home

Ex-Gov. McDonnell Sentenced to 2 Years, Gov't. Sought 10-12

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Tue Jan 06, 2015 at 08:01:00 PM EST
Tags: Bob McDonnell (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Former Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison today. Probation recommended, and prosecutors sought a 10 to 12 year sentence, in accordance with the guidelines.

Good lawyering by the defense team. The sentencing guidelines are not mandatory and there is not even a presumption that they represent the correct sentence. They are only the starting point in the judge's consideration, and the judge here appropriately exercised his discretion.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Jane Doe's Lawyers File Defamation Suit Against Dershowitz >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ex-Gov. McDonnell Sentenced to 2 Years, Gov't. Sought 10-12 | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    As much as I detest political corruption ... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 06, 2015 at 08:51:49 PM EST
    ... of the type engaged in by the McDonnells, and on a visceral level would like to see them both locked away for a good long while, the sentence handed down to the disgraced former Virginia governor today was entirely fair and appropriate.

    Bob McDonnell truly deserves the prison time he's getting, because he and his wife basically offered for sale both his services as Virginia governor and special access to his administration, to those who are willing to pay the price to get what they want. Such knowing and willful violations of the public trust simply cannot be tolerated at any level of government in a representative democracy.

    But there's really no need to be overly punitive. This should be about former Gov. McDonnell and the First Lady and what they did, and not about society and our desire for vengeance. And in that, I agree with you that the judge assessed the nature of the offense correctly and got the sentance right.

    Hope springs eternal, in that the McDonnells' very public fall and subsequent fate as a result of their transgressions will perhaps deter future public servants and their relations from temptation to likewise peddle their influence for personal gain, in obvious violation of an elected official's oath to be a good steward of the public domain during his or her time in office.

    Aloha.

    The perception is that our trial courts (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2015 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    sometimes afford leniency to an educated Caucasian but may not afford the same leniency to a minority defendant. Given an elected Governor abused the office for his oersonal gain, this is the wrong message.

    Parent
    Apples and oranges, oculus. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    Sentencing in each case should be considered on its own merits, rather than be compared to others.

    While I agree with your concerns about the disparity in sentences between minority and white defendants, the answer is to address the sentencing issues regarding defendants of color, rather than simply increasing the sentences of caucasians.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    This judge vastly decreased the sentence (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    recommended by the probation officer. Very unusual.

    Parent
    I accept your contention that it was ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    ... out of the ordinary for a judge to pointedly ignore the sentencing recommendation from a probation officer. But that said, it was merely a recommendation, a suggested guideline which the judge was not legally bound to follow.

    Jeralyn has a considerable amount of experience in this realm, and she'd obviously have a much better understanding than I ever would regarding what factors the judge might have considered, before determining and passing sentence upon Bob McDonnell. I tend to defer to her observations and judgment in these matters.

    But given that the former governor's sentencing was solely within that judge's discretion, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt here, and I will not speculate whether the defendant's race had anything to do with his 2-year sentence being much lighter than the 6-8 year recommendation.

    Further, I would offer that the obvious racial disparities in prison / jail sentences are the end results of some pervasive flaw in present standing policy, such as a lack of some standard which a judge is obliged to follow. But short of imposing more mandatory minimums to limit a judge's discretion, which I oppose, I can't offhand see how we can fix it legislatively, other than impose sanctions on bad actors.

    Clearly, both the White House and the U.S. Senate obviously need to do a better job at vetting prospective nominees to the federal bench, and make a better effort to identify potential personality flaws like racism, ethnocentrism, misogyny and sexism, homophobia, etc., before these nominees are ever confirmed and seated for what is otherwise a lifetime appointment.  

    Further, other underlying problems likely need to be identified and addressed by either Congress or the Supreme Court. (Considering the present make-up of both, I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen.) But the issue of racial disparity at sentencing will never be resolved on a case-by-case by individual judges on their own.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Point of reference (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 08:07:58 PM EST
    (2000 sentencing by a federal judge of state court trial judges and a prominent attorney; federal mandatory minumums in effect):

    LAT

    Parent

    If you want to put it into more perspective, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 08, 2015 at 06:27:07 AM EST
    two years ago, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was sentenced to 28 years for the sleazy behavior he was nailed for by USA Barbara McQuade.

    According to an agent on the case, [a primary source] what they actually suspected him of was complicity in the theft of hundreds of millions from the city and taxpayers of Detroit.  The actual number was so high I hesitate to repeat it, it seems so crazy, an estimated 750 million dollars steered into various coffers, hidey holes, and pockets.  Just last month two or three more of his scuzzball cronies were convicted of facilitating city pension scams.

    At this point I don't give a rip how many rivers of crocodile tears these "repentant" politicians can cry.

    I've got more sympathy for street criminals, who for whatever reason actually need to do what they do.


    Parent

    That's why political corruption is so insidious. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 08, 2015 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    And that's why we ignore or excuse it at our own peril. It's true that most corruption is often of the petty variety. But in extreme cases, it can have a truly disastrous effect upon the surrounding society if it's not brought to heel.

    An extreme example of that is the late President Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (Congo), who looted his own once-prosperous country of perhaps as much as $25 billion. It's not at all a stretch to blame his misrule and embezzlement for the horrific circumstances facing the Congolese people today, having suffered nearly ten million dead in a civil war that's seemingly without end.

    In our own country, the infamous Crédit Mobilier of America Congressional bribery scandal of 1868-72 -- during which outright graft and corruption served to relieve the U.S. Treasury of nearly 20% of its existing liquid assets -- helped plunge the United States into what was at the time its worst economic depression in its history.

    And of course, there's Watergate, the corrosive effects of which still reverberate across our national politics, four-plus decades ex post facto.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well if He Was a Congressperson... (none / 0) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    ...he wouldn't be doing any time as Williams would be just another lobbyist do his job.

    My point, it's pretty hard to argue the sentence was just when other government officials are free to accept all kinds of 'gifts' from people who need favors.  I guess the McDonnell's should have just accepted a golf outing in Scotland instead of a watch.

    There is even a government official in the White House who burned through nearly a billion dollars of other people's money to keep his job.  But good idea, better toss this guy and his wife in prison for $165k, because that's corruption, and the billion was pure donation, and has had no effect on how Wall Street is being regulated.

    Not saying he shouldn't be in jail, just that the same standard he is being held to doesn't apply to the folks in Washington DC.

    Parent

    Similar situations should be treated (none / 0) (#4)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    similarly ... I agree.  Although one should also add that the taking of action to bring some justice in some situations (read: McDonnell) is better than ignoring most/all legally unethical & allegedly illegal political antics. Also: Telling the officer who stops you for speeding on the road "but, officer, that other guy(s) did it too" never works.

    Parent
    That Doesn't Make Sense (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    ...your analogy assumes that it's illegal for everyone to speed, in this case I am saying the same behavior is illegal for some and not others.

    I think you would have a strong case if you are tickets for something that is legal for others.  14th Amendment.

    Obviously what he did isn't them same, but the results were, he got something of value for special treatment, which is exactly what lobbyists do.

    Parent

    Yes, you are correct in that (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 06:00:08 PM EST
    I did not state my assumption that the word "speeding" meant operating one's vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit.  Further, my point--in that case--is that, while it may seem unfair and wrong, that one person is caught/ticketed/etc. and others are not does not mitigate the wrong of the one who is caught.

    I'm guessing that our perspectives differ on this one.  Of course, it would be nice to address all who violate the law at all different levels ... but, as one who worked in enforcement of environmental laws, I learned quickly that the resources in the several areas only go so far.  (And, btw, those administrations who want to lessen enforcement in certain areas often do that by cutting the particular programs' budget ... whether federal or state.  See Reagan's EPA approach as an example of an attempt to diminish enforcement against major environmental violators.)  My experience differs; ergo, my view about "enforcement" probably is filtered differently as well.

    Parent

    The problem for the McDonnells in this case ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    ... was that there was a direct quid pro quo involved here, in that they both derived immediate and clearly discernible personal benefits, i.e., Williams footing the bill for the daughter's wedding, in exchange for the governor's favors.

    Influence peddling at all levels of government has always been a very thorny and complex issue. Absent the presence of a clearly definable and understandable quid pro quo, the crime of public corruption is quite difficult to prove in a court of law. How one or more individuals might view a particular official's actions, within the context of the latter's proscribed job description, is generally open to subjective interpretation -- literally a white collar Rashomon.

    When pursuing public corruption cases, prosecutors generally have to see and amass an overwhelming amount of evidence before they'll even consider seeking an indictment and taking it to trial. Even in the McDonnells' case, the evidence against them was almost all circumstantial. It was the sheer volume of it that ultimately did them in.

    I've worked on both sides of governmental process, and am presently a registered lobbyist myself at both state and federal levels. I'm very acutely aware at all times of whatever it is I do in my interaction with elected and appointed officials. And there have been times when I've cautioned others who I felt were pushing boundaries of ethical propriety.

    Some have listened appreciatively to my advice, while others have pointedly ignored me -- including a former boss, who then ridiculed me in front of colleagues as a goody-two-shoes. (And that's why I don't work for him any more, and am on my own.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I Would Say... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 04:19:46 PM EST
    ...and obviously not from any sort of legal stand point, but this:
    Absent the presence of a clearly definable and understandable quid pro quo, the crime of public corruption is quite difficult to prove in a court of law.
    Should be a no brainer to prove if the votes are always what the contributor is expecting/wanting.  And let's be honest, lobbyists are buying votes, plain and simple, if the dollars were removed, lobbyists would not be needed as anyone can contribute or try and influence their elected officials.

    I get what you are saying and legally things might be different, but the result is the same, something for something, aka, quid pro quo.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 04:30:47 PM EST
    A) Governors don't vote.

    B) Governors can provide some quo for the quid that has nothing to do with the legislative process.

    C) Legislators  can also confer benefits that are something other than "a vote."

    D) Not all "this for that" exchanges between government officials and interested parties are or should be illegal. Even I'll give you money if you vote as I prefer is or should always be illegal. I'll give you a legal campaign contribution if you vote to legalize/ban  gay marriage doesn't and shouldn't make me or the pol who accepts it a crook even though it's a quid pro quo

    Parent

    So what? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2015 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    Even in the McDonnells' case, the evidence against them was almost all circumstantial.

    In a vast majority of cases, all the prosecution has is circumstantial evidence. It is (or should be) given exactly the same weight as direct evidence. Circumstantial doesn't mean "lesser" or "not as strong". (For example, DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial evidence.  But most people would consider those pretty definitive and strong evidence in a criminal case.)

    It therefore, shouldn't be surprising that most of the evidence in this case was circumstantial.

    And let's not forget in all of this - previous to his tenure as governor, Bob McDonnell was the Attorney General of the Commonwealth. If his story of being in the dark about the money is to be believed, (and IMO, it's not), then he still should have had the experience and knowledge to ask questions of his wife and Jonnie Williams - "Where did you get the money for this Rolex?", "Gee, Jonnie, thanks for offering your Ferrari for our trip back to Richmond, but we can't accept.", "You want to give my sister and me a loan for our fledgling real estate venture?", "Why do you want to pay $15,000 for our daughter's wedding?"

    The really stupid thing is that Virginia has very few ethics laws that address this.  All he had to do was declare these gifts, and while it may have been a week long story in the press, it wouldn't have been criminal behavior.

    He knew better and thought he wouldn't get caught.  Shame on him. But I'm not sorry his arrogance caught up with him.

    Parent

    I only wish that that his parole would come with.. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    ...a requirement to work full-time, for several years, for, say, a food bank or domestic violence safehouse or any other useful charity, and labor for the menial level of wages the average worker in these positions must survive on. Then, maybe, you'd get some rehabilitation.

    There is no parole in the federal system (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    and has not been since 1987. A defendant sentenced in federal court must serve 87% of his/her sentence (the deduction being for good behavior, and is therefore not automatic). There is a period of post-release, probation-like control, called "supervised release," but it follows and is not deducted from the prison sentence (like parole would be).

    Parent
    I always have mixed feelings (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 11:05:57 AM EST
     about cases like this.

      On the one hand, there is a reason I choose to be a defense lawyer and for philosophical and practical reasons I have elaborated on before, I oppose unduly harsh sentences. Also, although decisions such as this are not "precedential" in the technical sense of the word, they do have "downstream effects" which can result in others receiving lesser (fairer) sentences.

      On the other hand, I believe that betrayal of the public trust by elected officials is extremely serious and escapades like this do trigger some moral outrage.

      In this, and many others, that outrage is, perhaps ironically or even illogically,  somewhat exacerbated by the penny ante nature of the crimes. I mean for God's sake if you want  things that the salary of an elected official won't allow you to have then don't run for office and get a job that lets you satiate your trivial material desires. How strong really  is a person's character if he can bought so cheaply?

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 08:17:36 PM EST
    Years ago, we had a state representative out here who used to charge all sorts of unauthorized / invalid but otherwise remarkably petty expenses to his campaign fund -- small stuff like lunch at McDonald's. Despite being warned on several occasions by the campaign spending commission to cease and desist, he continued doing so, and it eventually all caught up with him big time.

    It was interesting to note that not a single one of his many attempted reimbursements was over $60. But given that he'd been engaging in this sort of fraudulent behavior for years on end, the sum total of his petty misdemeanors ended up over $50,000 -- which collectively rendered his crime a felony. He was tried and convicted, and not only forbidden from ever holding public office again, but also disbarred as an attorney.

    Ouch.

    Parent

    The sentence given (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    to Governor McDonnell for corruption is, from my perspective, adequate.   And, the case demonstrates the need for judicial discretion.  However, I am perplexed by the judge's sentencing comment, "This whole case has been tragic from beginning to end."   Tragic?   For whom?   Crime and its consequences could be considered to be tragic not just for a governor who betrayed the public trust.  

    Moreover, the 24-month sentence affirms my belief that Governor Rod Blagojevich's sentence of 14-years was harsh.  Blago is nobody's political poster boy, but his crimes were more in the category of political horse trading (unfortunately too commonplace) than personal favor trading.   <