I was reading this editorial
from the Winston-Salem Journal and can’t help but read it as a
preemptive defense of House Speaker Black. Maybe I’m reading more
into it than I should. In my opinion though, it could’ve been the
talking points from Black’s attorneys.
I want to stress that Black needs to be presumed innocent and I
really hope that he is presumed innocent (no matter what anyone thinks
of him). Also, it would be nice if the media discussed why
he (and other defendants in any case) may be innocent, instead of
constantly discussing why he may be guilty.
The editorial though seems like a legal strategy and preemptive defense for Black:
“Now
the question has to be, will any jury ever believe anything that Decker
says? If Black’s lawyers are considering a defense strategy at this
time, it would almost certainly have to contain a strong attack on
Decker’s credibility.”
Good legal suggestions.
My favorite:
“If that bargain means turning his back on
the man with whom he made his deal in 2003 – whether that deal was
legal politics as Black claims or illegal as Decker has now pleaded –
it was what Michael Decker had to do for his own best interest. That he
would betray someone who treated him with respect – as Decker said
Black always did – should not surprise those who know Decker well.
After winning the support of his district’s very conservative
Republican voters in 10 consecutive elections, Decker turned his back
on them and switched parties.”
I’m not defending Decker, but:
Is
he a bad guy for “turning his back on” Black, for betraying the man
“who treated him with respect.” Is the paper suggesting that he
shouldn’t testify?
This editorial, at least from my reading, is
less about Decker (even though it is filled with a lot of attacks), and
more of a way to impeach Decker in order to defend Black.
