The waters of denial run deep.

Heh.

That posted was claiming that, although this judge clearly prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans, he’s STILL a partisan smear-merchant, because they were CONSERVATIVE Democrats?

Hannnity was going on this today (of course).

He said that this prosecuter Earl indicted Kay Baily Hutchinson (spelling) three times. (She kept winning).

When it finally got to court he chose not to pursue his case.

That’s his history. Time will tell, but at this point given the history Delay has a right to innocence until PROVEN guilty.

MikeA: You may be right in your generalized blaming, but this is a specific case, and should be ajudged on its merits or lack of them. Anything else is lynching. I rather think that Tom DeLay will be cleared of all this, but the damage will already be done, which is probably the real goal of this indictment.

Unless you attribute infallability to either Earle or to prosecutors in general, it is relevant to examine them when considering their indictments, especially when they are indicting their political rivals.
I didn’t ask about all his indictments, only the record of the ones of his political rivals. What he does with pickpockets and car thieve isn’t relevant to this thread.

robert108 said, This is the Democrats taking advantage of the higher standards set by the Republicans. Specifically, it only takes an indictment for a Republican to be required to step down.

Exactly!

For the Democrats, a conviction is required.

And even then it’s usually not enough.

DeLay is facing 6 mo to 2 years on this charge, and he owns Tejas. Doubt he would do any time if found guilty.

In the Halls of Justice the only justice is in the halls.

Lenny Bruce

An interesting interpertation:

DeLay entered into a meeting with Ronnie Earle and the Public Integrity unit of the Travis County DA’s office on August 17. This would be more than three years after most of the events surrounding the money laundering operation would have taken place and thus, the statute of limitations would have already run out on the conspiracy charge.

Why would his attorney advise him to waive the statute of limitations on a charge when the statute of limitations had already run out? …….. were far more serious charges with a much longer (or no) statute of limitations and he was entering into a plea bargain.

http://walt-starr.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/29/11568/3496

If Earle went after the conservative Dems at that time, it might just indicate a liberal bias in his persecutions.

And if he went after the black Dems at that time it might just indicate racial bias in his “persecutions”.

But I don’t have any evidence for my belief, and you don’t have any evidence for yours. So why hold them?

Damn straight!

Ronnie Earle is no partisan. He’a a greasy-publicity-whore-extortionist-Frank Burnsish-beehotch.

Oh, and a snappy dresser.

From an older article,

In 2001, DeLay helped form a political action committee–Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (TRM-PAC, pronounced “trimpac”). The PAC proved extraordinarily effective, helping the GOP win 18 of 22 targeted House races in 2002. That success gave Republicans majority control of the state House and the opportunity to redraw congressional districts.

Remember that? That was when the Democrats ran across state lines like little girls to prevent a quorum. Democrats had proved once again that they are afraid of that democracy.

DeLay says the indictments are politically motivated–an attempt to reverse by dubious legal means the outcome of the 2002 state elections.

Dan Allen, a spokesman in the House Majority Leader’s office, on March 8 provided Citizen a white paper entitled “What you should know about Ronnie Earle.” The paper attempts to illustrate the prosecutor’s record of “vindictive” and “partisan” prosecutions.

Among the items listed is an account of Earle’s indictment of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Republican, soon after her election in 1993. Once he got to court, Earle abruptly dropped the case when the defense challenged his evidence.

Earle has also targeted conservative Democrats. Former House Speaker Gib Lewis of Fort Worth, indicted by Earle in 1993, said the prosecutor is “grossly unfair … The press has let this guy get away with murder.”

Hmmm…You don’t say. Imagine that!

If that question made you uncomfortable, here are some more: How many of Earle’s indictments of politicians went to court? How many of those resulted in convictions? To be fair, if we are judging DeLay because Earle has indicted him, we should also judge Earle’s performance as a prosecutor, especially his conviction record of other politicians he has indicted for alleged improprieties. Doesn’t that make sense?

My statement describes the technique called “mudslinging”. The object is to get some dirt on your opponent, whether he is innocent or guilty. I haven’t prejudged the case, although you are welcome to. I am simply expressing my opinion. I do notice that liberals would like to take that freedom away from conservatives. Thanks for your example. My values are not in any way dependent on yours, as yours seem to be dependent on mine, according to your statement.

Making an observation about mudslinging is part of my assumption of innocence. Clear? I never said there couldn’t be any validity to it. I assume he is innocent, therefore I don’t think the indictment is valid. ipso facto. I have other reasons for believing that, but they are irrelevant to this discussion. All I need is assumption of guilt.
Observing behavior over time and describing it isn’t paranoia. Personal attack is so boring.
I never used the term skullduggery; you did. Nor did I use the term skunky. I applaud you on your creative imagination.
No, I don’t believe opinions should be withheld before the facts are known, as long as they are identified as opinions. You have a strange concept of free speech.
If I believe that one is innocent until proven guilty, I might rightly feel that opinions about guilt should be withheld, but I don’t support that position either. I think all ideas should compete in the arena of discourse. Don’t you?

I assume he is innocent, therefore I don’t think the indictment is valid.

As it is assumed that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty, it is also assumed that the indictment is valid until proven false. That’s the blind spot I keep pointing out.

This two bit prosecutor in Texas is picking on a good man because he is effective. Its a shame.

Who got the memo?

Are they conservative Democrats, or liberal Democrats?

The waters of denial run deep.

The waters of denial run deep.

Very.

Not to muddy the water, but…

The innocent until proven guilty is a judicial standard, not an individual one. And even then innocent is a misnomer. No one has ever been found innocent in court, although people are routinely found not guilty. Case in point, O.J. was found not guilty, but that didn’t necessarily make him innocent.

In discussions like this one, making the ‘presumption of innocence’ caveat is an okay thing to do, but it’s rather gratuitous. If you believe that the average person should make that presumption then there can be no discussion about guilt/innocence until the case is adjudicated. After all, if I am held to the caveat I (much like a jury, and as a matter of law) can’t even begin to form an opinion until I’ve heard all the evidence

On the other hand, if the ‘presumption’ is merely a judicial one, meaning it applies only in the courtroom, then my opinions about what I believe may/may not be going on have legitmate force and value.

Mixing the two, presumption and opinion, is like rocking in a rocking chair; it gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.

Regards…

I rather think that Tom DeLay will be cleared of all this, but the damage will already be done,

Either it’s “innocent until proven guilty” or it isn’t. If you are going to pre-judge the case before the evidence is presented, then why shouldn’t I?

The caning thing wouldn’t work with the masochist prosecutors.

Here’s the link to CNN.com.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.

DeLay, 58, was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay’s national political committee.

“I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today,” DeLay said. (Watch CNN initial reporting on indictment — 3:38)

GOP congressional officials said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties. Some of the duties may go to the GOP whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. The Republican rank and file may meet as early as Wednesday night to act on Hastert’s recommendation.

Criminal conspiracy is a state felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The potential two-year sentence forces DeLay to step down under House Republican rules. (Watch CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin’s explanation of charge — 2:59)

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president still considers DeLay a friend and effective leader in Congress.

“Congressman DeLay is a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people,” McClellan said. “I think the president’s view is that we need to let the legal process work.”

The indictment accused DeLay of a conspiracy to “knowingly make a political contribution” in violation of Texas law outlawing corporate contributions. It alleged that DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee accepted $155,000 from companies, including Sears Roebuck, and placed the money in an account.

The PAC then wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to receive in donations.

The indictment included a copy of the check.

“The defendants entered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code,” says the four-page indictment. “The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election.”

The indictment against the second-ranking, and most assertive Republican leader came on the final day of the grand jury’s term. It followed earlier indictments of a state political action committee founded by DeLay and three of his political associates.

Kevin Madden, DeLay’s spokesman, dismissed the charge as politically motivated.

“This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat,” Madden said, citing prosecutor Ronnie Earle, a Democrat.

Madden later added: “They could not get Tom DeLay at the polls. They could not get Mr. DeLay on the House floor. Now they’re trying to get him into the courtroom. This is not going to detract from the Republican agenda.”

The grand jury action is expected to have immediate consequences in the House, where DeLay is largely responsible for winning passage of the Republican legislative program. House Republican Party rules require leaders who are indicted to temporarily step aside from their leadership posts.

However, DeLay retains his seat representing Texas’ 22nd congressional district, suburbs southwest of Houston. He denies that he committed any crime.

Democrats have kept up a crescendo of criticism of DeLay’s ethics, citing three times last year that the House ethics committee admonished DeLay for his conduct.

“The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California.

As a sign of loyalty to DeLay after the grand jury returned indictments against three of his associates, House Republicans last November repealed a rule requiring any of their leaders to step aside if indicted. The rule was reinstituted in January after lawmakers returned to Washington from the holidays fearing the repeal might create a backlash from voters.

DeLay, 58, also is the center of an ethics swirl in Washington. The 11-term congressman was admonished last year by the House ethics committee on three separate issues and is the center of a political storm this year over lobbyists paying his and other lawmakers’ tabs for expensive travel abroad.

Wednesday’s indictment stems from a plan DeLay helped set in motion in 2001 to help Republicans win control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections for the first time since Reconstruction.

A state political action committee he created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted earlier this month on charges of accepting corporate contributions for use in state legislative races. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses.

With GOP control of the Texas legislature, DeLay then engineered a redistricting plan that enabled the GOP take six Texas seats in the U.S. House away from Democrats — including one lawmaker switching parties — in 2004 and build its majority in Congress.

My first thought is that this charge involves money given to advance a political purpose. It is a shame that the US Congress has passed a law restricting this obvious first amendment right (McCain Feingold) and many states have laws restricting the same.

This two bit prosecutor in Texas is picking on a good man because he is effective. Its a shame.

DeLay will be OK. This will be decided by his friends.

Gov. Rick Perry today tapped a former adviser to President Bush with no judicial experience to serve on the Texas Supreme Court.

Don Willett of Austin, chief legal counsel to Attorney General Greg Abbott, will fill a vacancy left by Priscilla Owen, who resigned earlier this year to join the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Perry cited Willett’s background as a deputy U.S. attorney general and adviser to Bush, for whom he worked in Austin when Bush was governor and later in the White House’s Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/08/24willett.html