Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Prosecutor pokes holes in McDonnell's explanations
From WAPO's liveblog
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/liveblog-live/liveblog/updates-day-22-of-the-mcdonnell-corruption-trial/?wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1
But, as Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Dry pointed out, McDonnell also omitted another loan on that same personal financial statement. This one was from Paul Davis and was also made out to MoBo. However in this instance, McDonnell did sign a document that made him personally liable for the loan.
Dry was pointing to an inconsistency: If McDonnell actually reasoned out at the time that he didn’t have to disclose Williams’s loan because he held no personal liability for it, wouldn’t he have come to the same conclusion about the Davis loan?
Isn’t it true, Dry insisted, that the reason why there is no requirement to disclose Williams’ loan is because there was no personal guarantee. Is that “an after-the-fact legal justification that you’ve come up with here?”
