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.
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 Washington Post editorial makes the comparison explicit:
And, of course, no-one but the Republicans themselves are qualified to determine was is and is not a politically-motivated prosecution:
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Crap, they let Clothahump register? Can I get a partial refund on my membership fee as compensation?