Politicians Continue to Allow Big Pharma to Screw Americans

Americans pay more for healthcare than residents of any other developed country.  The same goes for drugs.  It is common for American consumers to pay three times (often many times more) the prices paid in Europe, Canada and even Mexico.  The reasons for this rip off of American consumers?  First, the lack of a decent, national health insurance system where managing care, not maximizing prices for private interests, is the goal  Nowhere is the greed and rapaciousness in American healthcare worse than in the area of prescription drugs.  Big Pharma is allowed to hold monopoly power and charge whatever outrageous price it wants and the government refuses to force price negotiations of prices for programs such as Medicare.  The result stems from politicians being bought by pharmaceutical companies.  Indeed, Congress has played a huge role in allowing the opioid epidemic to grow by tying the hands of would be government regulators.  A piece in the New York Times looks at America's broken system.  Here are excerpts: 

So Donald Trump broke another promise: he did not, after all, empower Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. Instead he (and Michael Cohen, who definitely isn’t his bagman) took money from drug lobbyists, appointed them to key positions, and announced a plan that sent drug stocks soaring. I’m sure you’re shocked.

But promise-breaking aside, would introducing a policy of bargaining drug prices down have been good for America? Actually, yes.

Oddly, I never got around to doing my homework on the economics of drug-price bargaining – partly because I was realistic enough about the political economy to realize that it wasn’t going to happen in America any time soon. Still, the fact that Trump promised to do something makes it somewhat relevant, even if he did predictably break that promise. And it turns out that the economic case for doing what Trump just didn’t do, for putting caps on drug prices, is remarkably strong.

Let’s start with where things are right now. After a drug company gets a patent, it has a temporary monopoly on sales of its drug. So its situation looks like that of a standard monopolist . . . It charges a price that is above the marginal cost of producing the drug – usually well above marginal cost.

[O]verall, society gains from the drug’s existence. However, . . . . society would gain more if someone – regulators, purchasing managers at government agencies, whatever – forced the drug company to charge less than the monopoly price.

[T]he United States would almost certainly be better off with a moderate level of bargaining/price control than it is under the current hands-off regime. Why? I count at least four distinct reasons.

First, a point made by Lackdawalla and Sood is that the profit effects of constraining a monopolist’s price are second-order. . . . . What’s going on here is that the profits lost on existing sales are almost fully offset by the profits on additional sales.

What this means in turn is that the negative effect on innovation is small if prices aren’t pushed down a lot, while the consumer gains are first-order. Some price bargaining is always welfare-improving.

Second . . . . . it’s often argued that pharma companies basically develop too many drugs, wasting resources on what amounts to unnecessary duplication. To the extent that this is true, discouraging some innovation isn’t a bad thing.

Third, the consumer surplus calculation assumes that consumers actually pay for the drug. In fact, many drugs are paid for by insurers – which is necessary, because like much of modern medicine the cost if you need it is far beyond most people’s ability to pay out of pocket. But this means that the price someone is willing to pay may greatly exceed the value to the patient. In general, the interaction of drug insurance with monopoly pricing creates potentially huge distortions in both drug development and drug use, reinforcing the case for bargaining.

Finally, it’s a global market – which means that much of the consumer surplus from drug development accrues to foreigners, not U.S. citizens. Maybe there should be more drug development from the point of view of global welfare. But given the unique unwillingness of the U.S. to bargain over prices, we end up paying a much larger share of the costs of that development than we receive of the benefits. Funny how Trump is America first on everything, except when a nationalist position might be bad for Big Pharma.

Yes, Trump says he wants to force other countries to raise drug prices. Good luck on that.

What this comes down to is that there is a very strong case for doing what Trump promised to do but didn’t. I’m aware that simply saying “let’s bargain over drug prices” isn’t effective unless coupled with a willingness to say no – to tell a drug company that an overpriced drug will be excluded from the formulary. So it wouldn’t be politically easy. But it would be good economics.

Trump, Perhaps the Worse President Ever

The narcissistic Donald Trump likes to think of himself as exceptional in ever way.  A column in the New York Times by a historian at Princeton makes the case that Trump is indeed exceptional: based on his first year in office, he is likely the worse president in American history and that the coming year holds only promise for the further debasement of the office of president and the image of America in the world.   All of this, of course could have been avoided had the Electoral College fulfilled the Founders' design and refused to certify his election given his unfitness for office.  Alas, the Electoral College electors had the spines of jelly fish and no regard for the solemn duty.  The nation has suffered ever since.  Here are highlights from the column that looks at some of the worse presidents over the course of the nation's history and the conclusion that Trump is likely the worse:

Historians have long looked to a few key criteria in evaluating the beginning of a president’s administration. First and foremost, any new president should execute public duties with a commanding civility and poise befitting the nation’s chief executive, but without appearing aloof or haughty. As George Washington observed at the outset of his presidency in 1789, the president cannot in any way “demean himself in his public character” and must act “in such a manner as to maintain the dignity of office.”

New presidents also try to avoid partisan and factional rancor, and endeavor to unite the country in a great common purpose. In line with their oath of office, they dedicate themselves to safeguarding and even advancing democratic rights and to protecting the nation against foreign enemies. They avoid even the slightest imputation of corruption, of course political but above all financial.

Donald Trump, in each area, has been a colossal failure. The truest measure of his performance comes from comparing his first year not with those of the best — Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — but with those of the worst.

What do these bad presidents’ first years tell us about Mr. Trump? Some performed reasonably well at first, only to slide into disaster later. Might Mr. Trump grow in the job, making us forget his rookie-season bumbling? Or should we expect more of the same through 2020?

I expect the latter. Mr. Trump’s first year has been an unremitting parade of disgraces that have demeaned him as well as the dignity of his office, and he has shown that this is exactly how he believes he should govern.

Most important, he is the first president to fail to defend the nation from an attack on our democracy by a hostile foreign power — and to resist the investigation of that attack. He is the first to enrich his private interests, and those of his family, directly and openly.

He is the first president to denounce the press not simply as unfair but as “the enemy of the American people.” He is the first to threaten his defeated political opponent with imprisonment. He is the first to have denigrated friendly countries and allies as well as a whole continent with racist vulgarities.

George Washington warned that the actions of a president “may have great and durable consequences from their having been established at the commencement of a new general government.” If history is any guide — especially in light of the examples closest to his, of Buchanan and Andrew Johnson — Mr. Trump’s first year portends a very unhappy ending.

How "Public Servant" Hastert Got His Riches

In addition to the surprise over the indictment of former House Speaker that raised the issue of Hastert's past sexual abuse of a male student, many have been surprised at how a former school teacher and coach was in a position to be paying millions in hush money.  The answer, of course, is Washington's revolving door which allows former elected officials to reap millions after retirement to work for lobbying firms and other organizations.  Hastert in more ways than one represents what's wrong with Washington today. A piece in The Daily Beast looks at how Hastert became wealthy as have far too many politicians.  Here are excerpts:

It’s clear that the indictment of Dennis Hastert has raised more questions than it’s provided answers. But I suspect a lot of people are asking the wrong ones. Hastert’s “misconduct” may turn out to be of sexually predatory nature, in which case talk of how much his reputation is worth is picayune compared the nature of crime. But there are questions about what he did that are applicable to the entire industry he represents.

The most obvious question, that’s also the least relevant for most Americans: What is the “misconduct” that Hastert is alleged to have been trying to cover up?

If the conduct was sexual abuse, as sources are saying, then the statute of limitations has run out. It follows that Hastert wasn’t paying hush money to stay out of jail, he was protecting his reputation.

A better question, and one that many Washington watchdogs leapt on quickly: How did Hastert happen to have enough money lying around that paying out $3.5 million was even within the realm of possibility?

Hastert’s ability to participate in the blackmail is, after all, itself a general indictment of D.C.’s “revolving door” money culture, in which former lawmakers move easily from government into lobbying. In Hastert’s case, the ability to profit off of one’s legislative position is especially galling: While in office, Hastert used the earmarking process to turn his investment in some Illinois farmland into a profit of 140 percent when a federal highway project just happened to make its way through those very fields. Indeed, it was this instance of a completely legal form of insider trading that helped prompt Congress to end earmarks.

And, of course, Hastert made even more money once he was out of office. One study found that, on average—and when the information is publicly available—former lawmakers get a 1,425 percent raise when they make the jump from Capitol Hill to K Street. Hastert, who was worth between $4 million and $17 million when he left Congress, was making $175,000 as a representative. His K Street bump would be to almost $2.5 million a year.

And, it’s important to remember, what Hastert was covering up with that hush money was not a “reputation” as an average citizen might conceive of it: something akin to honor or trustworthiness or fidelity. A lobbyist’s reputation, after all, actually hinges on his or her established lack of principles. A lobbying client for someone who is a former member of Congress is paying a premium for that person’s willingness to engage in barely-legal favor-trading. A lobbyist’s prices go up the more corrupt he is. Who wants to hire an honest one?

"The Bitchy Gay Community" Responds To The Aaron Schock Apologists

Its been amazing to see some "journalists" come to the defense of the seriously corrupt and unethical Aaron Schock and argue that gays are being "bitchy" and "mean" to Schock and suggesting that we have been brutal on him because we "want him."  A pretty face and toned body does not automatically make one an object of desire - ok, perhaps it does in the straight world wealthy older men all too often have brain dead "trophy wives" half their age - if there is no soul or moral substance behind the veneer.  A piece in Queerty has a great response to the Schock apologists that is down right fun to read.  Here are some highlights:

Kirchick, referring to those who’ve taken issue with Mr. Schock, his extravagant spending and antigay voting record, writes the “bitchy gay community” is up in arms because of “rumors” that Schock is a closeted gay man and that the real reason many people have disdain for the chiseled, Ken Doll-esque congressman is because we all “want him.”

Really? We all want him? That’s a little presumptuous, Mr. Kirchick. Was there a poll taken? I remember taking a poll for CrossFit and I definitely got the one for not eating carbs, but I must have clearly missed the “Who Wants To Shtook Schock” poll. 

Our disdain for Schock has nothing to do with his alleged good looks. It’s because of his character. Or lack of it, to be precise.     It seems in this day and age, you can’t dislike anyone for honest reasons, such as a person’s character.

Now as far as me not liking Aaron Schock because I want him — child, please. I will personally stand next to Schock in a Speedo and go muscle to muscle any day of the week (except Sunday — that’s my “cheat day”). In fact, he could have all the muscles in Chelsea and WeHo combined, but the thing Schock lacks and the thing that most resonates with the “bitchy queens” is the soon-to-be-former Congressman’s lack of ethics. 

Now dare I say, that is the reason we do not like her… I mean, him.

Kirchick writes that Schock has voted against gay marriage, against repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and against the institution of harsher criminal penalties for hate crimes. A mere two sentences later, Kirchick tries to say that, “There’s no evidence that Schock personally discriminated against gay people,” which makes one wonder if he has even read his own article. Call me crazy (I’ve been called worse), but voting against LGBT rights, is a form of discrimination.

 

These facts alone are enough, more than enough, actually, for the “bitchy gay community” to not like Aaron Schock.  But wait there’s more.. . . .  Schock also billed the Federal Government for logging approximately 170,000 miles on his personal car that, when sold, had an odometer reading of 80,000 miles. So “We The People” also paid for over 90,000 miles on Aaron Schock’s car that were never driven. 

 

Kirchick and others can try and spin this however they want. The truth is, the fall of Aaron Schock is because Aaron Schock has performed less like an United States Congressman than a privileged party boy who is all show and no substance. 

This card-carrying member of the “bitchy gay community” and many others like me are not supporters of Aaron Schock because he hasn’t earned it. It doesn’t matter where on the spectrum of sexuality he falls — though evidently, it’s somewhere between rabid Downton Abbey fan and Katy Perry backup dancer.

Very well said (the author's image is below, so we see why he'd do a speedo contest with Schock!)

GOP's Aaron Schock Resigns Congressional Seat

This blog has followed the misadventures of Aaron Schock, GOP Congressman from Illinois, and the stories of his lavish spending and whispers about his suspected homosexuality.  With each passing day, more questions have arisen about Schock's spending habits, questionable charges for reimbursement, and, of course, his cute, young male personal photographer.   Today, Schock announced that he is resigning his seat in Congress effective March 31, 2015.  Here are highlights from Politico:

Schock’s resignation, effective March 31, came so abruptly that the Illinois Republican didn’t even give Speaker John Boehner or his leadership team a heads up. Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) had been planning to keep Schock on the GOP’s vote-counting team. Fellow congressmen from Illinois also had no idea.

Schock’s decision to quit – on the heels of questions from POLITICO about tens of thousands of dollars seemingly phony mileage reimbursements – represents the denouement of a boom-and-bust saga starring one of the Republican Party’s most promising young figures. The 33-year-old rocketed from the Peoria school board to Congress in less than a decade, amassing power, prestige and prominence on the national political scene. By the end of last year, he was eyeing a seat at the House GOP leadership table.

He jetted around the globe, with a professional photographer in tow to document his life for Instagram. He hired the wife of a donor to redecorate his office to look like PBS’s “Downton Abbey.” He booked private planes to take him back to Illinois and a donor’s helicopter in his district.  But Schock’s accounting of those activities was sloppy at best.

Records show that Schock personally claimed reimbursement for roughly 170,000 miles driven from January 2010 to July 2014. But the only vehicle he owned during that time was sold with just 80,000 miles on the odometer.  Asked for his response to those findings, Schock announced his resignation.

“[T]he constant questions over the last six weeks have proven a great distraction that has made it too difficult for me to serve the people of the 18th District with the high standards that they deserve and which I have set for myself,” he said in a statement. “I have always sought to do what’s best for my constituents and I thank them for the opportunity to serve.”

Schock was plainly struggling to deal with the media onslaught as his attorneys simultaneously reviewed his accounting. He canceled several fundraisers, and some of his Republican colleagues questioned whether he would be able to weather the growing scandal. His office stopped responding to several inquiries, including questions about a limited liability corporation he set up using his home address and the purchase of land from a donor.

With controversy swirling around him, two Republicans announced they would challenge him in a primary. That threat would have been unthinkable months earlier, since Schock was widely known for spreading campaign largesse to local pols.

Poll: Virginians Back Decriminalizing Marijuana

I do not go to criminal court very often - when I do go, its usually for a commercial client with a with some city code summons - but when I do, one sees numerous cases of individuals (mostly young) before the court on marijuana charges, usually for possession of small quantities of pot.  The majority get some kind of criminal sentence, especially young black males and have their records ruined for life.  It's beyond ridiculous and has consequences far beyond the nature of the offense.  Meanwhile, Virginia politicians and big wigs commit far worse moral crimes and get off Scott free.  A new poll indicates that a majority of Virginians see the ridiculousness of criminalizing marijuana and support its decriminalization.  One can already hear the shrieks and moans coming from The Family Foundation and other far right groups in the state who want all Virginians to lead lives as miserable as their own.  Here are excerpts from the Richmond Times Dispatch on the poll findings:

Three out of five Virginians surveyed support removing criminal penalties for possessing up to an ounce of pot and three out of four back medical marijuana use for seriously or terminally ill patients, according to a survey released Tuesday by an advocacy group.
Forty-nine percent polled support legalizing marijuana for adults and regulating it similarly to alcohol.

“Most voters do not support laws that saddle people with criminal penalties just for possessing a small amount of marijuana,” said Rachelle Yeung, a legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project. “These antiquated prohibition laws are causing far more problems than they solve.”

The survey by Public Policy Polling found that 60 percent of voters questioned say the criminal penalties for possession of up an an ounce should be replaced with a $100 fine with no possibility of jail time. The offense currently is punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500.

Sixty-four percent said they would be more likely to vote for a legislator who supported the change.

The GOP's Mug Shot Primary

When investigations of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell in "Giftgate" first began, the GOP pundits all claimed it was a partisan plot - some even in their delusions claimed that Obama was orchestrating the entire affair - but the multi-count conviction of Taliban Bob and his wife made it clear that there was fire where the GOP claimed there was smoke at most.  As the early phases of the 2016 jockeying begins among the would be GOP candidates, it is telling that so many of them are under criminal investigation at present.  Like McDonnell - and the Christofascists who make up so much of the hardcore GOP base - there seems to be a mindset that the rules apply to others.  A column in the Washington Post looks at the legal problems of some of the contenders.  Here are excerpts:

Why is the lineup of prospective GOP presidential candidates beginning to look like, well, a lineup?

Chris Christie went to campaign this week for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, putting the New Jersey governor in the company of a man who is in almost as much legal jeopardy as he is. Between them, the two would-be 2016 presidential nominees are the subjects of six investigations.

But Texas Gov. Rick Perry, another presidential aspirant, is far ahead of them in the mug-shot primary: He’s already under indictment on two felony counts related to abuse of power. And, speaking of felonies, former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, long considered presidential timber, was convicted on 11 corruption counts after his salacious trial this summer that disgraced him and his wife.

Democrats are trying to tie another prospective presidential candidate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, to a Republican contributor who was convicted this summer of witness tampering in a campaign-finance case; the governor had been subpoenaed to appear in the case but was never called.

Beyond that, the Republican governors of Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Maine, South Carolina and New Mexico all face varying degrees of legal liability on matters ranging from influence peddling to the firing of whistleblowers. Completing the GOP version of a most-wanted list: John Rowland, the former governor of Connecticut, who was found guilty last month of conspiracy charges in a campaign-finance case. It was the second time he had been convicted on criminal charges.

This doesn’t necessarily mean governors, or other politicians, are more corrupt than they used to be; there has always been some sense of entitlement among elected leaders, a belief that the usual rules don’t apply to them. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, adds that “unfathomable amounts of money flowing through the system” have increased the opportunity for misconduct, while the proliferation of media and electronic paper trails makes it more likely to get caught.

[T]here’s some rough justice that Republicans, who popularized this criminalization of politics in the 1990s [against Bill Clinton], now find at least three of their top presidential prospects being hoist with the GOP’s own petard. New Jersey’s Christie, of course, has Bridgegate and related troubles. The campaign of Wisconsin’s Walker is being investigated over allegedly illegal campaign finance coordinated with various conservative groups; a federal appeals panel ruled last month that prosecutors could proceed with the long-stalled investigation. Then there’s Perry . . . a grand jury has indicted Perry on charges carrying up to 109 years in prison combined.

Bob and Maureen McDonnell Convicted of Corruption

I hope Maureen REALLY enjoyed that dress!!

The Richmond Times Dispatch (as are other news outlets) is reporting that both Bob and Maureen McDonnell have been found guilty of criminal corruption earlier today.  This makes McDonnell the first Virginia governor in the Commonwealth's history to be convicted of a felony.  Part of me feels some sorrow for Bob and Maureen McDonnell who I have known for 20 years.  But another part of me feels no sorrow.  Why?  Because along the way in the pursuit of power, both of them sold their souls.  And not just for money.  Bob McDonnell's lust for power made him further the interests/agenda of vile groups like The Family Foundation and those who hate others based on their skin color or national origin.  None of those are things that a decent Catholic would ever do.  Here are highlights from the Dispatch article:

Bob McDonnell is the first Virginia governor convicted of a felony.

 A federal jury today convicted Virginia’s 71st governor and former first lady Maureen McDonnell on multiple counts in their corruption trial in U.S. District Court.

Bob McDonnell has been convicted on 11 of 13 counts.

Maureen McDonnell has been convicted on nine of 13 counts.

Both McDonnells sobbed openly, but quietly as the verdicts were read. Family members and supporters also wept openly.

Sentencing will be Jan. 6 at 10 a.m.

The Virginian Pilot also aptly notes:

It has been a precipitous fall for Bob McDonnell, who held elective office for 22 years, much of it as a state delegate from Virginia Beach, and as recently as two years ago was a rising star in national Republican politics.

I suspect that the McDonnells will appeal, but it looks like an uphill battle given the number of counts they were each convicted on.  So much for Virginia GOP family values.   Now we need to see Rick Perry and Scott Walker convicted of felonies!!

For McDonnell Jury, It’s Back to the Basics

Virginia's ongoing soap opera - i.e., the criminal corruption trial of Bob and Maureen McDonnell - has now moved into waiting mode much like the summer wait for the answer of who shot JR on the old Dallas series.  The case has gone to the jury which received over two hours of instructions from the presiding federal judge.  A column in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the waiting game which, no matter the result will leave Virginia looking like a corrupt banana republic politically.  Here are highlights:

“And with that, we will send you out to begin your deliberations,” said U.S. District Court Judge James Spencer, concluding — after 2 hours and 10 minutes Tuesday — his detailed instructions to jurors in the Bob and Maureen McDonnell corruption trial. “You take your time. It’s your business now.”

Moments later, as the jurors filed out of Spencer’s seventh-floor courtroom, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers and the accused rose in the customary gesture of respect for the seven men and five women whose decisions could lead to the once-unthinkable: a former Virginia governor and his wife behind bars.

To convict or acquit Bob and Maureen on any and all of 26 counts requires the agreement of all 12 jurors. An 8-4 vote won’t cut it. A unanimous vote is mandatory to find the McDonnells guilty or not guilty.

Also, the trial could yield multiple verdicts, muddying a case that prosecutors represented as a clear example of government-for-sale.

The jury could convict Bob and Maureen on some charges; deadlock on others. If there’s a hung jury on certain counts, Spencer could direct jurors to keep working. Were the jury unsuccessful, he could declare a mistrial on the outstanding counts. The verdict on resolved charges would stand. The U.S. Justice Department might attempt a do-over on the unsettled issues.

For instance, Bob could be convicted on a single count of bank fraud; specifically, failing to disclose loans from the protected-from-prosecution Jonnie Williams Sr. on a refi application for the McDonnells’ cash-hemorrhaging resort properties.

Maureen, alone, could be found guilty of obstructing a criminal investigation. After she had been questioned by state police in 2013 on her relationship with Williams, Maureen returned the $20,000 in designer clothing he bought for her in New York. The togs were accompanied by a note in which Maureen said she’d planned to give them back. The government says she was trying to mislead investigators.

The government, Spencer said in his instructions, is not required to produce a contract or expressed agreement to a conspiracy. Plus, it’s not necessary to prove the scheme was successful; unsuccessful schemes are illegal, too.

Further, this corruption case does not require, nor does it rely on, an explicit exchange of goods for services, the so-called quid pro quo. The law recognizes — and the courts have affirmed — that such a trade could be based on a knowing wink and nod.

As for the penalties the McDonnells could face, they’re tougher for bank fraud than corruption.

A conviction for false statements to a federally insured financial institution carries a sentence of up to 30 years and a $1 million fine.

Twenty years is the maximum prison term on each of the corruption charges: conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud; honest-services wire fraud; obtaining property under color of official right; conspiracy to obtain property under color of official right, and obstruction of an official proceeding. These offenses can also carry financial penalties.

All in all, this case has been a train wreck for Virginia, but especially for GOP's pretense of upholding "family values."

Bob McDonnell's "Crazy Wife" Defense Is Totally Unprecedented

As the Vatican continues to demonstrate its sense that it is above the law when it comes to the sexual abuse of children (see the prior post), in Richmond, Virginia, the criminal trial of Bob and Maureen McDonnell similarly shows the nasty reality of GOP "family values": sham marriages, unbridled greed, back stabbing, throwing one's spouse under the proverbial bus, and levels of dysfunction that are off the charts.  Perhaps I should not be surprised given what went on in the strong Republican neighborhood I lived in during the closeted period of my life.  Outwardly, everything was perfection with perfectly maintained homes and yards, but behind closed doors, some husbands beat their wives, many marriages were strained at best, and at least one husband was recently caught by one of his children having sex with a woman not much older than his children.  A piece in Talking Points Memo looks at the culmination of all of this in Bob McDonnell's "crazy wife" legal defense scheme.  Here are highlights:

Over five weeks of testimony, jurors have heard a barrage of details about the McDonnells’ finances and about their interactions with a wealthy Virginia businessman, Jonnie Williams, from whom the couple is accused of taking $177,000 worth of gifts and loans in exchange for lending the credibility of the governor’s office to Williams’ dietary supplements company.

But without a doubt, the most engrossing aspect of the trial has been the revelations about the McDonnells’ marriage. In testimony, the governor painted a picture of his marriage veering so far into soap opera territory that pundits began referring to it as the “crazy wife” defense. Legal experts told TPM that was an unprecedented strategy to deploy in such a high-profile criminal case.

When the former governor the took the stand, he cast his wife as a mercurial thorn in his side — not to mention that of the entire Executive Mansion staff. Under questioning by the defense, various other witnesses described Maureen McDonnell as a hoarder, "diva-ish" and "pathologically incapable of taking any kind of responsibility." One former aide testified that the governor was "in denial about Mrs. McDonnell’s mental capacity."

Defense attorneys are hoping that all this testimony proves to jurors that communication between the McDonnells was too strained for them to have been able to conspire together to promote Williams’ company.

Barbara “Biz” Van Gelder, a criminal defense attorney with Dickstein Shapiro, said it’s not unusual in a criminal case for one spouse to claim that he or she wasn’t aware of what the other spouse was doing, particularly in regards to finances. For example, a couple may share a joint account that just one spouse manages.

But “this is much different. This is saying not that they do that portion of the shared work, but this is like, ‘I’m not even talking to them so I don’t know,’” she told TPM.

Julie Rose O’Sullivan, a law professor at Georgetown and a former federal prosecutor, agreed that the McDonnell defense’s “crazy wife” theory was a departure from cases she’s seen.

“The more that he describes his wife as crazy, then it begs the question of well, if your wife was crazy, why didn’t you stop her?” he told TPM. “Why didn’t you shut her down? Like many defenses, this one is also a two-edged sword.”

Certain gifts that McDonnell himself received from the wealthy businessman, such as golfing trips and a ride in Williams’ Ferrari, don't quite fit that narrative (The Washington Post has an excellent graphic visualizing all the luxury goods, vacations and loans given to each member of the McDonnell family for reference). In those cases, McDonnell acknowledged that he shouldn’t have accepted the gifts but argued that Williams’ largess never earned him more than basic constituent access to the governor’s office.

So how might the "crazy wife" defense shake out once the trial goes to jury?

Cowan believes that the broken marriage story may not be enough to convince a jury that the McDonnells were unable to conspire to promote Williams' company.

"If at the end of the day the jury says, you did enough, you knew enough, then this is really not only a trainwreck for a political career, it’s also an incredible trainwreck to publicly display all of this for naught," Van Gelder said.

The Myth of "The Virginia Way" and the McDonnell Corruption Trial

Having lived half my life now in Virginia I am well acquainted with what often is a pretense of civility - especially in politics - when behind the veneer things are down right cut throat and dirty.  No one is more skilled in knifing you in the back than genteel Virginia belles and gentleman.  Feigned courtliness doesn't lessen the pain of the knife slipping between one's ribs.   One positive aspect of the Bob and Maureen McDonnell criminal corruption trial is that it has perhaps once and for all destroyed the myth of "the Virginia Way" - the myth that civility and the best interests of the public are forever foremost in the minds of Virginia politicians.   The truth is that Virginia politics is a snake pit where greed and seeking advantage through any means are the norm.  A column in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the issue.  Here are excerpts:

No verdict is necessary in the Bob and Maureen McDonnell corruption case to know that the wrenching scandal is certain to change Virginia politics. It will probably get worse before it gets better.

The historic five-week trial will lay waste to the notion of the “Virginia way,” a quaint concept that elections and governance are conducted with mannered dignity by men and women who — because they have an agonizing sense of public mission — know what’s best for the rest of us.

This idea has been on life support for years, weakened by the rise of two-party competition, beginning in 1969 with the election of the state’s first modern Republican governor, Linwood Holton. The GOP wanted in on the big feed that had been reserved almost exclusively for Democrats for most of the 20th century.

Having used the poll tax and literacy tests to disenfranchise African-Americans and poor whites, Democrats kept the electorate small and manageable — and largely in the dark about their continuing manipulations of the system.

 

Favor-seeking and back-scratching — acts that a federal jury could criminalize by finding the McDonnells guilty of trading booty and bling for state support of a disputed dietary supplement — have long been the rule in Richmond.

But it wasn’t called that. Rather, it was known as “sound policy,” a way to preserve the state’s business-friendly climate — and, by extension, the control of cliquish conservative, often-prosperous politicians who did the corpocracy’s bidding.

This arrangement may have helped profits, but it didn’t always help Virginia’s people. . . . Politics was a members-only activity, the prerogative of the few. It was intentionally opaque. If the personal became public, it was dealt with swiftly and sternly.

It’s no wonder, then, that Garrett Epps, who famously chronicled the clash between Old and New Virginia in his 1977 novel, “The Shad Treatment,” now refers to his home state as the “Banana Dominion.”

Fast-forward to 2014: Not only have Virginians been told for more than a year by newspapers and prosecutors about the alleged misdeeds of the McDonnells on behalf of the fully immunized Jonnie Williams Sr., Bob and Maureen also have — as the cornerstone of their defense — shared tawdry details of their life together apart. It may be TMI — too much information — but get used to it.

Political candidates have long bared their souls, but usually according to a script. The idea is to establish a bond with voters; that they’re inclined to support the candidate who is most like them.

McDonnell mastered this. Running for attorney general in 2005 and governor four years later, he was an easygoing, typical suburban kid from Fairfax County, talking about kitchen-table issues with friends and family. Now we know the conversation apparently was conducted with flying plates.

In Virginia, political parties and the political press will now feel compelled to more closely vet candidates and officials. But the magnified scrutiny will likely extend to those who usually receive little or none: spouses and children.

The picture that emerged of the McDonnells — one painted by the prosecution and, to a lesser degree, the defense — is of a sprawling family for which gift-taking was a full-time enterprise. Living in the fishbowl that is the Executive Mansion, they availed themselves of Williams’ gaudy largesse: a Rolex watch, designer togs, five-figure checks as wedding presents, weekends at posh resorts, golf outings and sports equipment. The McDonnells chose not to notice that eventually the public would.

Next year, Virginians decide control of the House of Delegates and state Senate. Partisan redistricting will protect many seats, particularly those of Republicans, whose brand has been badly dinged by the McDonnell mess. Their tailor-made districts can’t protect them from shame.

Bob and Maureen McDonnell - A Case Study of Virginia GOP "Family Values"

While thousands were at Norfolk's Town Point Park supporting marriage equality in Virginia, the federal criminal trial of former GOP governor Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen continues to provide a case study in the type of marriages the Virginia GOP and the hate merchants at The Family Foundation want to protect.  Candidly, there seems to be little "sanctity of marriage" in the McDonnell's marriage and all too many of the marriages I witnessed during the "straight" phase of my life in a outwardly perfect high end neighborhood in Virginia Beach.  A column in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the ongoing spectacle of  back stabbing and throwing one's spouse under the bus that is one of the main theme of the McDonnell trial.  Here are excerpts:

Former aides Mary-Shea Sutherland, Sarah Scarbrough and Phil Cox and sister-in-law Mo Carney McDonnell chucked Maureen McDonnell under the bus. Then, husband Bob backed over her — gently.

The thread running through the testimony of prosecution and defense witnesses is that Maureen is volatile and insecure, if not unstable.

Depending on who’s asking the questions or who’s answering them, she embodies the rage of Lady Macbeth, the emotional frailty of Blanche DuBois, the blonde ambition of Eva Peron and the subtly of Snooki.

For 20 days, Maureen has quietly endured a carefully scripted trashing. Her freedom could depend on it.

Her husband of 38 years, the man with whom she held hands in public as a wife, first lady and co-defendant, now barely speaks to her. As the former governor squirmed past Maureen in Judge James Spencer’s courtroom Friday, they repelled each other — much as magnets do when their like poles are placed together.

Bob knows he’s in serious trouble; that getting out of it is serious business. He’s been in tight spots before — but politically. Each time, he successfully extracted himself on the strength of his on-cue earnestness, his talent for parsing words, and his deeply held belief that if he says something often enough, people will actually believe him.

There was Bob’s artful use in 2003 of a phrase heard often during his three days of testimony this past week on damning details of his backroom dealings with the protected-from-prosecution Jonnie Williams Sr.: “Not that I can recall.”

Eleven years ago, when Bob was chairman of the House courts committee, that was his response when asked whether he — as a married man with five children — had violated a since-scrapped prohibition on sodomy that was a factor in the doomed reappointment of a female judge accused by another woman of sexual harassment.

Possibly facing decades in prison and millions of dollars in fines, Bob — in his latest and riskiest charm offensive — is relying on these time-proven skills. But he is throwing in — or is that throwing out? — Maureen for good measure.

Bob lives for another day, but chivalry is dead.

This requires piling on Maureen — and requires that she take it. A reminder of that will be how closely, if at all, her lawyers question Bob. They’ll have a shot at him starting Monday, followed by prosecutors. And the feds are certain to have a slew of questions.

Further, Maureen’s continuing silence is interpreted as consent to the defense’s argument that she and Bob, their marriage having collapsed, were utterly incapable of communication.

Ergo, they couldn’t possibly conspire to trade on Virginia’s governorship for at least $177,000 in gifts, trips, cash and loans from Williams. A rich man, he was angling for state support of a supposed, tobacco-derived cure-all that, he hoped, would make him even richer.

McDonnell driving Jonnie Williams' Ferrari

Virginia GOP Family Values: Throw Your Wife Under the Bus

The criminal corruption trail of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen seems to get more and more tawdry and night time soap opera like with each passing day of the trial.  One thing that has become abundantly clear is that to be a good Republican family, one needs to play act in public even as shrew like behavior and estrangement are the norm behind closed doors.  Or at least that is the take away if one believes Bob McDonnell - who opposes gay marriage despite the sanctity free nature of his own - and his defense team.  Oh, and let's not forget the greed and avarice that seems to have had free rein.  Here are highlights from the New York Times on the tawdry reality  of  Virginia GOP family values in action:

Defense lawyers have portrayed the couple as incapable of conspiring with Mr. Williams, who gave the couple and a family business $120,000 in low-interest loans, paid for much of their daughter’s wedding, took Ms. McDonnell on lavish spending sprees, bought a Rolex for the governor, footed the bill for golf outings and made his Ferrari available to them. 

The defense painted Ms. McDonnell as a vitamin-obsessed “nutbag” smitten with Mr. Williams, and Mr. McDonnell, once considered a contender for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, as at once a naïve Boy Scout and an accomplished governor too busy to notice Mr. Williams’s entreaties.

The initial shot the former governor took at his wife was a teaser, devised by the defense lawyer Henry Asbill at the very beginning of his client’s testimony. Mr. Asbill then turned to Mr. McDonnell’s career and his interactions with Mr. Williams.

Even in those early biographical sections, client and lawyer mustered a few veiled shots at Ms. McDonnell. The former governor spoke at length of the difficult times the family faced when he quit his business job and went to law school. He rejoined active duty in the Army Reserve, helped distribute newspapers in Virginia Beach and sold toys with his wife, who pitched in by waiting tables.

After he graduated, Ms. McDonnell “was a little surprised, maybe disappointed, when she looked at the salary” her husband would be making as a local prosecutor, which was lower than his paycheck four years before.

Mr. McDonnell’s main task on Wednesday appeared to be showing that for all his largess, Mr. Williams received no quo for his quid. The Richmond-based insurer Genworth Financial won a $7 million tax savings from the McDonnell administration. A local brewery here got a bill-signing ceremony. The governor pulled out all the stops to help an Israeli firm partner with Pepsi-Cola to make Sabra hummus in Virginia. A DuPont battery facility in Chesterfield County got a visit from the governor.

In contrast, Mr. McDonnell said, Mr. Williams’s Star Scientific company got no grants, no earmarks in the Virginia budget, no economic development assistance, no governor’s visit — just one event in the governor’s mansion, one of “300 or so” where 25,000 people were invited.

But the fireworks still lie with the marriage, which has looked picture-perfect in public but is being portrayed as icy, roiled by a mercurial wife who loathed her role as first lady.

A management consultant hired in 2011 to calm the first lady’s ready-to-revolt staff testified Wednesday that he had discussed reducing her time at the governor’s mansion, limiting her public speaking and getting her therapy, possibly for depression.

Indeed, only in this soap-operatic trial would evidence of affection between the McDonnells be seen as a victory for the prosecution. Prosecutors on Wednesday tried to undermine the defense’s contention that the McDonnells’ marriage had become a sham, highlighting an email exchange between Ms. McDonnell and Mr. Burke in January 2012 as they hashed endlessly over getting her through a coming public event.

Mr. Burke testified that he was brought in to calm “an undue amount of chaos” in the first lady’s suite. He spoke of shouting matches over telephones while trying to stop Ms. McDonnell’s entire staff from quitting, a private appeal to the governor to get his wife into therapy, and hours coaching Ms. McDonnell through speaking engagements and public appearances.

The McDonnells quickly exchanged high-interest credit card debt for Mr. Williams’s lending terms: 2 percent interest to be paid after three years, with no monthly payments necessary.

Sadly, I suspect that many of the marriages of the "godly Christian" crowd are shams and psychodramas like that depicted by the defense team.  The irony is that, if this is true, having gays legally marry could only help the status of marriage across the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Think about it, what kind of marriage can a hate filled, perpetually lying, frigid bitch like Victoria Cobb have? 

Jailing of Russian Anti-Gay Psyhco Will Not End Mistreatement of Gays

Many news outlets have reported on the conviction of Maxim Martsinkevich to five years in prison for his torture and mistreatment of gays.   While Martsinkevich was perhaps a more visible ring leader, there are all too many more like him, all egged on by Russia's anti-gay laws ushered under the regime of Adolph Hitler copy cat, dictator Vladimir Putin.  Anti-gay horrors, of course are not limited to Russian and across the Middle East and many parts of Africa gays live lives of fear and sometimes violence.  Fanning it all is religion - that pestilence to humankind - and opportunist politicians who seek to distract an ignorant populace from the true of extent of their misrule and corruption.  A column in The Daily Beast looks at the continuing anti-gay violence that is all too prevalent.  Here are excerpts:

In a year of bad news for LGBT people across the global south and east, it’s been a good couple of weeks. A court struck down Uganda’s anti-gay law, and the country’s president has backed away from it. Kenya’s parliament rejected a draconian anti-gay bill. And now one of the nastiest men in Russia, Maxim Martsinkevich, has been sentenced to five years in prison.

You may know Martsinkevich from the dozen videos posted on the Russian social networking site VKontakte showing him and his colleagues threatening, beating, stripping, torturing, urinating on, and otherwise harassing gay people. His gang, known as “Occupy Pedophilia,” would lure gay men with the promise of sexual encounters, usually with teenagers, and then humiliate them online.

The video that got Martsinkevich—nicknamed Tesak, or “The Hatchet”—into trouble was a particularly odious one, in which he stripped and beat a gay Iraqi man, shaved his head, painted Stars of David on his body and a rainbow on his forehead, and humiliated him with sex toys.

Presumably, “Iraqi” was not the most startling word in that sentence. Yet interestingly enough, it was the one that got him into trouble with the law. Tesak was jailed not for harassing gay people—that’s basically the law in Russia now—but for being racist.

The Putin regime’s attack on LGBT people has been a piece of its revanchist nationalism, and indeed the extreme right that is now Vladimir Putin’s base has as much animus against foreigners as it does against gays. Long before Tesak launched Occupy Pedophilia, he ran an ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi group called Format 18, with the same practice of making hideous torture videos—only against foreigners, not gays.

On the other hand, it’s easy to see his conviction as a cynical move by the less than fully independent Russian justice system. Tesak was becoming the public face of Russia’s anti-propaganda law. He was an embarrassment to Putin.

But how can the government object to persecuting gay people when it also persecutes gay people? Tesak’s conviction looks like a convenient way out. He’s thrown in jail, but homophobia is still OK. 

There is, of course, that nagging problem of Occupy Pedophilia’s name and its claim of having tortured more than 1,500 gay men. Perhaps Tesak’s most famous victim was the Ukrainian Alexander Bohun, a former contestant on that country’s version of The X Factor.

And don’t expect OP’s antics to end just because its leader is in jail. Tesak only appears in a fraction of OP videos. There are plenty of other vigilantes interested in torturing gay men with the winking semi-approval of the authorities.

Tesak’s sentence won’t stop the violence. To do that, more fundamental change is needed—starting with the state-sponsored homophobia that encourages such violence. Of course, that Tesak is going to jail is good news. But as long as the Russian Orthodox Church, Russian government, and Russian media spread lies about gays being pedophiles, perverts, or worse, there will surely be other executioners to take his place.