This is kind of disturbing. A federal prosecutor innappropriately applied an anti-corruption law and managed to get a conviction against former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. Apparently neither the judge nor jury was able to recognise that charges were inappropriate. This has been a major criticism in recent years as prosecutors are allowed to interpret the law however they like, and then try to convince a jury that that the defendant did something wrong. http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016...e-being-gay-is-illegal-but-boycott-u-s-states Pat Robertson said on TV that he thinks they went after McDonnell because there was a upcoming Senate seat opening and McDonnell was a probable nominee. Basically federal prosecutors charged McDonnell with a federal statute against corruption for doing something that was not commonly seen as illegal, and in fact is not an uncommon practice among politicians. McDonnell accepted numerous expensive gifts from a businessman, but there is no evidence he actually misused his official position to benefit that businessman. (The prosecutor argued that holding a business party at the governor's mansion constituted misuse of official position) The prosecutors managed to obtain a conviction out of a jury, but now the case is being appealed before the U.S. Supreme Court. Many prominent lawyers on both sides of the aisleboth Democrat and Republicanhave sent letters to the court on McDonnell's behalf, basically saying that he was convicted on trumped up charges and that the way the prosecutor was interpreting the corruption law was too open-ended.
This wouldn't be the first State Governor prosecutors have wrongly gone after. In Alabama there was political conspiracy to remove then governor Don Siegelman from office. In 1999, a health care corporation CEO named Richard M. Scrushy made a $500,000 donation to a charitable cause, the creation of a state lottery, the proceeds of which would be used to fund the public school system. This was a cause which governor Siegelman championed. The pro-lottery campaign was ultimately unsuccessful. Later that year, Siegelman appointed Scrushy to the CON board, a state panel that decides if state hospitals may add more services. The prosecutor argued that the donation constituted a bribe of a public official. Out of this one alleged act, they charged Siegelman with violation of the federal bribery statute, a criminal conspiracy, violation of honest services mail fraud statute, and extortion. To top it off, because the indictment fashioned the conduct as a racketeering enterprise, the defendants were subject to the extremely harsh penalties and fines under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization law. There were numerous problems with the prosecutor's case. Scrushy had gained nothing from the alleged bribe. He had already served in an uncompensated position on the CON board before. Yet despite this, the prosecution was still able to convince the jury that Siegelman had violated the laws. The judge in the case demonstrated his hostility against Siegelman throughout the trial, perhaps because he had political motivations to see the governor removed from office. Governor Siegelman sat in prison for 6 years before a Court of Appeals finally reversed the conviction. The problem was that the laws were so broadly worded that it was possible to convince a jury that otherwise completely innocuous conduct constituted violation of not just one law, but several. Combined with the emotional argument of a manipulative prosecutor who was able to sway the jury, and a biased judge who was all too happy to see the governor convicted. Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson later admitted to congressional investigators that she had been involved in a plot, orchestrated by U.S. attorneys in different districts of Alabama, to remove governor Siegelman from office through indictment. Siegelman himself described the case as an "abuse of power". In Texas, Governor Rick Perry was indicted on rather trumped up charges, based on the fact that he threatened to use his veto powers as governor to revoke funding from the State's Public Integrity Unit if they did not remove one of their prosecutors. Out of this act, the prosecutor was able to get an indictment for "abuse of official capacity" (classified as a first-degree felony) and "coercion of a public servant". http://spectator.org/60347_rick-perrys-indictment-should-scare-all-americans/
Based on oral arguments, most people believe that the SCOTUS will toss this conviction. It was problematic from the beginning and should never have happened. Basically they charged him for using the telephone/internet/facsimile for doing something they did not like. All recent former governors had done the same things and every living state attorney general in VA prior to the current one joined in saying that the governor had broken no laws. The Justice Department just invented a way to prosecute him using the fact that they used the telecommunications system in their activity. The wife clearly lied to prosecutors and tried to fabricate some evidence after the fact to support her lies, but beyond that, none of the other convictions should stand.
