The Editor,
Is it unconstitutional for the House to reprimand, remove or demand the recusal of our indicted Speaker who is “presumed innocent” for lining his pockets? Hell no!…. (Re “Pro-Tyler Lawmakers Block Campaign For Speaker’s Recusal”).
Under the Constitution, the presumption of innocence is legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, therefore the indicted Speaker, like any accused Liberian, is presumed innocent in the court of law and entitled to due process.
But does the Speaker’s “presumption of innocence” exist outside the court room?? Nonsense…. Look. If you caught Speaker Tyler red-handed stealing your chicken to cook soup, would you presume his innocence until the court find him guilty or innocent? Please.. Speaker Tyler is a chicken rogue!
Outside the court room, the presumption of innocence does not exist. Therefore, House members, based on own their findings, should take a vote to suspend, reprimand or remove the Speaker…..(see article Article 49)
He who spares the rod spoils the Speaker.
Martin Scott
[email protected]
Atlanta, Georgia