when you start off with such outlandish and unsubstantiated statements as "another Goode briber" in your title.

Duke Cunningham was bribed.  He accepted large amounts cash, valuable property, sweetheart real estate deals, vacations, etc., in exchange for political favors.

Virgil Goode received campaign donations from people who, as it turns out, were reimbursed by their boss for those donations... with no indication from anyone that Goode knew or should have known about the reimbursements.

That's all. 

Watching Goode-haters play this up into some kind of scandal, and calling it bribery is pretty sad.  Even the most aggressive & liberal investigative reporters in Washington, who LIVE for this sort of thing -- especially involving Republicans -- have dropped it because there's nothing there.

Maybe you'll figure it out one of these days, too.  But I suspect not until candidate Weed loses by 30 points (again).

... when it's clear you don't have reading comprehension skills.

First, from the source:

"congressional bribery probe."

Second, it doesn't appear the you know the definition of bribe - you can bribe someone without them knowing it. 

Bribery definitely occurred -- Whether Goode was smart enough to know what was happening is the issue now.

You're suggesting, then, that every elected official has taken bribes.  If an official ever does anything to the benefit of a campaign donor, they were bribed.  That's what you're saying.  You might want to rethink that one.

A "bribery probe" is an investigation.  The fact that such an investigation is taking place does not mean that any particular person has taken bribes.  Go back to your m-w site and look up "investigation" or "probe." 

That last post just made you look even dumber.  If "bribery definitely occurred" there's no need for a probe, and we should be hearing about Virgil's indictment any day now.  Right?  I mean, it definitely occurred, so you claim, so the criminal charges are right around the corner.

If a legislator accepts a donation and then gives the donor preferential treatment because of the donation--that's considered a bribe. 

However, in this case it sounds like the point of controversy involves the MZM contractor, not Goode. 

1. You'd have to demonstrate that Goode was aware of the 3rd party reimbursement scheme.
2. The lobbyist/contractor would have no reason to tell Goode about the scheme, and I'm sure that Goode wouldn't have wanted to know about it either.

From Goode's point of view these donations may very well have looked legitimate.  He had no way of necessarily knowning that a 3rd party was going to be reimbursing the contributors.  When it was revealed to Goode that the donations were illegal, he took the appropriate action.

Does this completely excuse Goode?  Not necessarily.  It's possible that Goode was aware of the MZM contractor's reputation--and still did business with him.  Up to this point, however, I'd agree with I.Publius that this doesn't begin to resemble the Randy Duke Cunningham scandal.  That was a truly blantant case of corruption. 

We're not talking about every elected official.  We're talking about men who have pled guilty to illegal contributions.  So, the fact I called that man a "briber" is entirely accurate.  Look at that definition again - the verb "bribe" is an affirmative act by one person.  Of course, you don't address that point.  That would involve arguing on the merit, not irrelevancies like "every other elected official".

I make pretty clear in the post that Virgil is saying he didn't do anything wrong. Did you not read that part?  In fact, the whole point of this diary was to show that Virgil is connected to this bribery mess and that his "I had no idea" defense might backfire in different ways.

because he DIDN'T do anything wrong.  He had no reason to believe the contributions were anything other than legit.  The contributions were all purportedly from very well compensated employees of MZM.  Not too uncommon to get $2,000 donations from the well-to-do.

Calling the payor a briber strongly implies that the payee knows he's being bribed.  There is not one shred, not one iota of evidence to suggest that MZM got anything more than they would've gotten with or without contributions.

Virgil has always wanted to help M'ville and the rest of that part of the state.  He saw a way to get high-paying jobs to the area, and he helped make it happen.  But, to all the Virgil-haters, it's all his fault that the company turned out to be crooked.

The guy tried to bribe Virgil, so I called him a briber. It comports 100% with the definition of the word I linked for you - which you have still failed to address.

Whatever you think it implies is beside the point of what I know I meant (and have since explained to you). 

On your last point, it's at least his fault that he was too dense to realize people were trying to bribe him.

Keep calling "I. Publius" on his eternal failure to address arguments, to MAKE coherent arguments, or to avoid committing one of those logical fallacies I listed the other day:

*Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

*Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

*Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

*Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

*Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

*Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

*Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made

In the 2004 election cycle, Goode's largest contributor was MZM; its political action committee and its employees, including Wade, gave a total of $48,551, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Goode was the principal sponsor of a provision in 2003 defense legislation that called for the creation of a military center in his district, known as the Foreign Supplier Assessment Center, which MZM was hired to run, said a senior defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

The official added that the center, which is meant to check on the ownership of foreign companies that contract with the Defense Department, will do useful work, but was not a Pentagon priority and was not requested by the Defense Department. It was mandated by Goode on MZM's behalf, the official said.

If you look at all Goode's donations from 2005, you find that the entire amount, $48,625, appears to come from MZM. Seven checks for $2,000 each were written by women who appear to be wives of MZM executives. All seven women share the name and home town of an MZM exec who donated the $2,000 max, and all contributions were made in the same 3/2 - 3/11 time frame as the others.

Yeah, there is nothing to see here folks, move along...

I find it impossible to believe that any reasonable person looking at those donations would not have serious concerns that such a collection of large donations from one corporation would raise the question of impropriety. At the very least.

They gave about 90K to Virgil's campaign altogether.  And if he did not question those donations, he was behaving irresponsibly.  If he did question those donations, then what was the response?

Standing next to Goode at an opening ceremony in November 2003, Wade said the Martinsville facility would bring 150 high-paying jobs within three years.

As of December 2005, there were 30 people working for the company.

That number comes from an annual report the city of Martinsville submitted to the state. The report was required by a performance agreement linked to $500,000 in state incentive grants that went to the MZM operation.

The agreement was unusual because it holds the city of Martinsville -- not MZM -- responsible if the company fails to meet its projections of 75 jobs and $4.4 million in capital investments. Although the company had promised 150 jobs, the performance agreement calls for half that number because the positions pay about twice the area's average wage.

Investment to date in the project is about $3.8 million, according to the report. That includes Federal and State taxpayer dollars.

During negotiations, Wade offered only half of what the vacant building that his company moved into was worth, and declined to apply for incentives, according to previously released documents. It was Goode who suggested that the city be held accountable for the grants, the records state.

Well thank you very much Virgil - sticking Martinsville with the tab for your sweetheart campaign financing.  Are you going to repay that debt?  Maybe you should do what other southsiders are doing - get a night job.

>Wade offered only half of what the vacant building that his company moved into was worth

Based on what, the city's asking price?  M'ville had several shell buildings that sat empty & on the market for several years.  Virgil helped one of them to sell.  M'ville was thrilled to finally get something back on its investment.

>Well thank you very much Virgil - sticking Martinsville with the tab

You're a little late on this one, champ.  The Virgil-haters have been harping on this non-issue for well over a year.  Martinsville gladly took on that obligation because MZM would have taken their business elsewhere if they hadn't.  And also because Warner-Kaine gave assurances that no such repayment would ever be demanded.

But please do let us know if/when M'ville has to pay something -- anything.  As it stands, despite the corruption at that defense contractor, the city has benefitted from the FSAC's presence there, and all indications are that it will continue to so benefit, since that facility isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Oh, now I feel better. 

And I don't hate Virgil, he just isn't Representative-grade material.

Please I.Publius, let’s not have any more crocodile tears split over Virgil the victim! Virgil’s been in this game for many years. He knows how it works. He’s on the “lets make a deal” Appropriations Committee and did his own deal to get there.

Virgil could have looked for, say, a company that manufactured body armor – something the Pentagon and Virginians in Iraq and Afghanistan needed. Did he look to find ways to bring jobs to the 5th for something the military requested? No. Instead he looks to siphon away funds from the military budget for something the Pentagon did not ask for.

Virgil and MZM cooked up this idea to create a database of suppliers and look for crooks. In the case of MZM, this was contracting the fox to look for suspicious chickens.

Then the MZM execs hand Virgil a bundle of “employee” contribution checks. Since the employer, at the very least, organized check collection, they knew who contributed and who did not. The moral and ethical problems were clear the moment Virgil grabbed the checks. As it turns out, what should have sent up red flags for any reasonable person, turned out to be, in fact, criminal.

Virgil’s response? I’m a victim (aka idiot). Please! This good ‘ol boy has been around the barn way to many times for that to be believed. This is not a matter of “Virgil haters”. This is a matter of a non-productive, competency challenged Congressman being asked to account for the public trust placed in him.

Is Virgil stepping up to the plate and helping solve a problem he helped to create? Is he using his highly touted position on the Appropriations Committee? No. He whistling past the graveyard and passing the responsibility to someone else.

What do we get instead of candor and help? Virgil’s sycophants telling us that the Martinsville deal was really a good thing. What next; are you going to tell us that Iraq was a smart move?

for M'ville and/or the Pentagon, then it will simply lose its funding, right?  If no one at the Pentagon wanted it, as some of you know-it-alls keep saying, then there's no way that little ol' Virgil Goode can keep getting it funded, especially considering the microscope he's under with regards to the FSAC.

But I suppose you think that the DoD acts in unison in everything it does, and one big floating head makes decisions.  Yeah, that must be it.  In that case, the big floating head will stick to its earlier decision that it doesn't want the FSAC at all, and refuse to renew the contract. 

Right?

That the Pentagon blackballed MZM over this little thing,right? All.Funding.Gone.

They have sold the Martinsville facility and the contract to some new shell - but that wouldn't have anything to do with a certain Republican Administration taking care of a certain Republican Representative that finds himself in hot water during an election year would it?

But you keep making up spin I.Publius, its funny. When you are done making excuses for Virgil Goode, maybe you can make up a few for the do-nothing Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform - Tom Davis (R.Va CD 11) he's looking for a reason not to talk about Virgil Goode's ethical lapses as well.  In fact, ol' Tom is up to his bow-tie in crooked colleagues.

But that's ok.  At least you're dependably wrong.

MZM no longer exists.  However, the company that was MZM is very much alive and thriving -- it simply changed hands and changed its name.  MZM was acquired by a holding company called Veritas, who then renamed it to Athena Innovative Solutions.  The company's board is substantially different from the one of a year ago, and its officers are mostly new, particulary the Pres & CEO.  Everything else is the same.

The shell building in M'ville has been sold exactly one time -- when the city sold it to MZM.  It was never sold thereafter.  Veritas acquired the building when it acquired MZM. 

Athena, which is essentially the same company that was formerly known as MZM, hasn't been blackballed by anybody.  The same work is being done by substantially the same people in the same facility.  All the contracts that had been awarded under MZM's blanket purchase agreement (BPA) have been ordered re-bid, which is going on now.  Athena may very well keep all of its contracts (hardly blackballed, eh?) or it may lose them all.  Or it may keep some and lose some.

The BPA was revoked, but the contracts MZM had are still being worked by Athena.  So your cutsie little "All.Funding.Gone" snip is another falsehood, presumably due to your ignorance.  But again... that's ok.  Ignorance from you is par for the course.

from this smackdown, huh?  Can't say I blame you.  Busted on your laughable attempt to talk about something that you know nothing about, and getting caught just making up any ol' shit you feel like.

Have a nice day, sport.