Awright, in the interest of not being too ignorant, I’m trying to find some additional evidence that would make it clear that Earl generally goes after conservatives, and hence his propensity for indicting Democrats does not necessarily exonerate him from the charge of “partisan hack”, since Texas Democrats are essentially Republicans. Or something like that. Anyone got more info. on this guy beyond the Hutchison affair that might shed light on this? There’s not much out there that I can find (not sure where to look, even) to give a breakdown of those he’s prosecuted, and whether they were all or mostly “conservatives”.
Anyway, I’m not sure if there’s a point here to be made even if such a breakdown can be had. Was there a huge preponderance of what we’d call “conserveatives” in Texas politics, then, be they Pub. or Dem.? Were there even enough “liberals” in office for him to be reasonably expected to have a shot at prosecuting a few to make a fair-looking ratio?
It’s worth reminding that DeLay’s indictment doesn’t come from Earle himself, but from the foreman of the Grand Jury investigating him. Meet William Gibson:
With all due respect to Mr. Gibson’s view… while I have no doubt that there really is probable cause, and I believe he and the other grand jury members followed the law, the presentation of evidence to a grand jury is vastly different than the presentation of evidence at a trial. There is no defense, for example. The prosecutor calls witnesses, and they testify. They are under oath, but there is no cross-examination, and there is no opportunity for a “defense side” to put on witnesses of its own.
So when Gibson says he thinks there is enough evidence to convict, he’s not really necessarily on solid ground. He has only heard one side of the story, without any challenges, reaching a level of probable cause. A conviction must reach beyond a reasonable doubt, and survive defense witnesses and evidence.
Two ways. On the one hand, DeLay plays to the religious right and gets taken down by a pious crusader; on the other hand people who would be apoplectic about Earle’s rhetoric were he a Republican find themselves cheering him on because he’s not.
It’s rather hard to imagine a (modern) Republican using “money is the root of all evil” rhetoric in any setting for any purpose. Yoking such rhetoric to the Bible is in the style, not of Republicans nor Democrats, but of 19th-Century Populists.
The fact remains that in 2005, if a Republican prosecutor was indicting a Democratic senator and citing Biblical sanction for his actions, the Dems would be hitting the roof in outrage at “theocracy,” “blatant violation of SOCAS” and so on.
In spiritual terms, perhaps. But in political terms he got it right: In politics, the root of all (or at least a great deal of) evil is the power of money.
It’s ironic if one sees faith in god as a unifying force which leads everyone to the same truth. That view of faith may or may not be what the clear-eyed skeptic holds, but it is certainly a decent nutshell for most religions, Christianity most certainly included.
Love to think so. But Tom DeLay (R-Undead) is one tough sumbitch. As well, Texas politicians are well attuned to the fine nuances of the law. If necessary, they will invent a nuance to attune to. If there is the slightest technicality that can be expanded from a Japanese condom to the Hindenburg, it will be found. Power and money, the Gog and Magog of Texas politics, want Tom DeLay to walk. In all probability, he will.
On the shiny side, the more attention paid him, the better. A stake through the heart will require too much precision, but sunlight’ll git him for sure.
Huh? Who thinks that a politician’s—any politician’s—personal religious views on ethics constitute a “blatant violation of SOCAS”?
What violates SOCAS is when you try to make the law impose a particular religious perspective. Not when you merely express the personal religious convictions that make the law morally meaningful to you.
Earle’s remarks are not substantially different from the sort of thing Illinois governor George Ryan, a Republican, said to explain his decision about the death penalty moratorium:
Nobody squawked about Ryan’s comments violating SOCAS, because they didn’t. Politicians are allowed to talk about how their personal religious beliefs inform their moral view of the law. They’re just not allowed to make laws specifically in order to promote or impose religious beliefs.
Worst-case scenario seems to be that the original charge was sloppily made, indicting DeLay for violating a law that didn’t exist at the time of the violation. The prosecutor, under this theory, recognized that, and so he indicted DeLay under a different law that DID apply at the time of the violation.
If so, that bespeaks a certain sloppiness on the prosecutor’s part. However, I don’t think it points to anything illegal or unethical on the prosecutor’s part. If the charges from the second indictment stick, then the prosecutor will have brought a criminal to justice; and if the charges from the second indictment don’t stick, well, the prosecutor still followed proper channels.
Of course, I’m no lawyer, and I could be wrong on this. This is how it looks to my untrained eye.