# Texas Democrats: you've gotta be fucking kiddin me **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 13, 2003, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948 "2003-05-13T13:51:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/261 "2003-05-27T22:48:52Z")
Damn! Ol’ **Dewey** , he never disappoints! I knew there was a perfectly good reason, kind of thing you can say with a straight face. It just _looks_ like covering up Republican chicanery, if one lacks a sophisticated viewpoint. Yeppers, thats got to be it. Nothing to see here, you looky loos, move along. I’ll be ol’ **Dewey** plays a mean game of Twister. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/262 "2003-05-27T22:49:52Z")
I have a hard time believing there’s a statute out there that prohibits the use of law enforecement to harrass or interfere with one’s political opponents, but if you _do_ misuse the cops in that way, then you have to be sure and immediately destroy all the records of the misuse. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/263 "2003-05-27T22:54:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I have a hard time believing there’s a statute out there that prohibits the use of law enforecement to harrass or interfere with one’s political opponents, but if you _do_ misuse the cops in that way, then you have to be sure and immediately destroy all the records of the misuse. \*\* oh _come on_ certainly you’ve heard of: the laws of self preservation, the rule of ‘plausable deniability’ and the primary directive: “dont’ get caught”? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/264 "2003-05-28T00:43:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I have a hard time believing there’s a statute out there that prohibits the use of law enforecement to harrass or interfere with one’s political opponents, but if you _do_ misuse the cops in that way, then you have to be sure and immediately destroy all the records of the misuse. \*\* The article describes the law as “a lengthy federal provision setting guidelines for handling records in far-ranging criminal investigations such as loan sharking and drug trafficking.” It apparently contains a provision governing recordkeeping in noncriminal investigations, which may or may not apply in this case. It evidently also contains a provision that federal law enforcement not be used to subvert lawful political activity, presumably in the context of recordkeeping (I’m thinking of Hoover’s MLK files here). I fail utterly to see why those two provisions would be the least bit contradictory, or why you would think it unusual that they both be present. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/265 "2003-05-28T00:50:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Damn! Ol’ **Dewey** , he never disappoints! I knew there was a perfectly good reason, kind of thing you can say with a straight face. It just _looks_ like covering up Republican chicanery, if one lacks a sophisticated viewpoint. Yeppers, thats got to be it. Nothing to see here, you looky loos, move along. \*\* Christ, are you stupid. I haven’t said that the DPS acted properly – I said they _may have_. There is an insufficient basis to say for certain one way or the other. I know you have a burning hatred of all things Republican, but let’s wait until we have all the information we need before we run around half-cocked throwing out conspiracy theories willy-nilly, m’kay? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/266 "2003-05-28T01:22:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*As the Texas rangers no doubt knew, and in any event became faced with, the State of Texas regulation re: quorum was pretty unenforceable outside Texas. Federal resources were apparently used in an attempt to investigate /enforce a State of Texas regulation, outside Texas. \*\* I don’t believe the feds were asked to enforce the Texas law outside of Texas – they were just asked to provide information. I’m guessing the thinking was “if we can find out where these guys are, and they’re still in Texas, we can bring them back to Austin.” \*\* > [@](#): > > what I believe is likely to have happened is that some one high up (not DeLay, he’d need to have ‘plausible deniablity’), suggested along down the line “we should check into their whereabouts, can’t we check using this system?” and then the request went down the line. ONce it got out that it was done, it became clear that folks could potentially get into trouble having done so, hence the orders to destroy all documentation. \*\* Here’s a simpler scenario that doesn’t require a massive conspiracy going up to the highest levels of government: 1. Texas DPS gets (perfectly legal) order to return lawmakers to Austin. 2. Texas DPS, in an effort to complete their task successfully, contacts the Feds in an effort to discover the legislator’s whereabouts (something I would presume they would do in any manhunt situation where the target might be crossing state lines). 3. Texas DPS officer, believing (possibly incorrectly) that federal law compels the immediate destruction of documents, requests their destruction. Occam’s Razor, dude. \*\* > [@](#): > > re: your standard procedures. key difference is “when time period elapsed”, and I’m not seeing anything that suggests that ‘immediate’ disposal of this stuff was the norm in any sense of the word. (save for your examples re: gun checks) \*\* Texas DPS is claiming that the law mandates immediate disposal. They may or may not be right in that assertion, but if they’re correct, then they were right to dispose of it. \*\* > [@](#): > > You’re a lawyer. You often get very mired (IMHO) in the very minute details of your position. Understandable effect of your profession. \*\* Fuck that. That was a stupid comment in that other thread and it’s a stupid comment here. Yeah, I ask for proof of various assertions. I don’t take things at face value. And I don’t run off half-cocked making wild-assed accusations based on nothing but a hunch. If that makes me “obsessed with details,” then fine, I’m guilty. The world would be a better place if everyone was thusly obssessed. Seriously. What if DPS is right? What if, upon examination, federal law _does_ compel the immediate destruction of those documents? If that’s the case, then _you’ll_ be the one eating crow, because you decided to go off half-cocked. I, on the other hand, am safe even if the DPS was 100% wrong because I am not willing to level an accusation without evidence. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/267 "2003-05-28T01:26:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > I fail utterly to see why those two provisions would be the least bit contradictory, or why you would think it unusual that they both be present. Because it makes no goddamn sense at all to prohibit the abuse on the one hand and mandate its coverup if it happens anyway. Okay, maybe it makes sense to an Okie. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/268 "2003-05-28T01:40:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Because it makes no goddamn sense at all to prohibit the abuse on the one hand and mandate its coverup if it happens anyway.** The law doesn’t “mandate coverups,” it protects the civil liberties of citizens by preventing law enforcement from maintaining files on them. That such document destruction might also make it harder to prove law enforcement malfeasance is just an unintended consequence of that otherwise-noble goal. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/269 "2003-05-28T01:54:26Z")
Alas, poor **Dewey**! All this magnificent rationation, this bluster, these straight faced assertions, all must fail because we who know you, who read your thoughts, know one thing. You’re not that stupid. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/270 "2003-05-28T01:55:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I don’t believe the feds were asked to enforce the Texas law outside of Texas – they were just asked to provide information. I’m guessing the thinking was “if we can find out where these guys are, and they’re still in Texas, we can bring them back to Austin.” \*\*Here’s a simpler scenario that doesn’t require a massive conspiracy going up to the highest levels of government: > > 1. Texas DPS gets (perfectly legal) order to return lawmakers to Austin. > > 2. Texas DPS, in an effort to complete their task successfully, contacts the Feds in an effort to discover the legislator’s whereabouts (something I would presume they would do in any manhunt situation where the target might be crossing state lines). \*\* and there’s where your scenario gets bogged down. Texas DPS has the resources to search all of Texas, 'cause, well, that’s their jurisdiction. If the ‘target’ may be crossing state lines, you’re correct that the Feds should be contacted - but here’s the thing - once they were across state lines, the Texas DPS no longer had the authority to seize them. IOW, since their reach only worked **within Texas** , there was no reason to check w/the Feds. Rest of your numbered stuff has no bearing thusly. > [@](#): > > Occam’s Razor, dude. just in case this isn’t a figure of speech, I’m a dudette. and of course, since they didn’t have jurisdiction past their own investigative capabilities, the applicable Federal statute wasn’t applicable ya know. RE: the other comment, I’m not suggesting (as you seem to claim here) that attention to detail and reserving judgement are inherently bad things. It’s surprising that you’d seem to claim that of me, since I’m often the one suggesting that there’s other alternatives to ‘fry the bastid’ upon mere accusation. HOwever, what I **am** suggesting that you do, is that you tend to cling to that ever so small shread of ‘it might be possible’, not likely as at all, but might be possible, even when it flies in the face of probabilities and human nature, as it seems to here. Honestly, when was the last time you ever heard of investigators specifically destroying evidence that they’d investigated something? Christ almighty, the FBI just recently found crap that they were supposed to have turned over to McVeigh’s lawyers way back at his trial (and certainly before his execution), and you want to believe that it’s **possible** that some guy issues orders that **all memorandum, notes, emails etc.** relative to an investigation that had just been done must be destroyed post haste? I used to have an example that fit this sort of thing- up until recently, it was **possible** that Richard Nixon would be re-elected PResident. All it would have taken was a constitutional ammendment, some really savvy politiking, etc. [quote] Seriously. What if DPS is right? What if, upon examination, federal law _does_ compel the immediate destruction of those documents? [quote] - well, hell, if that were the case, I’d have suspected that the guy who ordered it would have included the fucking specifics when he issued the damn order and /or was interviewed about it. "see, here, I’ve **got to**. If, OTOH, he was going for the ‘plausible deniability’ concept, he’d make vague references to some requirment, while busy w/the paper shredder. OTOH, maybe Rose Mary Woods really **Did** accidentally erase that 18 minutes. I’ll save my crow recipes til then. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/271 "2003-05-28T02:25:53Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by wring \* > \*\* and there’s where your scenario gets bogged down. Texas DPS has the resources to search all of Texas, 'cause, well, that’s their jurisdiction. If the ‘target’ may be crossing state lines, you’re correct that the Feds should be contacted - but here’s the thing - once they were across state lines, the Texas DPS no longer had the authority to seize them. IOW, since their reach only worked **within Texas** , there was no reason to check w/the Feds._\* There’s a perfectly legitimate reason to contact the feds before the suspect crosses state lines: to ascertain their whereabouts _before_ they cross state lines so they can be apprehended while within the DPS’s jurisdiction. From what I understand, the principal contact with the feds was an attempt to locate a lawmaker’s plane. It makes sense to contact the feds on that to determine if the plane is in Texas or some other state so you know where to deploy your resources – if the plane is in Texas, send officers to the airstrip; if not, don’t waste your time at the airstrip. \*\* > [@](#): > > HOwever, what I **am** suggesting that you do, is that you tend to cling to that ever so small shread of ‘it might be possible’, not likely as at all, but might be possible, even when it flies in the face of probabilities and human nature, as it seems to here.\*\* Actually, I think the balance of probabilities and human nature favors a fuckup (assuming the DPS is wrong in their interpretation) rather than a venal conspiracy. Again we’re back to not ascribing to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity. That, and Occam’s Razor. It’s a much simpler explanation that the DPS made a few mistakes, rather than a vast political conspiracy.\*\* > [@](#): > > Honestly, when was the last time you ever heard of investigators specifically destroying evidence that they’d investigated something? \*\* It makes sense that the document retention rules would be different for criminal and noncriminal cases. Criminal cases will require retention for trial and appeal. There is no such issue with noncriminal cases. At any rate, there is obviously a law on the books that mandates immediate document destruction for _some_ investigations (though possibly not this one). If you think that makes little sense, take it up with the lawmakers who wrote it.\*\* > [@](#): > > - well, hell, if that were the case, I’d have suspected that the guy who ordered it would have included the fucking specifics when he issued the damn order and /or was interviewed about it. "see, here, I’ve **got to**. If, OTOH, he was going for the ‘plausible deniability’ concept, he’d make vague references to some requirment, while busy w/the paper shredder.\*\* Well, obviously he _did_ provide specifics – the reporter was able to find a copy of the law to quote a provision from it, and a local attorney was able to comment on it. You shouldn’t fault the DPS for the reporter’s decision to omit legal citation from his story. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/272 "2003-05-28T02:32:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Alas, poor **Dewey**! All this magnificent rationation, this bluster, these straight faced assertions, all must fail because we who know you, who read your thoughts, know one thing. > > You’re not that stupid. \*\* Gee, I should strive to be more like you – tossing out accusations on nothing but the barest speculation. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/273 "2003-05-28T02:34:31Z")
so, then you believe that Rose Mary was taking yoga or something hence the stretching?? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/274 "2003-05-28T02:52:33Z")
Awww, c’mon **Dewey** , play fair at least. Documented proof of shredding all evidence and references is “barest speculation”? You _know_ that won’t fly! Why don’t you try for “liberal conspiracy”? Hillary cooked it all up, and conned the notoriously liberal Texas press into buying it! Yes, that’s it! And Tom DeLay, innocent lamb that he is, is the victim of her dark machinations… Ooooohh, that evil, evil Hillary! What won’t she stoop to in order to besmirch the noble character of ol’ Tom? No, wait…it was all a dream! Maybe you can work in a long lost indentical twin! ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/275 "2003-05-28T03:02:43Z")
**DCH** and btw, my scenario doesn’t require a ‘vast conspiracy’, merely some one relatively high up with fewer scruples than brains. making the request. Lower down person doesn’t realize it’s not a legit request. at point when the shit starts hitting the fan both parties realize “holy shit batman, we weren’t supposed to do that”, um, er, hey everybody, look over there… classic really. Any kindergarten teacher would be able to follow it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/276 "2003-05-28T04:36:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Why don’t you try for “liberal conspiracy”? Hillary cooked it all up, and conned the notoriously liberal Texas press into buying it! Yes, that’s it! And Tom DeLay, innocent lamb that he is, is the victim of her dark machinations… Ooooohh, that evil, evil Hillary! What won’t she stoop to in order to besmirch the noble character of ol’ Tom? \*\* No thanks, Sparky. I’ll leave the paranoid conspiracy theories to you and your tinfoil-wearing brethren. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/277 "2003-05-28T04:41:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > **DCH and btw, my scenario doesn’t require a ‘vast conspiracy’, merely some one relatively high up with fewer scruples than brains. making the request. Lower down person doesn’t realize it’s not a legit request.** It does require a vast conspiracy, because said higher-up would be relying on all the individuals involved – from the DPS through federal law enforcement – to disavow all knowledge of the request. Which is absurd. All it takes is one publicity-minded DPS officer to sink you. That’s a lot of risk with fairly minimal benefits. It’s a lot simpler to believe that a couple of individual officers made some arguably bad judgments. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/278 "2003-05-28T04:45:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Awww, c’mon **Dewey** , play fair at least. Documented proof of shredding all evidence and references is “barest speculation”? You _know_ that won’t fly! \*\* Oh, and BTW no one’e denying the shredding took place. The DPS claims it was acting pursuant to federal law in doing so. And I haven’t seen anyone make a credible claim that that position isn’t a reasonable interpretation of existing law. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/279 "2003-05-28T04:46:04Z")
Intersting theory ya got there bucko - of course, it pretty well describes the scenario as it’s happened… (clue - the subordinates possibly leaking the story about the request for info, then the memo to destroy the evidence… otherwise ya know, how would we know about all of this???) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948/280 "2003-05-28T05:15:43Z")
I don’t think the fact that information was requested was “leaked.” I don’t think that fact was ever considered confidential. The DPS has been pretty open about what they did and when they did it. Hardly the stuff of conspiracies. But then, I’m generally very skeptical of conspiracy theories. I also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman. Any plan requiring more than two or three people to keep a fact secret is doomed to failure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-democrats-youve-gotta-be-fucking-kiddin-me/174948.md?page=15)