The Bob McDonnell Supreme Court ruling makes convicting politicians of corruption almost impossible

[spanone]

No one thinks Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, acted nobly in their dealing with dietary supplement businessman Johnnie Williams. They accepted $175,000 in gifts and donations — Rolexes! Ferrari rides! Wedding gifts! — from Williams, who was relentlessly trying to gain access to the Virginia governor and his wife in hopes of improving the chances of his various businesses succeeding.

And yet, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned McDonnell's conviction on corruption charges Monday. Why? Because it is very, very hard to convict politicians on public corruption charges without a smoking gun. And there wasn't one in this case.

"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion. "But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

What Roberts is saying is this: Yes, McDonnell and his wife breached the public trust and drastically underperformed the expectations we have for our elected officials. But disappointment and tawdriness aren't illegal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/the-bob-mcdonnell-scotus-ruling-proves-that-its-almost-impossible-to-convict-politicians-of-corruption/

[Duckhunter935]

1. Indeed so

Laws need to be changed by the corrupt, lol

[bemildred]

2. I think that is the idea.

They don't seem to have any problem with hinky evidence in other criminal cases ...

[spanone]

3. smacks of 'protecting our own' to me

[clarice]

12. +1000

[zazen]

4. and yet Don Siegelman languishes in prison for committing no crime and Obama hasn't pardoned him

[99th_Monkey]

6. [phone]!!!

[MattP]

8. Where the hell is his appeal?

This case gets a rush to the Supremes like Bob was a innocent victom but look at the hell Siegelman is putting up with for being a success in a red state because of Rove

[DirkGently]

5. There is a concept in ethics called

"the appearance of impropriety." Someone in an official or fiduciary position takes in gifts and gives out favors, for example. It may that the two things are completely unrelated. But at a certain point it becomes impossible to tell the difference.

Lawyers have to avoid "apparent conflicts of interest" for the same reason. You have a big client. Someone wants to sue them regarding something completely unrelated to anything you've ever looked at. The business of a subsidiary, for example. Could you represent the person suing fairly against your good friend and benefactor, the big client? Maybe, but we'll never be able to know for sure.

I wouldn't argue that the appearance of impropriety should subject someone to conviction under a bribery statute. But you sure as hell should be able to be run out of public office for taking Rolexes and wedding parties from someone who also happens to be trying to sell a ridiculous scam health supplement derived from tobacco or whatever that yahoo in Virginia had going.

[99th_Monkey]

7. Where would you put Hillary's Wall St. speeches on your "appearance of impropriety' scale?

From 1 - 10.

[DirkGently]

9. You trying to get me into trouble?

There are some new rules around here, 'case you hadn't heard.

I will say that there is inherent tension in any public official benefiting directly from an industry they are tasked with regulating. Beyond that, even a past beneficial relationship can taint a person's views -- that's just human nature.

We get into this in the regulatory context all the time. Business says you need insiders to understand what they do and not clumsily screw things up. And they're not entirely wrong about that. But critics say insiders tend to be at the least biased toward their old jobs, and their friends in the industry, and in many cases either beholden to them or hopeful of future benefits or even employment.

And they're not wrong either.

[99th_Monkey]

10. My question was 99% rhetorical.

Yes I have heard of these "New Rules" .. not just for Bill Maher anymore .. thanks
for the reminder.

[DirkGently]

11. 99 rhetorical monkeys!

[clarice]

13. A must read for anyone who thinks that they are not all in bed together.nt