Captain Ed on the Delay indictment:
Ronnie Earle has tried to derail DeLay for years, and he has conducted himself in a most partisan fashion in doing it. Rather than investigate these charges in a clearheaded, direct, and nonpartisan manner, Earle has made no bones about his personal and political vendetta. He has openly used this investigation as a Democratic Party fundraising device, charging up Democratic rallies such as one last May that raised over $100,000, featuring Earle on the stump talking about the case and DeLay. According to the American Bar Association Canon of Ethics, Earle has violated DR7-107(A) as well as (B)(1). He also has clearly violated EC8-8, which states that lawyers who serve as public officers "should not engage in activities in which his personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his official duties."
That has nothing to do with any question of whether DeLay violated the law, of course, but it has plenty to do with whether Earle presented a balanced and honest case to the Travis County grand jury. I suspect that his political ambitions come before his desire to see that justice is done in Travis County, and just like his ill-starred indictment against the diminutive Kay Bailey Hutchinson for battery, it will probably get a quick dismissal from the first judge to review it. Besides, as the American Spectator points out, the activity that garnered Earle's attention hardly qualifies as unique:
<<<
At stake in 2002 was control of the Texas legislature, which was to redraw congressional district lines. Corporate contributions to legislative candidates are illegal in Texas. The DeLay aides stand accused of violating that prohibition, along with eight companies like Sears Roebuck that provided the funds. The corporate money, however, never went to the candidates. Instead, it went to a much larger fund for state elections controlled by the Republican National Committee in Washington. That committee made contributions to Texas legislative candidates, constituting what Earle now charges is "money laundering."
The only problem is that similar transactions are conducted by both parties in many states, including Texas. In fact, on October 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party sent the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $75,000, and on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $75,000. On July 19, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000 and, again on the same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000. On June 8, 2001, the Texas Democratic Party sent the DNC $50,000. That very same day, the DNC sent the Texas Democratic Party $60,000.
EARLE'S LAST FORAY INTO politicized prosecution in 1993 turned into a huge embarrassment when he went after Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who was then Texas Treasurer. Earle made a series of trumped-up charges, including that the demure Hutchison had physically assaulted an employee. Earle dropped the case during the trial.
>>>
Michelle Malkin has plenty of links at her site, but make sure to read the e-mail she received from former DoJ official Barbara Comstock, especially this:
<<<
Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.
Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.
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?
>>>
If DeLay broke the law and conspired to break the law, then he should face trial and a jury, just like anyone else.
However, anyone else facing this Javert-like partisan would immediately get a judge's attention and a skeptical review of the underlying charges. Regardless of the profession of a defendant, District Attorneys represent all of the People -- including the defendants -- and are supposed to ensure fairness of process, not just cheerlead for indictments. Those who fail to live up to that standard expose themselves as political hacks, and political hacks might start off getting headlines but they usually wind up receiving blistering remonstrations from judges who suffer such wastes of time poorly.
Don't be surprised to find this indictment quashed within a few weeks.
UPDATE: The Commissar has a broad collection of links from across the blogospheric spectrum, well worth checking out.
acepilots.com
captainsquartersblog.com
chron.com
captainsquartersblog.com
law.cornell.edu
spectator.org
michellemalkin.com |
