friday that they will review lower court rulings that upheld the convictions based on what McDonnell says is an overly broad definition of bribery.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
And some Presidential candidates have been peddling influence for years.
And what exactly was McDonnell’s crime? [asked as perspective on what we are seeing now in Democrat circles.]
McD and his wife were “charged with fourteen different counts, relating to their acceptance of more than $135,000 in gifts, loans, trips and other items from Jonnie Williams Sr., former CEO of Star Scientific”
“After a five-week trial and three days of jury deliberations in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, McDonnell and his wife were found guilty of public corruption charges on September 4, 2014. He was convicted of honest services wire fraud, obtaining property under color of official right, and extortion under color of official right. His wife was convicted of honest services wire fraud, obtaining property under color of official right, extortion under color of official right, and obstruction of a federal proceeding”
So basically alleged bribery that’s totally legal when dems do it.
Unusual for the USSC to hear a case like his, so the odds are now in his favor.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
My thoughts too. Compare to Clinton foundation this is peanuts. Original trial big jury? Bad jury pool? What’s the appellate court situation ?
>> Original trial big jury? Bad jury pool? What’s the appellate court situation? <<
If I recall correctly, the prosecution never presented any scrap of evidence that McDonnell had done something in violation of Virginia law.
But the trial judge told the jury something to the effect that they could convict McD of “honest services” fraud if they merely decided that McD was ready, willing and able to break some law. Direct evidence of fraud or bribery was not required, according to the judge.
I remember that now.
Does the SCOTUS have the authority to chastise the judge ?
This was as political as a prosecution can get. McDonnell was a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate. His AG, Cuccinelli, who then ran to succeed him, took on the first case vs. Obamacare. By prosecuting McDonnell, they killed Cuccinelli’s chances to win the governorship, and handed it to McAuliffe. Truly, it was a disgusting misuse of federal resources with no purpose but to destroy a political opponent of the current powers that be and to reward a political crony.
>> Does the SCOTUS have the authority to chastise the judge ? <<
Theoretically, yes. But strong rebukes to Federal judges will normally take place in the Circuit Courts of Appeal.
In the instant case, however, I believe the trial judge was probably trying to follow the precedents set by his “bosses” in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. So there may be no strong grounds to criticize him.
On the other hand, I think the precedents are different in the 5th Circuit and maybe elsewhere. So if McDonnell had been tried in Texas or Louisiana, for example, he might have beat the rap at trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
