“It puts at risk behavior that is common,” said Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “That is a recipe for giving the Justice Department and prosecutors enormous power over elected officials.”
Mr. McDonnell, a Republican, was prosecuted on charges that he had used his office to help a businessman, Jonnie R. Williams Sr., who had showered the governor and his wife with luxury products, loans and vacations worth more than $175,000. The gifts themselves were legal, and the question in the case was whether they were part of a corrupt bargain in which Mr. McDonnell reciprocated by using the power of his office to help Mr. Williams....
Michael R. Dreeben, a lawyer for the federal government, said... a narrow definition was “a recipe for corruption” that would “send a terrible message to citizens.”
Justice Breyer responded that “I’m not in the business of sending messages in a case like this,” adding, “I’m in the business of trying to figure out the structure of the government.”
२७ एप्रिल, २०१६
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed ready to side with Bob McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia who was convicted of public corruption and faces two years in prison."
"Justices across the ideological spectrum said the laws under which he had been convicted gave prosecutors too much power to say that routine political favors amounted to corruption," writes Adam Liptak in the NYT.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
Hillary is reading the transcript tonight.
“I’m in the business of trying to figure out the structure of the government.” So, Stevie baby, you think unelected lawyers have too much power and they use it arbitrarily to attack government officials and the voters who elected them?
I think there are very few things that could radically help our national politics more than a very rigorous approach to public corruption.
But prosecutors are also politicians, so it puts the solution in a bind and opens the door to very politicized prosecution. The sign that we're moving in the right direction begins with prosecuting the Clintons.
Hmmm.
The biggest problem with the Clintons is not that they are corrupt. It is that they love power over others. If Hillary were just a crook I would sleep easier. The problem with Hillary is that she is jost like Obama in her desire to shove the federal government into every oraface of American life.
The point is the short term gain of getting Republicans out of office.
So what if, later, the Supreme Court overturned it?
Future justices should know the structure of government before we put them on the bench. Knowing the limits of the Court's power as it relates to the power of Congress, the states and the people seems to be important knowledge absent from many of Breyer's decisions.
This would shut down Austin, Texas' DA's office.
"I’m in the business of trying to figure out the structure of the government.”
Really? Just now? Sorry, this was your job before you were nominated. Not after. Much less years down the road.
Isn't it fun to watch lawyers try to figure out what the structure of our government is?
The question is not why shouldn't this Republican governor be in jail. He probably should as it looks like he sold his clout for favors.
The question is if he gets 2 years for taking $175000 how many years does hillary get for taking 80ish million dollars while selling SoS clout?
The quid pro quo in this case seems rather thin, since the ostensible briber is a health food manufacturer, something not called for much in state government. The prosecution had trouble showing some connection between the gifts to the governor and his wife, and some corrupt act which benefited the supplement company.
What does seem true is that a highly succesful Republican governor, who was leaving office with a very high approval rating from voters was the target of a somewhat vague and tenuous prosecution of the Obama DOJ. His succesor was the former DNC chair, Oabam and Clinton campaign head McAuliffe, who just recently added over 200,000 likely Dem voters to the rolls with the stroke of a pen by allowings felons to vote.
ANd interestingly, White House counsel to every president since (and including) Reagan, from both parties, filed an amicus brief supporting McDonnell's position that the prosecution criminalized normal political behavior.
Darn, I hate when I forget to spellcheck
Senator Ted Stevens to the white courtesy phone please.
Is this the honest services statute? It hits closer to home for the Supreme Court Justices than they care to admit. Justice Scalia passed away while on an apparently free trip. Many if not all of them take paid speaking gigs.
David said: "Hillary is reading the transcript tonight."
Yep, just paving the way for a cushy landing for the Clinton Crime Family and Massage Parlor Inc.
$175,000? What where they thinking? That normal people give each other hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians without expecting anything in return? McConnell should be convicted for bad judgment alone!
The threshold for prosecution should be if the favorable treatment caused harm to others. Quid pro quo arrangements are an extremely low bar that would be cause for impeachment and removal of people by the millions for exploitation of contributory, welfare, and redistributive American taxpayer, resource, and voting rolls.
I see no problem prosecuting quid pro quo behavior in politicians, but while we're eliminating corruption let's remove the concept of prosecutorial immunity.
From the petition to the USSC:
McDonnell's actions for which he was convicted "...were limited to routine political courtesies: arranging meetings, asking questions, and attending events (a cocktail party). There is no dispute that Gov. McDonnell never exercised any governmental power on behalf of his benefactor, promised to do so, or pressured others to do so."
Under that theory, I'm guessing about 100% of the elected officials in Washington should be in jail, and the Clintons should be in Hell. As much as I'd like to see either, this is a pretty stupid - and novel - theory of criminality. In private industry, this is everyday SOP.
Remember that McDonnell was a popular, rising star of the GOP, who gave the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address in 2010. Funny how Petraeus, McDonnell, (yes, Stevens) etc get prosecuted and tied in court by DOJ lawyers when they need to be, for political reasons. I'm trying to imagine a candidate Petraeus in the GOP primary races...which some people had speculated about, before he was prosecuted.
The Ronnie Earle theory of prosecution. At least Earle wasn't a drunk in public sort.
Just a corrupt prosecutor.
"I’m in the BUSINESS of trying to figure out the structure of the government.”
Perfessor, please consult your OED and propound: what does "business" mean? Is that some sort of law term i'm unfamiliar with?
And isn't he supposed to be in the "business" of figuring out what the Constitution says?
Justice Breyer's comments re "I'm in the business of figuring out...: and so forth were made in the context of what constitutes an "official act" as mentioned in the statute. Breyer was pushing the SG to define with precision what value of an act would be a violation, and why, while the SG said the that statute needed "to send a message" as justification for the vaguenesss, and was trying say something about the way things worked in politics today.
I'm not fan generally of Justice Breyer but he didn't make that statement as a definition of his normal SC duties, but rather, as what he was trying to conclude about the statute, the structure of government, and the specifics of the case under consideration. He also tossed in something about the Separation of Powers at the same moment, although I confess, I don't get that reference.
The case turns on an issue of statutory interpretation, much as in earlier cases the Court construed 'mail fraud' narrowly. The underlying idea is that only Congress can criminalize conduct -- neither courts nor, even less, prosecutors get to create new 'crimes', and in criminalizing conduct, Congress is supposed to speak with sufficient clarity that a citizen can know where the line is between legal and illegal. This is not a a case that will likely result in a ruling on any matter of constitutional significance beyond the idea that only Congress gets to create a federal 'crime' and when it does so, any residual doubts about the reach of the statute are resolved in favor of the defendant (the so-called rule of lenity). That is the context for understanding the comments and 'questions' of the justices.
well patrick fitzgerald did the same thing in chicago, playing favorites with radler over conrad black, probably george ryan was the one legitimately convicted fellow in his deck of cards, so was blago, but note how rezko's testimony didn't touch daley or obama.
Would the politician have performed the act without the money being paid?
Would a constituent request be honored, or even heard, without contributions?
"Pay to Play" is a horrible way to run a government.
How about federal agencies get themselves set up so their regulatory overreach does not demand payments to politicians to obtain favorable treatment via influence? Or am I missing that the whole point is to cause that situation?
TreeJoe said...
I see no problem prosecuting quid pro quo behavior in politicians, but while we're eliminating corruption let's remove the concept of prosecutorial immunity.
4/27/16, 9:03 PM"
You hit the nail on the head. Without immunity prosecutors would be more restrained-they would be prosecutors and not persecutors. If I were the current Governor of Virginia I would be praying the Supreme Court rules in favor of the former governor and that Hillary is elected President.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा