DrewDad wrote:<sigh>
The liberal media is a myth. Check out the other thread on it.
And I agree that all at fault should be indicted. Feel free to write your local prosecuting authority.
Sure...
Earl's doing his job.
1st, the law preventing corporate donations for state races has been in place for over half a century, if I recall correctly. Possible since the early 1900s. This may not be the law Earl indicted under, but there is such a law.
2nd, Earl's been planning to retire; this is the case that he's finishing up his career on. If he wanted to run for higher office, I'm certain he could have done so before now.
Go do some real research instead of regurgitating press releases. Sheesh.
DrewDad wrote:Earl's doing his job.
1st, the law preventing corporate donations for state races has been in place for over half a century, if I recall correctly. Possible since the early 1900s. This may not be the law Earl indicted under, but there is such a law.
2nd, Earl's been planning to retire; this is the case that he's finishing up his career on. If he wanted to run for higher office, I'm certain he could have done so before now.
Go do some real research instead of regurgitating press releases. Sheesh.
You do some research if you want to disprove the press releases. And, no, I don't consider your searching your memory to be research. I've got plenty of research to do on other matters, should I be so inclined.
October 06, 2005, 7:33 a.m.
Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor
The abuses of power in the Tom DeLay case should offend Democrats and Republicans alike.
If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous powers of prosecution.
I don't know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader. I certainly don't know if he's done anything illegal, let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It doesn't look like it ?- and at least one grand jury has already refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for those who don't know all the facts to hazard a judgment about such things.
One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay, a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney ?- by Ronnie Earle.
For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United States, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world's greatest job because it is honest work for the highest cause ?- service to one's own community. And it is work that has precious little to do with politics.
In their private lives, many of my fellow government lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e., out of a conscious rectitude holding that law enforcement should be above politics) or because they were just apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools, was proudly liberal. Over coffee, or lunch, or dinner, they and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates over all manner of issues.
In the four corners of a case, however, none of that mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors have breathtaking power over the lives of those they investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the guilty, but of the justice system itself.
This was especially so in investigations of political corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your politics at the door was never hard, for at least two reasons.
First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which cuts across philosophical divides.
Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes. Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power, cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest citizens from participating in matters of public concern.
The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or conservative one. It is a code of ethics ?- of nonpartisan, non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the right way. And not least because that is the norm their colleagues follow ?- as well as the standard by which the defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is, moreover, the standard the public demands they meet.
People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the public's lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job done but to get it done right. The second part is just as crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice. No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people have to be confident that if they stood accused, the prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got a fair fight.
So there are certain things that are just flat-out verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions regarding the public interest are being made to suit the prosecutor's private interests; and ?- if all that is not Sesame Street simple enough ?- to remain above any financial or political entanglement that could render one's objectivity and judgment suspect.
In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric of "avoiding the appearance of impropriety." In layman's terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors owe even the most despicable offenders. It is foundational to the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our economy, and our freedoms.
And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind-numbingly brazen ways.
* As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here, and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab's pursuit of DeLay. A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating a powerful incentive ?- in conflict with the duty of evenhandedness ?- to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a prosecutor, these aren't just major lapses. They are firing offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay they'd be thought firing-squad offenses.
* Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle.
* Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand-jury investigation of DeLay, then uncharged.
* Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange for exercising the public's power to dismiss charges.
* Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum, the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to indict.
* Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in by members of the other party.
Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They constitute inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public servant, regardless of whether the persons and entities investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal censure.
If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.
Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of federal, state, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith commitment to the rules ?- but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses.
The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the public.
?- Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
DeLay's fellow Texan, Republican Rep. John Carter, says whether the law was broken depends on what your definition of "administrative" is.
"No court has actually defined clearly what administrative purposes is," says Carter.
60 Minutes showed him TRMPAC's brochure with the statement of how the corporate funds would be spent.
"Active candidate evaluation and recruitment. Message development. Market research and issue development," says Stahl. "I mean, how is that administrative?"
"Active candidate evaluation and recruitment, that's a party of administrative procedure," says Carter. "That's a party function."
"I thought administration was the running of the office. The Xerox machine. Paying bills," says Stahl.
"This is what the court has to rule on," says Carter. "If they find all these things are administrative, there'll be no convictions in this case."
Would this be considered a technicality - a way to revolve around a definition of administrative?
Stahl: Can I ask you about Ronnie Earle? What is your real charge here? You're, you seem to be suggesting he's doing a whole investigation just to get Republicans. Is that really what your charge is?
DeLay: I know CBS likes to create news. But we're here to talk about children
DeLay ignored Stahl's question, and Rep. Mark Foley of Florida stepped in: "We'll ask those questions and answer them later. We're not talking about Mr. DeLay today."
Stahl said: "Well, we are. I'd like to know when you're going to answer the questions?"
"Thank you very much," said DeLay. "You ought to be ashamed of yourself."
Earle has been attacked as a self-promoter and a "crackpot," hard sells in Texas, where he has a reputation as a "Mr. Clean."
The Truth About Ronnie Earle
You'll hear plenty from DeLay et al. about Ronnie Earle. Here are the facts:
EARLE HAS PROSECUTED FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS: "Over Earle's 27-year tenure, his Public Integrity Unit has prosecuted 15 elected officials, including 12 Democrats." [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]
EARLE PROSECUTED DEMOCRATS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF STATE GOVERNMENT: "Some of the Democrats prosecuted by Earle and his Public Integrity Unit are former Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, former State Treasurer Warren Harding and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough." [AP, 12/12/04]
EARLE AIDES WENT ON TO RUN FOR OFFICE AS REPUBLICANS: "Some of his top assistants have been with him for decades. A few have gone on to run for elected office as Republicans." [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]
FRIEND OF OFFICIAL TARGETED BY EARLE CALLED HIM A ?'BOY SCOUT': "Democrats, for their part, are still upset over the prosecution of Attorney General Jim Mattox for bribery in 1985. He was acquitted and years later, Jim Marston, a civil lawyer in Austin and friend of Mr. Mattox, asked Earle why he went ahead with the questionable case. "I said, ?'Ronnie, how can it be an abuse of power to threaten a lawyer? We threaten each other all the time.' He told me that elected officials are held to a higher standard. They are supposed to be [above suspicion] like Caesar's wife.' It was then that Mr. Marston realized how deep Earle's principles run. ?'Ronnie Earle is a Boy Scout who is offended by wrongdoings, chief among them, public officials' abuse of power.' [Christian Science Monitor, 12/03/04]
EARLE HAS REPUTATION AS PRINCIPLED, ?'OVERLY CAUTIOUS': "Deliberate in the capital cases he sends to juries, Earle is well known for examining an issue from all angles before acting. ?'If I have any complaint about Ronnie, it's that he is overly cautious about who he prosecutes,' says Marston. ?'The fact that it has taken two years to investigate Tom DeLay is a sign not of partisanship, but of being completely careful.'" [Christian Science Monitor, 12/03/04]
EARLE HAS REPUTATION FOR ?'STRONG MORAL STREAK': "[T]o those who know him, Earle has always exhibited a strong moral streak - from his formative years growing up in a small town outside Fort Worth, to his time on the Austin night court, to his political service in the state legislature. But they contend his morality is tempered by his compassion. ?'Ronnie is very principled and will do the right thing even if it isn't the smartest political thing to do,' says Ellen Halbert, a victim's rights advocate." [Christian Science Monitor, 12/03/04]
EARLE HAS REPUTATION FOR RESPECTING THE RULES: "?'One of the things I admired most about Ronnie was his indefatigable ability to go and meet with groups all over town all the time-right-wing groups, left-wing groups, the Rotary,' says Bill Reid, an attorney who retired from Earle's office in 1997. ?'He's not a bloodthirsty prosecutor who wanted to get notches on his gun. There are some who have a reputation for walking close to the line in terms of evidence and rights, but there was never a push or inclination from him that we ought to bend the rules. Working for him, I was doing what I wanted to do, and I could go home and sleep at night.'" [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]
HOUSTON CHRONICLE: ALLEGATIONS OF PARTISANSHIP NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS: Chronicle editorial: "The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts." [3/17/03]
Ticomaya wrote:DrewDad wrote:Earl's doing his job.
1st, the law preventing corporate donations for state races has been in place for over half a century, if I recall correctly. Possible since the early 1900s. This may not be the law Earl indicted under, but there is such a law.
2nd, Earl's been planning to retire; this is the case that he's finishing up his career on. If he wanted to run for higher office, I'm certain he could have done so before now.
Go do some real research instead of regurgitating press releases. Sheesh.
You do some research if you want to disprove the press releases. And, no, I don't consider your searching your memory to be research. I've got plenty of research to do on other matters, should I be so inclined.
Yeah, Delay's press releases must be correct. Never mind the law. Look to the press releases. Delay's "press release" said the law wasn't passed until after the alleged crime was committed. That is so much BS.. A law was in place at the time of the crime. A later law was passed that would have also applied. Just because a later law didn't exist at the time of the crime doesn't make the first law not apply.
"Your honor, the law against beating my wife wasn't passed until after I had beat her to death so the prosecutor can't charge me with murder because the law against beating her was not yet implemented."
C'mon Tico. You know better.
Right, right. Mmm hmm.
Why are you defending this scumbag? I understand party loyalty and all, but DeLay is just dragging you fellows down....
Cycloptichorn
Did you see the post about Earl prosecuting four times as many Democrats as Republicans?
Earl is giving the same treatment to everyone. It's a shame that you can't accept it.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Right, right. Mmm hmm.
Why are you defending this scumbag? I understand party loyalty and all, but DeLay is just dragging you fellows down....
Cycloptichorn
If he's guilty of a crime, he'll go down. But I believe the process should be fair. If this "scheme" is illegal, than everyone who utilizes it should be prosecuted as zealously and vigorously as Tom DeLay, including Democrats in Texas. I don't believe that's happening because Earle has his sights set on DeLay, whether DeLay committed a crime or not. Earle was obviously desperate for an indictment.
Why do you hate Tom DeLay?
And why aren't you insisting on the same treatment for the leftists in your state?
DeLay accuses Earle of taking corporate funds
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 7, 2005
Rep. Tom DeLay said District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who is prosecuting him for trying to involve corporate money in Texas politics, has taken such contributions himself.
"It's real interesting he has this crusade against corporate funds. He took corporate funds, and he's taken union funds, for his own re-election. That's against the law," Mr. DeLay told The Washington Times yesterday.
A review of Mr. Earle's campaign-finance filings in Texas shows that he has received contributions from the AFL-CIO, including a $250 donation on Aug. 29, 2000. He also has received contributions listed on the disclosure forms only as coming from the name of an incorporated entity, often a law firm.
Mr. Earle has said repeatedly that state law bars corporate and union contributions. Attempts to reach Mr. Earle yesterday for comment, including a phone message left on his assistant's voice mail detailing Mr. DeLay's charge, were unsuccessful.
The prosecutor for Travis County, Texas, has secured indictments against Mr. DeLay on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws, money laundering and conspiracy to launder money.
He argues that a political action committee founded by Mr. DeLay and run by associates of his collected corporate money and sent a check for $198,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), an arm of the Republican National Committee. The RNSEC then contributed money to state candidates in Texas -- donations that Mr. Earle says were an attempt to funnel corporate contributions into state races.
Mr. DeLay followed House Republican rules and stepped down as majority leader after the first indictment Sept. 28.
Party leaders have said he will return to his leadership post if he defeats the charges, but Mr. DeLay said he intends to run for the House again even if he is not majority leader.
"That's up to the people I represent, but I'm confident they'll send me back to do their work," he said. "No matter what title they give me back in Washington, I'm 'congressman' first. I intend to run, I intend to run harder than ever before, and I intend to win."
Mr. DeLay was interviewed by The Times in the majority leader's room just down the hallway from the front entrance to the House floor. He said he is eager to advance House Republicans' agenda and said for now he will fill the role of adviser to the leaders.
He said he and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, have forged a long partnership.
"He has expressed it this way -- I have institutional knowledge that's valuable. I have an energy level that's valuable. I have assets that are valuable. The leader's staff is still in place," he said. "I think most of the members will find there's not much, as far as their ability to have input into the agenda and into the leadership, it's not going to change a whole lot. So the Democrats did not win."
Mr. DeLay said the House will tackle most of the major issues that leaders have set out including reducing entitlement spending through the budget process, cutting taxes, passing new energy legislation and approving "a strong border-security bill and a bill that forces the government to enforce our immigration laws."
The Texan said his legal defense is simple.
"Money raised legally by corporations was sent to the RNSEC. They took that money -- what is it, Texas is only one of 16 states that forbids corporate funds to be in campaigns, the vast majority of the country's campaigns can accept corporate money -- that money went to them," he said. "In fact, $1.4 million was sent to Texas [by the RNSEC], not just $198,500."
Mr. DeLay said it's up to his lawyers whether to ask for a change of venue from Austin, a liberal enclave in the midst of one of the country's most conservative states.
Asked whether Mr. Earle should be disbarred, Mr. DeLay said he "ought to be held accountable."
"I don't know how, but there's all kinds of avenues, I'm told," he said. "You just think about how he has abused his power, how he has undermined the criminal justice system, how he is undermining the election system by criminalizing elections and dragging them into criminal courts, it's incredibly dangerous to our representative government. And if he's not held accountable, then other DAs who would like to do this can feel they can freely do it."
Mr. DeLay said he is convinced that Mr. Earle has coordinated with national Democratic officials, and said the same thing happened with outside groups when a Democratic member of Congress brought ethics charges against him last year.
"It was all set up with [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] -- they're out there doing the media stuff, paying for ads," he said. "One ad would start, stop at the end of the week, a new ad from another organization would start up -- my, isn't that a coincidence? That would go on for weeks."
He said he does not know whether Mr. Earle is taking orders from Washington, but said the entire situation is collaboration.
"If you step back and look at his operation for three years on this particular issue, talking to the press, of course he's talked to the Democratic leadership. I don't know who. But he's a political animal; he's not a district attorney," he said.
He also said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee "was shopping the story" that Mr. DeLay was about to be indicted a day before the Sept. 28 indictment was handed up, which Mr. DeLay implied means that the DCCC had knowledge of secret proceedings.
"How did they know it was the deadline, number one, and how did they know I was going to be indicted the next day?" he said. "Isn't it amazing how much information they have when they're spinning you? All of that is coordinated."
Democrats have consistently said there is no basis to Mr. DeLay's charges.
"I know that Tom DeLay may find himself distracted by conspiracy-related issues, but I'm being honest when I say that there are no local or federal jurisdictions that allow the DCCC to indict anyone," DCCC spokesman Bill Burton said yesterday. "At some point, Tom DeLay is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that it's the evidence that did him in, not Web sites or newspapers or the staff of the DCCC."
