Bring Us the Head of Tom Delay: Part 2
While I don't always agree with Michelle Malkin (her uber-obsession with illegal aliens seems a bit lacking in perspective of the economics behind our government's blind-eye regarding our southern borders), she offers a fascinating, and continually updated, posting about the Tom DeLay indictment, with analysis from third-party and legal sources, as well as information about the Democratic Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, at the forefront in bringing the indictment against DeLay. It's good stuff.
A prime excerpt from former Department of Justice official Barbara Comstock reads: "There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?" Others note that Mr. Earle has a history of bringing bogus charges against Republican officials that fall apart under trial, and that this is just another example of what many consider his politically partisan prosecutorial style.
Whew -- try saying that three times fast.
It's not that I'm a die-hard DeLay fan, but Democrats have been gunning after this guy (he's nicknamed "the hammer" for his ability to get things done and push legislation through) for years, with nearly every leftist political figure weighing in with his or her two bits, liberal media outlets tut-tutting and far-left websites ranting as though DeLay is the anti-christ personified.
With all that leftist fire-power arranged against him, he's gotta be doing something right.
Pardon the pun.
The guys over at PowerLine had this to say back in November of 2004 about Ronnie Earle and the attempted indictment against Tom DeLay: "It is entirely reasonable to believe, however, that in the meantime, Earle may also indict the Majority Leader. It would be an outrageous injustice for a single, politically-motivated district attorney to dictate who is eligible to serve in a leadership position in the House of Representatives."
And regarding the Senate rules change (which would have allowed a Republican leader to retain his position even though indicted, as an indictment is not an admission of, or proof of, guilt) that the Republicans first voted to repeal and then voted again not to repeal due to the appearance of impropriety, one of the PowerLine readers wrote in to say: "[W]hile Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are publicly criticizing the abandonment of the rule by the Republican caucus, the Democrats themselves DO NOT have the same rule and never have. So Pelosi & Co. are criticizing the Republicans for "lowering ethical standards" by adopting the same rule they themselves have. Is that called "hypocrisy," or do I not understand my Webster's dictionary?"
And when you recall that Howard Dean proclaimed DeLay guilty of wrongdoing before any indictments were made or charges brought against him, while blithely stating "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama (bin Laden), who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials" -- then claims of ethical misconduct against DeLay start resembling farce more than reality.
Captain's Quarters has more on Democratic chicanery in the DeLay investigations here: "Despite the Democrats' best efforts to paint controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff as a GOP tool -- especially in relation to Tom DeLay -- further investigation by the Washington Post shows that Abramoff put significant money into the coffers of leading Democrats as well. In fact, two of Abramoff's biggest winners were the present and former Senate Minority Leaders."
The Washington Times printed this article by Christian Bourge back in June of 2004: "The House Ethics Committee has determined the charges (against DeLay) were properly filed, and in the minds of many, the credibility of the committee and the House at large is at stake . . . the panel must prove it can deliberate in a forthright manner without falling into the rank partisan bickering that defines policy-making in Congress these days."
Which would explain Nancy Pelosi's yippity fixation on the DeLay indictment (and, it must be noted, her own circle the wagons defense of Democratic party member Martin Frost, who was also accused of campaign finance irregularities), as her own credibility as House Minority Leader would take a rather sharp blow should DeLay be acquitted of the charges brought against him.
Bourge also goes on to note that Democrats point to Earle's investigations and indictments against Democratic leaders as proof of his non-partisan approach, but while Earle has publicly (and angrily) condemned DeLay and Republicans both in the media and at Democratic fundraisers, he had little to say about investigations into Democrats, such as the potential illegal contributions to candidates by Texas Democrat Martin Frost's Lone Star Fund.
"A top House GOP leadership aide told UPI that the Frost investigation would have little meaning or impact because it is only political maneuvering by Democrats. "Earle will simply find no problems in his investigation (of Frost) and then say, 'See? I am bipartisan,'" said the aide.
And lookee here if that exact thing didn't just go ahead and happen: "U.S. Rep. Martin Frost has been cleared of an allegation that he illegally funneled more than $100,000 in corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in 2000, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle announced . . ."
Color me surprised!
BlogHouston sums it up best: "Recently I pointed out how the (Houston) Chronicle has worked very hard to tell its readers that Rep. Tom DeLay is a corrupt politician, a bad man, and something akin to the personification of evil here in Texas, except when that title goes to Halliburton. In the Chronicle's world, it's probably a toss-up between the two."
Substitute "Democratic Party" for "Houston Chronicle" and we've got a wrap.
Comments
The talking point for the dems is that Ronnie Earle has indicted or investigated more democrats than republicans. Of course he has. Not too many years ago, Texas was a subsidiary of the dem party. Then Earle was hounding his conservative democrat enemies. He can abuse his power because the leftover hippies who live in Austin will make him DA of Travis County for life so long as he smears their enemies every three years or so.
Earle tried the same thing a few years back when he indicted Kay Hutchinson on some trumped up charges. Her lawyer, Dick DeGuerin kicked his a** then (Earle had to dismiss the case in open court on trial day!)and I imagine he will put on a repeat performance.
Posted by: ben | September 29, 2005 3:04 AM
The thing that strikes me about this DeLay business is, Who is this guy having to take the heat/fall for? Why is he being thrown under the bus?
You would expect what little remains of the conservative movement in the Republican Party to be screaming in protest, but the response has been very moderate for a party that supposedly has the absolute majority we keep hearing about.
The real issue is, that "majority" was acquired through compromise of principle and not conquest of the enemy.
You can't defeat the adversary by going to bed with him!
Posted by: Ted | October 2, 2005 8:48 AM
Before quoting Comstack too heavily, keep a couple of facts in mind. First, she's an uber partisan Republican. Second, she's not an expert on Texas law. Third, she's personal friends with Delay.
_______________
Homocon sez:
First, being a conservative of any stripe, no matter how centrist or extreme, automatically qualifies any individual as "uber-partisan" in the leftist playbook, so who cares?
Second, Barbara Comstock is a former director of the Office of Public Affairs for the U.S. Department of Justice, a former chief spokesperson and communications strategist for Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as former spokesperson for the entire DOJ with responsibility for all public affairs and communications matters. She was chief counsel/chief investigative counsel and senior counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, and she also oversaw the public affairs offices of the Justice Department components including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the U.S. Marshals Service. I find that this more than qualifies her for commentary on Texas law, and on Ronnie Earle and the DeLay indictment in particular.
Third, her alleged personal friendship with DeLay doesn't negate her ability or qualifications to offer an intelligent and extremely well-informed opinion on the DeLay indictment, which she did, and from which I gladly quoted.
Posted by: Sad Sack Lefty | October 3, 2005 1:36 PM
Pretty sad rebuttal there, my good man.
Being partisan is highly relevant to Ms. Comstocks analysis of a highly controversial case like this one that has political ramifications.
Second, none of the qualifications you mentioned touch on TEXAS law. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that she even dealt with Texas state criminal and elections law in your laundry list of alleged qualifications. Can you point me to anything that suggests that she ever dealth with Texas criminal law in that list?
Third, it isn't an alleged friendship. Both admit to being friendly. And yes, friendship can impair the ability of one to offer a balanced, intelligent analysis. Whether it did or not, I dont' know, but it clearly could. To suggest is irrelevant is laughable.
________________
Homocon sez:
Actually, it was an excellent rebuttal. Barbara Comstock has decades of legal experience, and as such has more than enough qualification for offering an intelligent and informed opinion on the DeLay indictment, which is precisely what she did, and from which I precisely quoted.
Barbara Comstock is an unapologetic, bona fide conservative (thank god!) who has worked for the Department of Justice under the present Bush Administration, has been a legal advisor for a variety of conservative groups and individuals, including DeLay, and she's worked on numerous federal investigations (the investigation of Clinton comes to mind) -- which I'm sure is enough to set a Sad Sack Lefty like you into a tizzy, but calling someone "partisan" anymore just means that they hold political opinions you don't like, and try as you might, the sound of your teeth grinding together can't drown out the fact of Comstock's obvious experience, intelligence and insight into legal matters across the board.
As a federal investigator, Comstock is well aware of what it means to research law before spouting off about it (a lawyer doesn't need to practice law in Texas to be able to research the law in Texas), which appears to be more than what "Hi, I've got a film crew following me around, but don't let that fool you into thinking that indicting DeLay is about the publicity it brings me" Ronnie Earle seems capable of at the moment
I seriously doubt these indictments will bring anything but an acquittal for DeLay, though it seems that indicting DeLay is more about damaging his public image than it is about the law. As the old saying goes, "You can indict a ham sandwich, but that doesn't mean it's done anything wrong."
Posted by: Dirt Farmer (aka: Sad Sack Lefty) | October 4, 2005 11:33 AM
Comstock may have decades of experience, but not with the requisite area law. Her experience is overwhelmingly in the federal law, not in the state of Texas. Could she have researched it? It's possible, but research alone doesn' make one an expert or even competent in a particular area of law. First year law students are often given research assignments, but it hardly makes them experts on the question they were asked to examine.
Nothing in Comstock's resume suggests even a day's worth of experiene with the Texas criminal code or its elections law. In fact, a large part of her experience isn't legal at all. Much of it deals with P.R., like she is doing here. Did I say she wasn't bright? Nope. She seems pretty sharp. But she's also a Delay hired gun, and very active in GOP politics. Again, does it mean her opinion is invalid? Not necessarily, but it does call into question whether she did a balanced analysis. All I am saying is don't be too reliant on her views as expressed in the piece.
I am guessing that you don't have a legal education if you think anyone can a vast legal knowledge "across the board" that you attribute to Mz. Comstock.. No one has this. There are too many substantive and jurisdictional areas to have
"across the board knowledge". I know you are desperate to prop up Babs as some all knowing, non partisan source, but come on now!
Posted by: Dirt Farmer | October 4, 2005 1:35 PM