"BUT - What if there is absolutely no truth to the accusations? Ruh Roh, you hadn’t even let that thought cross your mind, had you."
I know you had your ties to the Newt campaign, so I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with the concept, but out here in the real world there are people in business, the clergy, the military and pretty much every other walk of life that deal with a little concept called the "appearance of impropriety." Since you're obviously unfamiliar with it and how it applies, I'll take a bit of my Sunday morning to explain it to you.
Sometimes it is not enough for people of conscience to be morally correct, but when people are put in certain positions of trust and/or honor, they need to ensure that their behavior is not only beyond reproach, but that they make an extra, concerted effort to avoid tainting the position with perfectly legitimate behavior that might otherwise reflect poorly upon the position or the confidence they hold. Sometimes, things are bigger than one's self, and to service them properly one must go above and beyond one's own personal standards and live up to an even higher expectation. Part of this country's problem right now is people equating that which is legal with that which is ethical or moral. "It's perfectly legal" is a great excuse for much that is entirely unethical or unseemly, or gives off that appearance. In this case I would aver that the Heisman voters dropped the ball (pun intended), but Winston could have preserved much of the award's mystique and prestige simply by voluntarily withdrawing his name.
"Meanwhile, if in a civil suit or whatever more evidence comes to light, which might happen by the way, then the award will be taken from him post facto. Thus him getting the award now is the appropriate result, based on what is known."
So go ahead and give him the award without knowing all the facts...that's essentially what you're saying. Maybe next weekend I can teach you about the concept of "due diligence."
Joe, I’m sorry you don’t understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The facts in this case, as they are known, indicate that a young lady who brags on social media about chasing cleats….chased and caught her cleat….Jamies Winston. She apparenlty caught at least one other dude for sex that same night.
She then lied about being drunk to the cops, made a lot of inconsistent claims and charges, and then had a crazy relative bring the case back to life once that cleat became nationally famous.
So apparently you think it’s the onus of the Heisman committee to do more due diligence than that, simply so you won’t be offended by their award. That’s just absurd and stupid. And yet, you hide your absurdity behind your pharisee robe of phony self righteousness.
It is YOU sir who are guilty of the impropriety of prejudgment in a situation you know nothing about, and apparently have spent little time to research, since doing so would rip your high horse right out from under you. So climb down off your high horse …..slowly podner……you are way up there…..and a quick fall would hurt.
Meanwhile, if in the course of due diligence, the known facts indicate that this predatory vixen was somehow not in character on this particular night, and was for some reason not chasing cleats this particular night….and was only re- energized in her cleat chasing pursuits with the help of a date rape drug…or something similar….then that would change everything. And at that time, The Heisman committee…who are not required to be attorneys, let alone sayers and seers and prophets….can easily and appropriately reverse their decision.
But to assume enough guilt to make this appropriate now puts you in the un American camp of prejudgement.