CONDIT LOGIC

“If he had told everything up front to the police (which he stubbornly insists that he did), if he had confessed all 90 days earlier, or 80 days, or 70, etc., etc. his wife and children would still be shielded from the consequences of his stupidity?” – Michael Graham, National Review Online. Aren’t the words in italics relevant here? Has it occurred to Graham that Condit might be telling the truth? And how does he know he isn’t? I wish someone would tell me why this obviously pertinent issue can simply be dismissed as if it doesn’t exist. Or are we in a world now where such obvious facts are irrelevant to some moral grandstanding?