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 didnt have to disclose Williamss loan because he held no personal liability for it, wouldnt he have come to the same conclusion about the Davis loan?
Isnt 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 youve come up with here?