Sunday, February 05, 2012
Charlie White: Indiana A State Of Men Not Of Laws
Fox News' Eric Shawn scored the first exclusive interview with Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White following a Hamilton County jury returning guilty verdicts early Saturday morning against him on six vote fraud-related counts a special prosecutor brought against him stemming from his successful 2010 statewide campaign. White came out swinging in the interview, charging that Indiana is a state of men, not of laws. He believes his conviction was a "miscarriage of justice" that happened because the jurors were not properly instructed on the law. White took on Indiana's biggest political figures, who he maintains have broken the law in a manner far worse than he was accused of breaking it. Former Sen. Evan Bayh and his wife, Susan, are illegally claiming a homestead exemption and casting votes from a $56,000 homestead exemption on a condominium on Indianapolis' north side the couple have never resided at White charged. Gov. Mitch Daniels is claiming a homestead exemption on the multi-million dollar mansion he and his wife reside at in Carmel but is casting votes from the governor's residence in Indianapolis where the state's constitution requires him to reside. Sen. Lugar doesn't even own the home he has voted at for more than 35 years. White also lashed out at his Democratic opponent, Vop Osili, as "savage" and "barbaric" for the attacks he made against him and his family after he learned he couldn't be elected fairly by the voters. He took strong exception to Osili's claim that he is entitled to assume the office now that White has been convicted of vote fraud charges rather than a Republican replacement named by Gov. Daniels. I liked the defense White gave explaining the living arrangements for him and his family during the time in question. What I don't understand is why he failed to take the stand in his own defense. I think if the jurors had heard the testimony of him, his wife and ex-wife, the jurors would have had an entirely different perspective of the case. Unfortunately, the only evidence they heard was the evidence put on by the prosecutors because his attorney, Carl Brizzi, chose not to call any witnesses. I think Charlie and Brizzi assumed those jurors knew more than the total lies fed to them by the media and the prosecutors for the past year. Most people only follow the news in cursory fashion. How else do you explain someone as unqualified as Barack Obama getting elected president based on promises of hope and change? People know more about what's happening on reality TV shows like "Survivor" and "American Idol" than current events and political affairs that actually impact their lives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Whatever happened to his father's Facebook account getting hacked? Did he finally take responsibility for the racist and anti-semitic comments? I heard the police aren't investigating anymore so I assume he chose not to pursue things.
White is exactly right that when it comes to voter fraud and associated perjury charges, a double standard applies. If you're an unpopular politician who people want out of office, they'll enforce the law. But if it is a popular politician or ex-politician (such as Lugar and Bayh respectively), then the law doesn't apply.
I still don't get why Brizzi and White's legal judgement would have been so far off as to assume they didn't have to present evidence in response to the State's all circumstantial case. The ex-wife's testimony alone would have almost certainly resulted in White's acquittal. There must be more to the story as to why White put on no evidence at all.
Vox, so you think because the police concluded their investigation and didn't go forward, that Charlie White's father must have done the racist and anti-semitic comments himself? Surely you're kidding. People hack accounts all the time and get away with it. Even Charlie White's most fervent enemies don't buy CW's father did the racist, anti-semetic comments.
Perhaps he did not offer a defense because to do so might have placed his ex-wife and current wife in jeoprady of perjury. It is not particularly creditable that he was living with the ex-wife.
If that was the case, then they all had already committed perjury because they all testified under oath before the Recount Commission to those very same facts. That Commission unanimously agreed that White had not violated the state's election laws.
Post a Comment