At Least GOP Indictments Bring a Smile to Someone's Face
Mike Healy
October 30, 2005
If you?re one of those unlucky souls that has been keeping a close eye on politics in recent months, the above picture is probably one you have seen before. For those of you that have turned a blind eye to our national governmental horror show, allow me to fill you in: that is a picture of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
Take a good look at the picture. Contrary to what one might surmise, this is not a photograph that DeLay submitted to an online dating service, or perhaps as an accompaniment to his application to join the Jehovah?s witnesses. The grinning image you now behold is, in fact, a mug shot. DeLay, you see, has recently been indicted on charges of conspiracy and violation of campaign finance law. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and thus Mr. DeLay was forced to turn himself in to authorities, providing us with the smiling visage we see today.
Why the carefree countenance, then? For a man facing possible prison time and certain public disgrace, DeLay seems to actually be having a pretty good day. Could it be that Tom DeLay has just the greatest attitude of any human being alive? Can anything get this wonderful man down?
As it bears to reason, the reality of the situation is that a political opponent might seize upon a more derelict police file photo and use it against DeLay in a future campaign. Many would argue that perhaps DeLay appears so pleased because he knows he is innocent. Assuming DeLay is something of a smart man, I would wager that he personally does not feel this is the case, as, in the face of these numerous public allegations, the entirety of the Texas Republican?s defense has been this: Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle (the man investigating DeLay for the Texas Grand Jury which handed down his indictments) is a Democrat. That?s it. Because Ronnie Earle is a Democrat, the charges against DeLay are clearly made up. This is a legal defense that is patently offensive not only because of the tacit condemnation of the integrity of perhaps every Democrat in the United States, but also for the sheer laziness and audacity it must take to present such a notion as the actual crux of a legal defense.
Johnnie Cochran must be spinning in his grave.
What is really amusing about the whole situation is that, even assuming DeLay?s accusations are true, and that Ronnie Earle is a psychotic liberal marauder willing to sacrifice the whole of his professional reputation and integrity on the miniscule chance that he might somehow bring about the destruction of revered American icon Tom DeLay (despite being based on what DeLay himself has called ?One of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history.?) for no other reason than simple partisanship (now that I?ve written it out, maybe DeLay?s defense does seem pretty plausible . . .), DeLay?s defense still doesn?t make any sense.
This is because Ronnie Earle did not indict Tom DeLay. As a prosecutor, Earle does not have the power to do that. In reality, DeLay was indicted by the grand jury that Earle was working for. A grand jury consisting of 25 of DeLay?s fellow Texans, more than a few of them staunch Republicans. So if DeLay wasn?t indicted for reasons of pure partisanship, then why was he? Could it be perhaps because he had broken the law? To quote grand jury foreman William Gibson, ?We would not have handed down an indictment. . . if we didn?t feel there was sufficient evidence.?
All that being said, DeLay has chosen to stick with his idea of these charges being grounded in nothing more than anti-Republican rancor, as he wrote in a letter to supporters last week:
What we?re fighting is so much larger than a single court case or a single district attorney in Travis County. . .We are witnessing the criminalization of conservative politics."
The criminalization of conservative politics? When I read that, I wasn?t sure if it made much sense, but I thought it had kind of a catchy ring to it. That?s why I did not feel the least it surprised when I went on to hear it roughly three thousand times in the next forty-eight hours.
Not from DeLay, however. No, the parroting of the GOP?s new catchphrase was coming from various right wing pundits in response to the indictment of Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis ?Scooter? Libby by a federal grand jury (with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald leading the investigation) on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. Many conservatives tried to spin this development as a political victory, spouting lines such as ?It?s only a perjury ?technicality?, it?s not even a real crime.? And ?Well, for all the hubaloo, it looks like there was only one felon in the White House.?
These talking points are ridiculous on two levels. First, the notion that the White House should profit politically from only one official (Libby) being indicted, and even his indictment coming for such ?mundane? things as perjury and obstruction of justice.
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the reason more serious charges were not able to be brought was because of the perjury and obstruction of justice? Clearly, Libby had a reason to lie to the grand jury and obstruct justice (however it is that one does that): because there is something he was trying to prevent them from finding, most likely a much more serious crime. This isn?t Bill Clinton lying about fooling around with the svelte Monica Lewinski, Clinton lied about that not because it is against the law to cheat on your wife, but because it is a political nightmare and publicly humiliating to deal with such revelations on the public stage. Libby (should he be found guilty) lied aout the exposure of an undercover CIA agent for political retribution, not only a felony, but also a potentially treasonous charge. Who is worse: your coworker who fibs about passing gas in an elevator, or your accountant who lies to you about what he has done with all your money? That being said, perjury and obstruction of justice are still very serious charges, so in fairness, I will demand the immediate resignation of Bill Clinton from the Presidency of the United States.
The second, and far more disturbing problem presented by the ?spin battle? occurring around this deluge of indictments is the fact that these corrupt Republicans seem to have no remorse about acting in such a questionable way as to have brought this scrutiny upon themselves, or even a real fear of getting caught. Their primary and sole concern is that they not appear as though they are on the receiving end of any political defeats.
What we are seeing is not "the criminalization of conservative politics," what we are seeing are "the conservative politics of criminalization."
Only in today?s setting could the party registration of a county prosecutor be considered the paramount piece of evidence in the trial of a political leader. Only in today?s climate could the indictment on felony charges of one of the five most powerful men in the White House be spun as a potential ?victory? for the presidency. I don?t see how these men can be so ethically bankrupt yet claim to be acting in the nation?s best interests, and do so with a straight face.
Then again, maybe they can?t. I mean, just look at Tom DeLay. . .
Take a good look at the picture. Contrary to what one might surmise, this is not a photograph that DeLay submitted to an online dating service, or perhaps as an accompaniment to his application to join the Jehovah?s witnesses. The grinning image you now behold is, in fact, a mug shot. DeLay, you see, has recently been indicted on charges of conspiracy and violation of campaign finance law. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and thus Mr. DeLay was forced to turn himself in to authorities, providing us with the smiling visage we see today.
Why the carefree countenance, then? For a man facing possible prison time and certain public disgrace, DeLay seems to actually be having a pretty good day. Could it be that Tom DeLay has just the greatest attitude of any human being alive? Can anything get this wonderful man down?
As it bears to reason, the reality of the situation is that a political opponent might seize upon a more derelict police file photo and use it against DeLay in a future campaign. Many would argue that perhaps DeLay appears so pleased because he knows he is innocent. Assuming DeLay is something of a smart man, I would wager that he personally does not feel this is the case, as, in the face of these numerous public allegations, the entirety of the Texas Republican?s defense has been this: Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle (the man investigating DeLay for the Texas Grand Jury which handed down his indictments) is a Democrat. That?s it. Because Ronnie Earle is a Democrat, the charges against DeLay are clearly made up. This is a legal defense that is patently offensive not only because of the tacit condemnation of the integrity of perhaps every Democrat in the United States, but also for the sheer laziness and audacity it must take to present such a notion as the actual crux of a legal defense.
Johnnie Cochran must be spinning in his grave.
What is really amusing about the whole situation is that, even assuming DeLay?s accusations are true, and that Ronnie Earle is a psychotic liberal marauder willing to sacrifice the whole of his professional reputation and integrity on the miniscule chance that he might somehow bring about the destruction of revered American icon Tom DeLay (despite being based on what DeLay himself has called ?One of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history.?) for no other reason than simple partisanship (now that I?ve written it out, maybe DeLay?s defense does seem pretty plausible . . .), DeLay?s defense still doesn?t make any sense.
This is because Ronnie Earle did not indict Tom DeLay. As a prosecutor, Earle does not have the power to do that. In reality, DeLay was indicted by the grand jury that Earle was working for. A grand jury consisting of 25 of DeLay?s fellow Texans, more than a few of them staunch Republicans. So if DeLay wasn?t indicted for reasons of pure partisanship, then why was he? Could it be perhaps because he had broken the law? To quote grand jury foreman William Gibson, ?We would not have handed down an indictment. . . if we didn?t feel there was sufficient evidence.?
All that being said, DeLay has chosen to stick with his idea of these charges being grounded in nothing more than anti-Republican rancor, as he wrote in a letter to supporters last week:
What we?re fighting is so much larger than a single court case or a single district attorney in Travis County. . .We are witnessing the criminalization of conservative politics."
The criminalization of conservative politics? When I read that, I wasn?t sure if it made much sense, but I thought it had kind of a catchy ring to it. That?s why I did not feel the least it surprised when I went on to hear it roughly three thousand times in the next forty-eight hours.
Not from DeLay, however. No, the parroting of the GOP?s new catchphrase was coming from various right wing pundits in response to the indictment of Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis ?Scooter? Libby by a federal grand jury (with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald leading the investigation) on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. Many conservatives tried to spin this development as a political victory, spouting lines such as ?It?s only a perjury ?technicality?, it?s not even a real crime.? And ?Well, for all the hubaloo, it looks like there was only one felon in the White House.?
These talking points are ridiculous on two levels. First, the notion that the White House should profit politically from only one official (Libby) being indicted, and even his indictment coming for such ?mundane? things as perjury and obstruction of justice.
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the reason more serious charges were not able to be brought was because of the perjury and obstruction of justice? Clearly, Libby had a reason to lie to the grand jury and obstruct justice (however it is that one does that): because there is something he was trying to prevent them from finding, most likely a much more serious crime. This isn?t Bill Clinton lying about fooling around with the svelte Monica Lewinski, Clinton lied about that not because it is against the law to cheat on your wife, but because it is a political nightmare and publicly humiliating to deal with such revelations on the public stage. Libby (should he be found guilty) lied aout the exposure of an undercover CIA agent for political retribution, not only a felony, but also a potentially treasonous charge. Who is worse: your coworker who fibs about passing gas in an elevator, or your accountant who lies to you about what he has done with all your money? That being said, perjury and obstruction of justice are still very serious charges, so in fairness, I will demand the immediate resignation of Bill Clinton from the Presidency of the United States.
The second, and far more disturbing problem presented by the ?spin battle? occurring around this deluge of indictments is the fact that these corrupt Republicans seem to have no remorse about acting in such a questionable way as to have brought this scrutiny upon themselves, or even a real fear of getting caught. Their primary and sole concern is that they not appear as though they are on the receiving end of any political defeats.
What we are seeing is not "the criminalization of conservative politics," what we are seeing are "the conservative politics of criminalization."
Only in today?s setting could the party registration of a county prosecutor be considered the paramount piece of evidence in the trial of a political leader. Only in today?s climate could the indictment on felony charges of one of the five most powerful men in the White House be spun as a potential ?victory? for the presidency. I don?t see how these men can be so ethically bankrupt yet claim to be acting in the nation?s best interests, and do so with a straight face.
Then again, maybe they can?t. I mean, just look at Tom DeLay. . .
Print
Email
