The crazy wife defense

Wash. Post columnist Eugene Robinson writes:

How far would you go to stay out of jail? Would you publicly humiliate your wife of 38 years, portraying her as some kind of shrieking harridan? Would you put the innermost secrets of your marriage on display, inviting voyeurs to rummage at will?

For Robert McDonnell, the former Virginia governor on trial for alleged corruption, the answers appear to be: “As far as necessary,” “Hey, why not?” and “Sounds like a plan.”

He had no choice. The feds are trying to send him to prison, and they nearly always succeed. He is accused of a corrupt conspiracy with his wife. He is a conservative Republican governor who publicly defended his crazy wife, but continuing to do so would send him to prison.

McDonnell testified that Maureen McDonnell was so volatile that the entire staff at the governor’s mansion signed a petition threatening to quit if her behavior didn’t improve. “She would yell at me,” he told the court. “She would tell me I was taking staff’s side, that I didn’t know what was really going on over there.”

He said he believed his wife needed professional counseling, though it was unclear whether he tried very hard to convince her to seek it. He spoke of the family’s severe financial problems, which included large credit card bills, and said that “it just seemed like there was too much stuff that she was buying.”

Sounds like a crazy bitch to me.

It is sad that a politician with a reputation as a Virginia gentleman would mount such an ungallant defense. And it is clear that in this case, at least, it took two to make a dysfunctional marriage.

Ungallant? Must he goto prison for his crazy and disloyal wife's behavior?

No, it is not take two to make a dysfunctional marriage. It takes two to make a successul marriage, but only one to ruin it.

A jury will decide whether McDonnell was an honest public servant. By his own account, he wasn’t much of a husband.

Maybe he is a saint for putting up with her for 38 years.

I have no idea if they will be found guilty or not. As usual, I believe they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The feds have a history of trying to unjustly frame politicians like this, such as what they did to Ted Stevens. (He was convicted and run out of office on phony charges, and was eventually acquitted on appeal.)