Dec 3, 2023·edited Dec 3, 2023Liked by Randall Eliason
A very informative and enjoyable read as always, Randall! I still don’t understand how candidates facing such charges can be allowed to run due office. The presumption of innocence shouldn’t supersede the potential risk for shielding a criminal from prosecution by putting him/her in office. The question of candidate guilt should be resolved before they are allowed to campaign for election. Just look at the Santos fiasco!
Thanks - and thank you for subscribing! I guess we're supposed to trust that the voters will have the common sense not to nominate someone who is facing 91 felony counts. We may soon see whether that trust is justified.
A very informative and enjoyable read as always, Randall! I still don’t understand how candidates facing such charges can be allowed to run due office. The presumption of innocence shouldn’t supersede the potential risk for shielding a criminal from prosecution by putting him/her in office. The question of candidate guilt should be resolved before they are allowed to campaign for election. Just look at the Santos fiasco!
Thanks - and thank you for subscribing! I guess we're supposed to trust that the voters will have the common sense not to nominate someone who is facing 91 felony counts. We may soon see whether that trust is justified.