04-05-2016, 08:25 AM
Interesting to see that this doesn't seem to have changed the opinion of too many folks - either people weren't a fan and they are joyous/disgusted, or they were a fan and they see this as small potatoes and insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
I am in the middle on this one. Plainly it is wrong, and moreover stupid, to use a company card (government issued or otherwise) to pay for anything personal. It shows lack of solid decision making, which obviously may carry over into more important items, i.e., if you were dumb enough to do this, what else might you be dumb enough to do.
That being said, it does seem overboard, and indicative of the current political culture, to indict a politician on what should - in my mind - be a fine-able offense. This is the equivalent of killing a fly with a tank. Yes, there were personal purchases on a government card, but couldn't that be resolved with a public disparagement, a fine, something else not involving an indictment and a criminal proceeding. How many of us have been stolen from for $5 here, $20 there, and not bothered to go to small claims court.
In the end, because this is a criminal indictment, and because it was impact his law license, he's invariably going to fight - and spend lots of money doing so - to clear his name. The state and county will have to spend money accordingly. In the end, we all lose, and all - apparently - so that somebody could smear him for short-term political gain. It's not as if we didn't already know what he did, and it's not as if the money hasn't been paid back, so what's the actual point of this from the state's standpoint, aside from attention grabbing?
I am in the middle on this one. Plainly it is wrong, and moreover stupid, to use a company card (government issued or otherwise) to pay for anything personal. It shows lack of solid decision making, which obviously may carry over into more important items, i.e., if you were dumb enough to do this, what else might you be dumb enough to do.
That being said, it does seem overboard, and indicative of the current political culture, to indict a politician on what should - in my mind - be a fine-able offense. This is the equivalent of killing a fly with a tank. Yes, there were personal purchases on a government card, but couldn't that be resolved with a public disparagement, a fine, something else not involving an indictment and a criminal proceeding. How many of us have been stolen from for $5 here, $20 there, and not bothered to go to small claims court.
In the end, because this is a criminal indictment, and because it was impact his law license, he's invariably going to fight - and spend lots of money doing so - to clear his name. The state and county will have to spend money accordingly. In the end, we all lose, and all - apparently - so that somebody could smear him for short-term political gain. It's not as if we didn't already know what he did, and it's not as if the money hasn't been paid back, so what's the actual point of this from the state's standpoint, aside from attention grabbing?
Leilani Estates, 2011 to Present