One of the more amusing subplots in the grand jury’s report on our very own Loudoun supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) concerns the blatantly perjured testimony of “the retired pastor of a prominent Loudoun County community church.”
According to the grand jury’s report, the man of God during his first appearance before the grand jury had vehemently denied under oath that he had ever given Delgaudio, or any other politician, any campaign donation. No such contribution was reported by Delgaudio in his legally required filings of campaign contributions, either.
But numerous witnesses (including one of Delgaudio’s fellow GOP supervisors) testified that the right rev himself had told them he had delivered $5,000 in cash to Delgaudio. And other evidence and testimony clearly confirmed that the rev had also handed out envelopes with cash or checks to other GOP supervisor candidates. Furthermore, Delgaudio himself wrote “$5,000 donor” on the envelope that the rev had handed over, and told his aide to send the rev a thank you note.
When recalled to testify again before the grand jury, the man of God again — at first, that is — utterly denied ever having given Delgaudio or other candidates any money. Confronted with a copy of a cashed check signed by him and made out to one local GOP candidate, the rev suddenly developed a tragic case of amnesia: he had no memory of signing the check, he said, and explained that he had “memory problems.” Confronted with the testimony of another GOP supervisor (probably Scott York) — who told the grand jury that after the rev’s first appearance he had spoken with the rev on the phone and the rev explained that the five gees in cash was not his money but rather money he had collected from others, so he was really telling the truth by denying he had given any money to Delgaudio — the rev said he could not recall any such phone conversation, and still could not remember ever having handed Delgaudio any money.
“In general,” concluded the grand jury, “whenever this pastor was presented with evidence that contradicted his original sworn testimony, he would change his testimony to indicate that he then had no recollection. Although perjury charges were considered, no action was ultimately taken in regard to this individual due to his change of testimony and another extenuating circumstance.”
As they say in the church: praise the Lord!