You don't know that. That is what he is 'accused' of. If he's guilty, of course, he should be condemned, and I suspect he is guilty, and if that proves to be true, people should make their thoughts on it known, Majority Whip Blunt included.
But until it is proven, i.e: until he confesses, is found guilty, or at the very least, a lot more is known then is currently known, it would be totally out of line for Blunt to assume he's guilty and condemn him.
OK pal, you be his apologist. And prepare to live with the results of your viewpoints. Maybe you should read the texts of his five (so-far) emails. Tell me he isn't a pevert. Get lost.