How Exactly Do We Know That Blago Is Corrupt?
It is apparently widespread conventional wisdom that Blago is "corrupt".
Here's a governor who has never been convicted of anything (as far as I know), has not even been indicted, yet even that wouldn't truly allow the use of the label "corrupt", would it?
It just seems like it is a given he is corrupt simply because a US Attorney says so. Is that enough? Should that be enough? Should partial transcripts from a criminal complaint be enough? Is seeming to be "creepy" enough?
I just wonder what kind of horrible precedent [by Democratic leaders, especially, in their hurry to fall over themselves condemning this man] we are setting. Does anytime a prosecutor file corruption type charges against a sitting governor, senator, whatever, mean from now on guilty of being corrupt until proven innocent?
You have to wonder if the glee Democrats have taken from the Abramoff scandal (and the many actual convictions resulting therefrom) has somehow forced them to "jump the shark" so to speak in convicting one of their own in sad sort of "...Caesar's wife must be above suspicion..." way.
What good can come of this?




