Michael Roberson is a Republican candidate for state Senate who is running against incumbent state Sen. Joyce Woodhouse, D-Henderson. He is also a lawyer, having obtained his law degree from the University of Kansas School of Law in 1996, according to the biography on his website.
Remember that. It will become important in a second.
Roberson has called on Woodhouse to return $7,500 from the leadership PAC of Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, who recently withdrew a fundraising letter that promised access to him and Democratic committee chairmen if donors ponied up big bucks. (Woodhouse, by the way, is the chairwoman of the Senate’s Legislative Operations and Elections Committee.)
But here’s the thing: The donations came before Horsford ever sent his fundraising letter, which means they couldn’t possibly be tainted by the ill-considered, should-be-illegal, pay-to-play letter, for which Horsford has apologized. (Woodhouse also received money from a separate PAC controlled by Horsford in May.)
So, does Roberson stand by his call for Woodhouse to return dollars that are, in fact, not ethically tainted. Why, of course. And here’s why:
“If Horsford is using unethical tactics for one PAC, it stands to reason he using similar tactics for the other PACs he controls,” Roberson said.
Oh, really? That’s a neat trick, especially for a trained lawyer: “Your honor, the defendant confessed to Count 1 of the indictment, so it stands to reason he did everything else charged in the indictment, too, so I move we go right to final arguments without bother of actually proving each and every count of the indictment independently with facts, evidence and witnesses.”
Or, put another way, it would be like somebody saying, “Michael Roberson said one silly thing in a newspaper story, so it stands to reason he’s probably saying silly things all day, every day. In fact, probably everything he says is silly and shouldn’t consume a moment more of anyone’s time.”
No, you can’t say that. The most you can say is that Roberson said one silly thing, one time. If you want to paint him as a frivolous person, you need more proof, just as Roberson needs more proof to suggest that Horsford has done anything unethical with any other PAC other than the one in question, where the majority leader has already admitted guilt, apologized and agreed to return all donations.
And Roberson knows, or should know, that. I think they teach it in law school.
Loading ...
