David Mitchell
I want you all to know that I was really on my best behavior yesterday. I bit my lip and didn't go "political" all day, after watching about 1:30 of the 6 or 7 hours of "hearings" (quite a stretch of the meaning of that word in my opinion).
But I do have a certain question that I would like to pose.
The question of a "credible witness" was only asked - or shouted over one another - about 400 times!
A very valid question. Can someone who has admitted to, and been convicted of criminal behavior offer "credible" testimony? Of course the two sides were in disagreement. I will even withhold my opinion of the behavior of "my party" (supposedly?) in that room. And I have to admit, yes, he did contradict himself several times - ("I Lied, but I am not a liar." -- "I have never been to Prague" -- hmmm?)
The question (slightly reworded) that I ask, "Can a person have a change of heart, and be considered "credible"? - whether due to a guilty conscience or whatever? I'll present my question in the form of other examples;
1) Several thousand years ago a man named Moses (never did get his last name, sorry), was very loyal to, served under, and worked for a very evil man, who had a huge ego, lots of power, and treated the "opposition" in his country like slaves. Then that same guy, Moses, had a change of heart and decided to go against his former "boss". Was he then "credible"?
2) Also a long time ago, a guy named David (no, not "Dave"), saw a hot married chick and decided to have the husband killed so he could get the guy's wife and committ adultery. Sounds like our modern day Mafia, maybe worse. But later David had a change of heart and decided to ask forgiveness, and turn on his old ways and go straight. Was he credible?
3) Back in the 30's in Chicago, a guy named "Easy Eddie" O'Hare was a lawyer and worked for a guy name Al Capone - a really, really bad guy. Easy Eddie was Al's "fixer". For those of you unfamiliar, a term meaning that he "fixed" (usually with bribes or threats, or legal technicalities) all of Al's legal problems - like Murder, Extortion, Gambling, and just your every day run o' the mill Racketeering stuff. But Easy Eddie had a conscience (and a son he loved), and got worried about the legacy he would leave to his son. He too had a major change of heart. He turned states evidence to the FBI and got his boss nailed (and sent to Federal prison) for tax evasion. For that, he was mysteriously shot and killed while driving. Apparantly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found him "credible" - even after all those years of lying and cover-up.
(* Easy Eddie's story has a unique sequal - there is a little airport on the northwest side of Chicage bearing his son's name - - next post)
4) Just last week in New York, a federal grand jury convicted a vicious, sadistic Mexican Drug cartel leader named "El Chappo" Guzman. During the trial (which I followed as best I could in the news) the governement prosecutors paraded numerous witnessess before the court and gave "credibility" to their testimony for the conviction. They included murderers, drug dealers, liars of all sorts, and people who were - yes - being given various forms of amnesty and protection by the prosecution. (and BTW, some of the descriptions were so evil they almost made you sick). The court deemed them "credible". (yes, I heard that there may be a re-trial becaue some jurors watched the news coverage against the Judge's orders).
5) In the vast majority of our cases against organized crime, we give "Credibility" to all kinds of wicked, lying convicts. And yes, there are some mistakes and abuses (Whitey Bolger was a good example)
So here again is my question: I am wondering if the American people consider it more important to cling to a legal technicality, or to see the known facts for what they are? Should "credibility" be the question? Or should the evidence?
The real "bomb" is still ticking in the office of the Attorney General of the Southern District of New York.
I await with bated (or is that baited) breath.
|