Then what was that “fascism” comment about, Steven?
Not at all. The only criticism I have for Mr. Earle at this stage is the paucity of factual allegations in the first indictment. There are tactical reasons to do this, and I assume that he has more evidence than that which appears in the indictment itself… although, as I said earlier, it is unusual for an indictment to fail to allege acts or circumstances by which conspiracy might be proved.
But as for the current line of discussion: read back. Perhaps I could have made things clearer by quoting more or offering more caveats, but here’s how the discussion flowed:
I responded to Left hand of Dorkness’s comment that “… if the charges from the second indictment don’t stick, well, the prosecutor still followed proper channels.” I pointed out that it wasn’t enough to say that he followed proper channels; a prosecutor who knows, or should know, that he can never provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt abuses his position if he brings an indictment. I added that, of course, that if he does have a good faith belief that he can prove guilt, then his actions are perfectly proper.
My point - which no one should seriously dispute - is that a prosecution brought with less than good faith is simply wrong, regardless of whether or not the legal expenses are defrayed or not. The glee in responses seemed to indicate that as long as such an event was directed at Tom Delay, “R-Undead”, it was just fine and dandy.
I was careful to add that I’m not condeming a prosecution brought in good faith – that’s the job of the prosecutor, after all.
I think it’s one thing to know you’ve got a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning a case with your evidence, and knowing it will be an uphill battle to win your case, and hence you’d prefer to pursue a lesser charge.
Maybe I’ve watched too much TV, but I thought trying to get wrongdoers punished is what prosecuters do, and they’ll take what verdicts they can get. Otherwise, they would never plea-bargain. A prosecuter who seeks to see a criminal punished for a lesser charge with a sure win, rather than risk an aquittal on a greater charge because of a weaker case, is actually acting in the interests of the public good, and not “gaming the system”.
I agree. My “gaming the system” comment applied only to:
Never = “a snowball’s chance in Hell”
OK. I misunderstood, I guess.
Fair enough. It’s pretty hard to agree with that assertion. My personal hope is that Tom Delay is convicted if he has indeed violated any laws. I’ll be surprised and disappointed if Earle doesn’t have a real case.
Man, if that’s in response to my “proper channels” comment, you’re really missing my point. I am assuming at this point–as you seem to be–that he’s making a good-faith effort here.
However, there is a fair criticism of my post: I said that a worst-case scenario was that the prosecutor was acting sloppily. The real worst-case scenario is that the prosecutor is acting disingenuously; and in that case, I’ll be glad to join in excoriating the prosecutor, calling for his impeachment or whatever is appropriate under such circumstances.
But I see zero–zero–evidence to indicate that this really-worst-case scenario is true, whereas there’s a smidgen of evidence that the one I mentioned in my previous post might be true.
And another correction: the real real worst case scenario is that the prosecutor is secretly an Elder God from beyond the vasty reaches of darkness, whose plan will result in the infinite and suffering and eternal madness of all creation. I didn’t mention that scenario previously for the same reason I didn’t mention the disingenuity one: I wasn’t thinking.
Daniel
Here’s my guess. IANAL, but I’ve read lots of Rumpole…
DeLay didn’t set out to break the law, he set out to skirt the law. (Much like Clinton set out to skirt the law in his famous testimony, defining “sex” with excruciating precision). Mr. DeLay (R-Undead) set out to make himself the major player in the Tighty Righty universe. He had the enormous advantage of setting out from Texas. (With grave reluctance, I urge my fellow citizen-Dopers to pay more attention to Texas politics, though its like urging people to attend a volleyball tournement in a leper colony.)
The plan: simplicity itself. Elect enough R’s in the Texas Lege to force through a redistricting plan that would ensure additional R’s in the House of Representatives. To do this, he tapped corporate coffers with the genteel touch that has earned him his nickname. But there was this one pesky little problem: a tiresome little law that forbade precisely that.
Well, then, simply route that money to Washington and the RNC, they wave their hands over corporate money and, by the miracle of transubstantiation, the money is purified by the Blood of the Hammer. And can be routed back to those Texas Republicans who can be counted to be appropriately grateful.
It is illegal? Dunno. Certainly buggers the intent of the law. The question becomes: did DeLay successfully skirt the strictest interpretation of the law? In which case, I cannot but agree: he must be found blameless if the law is so ineptly worded as to permit skating.
I suspect that such is precisely what will happen. To paraphrase the line from Chinatown: “Forget it Jake. It’s Texas…”
elucidator: That’s certainly my understanding, except that you left out the exact mechanism: TRMPAC, and some detail. TRMPAC had two seperate accounts: one for private donors and one for corporate donors. That way corporate money could be channeled to states where it’s kosher, and private money to states (like Texas) where it’s not. 'Tis whether the 'twain ever met that is the rub. Delay says no, Earle says yes. This type of slight of hand, though, is exactly why campaign finance law is a waste of time IMHSHO. You just see the same wads of cash show up somewhere else, but where it’s even harder to trace. Witness the battle of the 527s in the last presidential elclection. Whack-a-mole, if you will.
Like what Ken Starr did with the Whitewater charges, TravelGate, and the Vince Foster suicide, right?
Er… no.
In Whitewater, Starr indicted Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, and Jim Guy Tucker. All were convicted.
Who was indicted for Vince Foster’s suicide?
Col. Mustard?
So the $40 million investigation of the White House was just a ruse to get at the real targets: Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker? Who knew that was the purpose of the Special Prosecutor’s office? Crafty, that Starr fella. Certainly not politically motivated.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
If it can work in Europe (and it does, based on an apparent consensus of Eurodopers’ statements in earlier GD and GQ threads I’ve started on the question), why not here?
No one seriously disputes that. No one but you thinks it’s worth hammering on anyway.
Who said anything about excusing prosecutorial misconduct depending on the target? Who but you has brought up the issue of its possible presence here? Sure, there’s a sense of satisfaction that a man known for skirting and even flouting the law has gotten himself in trouble with the law, but where did you get the idea that anyone here thinks the law can be flouted as easily as DeLay thinks it can?
And yet you’ve gone on at length exploring the subject of Earle’s good faith, even using the word “fascism” in connection with it. Is it any wonder that you appear to be insinuating something other than what you claim to say?
How did we get from A to B? I was talking about a prosecutor who believes in the actual guilt of his targets, but knows he can’t prove it. You asked if this applied to Ken Starr. I pointed out that it didn’t - that Ken Starr’s indictments brought convictions.
How does your next question, about Starr’s investigation, fit into this line of inquiry?
Does the second indictment have any teeth or substance?
As best I can tell the first one is garbage so I’m wondering if the prosecutor “shored up” a bit and has something more substantial to work with now.
Earl claims he got some new evidence, and the laundering charge is not a “do over”, though I don’t think anyone outside of the prosecutors know what that evidence is.
So far, it’s been Libby and DeLay in the news. Now, it looks like Rove just might be joining them.