Tom DeLay, Prison Bitch
Near as I can tell, based on the reports I've read, DeLay's defense seems to hinge on two tenets:
1.) Funnelling money from my PAC to local Texas races is what everyone in politics does, and I am being unfairly singled out.
2.) Ronnie Earle is on a mission of political destruction, and I am being targeted by a prosecutor who seeks to either gain personal political advantage or saddle me with political liability.
I sure hope that's not all they've got. He's presumably paying his lawyers a lot of money to defend him, and neither of the arguments above will be of any help to his defense. Both are intuitively and demonstrably false. The first, because few politicians are as well-heeled, well-connected, or as focussed on electoral domination as Delay (not to mention as inclined to such money-funnelling shenanigans, as his track record indicates). Second, Ronnie Earle has gone after Dems and Reps for ages, and as such is an equal-opportunity prosecutor.
But even if these points are debatable, neither actually defends him against the charges! Just because everyone else does it doesn't make it legal; despite the large numbers of jaywalkers in Chicago who get away with it, I am still breaking the law when I cross on red. And I ain't no fancy Stetson-wearing barrister, but even I know the motivations of a prosecutor are not admissable in court.
I may think Tom Delay is a scumbag, but I also think that he is innocent until proven guilty, and that he deserves competent legal representation. (I wish I could say I have observed a similar sentiment on the right when high-profile Dems are indicted, but all I can recall is the sickening display of glee during LewinskyGate, whitewater, etc.) Surely his legal team can come up with something better.
1.) Funnelling money from my PAC to local Texas races is what everyone in politics does, and I am being unfairly singled out.
2.) Ronnie Earle is on a mission of political destruction, and I am being targeted by a prosecutor who seeks to either gain personal political advantage or saddle me with political liability.
I sure hope that's not all they've got. He's presumably paying his lawyers a lot of money to defend him, and neither of the arguments above will be of any help to his defense. Both are intuitively and demonstrably false. The first, because few politicians are as well-heeled, well-connected, or as focussed on electoral domination as Delay (not to mention as inclined to such money-funnelling shenanigans, as his track record indicates). Second, Ronnie Earle has gone after Dems and Reps for ages, and as such is an equal-opportunity prosecutor.
But even if these points are debatable, neither actually defends him against the charges! Just because everyone else does it doesn't make it legal; despite the large numbers of jaywalkers in Chicago who get away with it, I am still breaking the law when I cross on red. And I ain't no fancy Stetson-wearing barrister, but even I know the motivations of a prosecutor are not admissable in court.
I may think Tom Delay is a scumbag, but I also think that he is innocent until proven guilty, and that he deserves competent legal representation. (I wish I could say I have observed a similar sentiment on the right when high-profile Dems are indicted, but all I can recall is the sickening display of glee during LewinskyGate, whitewater, etc.) Surely his legal team can come up with something better.
posted by Germanicu$ at 8:56 AM
2 Comments:
With regards to the whole jaywalking argument, while I certainly believe law breakers should be punished I also have a problem with selective enforcement. I suppose you can argue that in Delay's case it is a matter of degree, but it seems wrong to send him to the pokey if, in fact, "everybody does it".
One illustration of selective
(non)enforcement which comes to mind is last week's ND/USC football game. The game ended when USC's QB plunged over the goal line and was simultaneously pushed by his running back. Technically this was illegal and a penalty should have been called. I recall saying after the game how ridiculous this call would have been. While technically correct it would have been an unprecedented enforcement of the rules. I think fairness dictates that there are times when you pull your punches . I'm not saying that this is neccessarily one of those times, but anytime politicians are involved I think the motivations of the accusers (prosecutors) are not irrelevent.
It looks like folks, particularly moveon, have convicted DeLay without a trial, and the current judge's support of moveon, I think is the ultimate grounds for recusing himself.
It would be like, say, having referees wearing Michigan hats at a college football game
Post a Comment
<< Home