Please see my post of 4/1/12, "MY TAKE ON THE HEALTH CARE LAW". It coincides with SCOTUS in its historic decision on Obamacare. Take heart, you sinners. Every once in awhile, you get it right.
Who's the hero? Chief Justice John Roberts. Known for his conservative bent, he stood tall and did what what he believed was the right thing to do. He wrote the opinion, with which four liberal justices concurred. Giant judicial cojones. The Solicitor General had made scant mention of Congress' taxing power in his argument before the Court, but the Chief Justice turned to the four liberals and said, "follow me for I shall lead the way." And they did.
Every once in a while, a Judge, regardless of position in the judicial hierarchy, finds himself faced with a situation which beckons his conscience, the strict construction of a statute, notwithstanding.
In a jury waived trial before me, a nineteen year old woman was charged with illegal possession of a handgun. She faced a mandatory minimum of eighteen months if convicted. She had no prior record.The evidence established the following facts: She was on a date with a rogue on whom there were several outstanding warrants. A cop spotted the guy (no stranger to law enforcement) and ran towards him, intending to make an arrest. The man broke into a trot, the woman running alongside. They turned into an alley, whereupon he pulled a gun from his pocket, handed it to the woman, saying, "hurry, put this in your purse." She did. The cop saw this move, arrested the man, searched the woman's purse and retrieved the gun. Thus, the charge on trial.
Had the woman technically violated the statute? Of course. Was it the legislative intent to embrace this type of conduct when it promulgated eighteen months in the can? Not by my standard of right and wrong---not to mention fairness. I found the woman not guilty. I did, what to me, was the right thing. The prosecutor winked ever so slightly. He knew me, and was neither surprised nor perturbed.
Strangely enough, Roberts made no reference to my case in his written opinion, but he no doubt had it in mind. (be cool, man, I'm kidding.)
I salute his courage as he forged his place in history. Confirmation of his judicial integrity was to be found in Scalia's facial expression as the justices filed into the courtroom. His buttocks had been flogged.
Justice! In the United States Supreme Court!
What'll they think of next?
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
IS RIELLE FOR REAL?
Today, I watched two interviews of Rielle Hunter on two national networks. A third is scheduled for tonight.
Ms. Hunter, as I'm sure most of you know, was (is?) the mistress of former Senator John Edwards who fathered their out-of-wedlock love child. Edwards avoided conviction on a very questionable federal indictment and Hunter has just published a juicy, detailed account of their affair from beginning to end, sparing nothing and nobody. This includes Edward's late wife who was battling cancer while the fling was flourishing. Edwards caused large sums of money to be spent for the purpose of attempting to conceal the entire sordid mess from the public at a time when he was running for president of the United States. If you wrote this in script form for a movie, you'd be involuntarily committed. In the pull-no-punches tome, Hunter keeps the gloves off when making extremely negative references to the late Mrs. Edwards. Her book is a bomb-tosser.
The interviewers were obviously loaded for bear and eager to effectuate a public crucifixion of this demon from hell. But, a funny thing happened in the midst of the forum. They didn't lay a glove on Hunter. She handled every question without once losing her composure. She remained cool, calm and collected. Even though it involved an admission of adultery and other shunned behavior, she told the truth as she believed it to be. Impregnable armor.
Make no mistake, she is one tough cookie. And she is smart. She couldn't be pushed around and when asked the "why" questions, she didn't duck. She never flinched.
I know what I did was wrong.
I wrote the book because I'm tired of hiding and, yes, I'll use the proceeds to stay afloat.
I still love him but we've agreed to no longer be together even though I believe he still loves me.
Things like this happen in life. People take wrong turns.
And I found myself struck by her courage and candor. To segregate all adulterers would require the territorial takeover of another planet. Go back to the Garden of Eden to find the first sin.
Being a Judge by profession taught me to tread carefully where human directions were at stake. And now, as I round the stretch of life, I tend to keep my guns holstered.
Have I made mistakes? Hah! (If they asked me) I could write a book. I look with great severity upon people who pose a threat to society. The non-violent transgressors are a different story.
If an individual screws up his/her life, many problems must be dealt with. Impropriety brings its own set of consequences. However, a societal mob of condemnation is not my cup of tea.
The conduct of Rielle Hunter did me nor mine no harm. I'll take a pass on joining any hate club. I have never been a believer in "scarlet letters" and I am not a fan of first stone throwers. I neither condone nor condemn her behavior. It's simply none of my business.
Ms. Hunter appears to be a loving and devoted mother. If she finds happiness, I shall experience no frustration.
Who knows, the two lovers may yet reunite.
Sex and love go together like a horse and carriage.
It's what makes the world go 'round.
'Tis a many splendored thing.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
EDWARDS TRIAL: THE OMINOUS WEEKEND
Final arguments in a murder- one trial. My opponent was an experienced prosecutor. Nothing flashy--more of a professorial type--but steady-as-she-goes, covering all the bases. He wouldn't lose a case, you'd have to beat him. But fair and square all the way.
I was fully prepared for my closing. I had crafted it for maximum dramatic impact. All the important defense points were carefully arranged, like a Nelson Riddle orchestration for Frank Sinatra. I had gone over it again and again before my hotel room wall audience, tweaking and polishing until my personal standard had been satisfied. And the homework paid off. I had the jury in the palm of my hand, and my last line was accompanied by me standing behind my client's chair with my hands clutching his shoulders. A pause in that position, attended by deafening silence in the courtroom, finally punctuated by a solemn and sincere "Thank you." Five seconds passed (I had been on my feet for ninety minutes), and then the judge called a brief recess. The jury and the SRO spectators filed out of the courtroom with nary a word being uttered. My adrenalin was at the max. I wasn't emotionally spent, but rather high, with the uplift that only a grand-slam closing argument can provide.
The District Attorney used a blackboard and a pointer to make his case. All very tutorial and mechanical. Almost boring when compared to my presentation. I felt very confident.
And then, something, innocuous at the time, happened. The judge glanced at the clock. which read 3:30pm, and recessed until the following morning. That evening proved to be quite restless and foreboding. Something began to gnaw at me. My euphoria at having put my counterpart away in closing argument slowly faded. The jury, by virtue of the mid-afternoon recess, had been given time to think analytically. The endurance of the spell I had woven with my dynamic presentation was being severely tested. The methodical approach of the D.A. might be gaining strength. If jury deliberations had begun immediately after final arguments, there wouldn't have been enough time for this to happen. There was nothing I could do about it, but my apprehension steadily grew.
The next day, after seven hours of deliberation, the jury found my client guilty. My magic had worn off during the overnight hiatus. That experience is forefront in my mind as I apply it to the John Edwards trial.
Abbe Lowell was brilliant in his summation. The jury must have been mightily impressed by his sincere passion and eloquence. I'm sure, if he had his druthers, he would have had the jury continue their deliberation straight through the weekend, without a two day interruption. That way, the momentum of his eloquence would have had the maximum chance of persevering and carrying the day. This is not to say that this may still prove to be the case, but from a defense point of view, it was desirable to have no break in the chain of events. Less chance of Lowell magic dissipation.
I may be making too much of this circumstance. I hope I am. It's just that attorney Lowell nailed it so perfectly when describing his client as a sinner but not a felon. I wish him luck, my intuition notwithstanding.
You can take a lawyer out of the practice of criminal defense law, but you can't take criminal defense law out of the lawyer.
It's the nature of the work.
I was fully prepared for my closing. I had crafted it for maximum dramatic impact. All the important defense points were carefully arranged, like a Nelson Riddle orchestration for Frank Sinatra. I had gone over it again and again before my hotel room wall audience, tweaking and polishing until my personal standard had been satisfied. And the homework paid off. I had the jury in the palm of my hand, and my last line was accompanied by me standing behind my client's chair with my hands clutching his shoulders. A pause in that position, attended by deafening silence in the courtroom, finally punctuated by a solemn and sincere "Thank you." Five seconds passed (I had been on my feet for ninety minutes), and then the judge called a brief recess. The jury and the SRO spectators filed out of the courtroom with nary a word being uttered. My adrenalin was at the max. I wasn't emotionally spent, but rather high, with the uplift that only a grand-slam closing argument can provide.
The District Attorney used a blackboard and a pointer to make his case. All very tutorial and mechanical. Almost boring when compared to my presentation. I felt very confident.
And then, something, innocuous at the time, happened. The judge glanced at the clock. which read 3:30pm, and recessed until the following morning. That evening proved to be quite restless and foreboding. Something began to gnaw at me. My euphoria at having put my counterpart away in closing argument slowly faded. The jury, by virtue of the mid-afternoon recess, had been given time to think analytically. The endurance of the spell I had woven with my dynamic presentation was being severely tested. The methodical approach of the D.A. might be gaining strength. If jury deliberations had begun immediately after final arguments, there wouldn't have been enough time for this to happen. There was nothing I could do about it, but my apprehension steadily grew.
The next day, after seven hours of deliberation, the jury found my client guilty. My magic had worn off during the overnight hiatus. That experience is forefront in my mind as I apply it to the John Edwards trial.
Abbe Lowell was brilliant in his summation. The jury must have been mightily impressed by his sincere passion and eloquence. I'm sure, if he had his druthers, he would have had the jury continue their deliberation straight through the weekend, without a two day interruption. That way, the momentum of his eloquence would have had the maximum chance of persevering and carrying the day. This is not to say that this may still prove to be the case, but from a defense point of view, it was desirable to have no break in the chain of events. Less chance of Lowell magic dissipation.
I may be making too much of this circumstance. I hope I am. It's just that attorney Lowell nailed it so perfectly when describing his client as a sinner but not a felon. I wish him luck, my intuition notwithstanding.
You can take a lawyer out of the practice of criminal defense law, but you can't take criminal defense law out of the lawyer.
It's the nature of the work.
Friday, May 18, 2012
EDWARDS TRIAL: THE MOMENT FOR ABBE LOWELL
From what I read and hear, defense counsel's closing argument of yesterday was nothing short of brilliant. Abbe Lowell covered his face in his hands as he concluded an emotional plea on behalf of John Edwards. He acknowledged his sins, for which he will serve a life sentence of shame, but denied the commission of any crime, negating any basis for conviction and incarceration. Sin, yes. Crime, no. Some jurors were reportedly nodding in agreement as he explained, in detail, why no statute had been violated. I know where he was, as he stood before the jury, speaking from his heart, divesting himself of the pent-up feelings which build throughout the trial. It is that moment of truth which serves as the reward for being a dedicated criminal defense attorney. He was speaking from his soul, and oh, what a payoff for hard work that is.
I have taken issue with his decision to not call his client to the stand, but his basis for this decision was surely grounded on facts to which I was not privy. But, we are members of the same fraternity, us a-little-bit-screwy criminal trial lawyers, the guys who didn't get the message and who emotionally immerse themselves into the frequently unpopular task of defending people accused of crime. It's the most invigorating aspect of being an attorney, enabling the unique opportunity of experiencing its special "juice". The highs are exquisite. The lows can be devastating. It takes its toll, this ultimate emotional experience, but that's the why of it all.
I salute Mr. Lowell for his uncomprimising devotion to his task at hand. He has made me feel proud of my chosen profession. He was obviously fully prepared and gave it his all. He can honestly say that he did the best he could and that, my friends, covers the waterfront.
I pray, for a host of reasons, that he proves my suggested trial strategy wrong.
My adrenalin flows vicariously.
I have taken issue with his decision to not call his client to the stand, but his basis for this decision was surely grounded on facts to which I was not privy. But, we are members of the same fraternity, us a-little-bit-screwy criminal trial lawyers, the guys who didn't get the message and who emotionally immerse themselves into the frequently unpopular task of defending people accused of crime. It's the most invigorating aspect of being an attorney, enabling the unique opportunity of experiencing its special "juice". The highs are exquisite. The lows can be devastating. It takes its toll, this ultimate emotional experience, but that's the why of it all.
I salute Mr. Lowell for his uncomprimising devotion to his task at hand. He has made me feel proud of my chosen profession. He was obviously fully prepared and gave it his all. He can honestly say that he did the best he could and that, my friends, covers the waterfront.
I pray, for a host of reasons, that he proves my suggested trial strategy wrong.
My adrenalin flows vicariously.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
THE EDWARDS TRIAL: THE DEFENSE ERRS
See my posts of 4/15, 5/2 and 5/10 for the proper context of today's opinion.
The defense has rested its case without calling mistress Rielle, daughter Cate or Edwards himself. The prosecution's case was presented in three weeks. The defense took only two days. Some trial observers are concluding that this will send a message to the jury of a profound weakness in the government's case, while others point out the risk involved in subjecting Edwards to cross-examination. Not having been in the courtroom, I only know what I've read in the papers. This disclaimer notwithstanding, I opine that a fatal mistake has been made.
Although Edwards' defense is rather technical, compared to the salacious prosecutorial evidence, it nevertheless rests on plain- talk grounds: he did not knowingly violate the campaign contribution statute. This calls into play his state of mind and is he not the last word on himself?
Forget about any presumption of innocence. Sitting in the defendant's chair does away with that, quite nicely, thank you. The jury wanted to hear Edwards say, "I did some shameful things, but I didn't break the law, and here's why."
Daughter Cate would surely have been a supportive witness, humanizing things with the love for her father, which has been so impressively symbolized by her constant closeness to him throughout the trial. But it was Edwards himself whom the jury sought to evaluate as he looked them in the eye from the witness stand. The defense lawyers chose to play it safe, but at what cost? Risks are inherent in every trial but they are to be assumed The case cried out for the former senator to face the music under cross-examination.
Anything is possible. The attorneys had their reasons to which I am not privy. But, wow. Three weeks versus two days.
I am not relishing the opportunity to play the "I told you so" game for, frankly, my sentiments and sympathieys are with John Edwards, a disgraced man wearing a scarlet letter. He is not a danger to society, however. He doesn't belong in prison.
If he is to go down, I would have preferred to have him swing at three strikes.
The defense has rested its case without calling mistress Rielle, daughter Cate or Edwards himself. The prosecution's case was presented in three weeks. The defense took only two days. Some trial observers are concluding that this will send a message to the jury of a profound weakness in the government's case, while others point out the risk involved in subjecting Edwards to cross-examination. Not having been in the courtroom, I only know what I've read in the papers. This disclaimer notwithstanding, I opine that a fatal mistake has been made.
Although Edwards' defense is rather technical, compared to the salacious prosecutorial evidence, it nevertheless rests on plain- talk grounds: he did not knowingly violate the campaign contribution statute. This calls into play his state of mind and is he not the last word on himself?
Forget about any presumption of innocence. Sitting in the defendant's chair does away with that, quite nicely, thank you. The jury wanted to hear Edwards say, "I did some shameful things, but I didn't break the law, and here's why."
Daughter Cate would surely have been a supportive witness, humanizing things with the love for her father, which has been so impressively symbolized by her constant closeness to him throughout the trial. But it was Edwards himself whom the jury sought to evaluate as he looked them in the eye from the witness stand. The defense lawyers chose to play it safe, but at what cost? Risks are inherent in every trial but they are to be assumed The case cried out for the former senator to face the music under cross-examination.
Anything is possible. The attorneys had their reasons to which I am not privy. But, wow. Three weeks versus two days.
I am not relishing the opportunity to play the "I told you so" game for, frankly, my sentiments and sympathieys are with John Edwards, a disgraced man wearing a scarlet letter. He is not a danger to society, however. He doesn't belong in prison.
If he is to go down, I would have preferred to have him swing at three strikes.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
EDWARDS TRIAL: LIGHTS, CAMERA.....
What the hell is going on here? Media report that even John Edwards own defense attorney has brandished him a liar. That's like being a little bit pregnant. The former senator is the best evidence when it comes to what he didn't know or intend, and the rug has been yanked from under his credibility? Let's take a step back and deduce, as best we can, the facts thus far established by the prosecution, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to it.
The Edwards marriage had been void of romance for years prior to his meeting Rielle Hunter. Some men can adjust to this and accept life accordingly, while others can't. John Edwards fit the latter category. His wife was aware of his dalliances with others, but chose to look the other way. After all, what's temporary doesn't last. Then, Edwards met Ms. Hunter and flipped, head over heels. This relationship did not smack of fleeting. He fathered a child and, realizing that things could no longer be kept under control, panicked at the thought of exposure. He, or someone on his behalf, solicited funds from two wealthy friends for the purpose of making his mistress, and their child, as materially comfortable as possible, so as to keep the lid on things. Public knowledge would ruin him, his marriage and his political ambitions. He entrusted an aide to be the point man, but greed took over, as the aide funneled over a million dollars for his and his wife's benefit. It has not been established, with certainty, whether Edwards knew of this skulduggery. Ultimately, the mess blew up, with severe collateral damage. Mr. and Mrs. Aide turned squealers to save their own butts, wrote and published a rat's book to make more money and wrangled immunity from an over-zealous U.S. Attorney. Edwards wife, battling cancer during the Hunter affair, formally separated from him and subsequently succumbed to the disease. Her mental torment has been described to the jury in devastating detail. Edwards is charged with violating the campaign contribution statute, with the government alleging that the funds in question were hidden and/or falsely treated as gifts. The prosecution shall shortly rest its case-in-chief.
John Edwards is not the first man to commit adultery and to spawn an out-of-wedlock child. But his misconduct has been presented in excruciating detail before a world wide audience. What will his defense be? It's not safe to rely solely on the technical argument that the monies were donated and received as "gifts" because the jury, at this juncture, doesn't like him and, therefore, won't believe him. The situation calls for, as all criminal trials do, something dramatic, which will emotionally supersede the evidentiary damage already inflicted.
If I were Edwards' attorney (be still my heart), this would be my scenario: Stay with me, now.
There is something wrong with the picture thus far painted by the U.S. Attorney. There's a piece missing from the puzzle. A vital and central figure in this morality tale has not been called as a witness: Rielle Hunter, the woman in black.
Both sides have listed her as a potential witness. This automatically keeps her out of the courtroom by virtue of the sequestration rule. She presents herself as a supremely confident woman for whom Edwards would not have fallen, had his marriage been romantically stable. Were the prosecutor to call her, he would be limited by the restraining niceties of direct examination. A crucial factor is that she has been granted immunity by the government. She's feisty and, shall we say, not shy. She would be dynamite on the stand. Defense counsel should call her as a witness. She should be properly prepped for a detailed direct and a withering cross examination. The truth, coming from her, would simultaneously accomplish two things. "Jury Fury" would be redirected towards her and she would penultimately set the stage for the most bombastically climactic conclusion to this trial. John Edwards taking the stand on his behalf. Picture the drama.
In prior posts on this case, I have enunciated my thoughts on why this could be the beginning of John Edwards' salvation and redemption. He would take his punishment in public and to the extreme, nourishing the seeds of forgiveness.
Recall movie scenes of a public hanging. The onlookers have their fists upraised and are screaming for blood. But, once the lever is pulled, and the body is jerkily swaying in the wind, a hush envelopes the crowd, signifying a complete reversal of attitude.
Call it regret or sympathy or pity or whatever.
It's what John Edwards needs.
..................ACTION!
The Edwards marriage had been void of romance for years prior to his meeting Rielle Hunter. Some men can adjust to this and accept life accordingly, while others can't. John Edwards fit the latter category. His wife was aware of his dalliances with others, but chose to look the other way. After all, what's temporary doesn't last. Then, Edwards met Ms. Hunter and flipped, head over heels. This relationship did not smack of fleeting. He fathered a child and, realizing that things could no longer be kept under control, panicked at the thought of exposure. He, or someone on his behalf, solicited funds from two wealthy friends for the purpose of making his mistress, and their child, as materially comfortable as possible, so as to keep the lid on things. Public knowledge would ruin him, his marriage and his political ambitions. He entrusted an aide to be the point man, but greed took over, as the aide funneled over a million dollars for his and his wife's benefit. It has not been established, with certainty, whether Edwards knew of this skulduggery. Ultimately, the mess blew up, with severe collateral damage. Mr. and Mrs. Aide turned squealers to save their own butts, wrote and published a rat's book to make more money and wrangled immunity from an over-zealous U.S. Attorney. Edwards wife, battling cancer during the Hunter affair, formally separated from him and subsequently succumbed to the disease. Her mental torment has been described to the jury in devastating detail. Edwards is charged with violating the campaign contribution statute, with the government alleging that the funds in question were hidden and/or falsely treated as gifts. The prosecution shall shortly rest its case-in-chief.
John Edwards is not the first man to commit adultery and to spawn an out-of-wedlock child. But his misconduct has been presented in excruciating detail before a world wide audience. What will his defense be? It's not safe to rely solely on the technical argument that the monies were donated and received as "gifts" because the jury, at this juncture, doesn't like him and, therefore, won't believe him. The situation calls for, as all criminal trials do, something dramatic, which will emotionally supersede the evidentiary damage already inflicted.
If I were Edwards' attorney (be still my heart), this would be my scenario: Stay with me, now.
There is something wrong with the picture thus far painted by the U.S. Attorney. There's a piece missing from the puzzle. A vital and central figure in this morality tale has not been called as a witness: Rielle Hunter, the woman in black.
Both sides have listed her as a potential witness. This automatically keeps her out of the courtroom by virtue of the sequestration rule. She presents herself as a supremely confident woman for whom Edwards would not have fallen, had his marriage been romantically stable. Were the prosecutor to call her, he would be limited by the restraining niceties of direct examination. A crucial factor is that she has been granted immunity by the government. She's feisty and, shall we say, not shy. She would be dynamite on the stand. Defense counsel should call her as a witness. She should be properly prepped for a detailed direct and a withering cross examination. The truth, coming from her, would simultaneously accomplish two things. "Jury Fury" would be redirected towards her and she would penultimately set the stage for the most bombastically climactic conclusion to this trial. John Edwards taking the stand on his behalf. Picture the drama.
In prior posts on this case, I have enunciated my thoughts on why this could be the beginning of John Edwards' salvation and redemption. He would take his punishment in public and to the extreme, nourishing the seeds of forgiveness.
Recall movie scenes of a public hanging. The onlookers have their fists upraised and are screaming for blood. But, once the lever is pulled, and the body is jerkily swaying in the wind, a hush envelopes the crowd, signifying a complete reversal of attitude.
Call it regret or sympathy or pity or whatever.
It's what John Edwards needs.
..................ACTION!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
THE EDWARDS TRIAL: ISN'T ENOUGH EVER ENOUGH?
Yesterday, the judge allowed a former advisor to John Edwards to recount how the former senator's now-deceased-wife confronted her husband, baring her chest in front of staff members, the day after a tabloid reported that he was cheating on her. A woman, who had endured treatments for breast cancer, took off her shirt and bra and said, "You don't see me anymore."
Ugly stuf, emphasizing what a scurrilous cad Edwards was (is). But, how is this relevant to the ultimate issue of whether he knowingly misused campaign funds? In ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the judge must balance probative value against undue prejudice. With all the salacious details already testified to by former aid Andrew Young and his wife, isn't this overkill to the reversible extreme?
Edwards acted like a pig. Plain and simple, and he has yet to fess up. To be sure, Young and his wife stand exposed to characterizations of greedy, self-serving sycophants, but the jury must, nevertheless, be looking at Edwards with disgust. If his defense is to be based upon the very valid but technical ground that the monies in question were gifts rather than contributions, of which their solicitation and handling he had no knowledge, at least parts of the flung filth will stick to the walls of the jury room. What, then, should he do?
He should subject himself to the unforgiving ordeal of cross-examination under oath. He'll be lashed to the mast and whipped to an inch of his life. Let him admit his misconduct and set forth the "why" of it all. Not to justify but rather to unburden the unbearable weight of living with a constant lie. Tell what you did and what you knew; what you didn't do and what you didn't know.
Does he have it in him to do this? Can he legitimize the desire of his conscience to survive? Bill Clinton managed to resurrect his life because of one factor. Hillary never chose to divorce him and, thusly, stood by him.
Edwards has only himself to blame and, now, to effectuate his redemption.
He must, in a sense, stand by himself.
Ugly stuf, emphasizing what a scurrilous cad Edwards was (is). But, how is this relevant to the ultimate issue of whether he knowingly misused campaign funds? In ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the judge must balance probative value against undue prejudice. With all the salacious details already testified to by former aid Andrew Young and his wife, isn't this overkill to the reversible extreme?
Edwards acted like a pig. Plain and simple, and he has yet to fess up. To be sure, Young and his wife stand exposed to characterizations of greedy, self-serving sycophants, but the jury must, nevertheless, be looking at Edwards with disgust. If his defense is to be based upon the very valid but technical ground that the monies in question were gifts rather than contributions, of which their solicitation and handling he had no knowledge, at least parts of the flung filth will stick to the walls of the jury room. What, then, should he do?
He should subject himself to the unforgiving ordeal of cross-examination under oath. He'll be lashed to the mast and whipped to an inch of his life. Let him admit his misconduct and set forth the "why" of it all. Not to justify but rather to unburden the unbearable weight of living with a constant lie. Tell what you did and what you knew; what you didn't do and what you didn't know.
Does he have it in him to do this? Can he legitimize the desire of his conscience to survive? Bill Clinton managed to resurrect his life because of one factor. Hillary never chose to divorce him and, thusly, stood by him.
Edwards has only himself to blame and, now, to effectuate his redemption.
He must, in a sense, stand by himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)