OK, I did look it up, as far as I was able, and so far, what I have is a conflicting set of testimonies. See this:
The money in question, $150,000, was given to restore a theater in Danville, VA. It’s not clear from the article just how the money is related to the theaters artistic director making a gay film. It is conceivable that Goode’s story is exactly true, that he had no specific knowledge of the film. It is further possible that if he knew said earmark money might in any way facilitate the making of such a film, he would have rejected it.
He is named in the credits, as a benefactor. That does not prove he knew anything about the film. It only proves that someone considered him a benefactor, which he might have been, but without realizing the nature of the film.
But how, you say, could his press secretary be involved in the film directly and he not know about the substance of the film? Good and reasonable question. I don’t know. But incriminating evidence would require something better than “I don’t know.” For example, no one questions Jerry Falwell’s commitment to the traditional Christian view of sexuality and marriage, yet he had a close aide and speech writer, Mel White, who turned out to be gay, after posing for years as a traditionalist. I knew Jerry personally. He was not an easy man to fool. Yet it happened.
So while I am distressed to learn of this connection, as an attorney, trained BTW at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, all I have is competing and conflicting testimony, without an ability to cross-examine any of the principals. Without a clear basis for concluding that Goode is deliberately lying, I am forced to suspend judgment. Applying the Golden Rule, if I were in a similar situation (and I have been), I would want to be believed, unless there were clear evidence I was lying, and therefore I choose to believe Goode’s testimony until further evidence is submitted.
And if you have any further evidence, I am open to hearing it. I hold no one above justifiable criticism. It’s just that because I have personally experienced the ravages of malicious innuendo and defamation, while knowing I was perfectly innocent, I am particularly sensitive to judging the character of others in the absence of clear and convincing evidence. It is a grave moral evil, and is specifically forbidden in the command to not bear false witness against one’s neighbor, and I will not support a candidate who uses such techniques to elevate themselves over their opponents.
Good to hear from you again.
Thanks for your reply, SR.
You’re a bit more charitable than I think warrants - between did know and should have known, I think Virgil has some ‘splainin’ to do. :)
For those who wonder what we’re taking about, here’s the trailer for the film (which lists Virgil Goode as benefactor) that was made with a $150,000 earmark from the federal budget due to Goode’s efforts and acted in by his press secretary:
I’m sorry, my previous post had a error in fact; the film was *not* financed/made made with the $150,000 earmark.