To: PJ-Comix
“…The gentleman from Ohio has referenced the lack of evidence and the quality of evidence. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant ) could be captured incriminating himself on tape?
Should we, in this case or any other case, reward a wrongdoer because he has the wherewithal to avoid being captured in the act? Shall a clever criminal who has enriched himself at taxpayer expense be further enriched because he almost avoided detection?”…
# 52 by toenail
Let’s re-word that, shall we, toenail?
“Should we let a criminal go, just because we have no evidence that he’s guilty?”
Congressman Kenny Hulshof thinks that we shouldn’t. Congressman Kenny Hulshof believes that if we know a man is guilty, we should convict him. Evidence isn’t important, what’s important is that we know he’s guilty.
Congressman Hulshof asked that question before the full House, thereby giving his opinion that there was no real evidence against Traficant.
Congressman Hulshof also said that members shouldn't let the fact that there was no evidence influence their vote.
That doesn’t sound like a “conservative” Congressman to me.