The McDonnells launched their defense in court yesterday, and they began it largely where the prosecution left off — by trashing Maureen McDonnell.
I’ve written before that there were plenty of ugly rumors, stories and whatnot floating around River City regarding the former First Lady. It seems most of them are getting a public airing, under oath. We’ve yet to hear word one of the rumors about Bob. For that we, and others, can be thankful.
But what are we to make of the relentless assault on Mrs. McDonnell?
Jim Bacon frames it this way:
Bob McDonnell was an ambitious man. What he wanted out of life — political fame and success — wasn’t what Maureen wanted. Family finances were a mess before the family entered the governor’s mansion, made worse by extensive borrowing during the gubernatorial campaign. Maureen was ill equipped to fill the role of first lady; she didn’t ask for the job but she was stuck with it. Unable to handle the stress of the position on top of the deteriorating family finances, she flew into rages, alienated many of the people around her, including her husband, which made her situation even worse. She gravitated to Williams, who plied her with attention, gifts and what seemed to be friendship. (Kelly’s testimony supports my observation in a previous post that her behavior seemed indicative of clinical depression, a phenomenon that takes on a life of its own.) It’s a sad story, even a tragic one.
None of this excuses breaking the law (if laws are shown to be broken). None of it exonerates the McDonnells for showing terrible judgment by accepting gifts from Williams. Wrong is wrong, whatever the psychological explanation. But it does provide a context for understanding and interpreting what happened. And the picture we’re getting is of a vulnerable woman preyed upon by Williams to extract political favors from the administration.
Or, as my Washington Post writing partner Paul Goldman put it, this is all much more sinister:
Let me be brutally frank: If you believe McDonnell’s defense lawyers, then the former governor pimped out his wife to Jonnie Williams. Indeed, the best pro-defense witness so far said she, and presumably others, were actually hoping Jonnie and Maureen had hooked-up.
So let me say it again: If you believe McDonnell’s defense lawyers, then Bob McDonnell pimped out his wife.
Iceberg Slim would have understood. Bob needed the easy money. Jonnie Williams had been eager to provide it. According to Bob’s defense lawyers, Mrs. McDonnell raged out-of-control, leaving her struggling in a public position she didn’t like, in a marriage she couldn’t stand, and facing money problems she blamed on her husband.
As defense witness Janet Vestal Kelly admitted, everyone around McDonnell wanted to off-load the Maureen problem on someone else. She personally talked to the governor about the need to find a way to deal with the situation, if only for his benefit.
The defense’s defense is clear: The financial benefit received by the former governor is on her, not him. They say he did nothing to justify Mr. Williams giving him a dime.
Opening up the obvious question: Why did Mr. Williams do it, and at the very moment the former governor needed it? The Defense’s answer: Williams did it on account of his relationship with Mrs. McDonnell.
That’s hard-core stuff.
But in both interpretations, Mrs. McDonnell is a victim of the men around her.
How does this change, if at all, the jury’s view of the charges against the McDonnells? I think WRVA’s Jimmy Barrett came closest to determining that this morning, when he said (and I’m paraphrasing), that we get it: Maureen was a problem. But what did you do about any of it, Bob?
So far, he appears to have done very little at all. And that is the point. McDonnell has to be the man who did nothing in order to beat the rap.
By looking like he’s done nothing, however, McDonnell also looks like a hapless cuckold. Or, if you agree with Paul, more like a cold-blooded monster.
