pudge's Journal: DeLay Conspiracy

I don't know much about the specific charges against DeLay, though the case looks to me a bit flimsy -- even many left-wing and moderate commentators, like Dan Abrams (who is himself a lawyer), are saying so -- as from what I've seen, it looks no laws were even broken.

But I really have only two points to make. First, he is not (yet) guilty. He is only indicted. And it is irresponsible for people like Nancy Pelosi say this is "evidence" of corruption in the Republican Party, and the Democrats have done much of the same things, so even if it is evidence of corruption in the GOP, that isn't exactly an argument in favor of the Democrats.

I won't attack Ronnie Earl. I don't know much about him. But that people are attacking him is why I am in favor of changing the House ethics rules: the rules encourage frivolous indictments for partisan purposes, and it also diminshes good indictments because of suspicions of partisanship. It's a bad rule. Heck, I would be a lot more likely to care about this indictment if that rule didn't exist: it necessarily makes me more skeptical.

I am no fan of Tom DeLay. I don't hate him either. I am not sticking up for him at all, I am sticking up for a sense of justice and fair play: don't assume he is guilty, and change the system to take some of the partisanship and gamesmanship out.

Similarly

[nandorman]

Under the same rules, if such stringent things existed, wouldn't Clinton have had to resign after he was impeached (since impeachment is a form of indictment)?

Re:Similarly

[pudge]

No, the House rules only require him to drop his leadership post, which is not a Constitutional position. He does not lose any of his Constitutional authority, and remains a full member in good standing of the House of Representatives. I don't really think there is a good analogue for the executive or judicial branches.

Re:Similarly

[nandorman]

I suppose. Maybe could have relinquished his Commander In Chief-dom ;>

Re:Similarly

[bofkentucky]

Some might say he did to the UN and Janet Reno, from day 1, but that's another argument for another day.

DeLay?

[PDA_Monkey]

I must admit that my first though upon seeing the topic of this journal was of "Art Van Delay" (sp?) from Seinfeld.

And actually, since I don't know anything about this Tom guy, I still am thinking of "Art Van Delay". :-)

what you probably haven't heard...

[eglamkowski]

Is that while 3 republicans were indicted here, this same prosecutor is going after TWELVE democrats. If 3 possibly problematic republicans are symptomatic of corruption in the GOP, what does 12 democrats say about THAT party?

Ronnie Earl

[cascadefx]

From what I have read, the guy hates corruption in general. He goes after those in power that are corrupt... including Democrats.

Re:Ronnie Earl

[pudge]

Or maybe he just notes that voters hate corruption, and he does this to get reelected (or to help whoever appointed him get reelected).

Not trying to say he is doing that, just that I won't question his motives, because they could be bad, could be good, I dunno. But that the House rules give someone in his position more of a motive to indict is a big problem.