XPost: ba.politics, dc.media, soc.penpals   
   XPost: alt.burningman   
   From: dvardez@gmail.com   
      
   Democrats can't do anything right.   
      
   Former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell has admitted he   
   used “poor judgment” in taking luxury gifts and loans from a   
   prominent businessman, but federal prosecutors will face   
   difficult challenges in proving a crime was committed.   
      
   The government must show persuasively that McDonnell and his   
   wife struck a corrupt bargain with the Richmond business owner,   
   agreeing to use his powerful state office to help the company in   
   exchange for the executive’s largess.   
      
   “The whole case is going to boil down to proving the quid pro   
   quo,” said Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law   
   professor and expert on public corruption. “They can’t just show   
   that he got these gifts, but must prove that he received them in   
   exchange for official acts. The defense is going to say, `Hey,   
   this is what a Virginia governor is supposed to do — promote   
   Virginia businesses.’”   
      
   The former governor and his wife were charged Tuesday in a 14-   
   count indictment that alleges that they engaged in conspiracy   
   and fraud use his office for private gain. To make their case,   
   prosecutors need to show that McDonnell, with his wife as a co-   
   conspirator, offered or promised to provide his official help to   
   Williams or his company in exchange for gifts and money. The   
   government does not need to show that Williams’s company   
   actually benefitted — only that help was promised.   
      
   Several ethics experts and public corruption lawyers say the   
   steady stream of gifts the First Family sought and accepted from   
   Star Scientific CEO Jonnie R. Williams Sr. — including $15,000   
   to cater their daughter’s wedding, a shopping spree at New York   
   designer boutiques, golf greens fees, vacations and $120,000 in   
   loans — creates a very strong circumstantial case.   
      
   “On the side of accepting gifts from a private party while   
   you’re in office, they have a fantastic case,” said Andrew   
   McBride, a defense attorney who used to prosecute fraud and   
   public corruption in Virginia. “The biggest problem the   
   government has is, what official act did he take as governor to   
   further the interests of Star Scientific?”   
      
   In their indictment, prosecutors say the governor hosted a   
   product launch for Star’s new dietary supplement, Anatabloc,   
   promoted it at public events, arranged meetings between Williams   
   and senior state health officials, and worked alongside his wife   
   to push for state researchers to consider conducting trials of   
   the product.   
      
   Nearly all public corruption prosecutions are uphill battles,   
   because proving a public official’s intent is so tricky. Even   
   though former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was caught on   
   tape trying to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat, the jury   
   deadlocked on most of the charges in his first trial. In the   
   McDonnells’ case, the prosecution faces other unique challenges,   
   experts say.   
      
   First, much of the government’s case about a corrupt agreement   
   hinges on the testimony of Williams, its star witness. The   
   executive was under investigation for possible securities   
   violations when he decided to cooperate with federal   
   investigators. Williams obtained immunity in exchange for his   
   testimony, and defense lawyers have said they will seek to show   
   he’s not credible when he describes on the stand what he and the   
   governor discussed in private conversations.   
      
   “The challenge is if it comes down to the word of one person,   
   who has real incentive to tell a story the way the government   
   would like to hear it, jurors are likely to be skeptical and   
   focused on those motivations,” said Andrew Wise, a defense   
   lawyer, who represented one of the defendants in Jack Abramoff   
   lobbying scandal.   
      
   In addition, Maureen McDonnell comes across in the charging   
   papers as the dominant actor — a First Lady striving to live the   
   high life and requesting more and more help from Williams. She   
   is also the person most actively pursuing ways the state can   
   promote Williams’s company and get state-funded research for its   
   product.   
      
   “The indictment’s a little thin on what governor McDonnell did.   
   It’s 75 percent about Maureen,” Eliason said. “They’ve got to   
   show she’s doing this with the promise or agreement that the   
   governor would take these special steps.   
      
   That’s kind of tricky, because she really comes across as the   
   primary mover. “   
      
   But prosecutors have given hints in their charging papers about   
   some of their strategies for overcoming those challenges — and   
   proving Robert and Maureen McDonnell’s criminal intent.   
      
   First, they have charged the couple with crimes that indicate   
   they were actively concealing Williams’s gifts. The former   
   governor is charged with false statements to bank officials when   
   he did not disclose a Williams loan. The former First Lady is   
   charged with obstructing an investigation by pretending dresses   
   Williams bought for her were actually loaned to her by   
   Williams’s daughter. Maureen McDonnell returned the dresses with   
   a note thanking her for the “loan” — days after she first   
   learned the FBI was investigating her relationship with Williams.   
      
   “The cover-up stuff is in there in part to show evidence of   
   guilty knowledge,” Eliason said.   
      
   “Why do you do that if you aren’t trying to hide some kind of   
   wrongdoing? If it’s all on the up and up, why are you concealing   
   this loan? The dress — that looks pretty bad.”   
      
   Next, prosecutors also refer in the indictment to their “stream   
   of value” theory in proving the McDonnells were offering their   
   services for sale, in exchange for the financial help of   
   Williams.   
      
   By showing that numerous gifts were part of a stream of value   
   the McDonnells received, the government avoids the burden of   
   having to prove an agreement between the parties for each gift.   
      
   “This stream of value theory allows the government to argue that   
   the public official was essentially on retainer,” said Andrew   
   Wise, a defense lawyer who also represented one of the Abramoff   
   defendants. “You’re seeing a hint of the proof problems in these   
   kinds of cases. “   
      
   Experts said the wealth of examples can help prosecutors make   
   their case. They can show a series of official steps the   
   McDonnells took to help Williams, at his request — alongside a   
   long stream of gifts and money from him.   
      
   “Eventually you build up enough bricks in that wall that you   
   prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was what was going   
   on,” Eliason said.   
      
   The law that defines a corrupt agreement is vague however, which   
   can present a major problem for the defense as well, Wise said.   
   A bribery agreement need not be specific or explicit, but can   
   conceivably be as vague as an official saying ”I’ll take care of   
   you on that” or “Let’s look out for one another.”   
      
   Wise said jurors may also view the volume of gifts as odious,   
   but some gift-giving and official help is commonplace in the   
   political arena.   
      
   “When you apply these standards to the conduct that is so   
   routine in our political process, you run the risk of ensnaring   
   people who thought they were playing inside the rules of the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)