For the much of this week, the trial of Bob and Maureen McDonnell has been focused on the testimony of “vitamin salesman” Jonnie Williams. Williams has freely admitted on the stand that he was essentially trying to bribe McDonnell and showered gifts and cash on the McDonnells to try to buy help for Star Scientific.
Here’s a taste of what Williams has said:
JW said “I needed his help” Mcdonnell as governor “was in a position to help secure state sponsored researched”
— Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) July 30, 2014
Here’s what he said about the now famous rolex:
“I knew it was wrong” – Jonnie Williams
— Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) July 31, 2014
But it goes beyond this case – here’s another quote from Williams about activities unrelated to the McDonnell case:
“Some law may have been broken” – JW testifying about his stock transactions
— Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) August 1, 2014
Why is he so willing to implicate himself in such blatant criminal activity?
Because he got blanket immunity from prosecutors in exchange for his testimony. In order to implicate the McDonnells, prosecutors apparently not only gave him immunity from any prosecution in this specific investigation, but also in another SEC based investigation of Star Scientific.
Is this surprising? Yes. Is it rare? Yes.
Why did the prosecutors do it? I don’t know. I can speculate, but I can’t say for sure.
What I can say for sure is that it stinks.
When you’re dealing with cases of public corruption, generally you find that both sides are punished. That makes sense – it takes two to tango when you’re talking corruption. The folks giving the bribes (unless it’s a sting operation like Abscam) generally only get reduced sentences or plea agreements. They don’t get blanket immunity. And why should they? They broke the law. But most prosecutors are more interested in convictions of government officials, so they’re willing to cut deals with the bribers in order to get a conviction of the crooked politician or bureaucrat. But invariably, both parts of the corrupt transaction end up prosecuted.
Let’s look at few of the most famous corruption cases out there.
In the Jack Abramoff scandal, over a dozen politicians and bureaucrats were found guilty and either fined, jailed or given probation after the investigation was completed. At the same time, almost a dozen folks who worked with Abramoff, including Abramoff himself, were also convicted and many of them did jail time as part of the scandal.
In the Duke Cunningham scandal, Cunningham did time, as did Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes (who got 12 years in prison), two of the government contractors who traded gifts for official acts with Cunningham.
In the William Jefferson scandal, Jefferson did time, and Brett Pfeffer and Vernon Jackson, who bribed him, did too. Pfeffer got 8 years and Jackson got over 7.
In each of these major cases, which took down sitting members of Congress and Administration officials, both sides of the illegal transactions were prosecuted. And that makes sense. Allowing someone who has knowingly tried to bribe an elected official to walk away sends a very bad message – don’t worry about bribing somebody, because if you do bribe somebody, just agree to testify against them and the prosecutors will let you off. We don’t want to encourage that behavior. And that’s essentially what you do if you immunize one half of a corrupt transaction from prosecution.
Yet that appears to be exactly what prosecutors did here. Why? What is so special here that the man who openly admits to trying to bribe a public official to benefit himself and his company gets to walk away a free man?
Whatever your political inclination, it’s hard to point to any specific official acts that Bob McDonnell performed for Williams. No taxpayer dollars ended up in Williams’ pocket. No jobs were traded. No bills passed or signed. The state studies Williams wanted never happened. At worst, the McDonnell’s “leant the prestige of the Governor’s office” to events on behalf of Williams. Nothing the McDonnells have been accused of comes close to the disgusting things that Abramoff, Cunningham, Jefferson and others have done. So why go to such an extraordinary length – letting a guilty man go free – just to go after Bob McDonnell? It strains credulity.
I think the public deserves to know why Jonnie Williams headed home after his testimony, and not back to a cell. Williams has admitted, in open court and under oath, that he was engaging in criminal activity. And he’s getting away with it. Why is that a better outcome for the citizens of Virginia and the United States than putting everybody involved in this mess on trial and convicting those who violated the law?
Regardless of what Bob and Maureen McDonnell may or may not have done – that has yet to be decided by a jury – we know what Jonnie Williams has done. Yet he walked away from the United States Courthouse in Richmond with a smile on his face.
The rest of us aren’t smiling.
