General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswatching Joe Scar saying fed prosecutors can't "prove" anything on McDonnell...
I kept thinking "who believes that the CEO of Star Scientific was giving McDonnell all that stuff just to be a nice guy?" Does Scar really think that this looks at all good for this "rising star in the Republican Party"?
Some panelists on MJ today were a little aghast. Even Chuck Todd started sputtering at Joe's characterization of barely "legal" shenanigans as being somehow "okay."
Scar was really scraping the bottom of the barrel of any rationalized defense of McDonnell. Poor Scar. All his "rising stars" destined for presidential glory in 2016 are flaming out...
BTW, Joe looked HORRIBLE on today's show. His nose was red and his face looked splotchy. He looked like he had had a rough night...
Edit to add: And these Republicans wonder why they can't win the popular vote in a presidential election?
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)a crook. Leave it up to the State of Virginia where the rules allow you to break them....
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)And again I say "And republicans wonder WHY they can't win presidential elections?"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and labored attempt to respond to that lunacy?
The look on his face was like, WTF? And when he opened his mouth, that's what I thought he was going to say.
It was priceless.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)"outrageous" dept. It's amazing how those panelists just sit there and "take" it. And Joe just blathers away...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)nodding and making faces in the side ground.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)What a great moment that was! Joe was just stunned that a guest on his show would "abuse" him so mo skillfully right on the air like that. It was a beautiful thing to behold!
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)least bit smug about, I'm surprised it doesn't happen to him every day.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)it might be worth the effort just to see his response...and the cat-eating-canary look on Zbig's face...
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)There is no question that the Governor and his greedy wife accepted all manner of gifts from their wealthy benefactor.
But it may be necessary to show that the benefactor actually benefitted materially (i.e. there was a quid pro quo) from the gifts in order to get a conviction. It appears the gifts likely led to the benefactor having access to decision makers in the state health department and others such as arranging meetings, inclusion in meetings, etc.
But there is no evidence of which I am aware that this resulted in the benefactor actually getting contracts, etc. If so then I have missed something as I have followed this case.
If the law requires the benefactor actually get something in exchange for his gifts what level of "something" or "benefit" must there be. Is access sufficient or would it have to beyond that where a law was enacted in exchange, contracts were let, etc.? I don't know.
FSogol
(45,446 posts)on his behalf.
The Feds' case (despite the RW talking points of McDonnell's innocence) will be easy. Do I expect McDonnell to spend heavy jail time? No, he'll plea down to 36 month sentence and huge fines.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)because for a presidential aspirant, such as McDonnell, accepting these gifts looks just terrible in the minds of voters. It doesn't matter that they can't prove McDonnell offered anything or did anything in return. The question is simply he looks like a politician "on the take" from a wealthy donor. There is always a quid pro quo SOMEWHERE down the line eventually...and the voters know it.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Is simply arranging a meeting where the benefactor could present their product(s) to potential decision makers "help"? Is help based on exclusionary practices? This is where "help" or "benefit" are very much in the eye of the beholder unless the law is very, very specific. It would be up to a jury to decide if what the Governor did was "help".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Quid; but, no quo.
I don't think that defense will gain much traction with a jury, as jurors bring their real life experiences to the box.
The question is not/will not be whether the business owner got a contract or government business (or even anything tangible) in exchange for his "gifts"; but rather, whether the business owner got "something of value", in exchange for his "gifts."
It will not be difficult to get a jury to understand that a product launch in the Governor's mansion has value (it's essentially an endorsement) ... a business owner being seen with a popular Governor has value (again, it's a social endorsement of the business owner) ... the business owner sitting with the Virginia Health Officials, at the Governor's behest, is of value ("enhanced access" is of value).
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Juries can be fickle.......
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 23, 2014, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)
that jury supports my theory (experience). The OJ jury consisted of 8 blacks and 2 Hispanics. These jurors brought their real life distrust of law enforcement ... a distrust that was confirmed when Furman was demonstrated a liar ... into the jury box with them, and they decided accordingly.
I think it a crazy risk to pin one's hopes and freedom on the belief that you can convince a jury that a wealthy business man would contribute (politically) and gift (personally) a couple a $100,000 and not expect something of value in return ... that just goes against the average persons' life experience.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)something. That's why it's so stupid to carry on the way Scar was about how "technically" he won't be convicted of any crime. The court of public opinion will render a different verdict.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is attempting to give "smart" partisans that might be impanelled a "technical" way out ... by re-defining what quid pro quo actually means.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)Their political aspirations for a presidential run are over, finished. All I wonder is "who's next?" and "will there be anyone left by 2016?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Cruz
Rubio
Huckabee
and, $I$ter $arah.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)what is funny is Joe's furious attempt to cover up for McDonnell. Doesn't he know how ridiculous he looks?
underpants
(182,604 posts)Not material benefit for Williams.
Williams is THE pivot point and he is testifying for the Feds because he got caught insider trading. The defense will say that he is unreliable due to getting caught, basically tainting his testimony.
The falsifying bank documents (not reporting the loans) should be easy to prove.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)if it was a democrat.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)CTyankee
(63,889 posts)brewens
(13,538 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,682 posts)Not a moral bone in their bodies.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)CTyankee
(63,889 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)CTyankee
(63,889 posts)I'd like to think it's because he's seeing the repuke party sink like a stone...
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I think he just came in too late for makeup....
mgardener
(1,812 posts)can't stand the show.
I did read the indictment, however. What I thought was 1. "This guy was doing all this and he was the former AG of the state? How is he going to say he didn't know it was wrong?"
2. And there was a great paper trail. And it shows how they tried to hide it all.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)I woke up pretty early and joe scumbourough and his companion were on and I listened for the first time. Man this guy is scum, I've read here, countless times, about what a joke he and companion were/are. I was amazed that he was trying to defend the crooks in Virginia. Some of the rationalizations he had, especially, "the not really illegal what the Virginia crooks did" just had me shaking my head. I soon turned the station. Everything said about this program's inability to tell the truth about important matters shows me how far television news has fallen. Don't get me wrong, with Faux News on the air the bar, with me, was already set pretty low. No daylight between the bar and the ground. This show has the bar in the dirt.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)That should prove something, Joe.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)marble falls
(57,010 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)time frame, has either party reported this information to IRS. If not, then there is something to be proven on both parties.
rurallib
(62,379 posts)it's a gift of friendship.
packman
(16,296 posts)I think he's just projecting what he'd do if in the same situation. Here's an example-
http://patdollard.com/2013/01/did-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-murder-young-intern-he-was-having-an-extramarital-affair-with/
There's many a folk down here in the panhandle of Florida who deeply feel that Joe got a pass from this incident- which , when it got some legs under it, caused him to want to "spend more time with his family". The coroner was a long time family friend, the politicos were in the Scarborough pocket, and the local press was (and still is) a conservative rag as is the local media.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)it was funny to watch the meltdown.
Botany
(70,447 posts).... she wound up dead on his office floor with her head split open.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Job is a felony and doesn't take much to prove. ...funny how Joe and mika go to great extents to blow smoke. Almost fox news lite now
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)I guess I just don't have that much intestinal fortitude.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)I was laughing out loud!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)that doesn't mean she's alive.