Ted Haggard’s Plea for Money Reproved: His "overseers have invalidated his money plea…
Why did Larry Craig resign? Were he innocent, would he have plead guilty in Minnesota? Would he have resigned? I don’t think so. While I don’t disagree with all the political analysis, my own included, I find it impossible to believe that if he were really innocent, he would have resigned. Therefore, he must not be innocent. But that’s not the end. Now, he’s hired a big lawyer:
Sen. Larry Craig has retained Washington lawyer Billy Martin to determine his options in his Minnesota disorderly conduct case. Martin most recently represented NFL player Michael Vick in his dog-fighting case. He also represented Monica Lewinsky’s mother in her grand jury appearance. Martin says, "The arrest of any citizen raises very serious constitutional questions, especially when that citizen says that he is innocent and pled guilty in an attempt to avoid public embarrassment. Senator Craig, like every other American citizen, deserves the full protection of our laws. He has the right to pursue any and all legal remedies available as he begins the process of trying to clear his good name."
There’s a tortured logic here. He’s arrested and charged with something that’s against the law. He pleads guilty. When it becomes public, he resigns from the Senate. He apparently is now saying that both his plea and his resignation were to avoid embarassment, but that he’s innocent, raising "constitutional questions."
If Larry Craig is guilty, he’s a liar. If Larry Craig is innocent, he’s a fool. But the whole story parades an attitude before us that deserves pondering. Like others we have to deal with in public office, in spite of what his lawyer says, he thinks he is above the law. The moment of truth was his flashing his Senatorial Identity to the policeman, an act that says, "I’m Special. I’m in the Ruling Class." I don’t think that the "I plead guilty to avoid embarassment" argument is going to make it as a general legal precedent in the courts any more than "[I’m a Senator] what do you think about that?"
YOU SAY ‘ I find it impossible to believe that if he were really innocent, he would have resigned. Therefore, he must not be innocent. ‘ COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF WHY IF SOMEONE FINDS IT IMPOSIBLE TO BELIEVE A FACT OR OTHER INFORMSTION ‘THEREFORE’ A PERSON ‘ MUST NOT BE INNOCENT’ ?? THE WORD ‘MUST’ MEANS THERE IS NO TWO WAYS ABOUT THE FACT OF GUILT. ‘MUST’ MEANS COMPELLING FACTS HAVE BEEN PROVED, WHEN A PERSON FINDS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BELIVE SOMETHING THIS IS NOT A FACT, THIS IS JUST A BELIEF OR LACK OF BELIEF.
I WOULD APPRECIATE AN ANSWER TO ‘WHY BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT BELIEVE SOMTHING THAT SOMEONEELSE HAS TO, MUSTBE , BE GUILTY??
THANK YOU WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER
“Compelling facts” are proved in a trial. There was no trial because he plead “guilty.” He then said, “but I’m innocent.” He then resigned from the Senate over the incident. If he’s pleading “guilty” and the “resigning” from the Senate, we conclude, he must not be innocent – because any place where that innocence could be formally declared, he does the opposite thing. But I gather you think otherwise. Feel free to tell us what you think…