posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:50 PM
I have no loyalty to this guy, or whatever it is he supports or is supposed to stand for. But he did engage in activities that at least gave the
impression of impropriety, and thus shouldn't be allowed in public office..., but by that token neither should 85% of our elected offcials.
But they went through all the effort to prosecute him, destroyed his re-election bid, unless he has no shame, it can be said that they humiliated him
and brought extreme disrepute to his name.
Now, it turns out that the prosecution seems to have withheld exculpatory information, performed dubious transactions to get their case made and
brought to court, and were generally sleazy in their conduct.
So he is cleared? In what way? Once brought, the charges were heard, and he was deemed guilty.
How does the fact that the prosecutors should be tried change the facts of the case?
This doesn't sound like justice to me.