Category Archives: Courts and law

Good Luck With McAuliffe’s Ethics Panel

Image: Verdict Reached In Corruption Trial Of Former Virginia Governor McDonnell And His WifeBy Peter Galuszka

Despite the obvious need, Virginia still has done very little to address its monumental problems with ethics reform. The latest endeavor was announced yesterday by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, but it seems too much like just another panel.

And panel it is. McAuliffe has created the 10-member Commission to Ensure Integrity and Public Confidence in State Government. The good news is that it is bipartisan and seems filled with reasonable people, including Christopher Howard, president of Hampden-Sydney College and Sharon Bulova, chairwoman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

Leading it will be for Lt .Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican who has shown good sense in recent years and got screwed over by party hardliners who maneuvered to get former Atty. Gen. Kenneth Cuccinelli, a wild man, to run and lose in the 2013 governor’s race. His Democratic counterpart will be Rick Boucher, a former legislator from southwest Virginia.

The plan is to present a package of reforms that will deal with gift-giving and donations to politicians, and redistricting, or possibly redesigning some districts away from the madness that some, and mostly Republican legislators have created.

The impetus, naturally, is the first-ever conviction of a governor for corruption. Three weeks ago, a federal jury gave a resounding “guilty” on felony charges against Robert F. McDonnell and his wife Maureen. The U.S. Justice Department stepped in because Virginia’s state ethics laws were so ridiculously lax no one could ever have made the case. There had been lots of “gee, I don’t see a smoking gun” jabber on this blog and elsewhere, but, hey, why not poll the jury?

Just as the McDonnells were being indicted last January, the 2014 General Assembly considered ethics reform but did squat. It made accepting more than $250 in gifts verboten and expanded disclosure requirements to immediate family but the Republican-led led legislature left in a pile of loopholes. “Intangible” gifts, such as African safaris or trips to the Masters golf tournament are A-OK.

What’s needed is a real ethics commission with subpoena power. McAuliffe’s action was quickly derided by such leading lights of ethics reform as House Speaker Bill Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment. These two Ayatollahs of the Status Quo claimed that McAuliffe was a “latecomer” to an issue that they obviously have done nothing to improve despite their many years in office.

GOP Party Boss Pat Mullins took an irrelevant swipe at McAuliffe’s perceived ethics problems long before he was even governor.

Redistricting is just as important as ethics and I’m glad it is being addressed. Many Virginia districts have been gerrymandered to keep a particular party in office in ways that  protect the status quo and prevent change. Of 100 House of Delegates races in 2013, “only 12 to 14 were competitive,” notes Leigh Middleditch Jr., a Charlottesville lawyer and a founder of the Sorenson Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia, told me earlier this year.

Stephen Farnsworth, a political analyst at the University of Mary Washington, has studied gerrymandering for years and believes it negates general elections in favor of party primaries where a handful of hard right radicals can dominate.

This is especially true in some rural districts where tiny cadres of activists, again mostly Republicans, dominate the picks for primaries. It doesn’t matter what the general public thinks or wants. A narrow minority worms its way in power and becomes beholden not necessarily to the party overall, but a little slice of it.

That is why so little gets done.

The very fact that leaders like Howell and Norment are in place and the primary system will make McAuliffe’s efforts very difficult. One wonders if you could go outside the diseased legislative system and forced change through the courts.

It worked before against such Virginia travesties as Massive Resistance. Something to consider.

Tobacco Commission Needs Huge Makeover

tobacco leafBy Peter Galuszka

One more glaring example of mass corruption in Virginia is the grandly named Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission formed 14 years ago to dole out Virginia’s share of a $206 billion settlement among 45 other states with cigarette makers.

I’ve been writing for years about how millions of dollars are doled out with little oversight to economic development projects supposedly helpful to the former tobacco-growing parts of the state from the bright leaf belt around Dinwiddie out west to the burley leaf land of the mountains.

There have been no-strings giveaways to absentee tobacco quota holders, a board member sent to prison for siphoning off grant money and the shenanigans of the extended Kilgore family which is very politically powerful in those parts. The commission even figured in the McDonnell corruption trial starring the former and now convicted governor and back-slapping witnesses for the prosecution, entrepreneur and tobacco-believer Jonnie R. Williams Sr.

I revisit the issue in Sunday’s Washington Post and I ask the obvious question of why no one seems to watching the commission. I raise broader ones, too, such as why the commission  serves only people in the tobacco belt. That doesn’t seem fair since the Attorney General’s office represented all of the state in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement against four major tobacco firms. People in Hampton Roads, Arlington, Onancock and Winchester should be benefit but get nothing from the settlement. They didn’t  because tobacco road legislators pulled a fast one back in 1999 when they set things up.

There needs to be a thorough disassembling of the commission’s current governance structure with many more people far from Tobacco Road included. There’s far too much family and friend back-scratching as it is. It is like watching a vintage episode of the Andy Griffith show but it really isn’t funny.

(Hat tip to James A. Bacon Jr. who spotted the commission as a great story back in the year 2000 when he was publisher of Virginia Business).

So, please read on.

Richmond’s Tech Star in Kickback Scheme?

HDL LogoBy Peter Galuszka

Critics of the American healthcare system have long cited hidden charges as one reason why costs are so high and why reform is needed.

So, it is disturbing to read a report on the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal that Health Diagnostic Laboratory, arguably the most successful of the biotechnology firms to come out of a much-touted research park in Richmond, is implicated in a possible scheme to pay kickbacks to doctors who use its blood testing services.

The Journal reports:

Until late June, HDL paid $20 per blood sample to most doctors ordering its tests — more than other labs paid. For some physician practices, payments totaled several thousand dollars a week, says a former company employee.

HDL says it stopped those payments after a Special Fraud Alert on June 25 from the Department of Health and Human Services, which warned that such remittances presented “substantial risk of fraud and abuse under the anti-kickback statute.

HDL Chief Executive Tonya Mallory told the Journal that her firm “rejects any assertion” that the company grew as fast as it did “as a result of anything other than proper business practices.”

Meanwhile, HDL has sent Bacon Rebellion this updated response.

Others say that paying doctors fees sets up the chances for fraud, especially in Medicare, one of HDL’s biggest markets, the Journal reports. Other testing firms, the Journal reports, pay doctors nothing for using their services.

This is bad news for what was Richmond’s Poster Child of successful high tech startups after years of flops at the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park. Founded in 2008 under Mallory’s leadership, HDL zipped up to $383 million in revenues with 41 percent of that coming from Medicare,” the Journal says.

Much of the issue seems to be related to how accurately and fairly to define what is merely drawing a patient’s blood and how much goes for “P&H” or processing and handling. A problem is that Medicare doesn’t pay any more than $3 for merely drawing blood. HDL has estimated that the “P&H” part is worth about $17. The firm claims it has special proprietary methods that give it an edge.

According to Virginia Business magazine, which named Mallory its person of the year last year:

Mallory, 48, founded HDL in the summer of 2009. Since then, it has grown from a kitchen-table business plan to a corporation earning more than $420 million in annual revenue, employing 750 people, processing 4,000 lab samples and running more than 60,000 lab tests each day. HDL has driven near constant construction at its home in downtown Richmond’s Virginia BioTechnology Research Park, where a $68.5 million expansion soon will triple the company’s footprint to 280,000 square feet.

Last year Mallory received the Ernst & Young National Entrepreneur of the Year award in the Emerging Company category. One of the country’s most prestigious business awards for entrepreneurs, it recognizes leaders who demonstrate innovation, financial success and personal commitment as they build their businesses.

The Journal, however, quotes several disgruntled employees and notes that Mallory had worked for a California firm called “Berkeley Heart Lab Inc,.” which began using tests called “biomarkers” which can predict future health problems by analyzing blood.

Mallory, who was raised in Hanover County and attended Virginia Commonwealth University, was senior lab-operations manager at Berkeley until she left for Richmond in 2008, the Journal says. Two Berkeley sales executives went with her and formed a company that ended up marketing HDL’s products.
Berkeley sued HDL, accusing it of stealing its business. HDL denied the allegations. HDL settled one case for $7 million, the Journal says, but other cases are pending.

Whatever Happened to Ken Cuccinelli?

cooch.pixBy Peter Galuszka

During the grueling, nearly-six-week-long trial of former Gov. Robert F. and Maureen McDonnell that ended Thursday, one prominent political figure seemed oddly absent – former Atty. Gen. Kenneth Cuccinelli.

The firebrand conservative who lost last year’s gubernatorial contest to Democrat Terry McAuliffe was a significant player in the McDonnell scandal. He took favors from prosecution witness and businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., such as enjoying airplane rides to New York and Thanksgiving and summer vacations at Williams’ Smith Mountain Lake house.

Like McDonnell, he didn’t initially report Williams’ presents on state disclosure forms and was later cleared by a state prosecutor of any wrong doing. He was placed on the potential witness list by McDonnell’s lawyers but was never called.

Yet Cuccinelli played an early and much-unreported role in the case. Todd Schneider, the governor’s chef who plead guilty to some misdemeanors for stealing food, was apparently first confronted by State Police and the FBI on Feb. 10, 2012. Shortly afterwards, that March, Schneider had long chats with Cuccinelli and his staff about the wrong doing involving Williams and the McDonnells.

Cuccinelli was oddly quiet about the matter until the following November of that year when he further involved the state police and FBI. What took so long? No one seems to know.

There’s no uncertainty about Cuccinelli’s involvement with Williams, however. In the early days of his term as attorney general, some of his staffers were put up at Williams’ 29-acre estate in Goochland County while they found lodging in Richmond. Cuccinelli was reported to have visited the home.

His ties with Williams caused some problems. Cuccinelli had to recuse himself from representing the state in a long-standing lawsuit involving the taxation of some building’s owned by Star Scientific, Williams former company. Other representation was produced at taxpayers’ expense.

During their four years in office, it seemed clear that McDonnell and Cuccinelli disliked each other and often worked at cross purposes. Cuccinelli was a polarizing element on such issues as hounding a former University of Virginia professor on climate change, covering up the lactation gland of the woman on the seal of Virginia, and pushing stringent anti-abortion policies that led to the shutdown of many legal abortion clinics. McDonnell did some of the same but tried a bigger tent approach on his marquee legislation on funding transportation.

Todd Schneider, the chef who lives in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., doesn’t care for Cuccinelli much either. “He’s got the personality of a stone, and he talks forever. I’d sit there and I’d be like, ‘Oh, my God—will you just be quiet?,’ ” Schneider told the Washingtonian.

Tension between McDonnell and Cuccinelli was clearly visible to the staff. “They wouldn’t talk to each other,” Schneider says. “As soon as they took a picture together, they would take off to opposite places in the room.”

Since losing the gubernatorial election and leaving office, Cuccinelli has headed the Senate Conservatives fund. According to the Washington Times, his organization has blown several elections.

The Day The Guilty Verdicts Came In

mcd convictedBy Peter Galuszka

Day Three of waiting. The jokes in the tiny seventh floor media room of the U.S. District Court Building have grown stale.

We’d discuss what the jury ate for lunch (Padows? Jimmie Johns?) which we could see as the trolley rolled through the security doors. We were amusing ourselves by reading a hilarious underground Website (yoflo.net) about the McDonnell trial called “You’re Only First Lady Once,” replete with haikus such as “Empty beach house/A greedy wife and five kids/ jail will not be fun.”

Suddenly, one of the Post reporters blurts out from her screen, “Verdict.”

We rush out to assume our positions at the courtroom down the hall. My mission and goal, as explained by my Bloomberg News editors, is speed. First guilty verdict, fly out of there and either call or tweet or email. Go back. Detail can come later.

It took some time for the intellectual rights trial over patents to clear up before we could go in to the courtroom where we’d spent the better part of six weeks. There was an air of excitement in the first corruption trial ever of a Virginia governor. It is truly as heart-pounding moment, a coiled spring kind of thing. And once it finally starts, it has own unique swiftness.

Jury’s in — seven men and five women after 17 hours of deliberating. “Have you reached a verdict?” Then, “Guilty on Count One of Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud.”

My cue. I duck past the U.S. Marshals at the door and get in a sprinting race with a young Post reporter. Make the curve by the elevators but she’s gaining and gets first to the media room, the only place we’re allowed to have the electronics that let us do our jobs. I fumble with my cell and finally get the number of Joe, my rewrite editor in New York. The goal is to beat the Associated Press. Did we? Joe doesn’t know yet.

I report, and according to plan, go to the sixth floor overflow room with remote television access to the courtroom, since it will be impossible to get back into the room where the action is. By now they are on Count Nine: Obtaining Property Under Color of Official Right.

I hear what sounds like sobbing. Then wailing, rising in a crescendo with each stab of a guilty verdict. It is a weird reality TV show kind of audio. Both Robert F. McDonnell and his wife are crying although I can’t see them. The wailing is from one of their daughters. It’s hard to describe emotions at such times. It’s like watching a bad car wreck. It is not funny.

The reporters form up, true to pack etiquette, and make sure we all have the right verdicts. Then it’s down to the street where the chum of photographers awaits. There is an emotional electricity on the streets, sort of like being in a hospital corridor when a relative finally dies.

The U.S. Attorney and the FBI are speaking into a mass of microphones maybe 50 feet away. Most, however, are waiting for the McDonnells. Ashen faced, the former Governor leaves the building in a mass of people. He thanks the press for how it handled things. He is pushed into a grey Mercedes. Then Maureen, wearing a brown suit, slips past with one of her daughters, and enters into a grey Infinity Q50, which speeds after the Mercedes.

Guilty!

So, the jury has convicted Bob McDonnell of 11 of 13 counts and Maureen of nine.

I’m stunned. The prosecution presented no evidence of quid pro quo, and evidence of a conspiracy struck me as weak and circumstantial. But I didn’t attend the trial, I didn’t hear the full testimony, and I didn’t get to appraise the veracity of the witnesses. I can’t help but wonder how much the judge’s instructions to the jury influenced the outcome but I’ll accept the fact that the jury reached the proper verdict.

While I did not regard the McDonnells’ behavior as illegal, I did view it as deplorable. Perhaps jurors were making a statement that they’re sick and tired of the way the political system works, and they’re not going to take it any more. Regardless, it can’t hurt to send a harsh message to the political class.

To borrow a phrase from Henry Howell, a populist Virginia politician of yore, “Keep the big boys honest.” Let’s follow up by fighting for greater transparency and tighter conflict-of-interest rules.

– JAB

Why There Will be No Ethics Reform

maureen_and_bob(1)By Peter Galuszka

As the McDonnell corruption trial moves towards its end, the predictable stories are decrying – once again – Virginia’s absurdly lax ethics laws and why they must be toughened.

There’s the usual observation that the five-week extravaganza of a trial that is drawing international attention will put the state on an entirely new axis when it comes to public integrity. Plenty of harrumphing.

The General Assembly, however, had its shot this winter and came through with only very mild changes putting dollar limits for tangible “gifts” while failing to take any kind of substantive measure, such as establishing a real investigatory ethics commission.

The best work I’ve seen has come from the Roanoke Times’ Dan Casey who pored over the new ethics law that went into effect July 1 and compared it with testimony that ended last week at the McDonnell trial (it goes to the jury tomorrow.)

A few of Casey’s pointers:

  • The famous $6,500 Rolex. Would Jonnie Williams been stopped from giving it to Maureen and then Bob McDonnell? Not at all. The new law says that officials, spouses an immediate family may not accept anything tangible that is more than $250 in value. But, this applies only to lobbyists and business executives seeking state contracts. Williams wasn’t looking for a traditional state contract, specifically. He wanted gubernatorial help in prompting his product Anatabloc and gubernatorial muscle to pressure state universities into researching its key ingredient, anatabine.
  •  Bob probably wouldn’t have had to report the Rolex because it came from a “personal friend” who is not a lobbyist or person doing business with the state. At least McDonnell testified that he thought he was a friend. Not Jonnie whose plan was  to schmooze up Maureen and Bob, get them to get state university research and then the schools would apply to the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission to give them more research money (plus the prestige of having the University of Virginia or Virginia Commonwealth University seal of approval on it.)
  • McDonnell daughter Cailin didn’t want the $15,000 Jonnie gave for her wedding luncheon. In fact, she wanted a very different, much smaller wedding that she and her husband would mostly finance. Mommy and Daddy said no but were short funds and Jonnie helped out. Would the new law change anything? Not at all. The law puts the $250 limit on “tangibles” but “intangibles” like dinners, outings, five figure vacations, a wedding event or $5,000 Louis XIII cognac bottles don’t count although they are supposed to be reported.
  • As for an ethics commission, we have a milquetoast “advisory” panel that has no investigative power. Once again, the “Virginia Way” prevails (see my Washington Post piece from last year. The state is all about self-policing because it is assumed that since Thomas Jefferson was honest, Virginia politicians must be, too. While Virginia has an excellent data base, the Virginia Public Assess Project, a non-profit, that can reveal what’s reported quickly and easily, it is too often seen as a substitute for a real ethics commission with subpoena power.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who signed the limp-wristed law, says he wants to review ethics and make regs tougher.

I doubt that will happen. I do not think we’re seeing a sea change in attitudes among legislators. Even if voters were going nuts, they’d still have to deal with a General Assembly that is dominated by hard-right Republicans who are selected in primaries and not general elections and are probably the most conservative ever thanks to gerrymandering and the anti-reg mantra they pray like a Rosary.

Can GiftGate happen again in Virginia? In the words of convicted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich: “You betcha!”

A Confederacy of Cynics

But Maureen gave them back

But Maureen gave them back

By Peter Galuszka

It was an odd scene. The first floor security point at Richmond’s federal court was filled with spiffy, middle aged blonde women all chattering loudly as the grandfatherly guards tried to herd them through. Some had so much bling, they had to go through the metal detector three times after removing yet another trinket or belt or watch or bit of jewelry. Normally, the line would be the usual mob of family, reporters, sketch artists and stray onlookers.

On the  corridor outside the seventh floor trial room, it might have been cocktail hour at the Republican Governor’s Association. The same pack of blondes was there. Many had large handbags stuffed with big pillows for their day on the hard wooden seats. Hugs and kisses everywhere. One man was especially natty in a Navy blue blazer, open necked striped dress shirt and a year-round tan. Palm Beach, anyone?

A younger woman kept bumping into people amidst the din as we all waited to be let in the courtroom. She sported a thin Louis Vuitton handbag. Then it struck. This is Maureen McDonnell’s cheering section for closing arguments that lasted from morning until early evening on Friday. That designer name, along with Oscar de la Renta, seems to have been her favorites when she pushed businessman Jonnie Williams to take her on shopping sprees or send her things.

After the Virginia State Police called in for an interview in February 2013, she packed up the goodies and sent them back to Jonnie. In some cases, these were items she had received two years before. Suddenly Maureen wanted to give them to “charity” or to one of the Williams’ daughters.

And that — the curious timing of scores of seemingly unrelated events over a period of more than two years from 2010 to 2013 — is what the seven men and five women jury must decide this coming Tuesday.

The point isn’t the gaucheness of the designer label stuff. Ms. McDonnell wasn’t a public servant and normally could accept whatever she wanted from Williams or anyone else. If it were stock, her husband, the former governor, would have to report it on his annual Statement of Economic Impact form. One year, Ms. McDonnell sold her stock in Williams’ company Star Scientific before the reporting deadline only to repurchase it the next year. The conclusion seems obvious, but draw your own.

It’s these kinds of coincidences that really do add up, argued David Harbach, a deputy at the public integrity section of the U.S. Department of Justice, who set up a powerful case against the McDonnells by connecting the evidentiary dots. Jonnie meets with the couple, the inaugural dress comes up and is dismissed by the governor’s staff but Maureen gets a Williams spending spree in New York as a consolation prize.

Or take the Bob McDonnell. He’s setting up meetings for Williams to break free possible research on his product by top state schools just as he is mulling of terms for a $50,000 loan from Williams (his staff is kept in the dark about how much he is in hock to JW, a self-styled “Southern Boy”). The pattern seems rather obvious after five weeks of mucking through a swamp of often confusing evidence. An email comes in, a deal with Jonnie for something personal is struck, a check arrives, an email is sent, and a luncheon at the Executive Mansion or some other event featuring the Governor or the First Lady or both pushing Anatabloc, Williams’ anti-inflammatory nutraceutical, is scheduled.

“He wrapped himself up in the flag of the Commonwealth and stomped on it,” Harbach told the jury. “This is not how governors behave. Don’t stand on the coattails of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Don’t let them do this.”

For the jury to do just that, it will have to weigh a key point of law. This is how far the idea of “honest services” goes with the wire fraud counts. It basically means that it is a crime if public officials deny their honest services to their citizens by accepting bribes or become involved in a conflict of interest. Prosecutors argued there doesn’t have to be a clear quid pro quo, something defense attorneys William Burck and Henry Asbill hammered against for hours. Honest services fraud has been used to nail former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, former U.S. Congress (and top Navy pilot in Vietnam) Duke Cunningham and former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The Supreme Court has moved to define more narrowly how “honest services” can be defined but it still is on the books. A crucial turn in the drama will come Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer gives his extensive instructions to the jury. His definition of “honest services” will be an important part of that. Meanwhile, if you demand a “smoking gun” (whatever that is supposed to mean), I suggest you get back to watching Perry Mason reruns.

The defense spent a lot of time bringing up the McDonnells’ troubled marriage and financial debt. This is sad, tough stuff to go through day after day. And it is easy for anyone to be drawn into pangs of sympathy for hyper-anxious, lonely Maureen or serious, well-meaning Bob, “Boy Scout of the Year,” according to one friendly witness.

Contrasting that, of course, is the greedy, scheming Maureen (a “nutbag,” according to a staffer) and a self-absorbed, double-dealing Bob who should have known what is right and wrong for a public official to do. Conversely, he also would know how to hide stuff on his disclosure forms. We tend to forget that he was state attorney general not that long ago.

The creepiest part of all of this is how slyly the defense has humiliated Maureen as part of the “throw her under the bus” strategy. Yet she is going along with it, as her husband of 38 years. In doing so, the McDonnells are doing an amazing thing. They are actually beating Jonnie Williams on the cynicism scale and even the prosecution says he’s a criminal. No doubt about it.

I agree with the prosecution that Bob is a phony. On the stand, he was by turns humble and scolding. He casts himself as a public servant so pure of heart that it was almost a joke to listen to. He was always “accepting responsibility.” But he was always blaming someone else. Maureen, of course. His former brother-in-law screwed up the books at the troubled beach houses. He didn’t report a few golf outings on Jonnie’s tab at the posh Kinloch club in Goochland County because his staff screwed it up.

“This is a sad case, “Michael Dry, a prosecutor, told the jury Friday. “It is sad for the McDonnell family and sad for the state of Virginia.”

Bringing out the Knives

An Afghan pesh-kabz

An Afghan pesh-kabz

by James A. Bacon

There is a rising tide in the op-ed pages, TV commentary and blog commentary that former Governor Bob McDonnell is a brutish, swinish cad for portraying his wife Maureen as the heavy in the corruption trial. You’ve got to love liberals. They’re so very compassionate…  until they’re talking about their wounded enemies. Then, like the Afghan women in the Rudyard Kipling poem, “The Young British Soldier,” they scour the battlefield to “cut up what remains.”

If Maureen and Bob McDonnell had been Democrats instead of Republicans, we would be treated to a litany of perspectives on the heavy toll of political life upon the marriages of elected officials, the unambiguous signs that Maureen was suffering from depression, and speculation from mental health experts to provide subtlety, nuance and context to the story.

No such compassion is accorded McDonnell, who now is being depicted as a man who “betrayed” his wife and was willing to “flay” her character in order to save himself, just to cite the observations of Petula Dvorak and her headline writer in the Washington Post. (Bacon’s Rebellion‘s very own Peter Galuszka is no kinder.)

Here’s the question I would pose to them. If you were in McDonnell’s shoes, and if the marriage were the shambles he says it was, and if Maureen was indeed the one who solicited the gifts and loans from former Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams, Sr., and if you truly believed yourself to be innocent of any illegality, what would you have done? Would you have, in Dvorak’s words, “manned up” and taken the plea agreement offered by prosecutors before the trial? How many people would admit to a crime they believed they did not commit?

Who really bears the moral onus here? McDonnell, for defending himself, or the prosecutors, who (a) proceeded with a case that’s looking flimsier by the day, and (b) called the witnesses whose testimony trashed Maureen’s reputation before McDonnell breathed a word?

McDonnell bears his share of blame for the failing marriage, as he seemed willing to concede on the witness stand yesterday. Maureen was happy living in Virginia Beach before he rose to statewide political prominence. He asked her to sacrifice a lot for his political career, giving up her cozy network of friends and her part-time job selling vitamin supplements. When he first moved to Richmond, the family lived apart while the kids finished high school. As attorney general and especially as governor, he traveled constantly and spent half his nights away from his wife and family. He insisted she use a small inheritance to pay down credit card bills. When Maureen expressed her increasing unhappiness by nagging and throwing tantrums, he withdrew from her, often spending extra time at the office. Emotionally exhausted from the confrontations, he did not question some of Maureen’s activities that he should have questioned — it was easier just to look the other way.

But McDonnells’ critics don’t mention any of these all-to-human failings that probably could describe thousands, even millions, of American men at some point in their marriages. Liberals bring out the long knives. They move in for the kill, portraying their weakened foes as morally reprehensible, as less than human.

In his poem, Kipling advised the wounded English soldier, “Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.” McDonnell did not roll over. Perhaps that was his worst affront of all.

Maureen McDonnell and Sexism

maureen_and_bob(1)By Peter Galuszka

Sitting for hours listening to former Gov. Robert F. McDonnell testify in his federal corruption trial makes one wonder exactly what his values are, especially as they relate to women.

His entire legal strategy is to “Throw Maureen Under the Bus” – namely his lawyers and those of his co-defendant wife Maureen are portraying Ms. McDonnell as a “basket case” who set up a lot of funny meetings with snake oil salesman Jonnie Ray Williams Sr., accepted expensive gifts from him with promptly telling her husband, and communicated with him 1,200 times in about a year and a half (one day it was 52 text messages.)

She is bad and deceptive. He is good and didn’t know much about her messy friendship with Williams. She is guilty. He is innocent (or so it goes).

Gov. Bob, helmet hair perfect as usual, took the jurors through a horrible litany of his long-decaying marriage to college sweetheart Maureen. While she was screaming and intimidating her staff, he was slogging through “the business of governing” for endless hours every day.

When she approached Ann Romney, wife of Republican presidential candidate on the campaign trail in 2012 and offered the woman who suffers from MS some “Anatabloc,” Williams’ miracle pills, Bob overhead it and was “embarrassed.”

There is something deeply disturbing, however, about McDonnell and his attitudes. He seems to have come from a bygone era when men worked long hours, held major responsibilities and answered to the most important thing in their lives – their overweening ambition.

The husband was ordained by God to do great things, be a Boy Scout, and write his name in history books. His wife was to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen knitting socks or selling silly vials of creams.

McDonnell has since disowned this little passage he wrote at Regent University (Pat Robertson’s school) back in 1989 when he was a graduate student, but it seems strangely relevant. He tried to create some kind of conservative, faith-based government paradigm that would cut taxes, open charter schools and the like. He wrote:

“Further expenditures would be used to subsidize a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family by entrenching status-quo of nonparental primary nurture of children.” The kicker is his view that feminism is one of the “real enemies of the traditional family.”

Well, a hell of lot of good that thinking has done since he has steadily, deliberately humiliated his wife in a bid to avoid jail time. A parade of defense witnesses, mostly McDonnell cronies, have humiliated Ms. McDonnell as a grabby, irrational, fashion-mad bimbo who just didn’t get it when Bob patiently told her that the stock she held in Star Scientific, Williams’ firm, had lost half their value and were a bad investment.

There are other giveaways that paint McDonnell as a self-important, entitled, superior little prig. Maureen had an apparently successful home-based business selling nutraceuticals like face creams. The Bob that may have sounded so pointlessly “womanish” but it is a big business. When he ran for statewide offices, he told Maureen to nix the biz.

Now wait a minute. Why should he tell his wife that she can’t run her own business she built up because his mission as a conservative political savior is just too important? Why does he get to decide?

One reason has roots in a kind of mid- 20th century philosophy that one used to see in black and white movies and television shows. There has been a deluge of testimony about the Virginia suburbs of DC roots of the McDonnells. Lots of military, conservative, family values, do-goodism, ticket punching (making colonel or the appropriate GS level position) having some silly affection for the Redskins or golf club bags with your school logo and so on. But the most obnoxious attitude is that the self-pride that one is doing something very important for his country and fellow citizens.

If you are male, you get to wear this cloak. If you are a woman, your first and foremost goal is to mind the kids and support your man and be a handmaiden to HIS career and ambitions. Watch the 1950s “Strategic Air Command” film” with Jimmy Stewart as a ballplayer pilot and his dutiful wife June Allyson. He makes the big decisions and flies the big bombers. She’s always waiting at the air base fence for him to come home so she can cook him fried eggs.

But McDonnell has a bigger problem than just this over-the-top sense of duty. By his own testimony, McDonnell is seriously addicted to political ambition. It is his oxycodone. His heroin. He gets a real kick by planning the next stage (vice president? president?) Maureen is left by herself and her screaming fits. Bob just tunes her out and spends as much time traveling and in his office as he can.

As he testified, McDonnell got a buzz from being a state legate and an even bigger buzz by running for attorney general and governor. One woman who seemed to be cheering him every step of the way was Janet Kelly, who ended up being Secretary of the Commonwealth when he became governor. She testified that when he wanted her for that spot, she told him flat out she could not work with Maureen. She didn’t.

Family values, anyone?