Hillary and the McDonnell Case

On Monday, in its last day, the Supreme Court vacated the corruption conviction of the former Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell.  That particular decision was hidden a bit, in that the Court handed down several decisions Monday, and one was about abortion, which got all the excitement of the press.

But let's stick with the McDonnell case for today, because I think the ramifications of that decision could affect the presidential campaign this year, if only the Trump people can figure out how to present it accurately and persuasively.

This case actually had enough subtlety to where it might have confused the press, so I'll try to keep it simple.  Bob McDonnell, as the facts appear to bear out, received gifts from a Virginia company which was trying to market a product.  In return, he took some actions to try to help the company, which consisted of setting up meetings and providing introductions to individuals in government who could assist the company.  For that, he was charged with, and convicted of, corruption in office.

It is no more complex than that, and I am keeping it that way for the purpose of this piece to make it easier to understand the Court decision.  McDonnell appealed the original conviction, had lost his appeal in Federal court, and took the case to the Supreme Court to rule on the statute itself under which he was convicted.

McDonnell claimed that what he actually did on behalf of the company did not constitute an "official act" as defined under the statute.  He claimed that what he had done -- arranging meetings and introductions and the like -- was not actually "official" in the man-on-the-street view, in that you didn't have to be the governor to take the actions that he did.  I'm not a lawyer and was not privy to the arguments, but he could have said that a former governor could have done the same thing, or a General Assembly leader, or even an influential private citizen.

Key to McDonnell's appeal was that he actually took no official steps; did not award contracts, did not do anything that couldn't otherwise be regarded as constituent service -- despite having received gifts to provide that"constituent service."

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed -- meaning that even the hard-core lefties like Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg agreed -- writing that the corruption statute was so broadly written in its definition of "official acts" as to be unconstitutional, and the conviction was vacated.  The prosecution will now have to decide whether or not to retry McDonnell with the narrow definition the Court has left them.

Why do I bring this up?  Because, assuming we stipulate that a unanimous SCOTUS opinion on the issue of defining the kind of "official acts" that can constitute corruption at any level, we have a whole 'nother corruption case to look at.

I'm talking about you, Hillary Clinton.

Right now, the Washington Post is not thinking about her, but they should.  In yesterday's editorial comment on the McDonnell case, they noted:

"Mr. McDonnell, who previously apologized to Virginians for the embarrassment his conduct in office caused them, now hails the court’s decision as vindication for his insistence that he broke no law. It may turn out that he’s right. If it does, however, the court’s ruling will mean that sticky-fingered public officials can skate right up to the line of outright bribery with far less trepidation and legal risk than good government and sound ethics demand."

So if they can "skate right up to the line of outright bribery", then what do you say about foreign countries, with matters before the Department of State, skating right past that line, outright bribing the sticky-fingered Hillary Clinton by making payments to Bill Clinton for speeches and fat donations to the Clinton Foundation, from which the Clintons received salaries?

What does the Post think the appropriate punishment should be when the FBI determines that the quid pro quo for Hillary's influence, such as facilitating a sale of a big percentage of the USA's uranium to Russia, was cash payments?  I don't know if the paper will ever make the connection, but I will certainly be examining every word they write about McDonnell for evidence of hypocrisy when the FBI report finally comes out.

Because whatever they think should be the punishment for a governor setting up meetings on behalf of a company which provided him gifts, that has to pale before the acceptance of heavy payments, routed through speeches and donations to a "charitable foundation."

I made that link.  I hope those with louder voices do as well, and say so.  Loudly.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.