RICHMOND, Va. – A bi-partisan group of former attorney generals, and long-time supporters, celebrated Monday’s Supreme Court decision to throw out the conviction of former governor Bob McDonnell.
It is a ruling that most likely spares the governor and his wife Maureen from going to prison.
McDonnell said the support of friends and family has helped him in the days that followed his 2014 conviction on 11 counts involving federal corruption; Maureen was found guilty on nine counts.
"The second thing that sustained him was a deep core belief that he was innocent; he knew he didn't break the law,” said Janet Kelly, former Secretary of the Commonwealth.
While Chief Justice John Roberts called the case distasteful, he feared what he calls the legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.
Prosecutors argued McDonnell acted officially by providing access to wealthy business man Jonnie Williams, in exchange for lavish gifts and loans.
Defense attorneys said he simply offered routine political courtesies.
The case has divided Virginians and has also prompted many to call for change.
"There's a lot of politicians, I won't name, who aren't being held to the same accountability that he was held to,” said one voter.
"Sometimes politicians can get away with things that other people can't and they use the laws that they make to get away with it,” said another.
"I'd hope something in an elected position like that wouldn't take advantage of the position he was in,” added another.
Bill Bolling, former Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, and a personal friend of McDonnell’s said he hopes federal prosecutors choose not to retry the case.
He believes mistakes were made but laws were never broken.
Yet the legacy of Bob McDonnell has forever been changed.
"Where does a man go to get his reputation back,” Bolling said. "Where does he go to get his family back? Where does he go to get his life back?"
“I hope the people of Virginia will remember the good this man accomplished as governor of our state," he added.
The SCOTUS decision
The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously threw out the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.
The 8-0 decision leaves open the possibility McDonnell can be retried but his current conviction is vacated.
"Because the jury was not correctly instructed on the meaning of 'official act,' it may have convicted Governor McDonnell for conduct that is not unlawful," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "For that reason, we cannot conclude that the errors in the jury instructions were 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' We accordingly vacate Governor McDonnell's convictions."
At issue is what constitutes the scope of "official action" under federal corruption law.
In 2014, McDonnell was convicted of 11 counts by a federal jury that found that he violated the law when he and his wife received money and loans (around $175,000 and a Rolex watch) from Jonnie R. Williams, the CEO of a Virginia based company called Star Scientific. Williams at the time was seeking state support in a bid to get FDA approval for a dietary supplement his company was developing called Antabloc.
The government argued that McDonnell received loans, deluxe shopping trips and golf outings and in return used the power of his office to help Williams' company.
McDonnell -- who attended oral arguments with his wife Maureen -- asked the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction. In 2015, he had been on the verge of reporting to prison for his two-year sentence when the court allowed him to stay out of jail pending his appeal.
McDonnell's lawyers argued that his actions were limited to routine political courtesies and he never put his thumb on a scale by exercising government power on Williams' behalf.
The case centered around the question of what constitutes the scope of an "official action" under federal corruption law -- and at oral arguments several justices searched for the proper line to draw between the regular activities of a politician, and actions that could violate corruption laws.
Public officials, as well as those who appear before them have been carefully watching the case to see the boundaries they face when interacting with constituents, donors and business leaders.
McDonnell's lawyers said that the governor's actions were limited to routine political courtesies such as arranging meetings, asking questions and attending events and that he never exercised any government power on behalf of Williams.
Noel Francisco, a lawyer for McDonnell, argued that the lower courts stretched "corruption laws beyond recognition."
"This case marks the first time in our history that a public official has been convicted of corruption despite never agreeing to put a thumb on the scales of any government decision," Francisco argued in court papers. Francisco told the justices that in order someone to violate the law, they would need to either make a decision on behalf of the government or try to use his influence to pressure another person with governmental power to make a decision on an action.
He said that the government's position in the case puts "every federal, state and local official nationwide in its prosecutorial crosshairs."
At oral arguments, justices also questioned the scope of federal laws prosecutors used to convict McDonnell and struggled with where the line is between routine political action and the "official act" that would trigger corruption statutes.
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that former White House counsels on both sides of the aisle argued in a brief that if the lower court decision is upheld it would, "cripple the ability of elected officials to fulfill their role in a representative democracy."
The skepticism cut across the bench, with more liberal Justice Stephen Breyer being the most vigorous questioner of the government and expressing concern that the Justice Department could wield "enormous power" and that prosecutors could be "overly zealous." He also repeatedly stressed concern that such laws could put at risk "behavior that is common."
