Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News Leader)   Attorneys for former VA Gov McDonnell have settled on trying to convince jurors that sure, there is overwhelming evidence against him, but the Gov is a man of such high moral character, it couldn't possibly be true. It's a bold strategy, Cotton   (newsleader.com) divider line 25
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

1016 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2014 at 1:03 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-22 11:10:53 AM  
A paid for wedding? A free $23K vacation? Golf outings? Fine clothes? Money?

All backed up by an informant, corroborating witnesses and documents?

All that versus?...

And they proposed jurors be told, in part, that "evidence of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt,

*blink*

Yeah. Good luck with that.
 
2014-07-22 11:17:44 AM  

quatchi: A paid for wedding? A free $23K vacation? Golf outings? Fine clothes? Money?

All backed up by an informant, corroborating witnesses and documents?

All that versus?...

And they proposed jurors be told, in part, that "evidence of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt,

*blink*

Yeah. Good luck with that.


The really farked up thing is that in VA, TAKING all that stuff, is perfectly legal,  what gets you in trouble is not TELLING anyone you took all that stuff on your disclosure forms   or doing quid pro quo favors for it; both of which it looks like McDonnell did
 
2014-07-22 11:27:21 AM  

Magorn: The really farked up thing is that in VA, TAKING all that stuff, is perfectly legal,  what gets you in trouble is not TELLING anyone you took all that stuff on your disclosure forms   or doing quid pro quo favors for it; both of which it looks like McDonnell did


[quizzicaldog]

Wha? That does seem a mite farked up.

So in a weird way it's like Clinton getting nailed for lying about a perfectly legal blowjob?

/That may not be a perfectly apt analogy but in my defense my caffeine levels *are* perilously low.
//There MUST and SHALL be COFFEE!!!
///*wanders off in search of same*
 
2014-07-22 11:39:25 AM  
Magorn is correct. VA has some really shady rules about what you can take. Just declare it.
If you don't, you're in big trouble.

That being said, eff both of them. Jail for 10 years might make the next one think twice about
selling the governor's mansion.
 
2014-07-22 01:11:42 PM  
I thought their defense was "We were just shaking down that sucker for $$$, we never gave, or intended to give, any favors".
 
2014-07-22 01:13:14 PM  
I think I have a proposal that will make everyone happy.  Let McDonnell go free, but require him to submit to monthly rectal ultrasounds to confirm that he isn't hiding any bribe money.
 
2014-07-22 01:13:52 PM  
Moral fiber? He invented moral fiber!
 
2014-07-22 01:14:37 PM  

quatchi: And they proposed jurors be told, in part, that "evidence of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt, although without it the other evidence would be convincing."


If the judge goes for that elephant shiat, prosecution should be allowed to tell jurors in response that good reputation is not the same as good character.

That, or one of the junior prosecuting attorneys should kick the judge in the balls, and then use that as a defense against the assault charge.

Magorn: The really farked up thing is that in VA, TAKING all that stuff, is perfectly legal, what gets you in trouble is not TELLING anyone you took all that stuff on your disclosure forms or doing quid pro quo favors for it; both of which it looks like McDonnell did


Tradition is very big in Virginia. So, it's not the bribery, it's the coverup.
 
2014-07-22 01:18:22 PM  

Target Builder: I thought their defense was "We were just shaking down that sucker for $$$, we never gave, or intended to give, any favors".


Apparently that seems even less plausible than "would a Christian man in a $5,000 suit lie to you?"
 
2014-07-22 01:23:36 PM  

Stile4aly: I think I have a proposal that will make everyone happy.  Let McDonnell go free, but require him to submit to monthly rectal ultrasounds to confirm that he isn't hiding any bribe money.


mutterfark: Moral fiber? He invented moral fiber!


I don't know why, but this gave me a giggle.
 
2014-07-22 01:32:43 PM  
When it all comes down to it, a lawyer's job is one single, fairly simple task: make the best possible arguments for your side in the case. No more, no less.

If these are the best arguments that McDonnell's lawyers can come up with, then I don't begrudge them that: this is, after all, their job. But if they're reduced to this, then man, things are not looking good for their side.
 
2014-07-22 01:34:47 PM  

Target Builder: I thought their defense was "We were just shaking down that sucker for $$$, we never gave, or intended to give, any favors".


I thought so, too. And apparently they're not ditching it entirely "The McDonnells have pleaded not guilty and have argued in the past that nothing they did for Williams was "official." To win convictions on the public corruption charges, prosecutors must prove the couple performed or agreed to perform "official" acts in exchange for Williams's largesse."

So yeah, we sweet talked the hell out of him, but we didn't officially do anything for him.
 
2014-07-22 01:46:11 PM  

abb3w: quatchi: And they proposed jurors be told, in part, that "evidence of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt, although without it the other evidence would be convincing."

If the judge goes for that elephant shiat, prosecution should be allowed to tell jurors in response that good reputation is not the same as good character.


Prosecution should also be to tell jurors that...

hotmeme.net

That, or one of the junior prosecuting attorneys should kick the judge in the balls, and then use that as a defense against the assault charge.

That works for me as well.
 
2014-07-22 01:48:01 PM  
So they're going with the worthless "if you believe this man has good moral character then you cannot convict him of anything" defense?  They're even openly admitting that if you ignore his "fine moral character" that the evidence against him is compelling?  They're really farking desperate.
 
2014-07-22 01:51:38 PM  
The O'Donnell strategy is more magic than the McDonnell strategy.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2014-07-22 01:52:06 PM  
Depends on the jurors.  Many people weigh a good story more heavily than facts.
 
2014-07-22 01:56:31 PM  

WraithSama: So they're going with the worthless "if you believe this man has good moral character then you cannot convict him of anything" defense?  They're even openly admitting that if you ignore his "fine moral character" that the evidence against him is compelling?  They're really farking desperate.


Hey, if it's the best they can come up with, let them do it.

On the one hand, it means that this case is the prosecution's to lose. On the other hand, while this isn't quite the same legal system that brought us OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony, it is close enough that I can't say I'm all that confident.
 
2014-07-22 01:59:38 PM  

Millennium: WraithSama: So they're going with the worthless "if you believe this man has good moral character then you cannot convict him of anything" defense?  They're even openly admitting that if you ignore his "fine moral character" that the evidence against him is compelling?  They're really farking desperate.

Hey, if it's the best they can come up with, let them do it.

On the one hand, it means that this case is the prosecution's to lose. On the other hand, while this isn't quite the same legal system that brought us OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony, it is close enough that I can't say I'm all that confident.


He's a white, wealthy connected politician. A hung jury in this case is almost a certainty, and even if he is convicted he'll serve no time.
 
2014-07-22 02:14:48 PM  
And if that doesn't work will they break out with the Chewbacca Defense?
 
2014-07-22 02:17:38 PM  

quatchi: A paid for wedding? A free $23K vacation? Golf outings? Fine clothes? Money?

All backed up by an informant, corroborating witnesses and documents?

All that versus?...

And they proposed jurors be told, in part, that "evidence of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt,

*blink*

Yeah. Good luck with that.


Maybe he's lining up an appeal no the grounds that his lawyers were complete idiots?
 
2014-07-22 02:31:56 PM  

Bermuda59: And if that doesn't work will they break out with the Chewbacca Defense?


It's called the Macaca defense down here.
 
2014-07-22 02:32:53 PM  

WraithSama: So they're going with the worthless "if you believe this man has good moral character then you cannot convict him of anything" defense?  They're even openly admitting that if you ignore his "fine moral character" that the evidence against him is compelling?  They're really farking desperate.


Yep.  I have seen some "hail Marys" in my time but that is up there with the classic Mafia defense of "All of my friends and associates  who testified against me are felons and crooks..are you gonna believe people like THAT?
 
2014-07-22 04:13:35 PM  
The wedding was my favorite of these "gifts" that were barely obscured bribes.

McDonnell's daughter is getting married. As the father of the bride, he paid for the wedding to the tune of $15,000.  The benefactor decides to "gift" his daughter, conveniently, $15,000, which is used to pay for the wedding, and so McDonnell gets a refund of HIS $15,000.

So, his claim is that the money was a gift to his daughter, but the only actual benefactor of said gift was Bob McDonnell and his wife, since the money "gifted" to his daughter was essentially given to her father to make it so he didn't have to pay for the wedding he had already paid for. But it's totally a gift to the daughter, yeah.
 
2014-07-22 04:56:00 PM  

quatchi: A paid for wedding? A free $23K vacation? Golf outings? Fine clothes? Money?

All backed up by an informant, corroborating witnesses and documents?

All that versus?...

And they proposed jurors be told, in part, that "evidence of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt,

*blink*

Yeah. Good luck with that.


What was the evidence of good character? It seemed like most of the evidence was pointing in the other direction.
 
2014-07-22 05:33:20 PM  

DeaH: quatchi: A paid for wedding? A free $23K vacation? Golf outings? Fine clothes? Money?

All backed up by an informant, corroborating witnesses and documents?

All that versus?...

And they proposed jurors be told, in part, that "evidence of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt,

*blink*

Yeah. Good luck with that.

What was the evidence of good character? It seemed like most of the evidence was pointing in the other direction.


As a guy from Richmond with parents there, I will be getting my popcorn ready for this one. Hopefully they get nailed to the wall, but I doubt they'll face any real consequences for being lying, conniving, unsympathetic sacks of shiat.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report