Nixon was a “do nothing” as an Attorney General and will be a “do nothing” as a Governor. America is screaming for “change” and “reform” so what is the point of electing someone who already has a “do nothing” record?

Hulshof is finished. It would be better for him and the GOP if he just accepted that fact. Peter Kinder is the only Republican with a chance of winning in November and they should have backed him for Governor. I’m glad he’s getting this message out to GOP donors.

Hopefully this will wisen them up and bring and end to the corrupt Hancock-Jason VanEaton syndicte.

What I don’t understand is why Hulshof points out an incident in Nixon’s career that might be termed unethical, when there were actions that Nixon took as Missouri’s AG that SCREAM unethical conduct. At the heart of the underlying ethical rules for every prosecutor’s office in the country is idea of that the goal is Justice, not conviction. Nixon ignored this basic tenet of his profession several times as Attorney General. In the Schlup case, a man convicted and sentenced to death for a prison murder, in spite of overwhelming evidence of his innocence which later came to light, Nixon fought for his execution all the way to the US Supreme court (the evidence was so incontrovertible, the ethical requirements of his office should have led him to ask the court to dismiss the charges)–misspending resources that could have been used in pursuing actually guilty felons. Nixon lost, and a new trial was ordered. Nixon, knowing the evidence was so overpoweringly against him that the trial would have been an embarrassing farce, offered Schlup a deal–plead guilty, and there would be no repercussions. Schlup accepted the deal (understandably wary of the trial system that had failed him before), thereby allowing Nixon to save face. Of course, the actual guilty party was then allowed to go unpunished, but from Nixon’s perspective, this is a small price to pay.

Then there was the even more infamous case involving Joe Armine, another death row inmate with clear evidence of innocence that Nixon again worked feverishly (and thankfully, futilely) to have executed. In arguments before the Missouri Supreme court, the AG’s office actually argued that the court should not even consider the evidence of innocence. One judge reasonably asked, “Isn’t it cruel and unusual punishment to execute an innocent person?” The answer? “If there is no underlying constitutional violation, there is no right to relief.” For those not familiar with legalese, let me translate that for you. The AG office’s assertion was that just because a person was innocent didn’t mean he shouldn’t be executed, that allowing the actual murderer to go free was acceptable, that human life was secondary to the importance of winning another case, that Justice itself was irrelevant. In making such an argument, Nixon not only violated the ethical guidelines of his office, but those moral and ethical principles that are the bedrock of Law in every civilized nation on earth. And this is the man who stands poised to become governor of the great State of Missouri ?