SlickFranky
Active Member
Under the Act, if Rob's conflict was due to an "error in judgment" then he gets to keep his job. So ironically Clay Ruby has to prove that Rob was too smart to do this by mistake, and Rob has to prove he was too stupid to know he was violating the law.
(It's sort of like Reagan in Iran-Contra, but without the right-wing murder squads.)
From the Globe:
Ruby: So your speaking and voting were deliberate acts, correct?
Ford: I’m voting because I know my foundation ... it’s a fantastic foundation.
Ruby: You deliberately chose to make the speech you did and vote the way you did?
Ford: Absolutely.
Ruby: And you don’t regret for a moment having done that?
Ford: Absolutely not.
It's not him saying 'I knew it was technically wrong, and I'd gladly do it again'....but it's pretty damn close.
(Although in the same cross-examination he also demonstrated a near-complete lack of understanding of the rules surrounding this, and even when shown the rules, showed a very poor level of comprehension of what he has just read. Even now I get the impression that he thinks it's someone else's responsibility to make him aware of any potential conflict. If this actually is one of those bizarre situations where ignorance is a genuine defense...he's got this one locked up.)
I'd much prefer booting him by a more democratic method (ie. torches and pitchforks ), and do think the punishment is overly severe. But then again, he had so many opportunities to avoid it coming to this, and is only here because of his own stubbornness and inability apply reason or rationality to any decision he makes. Just so happens these are a few of the things that make him unacceptable as a leader, so I guess it all works out for me