# Charged with a felony? - It won't stop you from leading the GOP **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 18, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413 "2004-11-18T03:49:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/21 "2004-11-19T06:35:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sorry… I agree with this change. Indictments are too easy to get. It essentially leaves a chairman or other leader at the mercy of any ambitious DA. I agree with this. But at least some Republican supporters had the integrity to note that the Party’s initial stance on the issue had been, in itself, politically motivated. Specifically, the Republicans’ platform was introduced at a time when two Democrats in leadership positions were under indictment. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/22 "2004-11-19T06:59:37Z")
Someone should do a fancy-pants linguistic analysis of this whole event. Based on seeing multiple TV news stories, and reading quite a few internet cources, it’s notable that the language being used by the Republicans who are defending this move is almost identical to the language that Democrats used about the pursuit of Bill Clinton. [This](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61374-2004Nov18.html) Washington Post editorial makes the comparison explicit: > [@](#): > > Recall how Republicans dismissed any and all who charged that the investigations of President Bill Clinton by special prosecutor Ken Starr were politically motivated. Ah, but those were investigations of a shady Democrat by a distinguished Republican. When a Democrat is investigating a Republican, it can only be about politics. Is that clear? > > Rep. Henry Bonilla, the Texas Republican who sponsored the resolution to protect DeLay, said it was designed to protect against “crackpot” prosecutors whose indictments might get in the way of the ability of House Republicans to choose their own leaders. > > \ > > DeLay’s response to the whole thing came, almost word for word, from Clinton’s old talking points. “We must stop the politics of personal destruction,” Clinton said in December 1998 after the House impeachment vote that DeLay had rammed through. On Wednesday, DeLay said that Democrats “announced years ago that they were going to engage in the politics of personal destruction, and had me as a target.” Maybe it’s time for Bill and Tom to sit down at that big new library in Little Rock for a friendly drink. And, of course, no-one but the Republicans themselves are qualified to determine was is and is not a [politically-motivated](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-delay18nov18,1,4540711.story?coll=la-news-politics-national) prosecution: > [@](#): > > The 1993 rule required indicted Republican leaders to relinquish their positions. The new rule gives the 28-member Republican Steering Committee, led by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, 30 days after an indictment of a party leader or committee chairman to recommend “what action, if any,” the party’s rank and file should take. > > DeLay said the steering committee would determine whether the indictment was “politically motivated.” The Republican rank and file, formally known as the House Republican Conference, could then decide whether the leader should step down. The funny thing is that the case against DeLay’s political associates has been in the works for some time now, and it was clear well before the election that there was a chance that DeLay himself would be indicted. Why didn’t the Republicans take this bold step to assert their integrity a few weeks ago? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/23 "2004-11-19T15:34:54Z")
We-e-e-lllll, I dislike Mr DeLay as much as the next guy, but I’ve always disapproved of the presumption of guilt rules like this enforce. THAT is what’s contrary to America’s core values and the foundation of our Anglo-American legal system. Let the French presume guilt until he’s proven innocent. I like it our way. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/24 "2004-11-19T17:47:21Z")
Just out of curiosity, how many members of Congress are currently known to be under investigation by a DA, “ambitious” or otherwise? Historically how many members are generally under investigation at any given time? Is there a long list of members who have been targeted by ambitious DAs? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/25 "2004-11-19T20:53:20Z")
Well, libs don’t really have any place to complain. After all, you guys were the ones who selected a traitor as your Presidential candidate. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/26 "2004-11-19T21:01:44Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Well, libs don’t really have any place to complain. > > After all, you guys were the ones who selected a traitor as your Presidential candidate. Protest isn’t treason, you moron. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/27 "2004-11-19T21:07:14Z")
All this talk about democratic DA’s indicting people. DA’s don’t indict. They present evidence to a grand jury who decides whether the evidence is strong enough to indict. But let’s not let a fact get in the way of things. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413/28 "2004-11-19T21:10:04Z")
Crap, they let Clothahump register? Can I get a partial refund on my membership fee as compensation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charged-with-a-felony-it-wont-stop-you-from-leading-the-gop/275413.md?page=1)