Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
One Down, 434 to Go
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has been indicted on conspiracy charges and stepped down as majority leader:
A grand jury in Austin charged DeLay, 58, and two associates already facing criminal charges with a single count of criminal conspiracy, accusing them of improperly funneling corporate donations to a DeLay-founded political action committee to Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature in 2002.
UPDATE: And it looks like
closet heterosexual Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) is going to be
stepping in for him. (Though Dreier still only gets a
22 percent rating from Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights
group.) Never mind, looks like
it's Blunt.
|9.28.05 @ 2:14PM|#
This is a politically motivated attack, to be sure. However, I
will not be listening to such arguments from anyone involved with,
or who supported, the Clinton impeachment circus--so I'm hoping for
some restful silence.
And, does anybody really need a grand jury to them that DeLay is a
shitbag?
drf|9.28.05 @ 2:18PM|#
Henry:
do you know the Monty Python "Mr. Neutron" sketch? Michael Palin
plays a US general getting news on "how scared" the enemy is.
"Do we have any figures on how scared?"
maybe this is to get some figures on how many pounds of
shit...
oh, and how about the "well, he's dun (sic) wrong. he's gotta be
punished" argument, too :)
Mike Kole|9.28.05 @ 2:22PM|#
One down, 434 to go? Oh come on. There are at least 3 or 4 worth sparing.
|9.28.05 @ 2:24PM|#
"DeLay's attorney, Bill White, called the charge "a skunky
indictment."
I usually think of the "skunky" to mean "bitchin'", like skunky
bud!
"Like a dead skunk in the middle of the road, it stinks to high
heaven," White said.
...but I might have used the world "skunk" to describe DeLay, and,
by that, I wouldn't have meant "bitchin'".
"This is a politically motivated attack, to be
sure."
Are you suggesting that the grand jury was politically
motivated?
|9.28.05 @ 2:24PM|#
Actually, the prosecutor responsible for the investigation has a long reputation for whacking politicians regardless of party affiliation - of the fifteen "political" investigations he's directed, twelve involved Dems. Apparently he's a real hard-ass, too...
|9.28.05 @ 2:26PM|#
There goes a real sack of crap.
Not to mention Frist's SEC difficulties. If Martha had to break
rocks for the Man, I want him in the Big House for a spell.
|9.28.05 @ 2:27PM|#
And, does anybody really need a grand jury to them that
DeLay is a shitbag?
Those who do, won't believe it anyway. It will be just another case
of godless liberals trying to destroy one of Jesus' own.
Adam|9.28.05 @ 2:28PM|#
Republican soundbite of the day - stick with it and they'll get
by fine - Ronnie Earle, the District Attorney in the case, also
indicted the squeaky, squeaky clean Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and he
dropped the charges after selecting a jury because he couldn't
prove his case.
That said, and in consideration of the headline of Julian's post,
there's Bill Frist's shady stock sale that
the SEC is looking into, and apparently Senator Schumer's staff
might have illegally
grabbed Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele's credit history -
highly questionable behavior from a man who was dogging Judge
Roberts on his views on the right to privacy just a couple
of weeks ago!
|9.28.05 @ 2:32PM|#
"There are at least 3 or 4 worth sparing."
Mike Kole,
Did you stumble into H&R in error?
|9.28.05 @ 2:33PM|#
Mark my words: He will get off scot-free(sp). Prepare, folks. The revolution cometh.
gaius marius|9.28.05 @ 2:36PM|#
mr alkurta, in the long history of corruption in american government, it is no exaggeration to say that delay might be one of the most corrupt men ever to hold a federal-level elected office. and he knew as much, knew that this indictment and others would someday come -- which is why he gutted the house ethics rules as best he could.
|9.28.05 @ 2:36PM|#
Actually, the prosecutor responsible for the investigation
has a long reputation for whacking politicians regardless of party
affiliation - of the fifteen "political" investigations he's
directed, twelve involved Dems. Apparently he's a real hard-ass,
too...
That's good, at least. The campaign finance laws that result in
these contortions and conspiracies are a joke, but I'm all
for coming down hard on these schmucks when they conspire to break
the laws they inflict on everyone else.
|9.28.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Aw, come on guys, you know my apprentice will pardon DeLay! I didn't spend all this time setting up these series of events just to let a little partisian dweeb bring down my Congressional enforcer!
|9.28.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Maybe Tom Delay's lawyer isn't the best person to lecture us about what smells funny.
|9.28.05 @ 2:39PM|#
"Forgive my ignorance, but what has Tom Delay done to draw
such ire?
TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action
Committee), which I understand to be DeLay's PAC, took money from
Sears, among others, and wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the
Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document
with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they
were supposed to received in donations.
The indictment included a copy of the check.
...I got this from MSNBC's site.
|9.28.05 @ 2:40PM|#
I can't wait to talk to my dad about this one tonight. He has
actually referred to DeLay as "cool," which shows not only his
blind allegiance to Republicans but also his complete lack of
understanding of the word "cool."
This -almost- makes me want to watch Hannity tonight, just to see
what that asshole has to say.
gaius marius|9.28.05 @ 2:45PM|#
And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases
quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many
persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just
stay where they are and walk about the world ? the gentleman
parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?
i'll wager you're absolutely correct, mr sage.
Charles Foster Kane|9.28.05 @ 2:46PM|#
"My first official act as Governor of this State will be to appoint a Special District Attorney to arrange for the indictment, prosecution, and conviction of Boss Jim W. Gettys!"
MP|9.28.05 @ 2:47PM|#
gaius,
I'd counter with Boss Tweed, but in doing so I'd only end up
highlighting what a loathsome character DeLay is.
|9.28.05 @ 2:56PM|#
"...the Republican National Committee and provided the
committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates
and the amounts they were supposed to received in
donations."
Theoretically, shouldn't they indict the House candidates
too?
...now that'd get you closer to your 434 number!
|9.28.05 @ 2:56PM|#
Skunky=bitchin'?
The skunk bud in Albany 20 years ago actually stunk like a skunk!
You could smell it through 3 plastic baggies and the pocket of your
jeans!
This is great news, especially for Jonah Goldberg. His last column
was complaining about how boring everything was being on the side
of the party in power.
|9.28.05 @ 3:08PM|#
I know I'm going to draw the whiny ire of the overtly,
defensively religious on this thread when I make the following
snark. I just wanted to preface my comment with my recognition of
this.
*ahem*
But I thought DeLay was a man of GAHWUD!
|9.28.05 @ 3:09PM|#
434? Local pols are usually more corrupt, and have more influence than national politicians. The number is in the tens of thousands, I'm guessing.
|9.28.05 @ 3:20PM|#
This just in! Shocking news! Delay claims innocence! (from an AP
story at news.yahoo.com):
-----
"I have done nothing wrong ... I am innocent," DeLay told a Capitol
Hill news conference in which he criticized the Texas prosecutor,
Ronnie Earle, repeatedly. DeLay called Earle a "unabashed partisan
zealot," and "fanatic," and described the charges as "one of the
weakest and most baseless indictments in American history."
|9.28.05 @ 3:20PM|#
"There are at least 3 or 4 worth sparing."
Yes, I was going to say that it should 433 at most, since Ron Paul
doesn't need to be indicted for anything that I'm aware of.
|9.28.05 @ 3:29PM|#
No doubt that he's corrupt, hell he's a politician, which is
pretty much prima-facie evidence of that, as the headline implies.
But it's interesting that the conspiracy he gets indicted for is
certainly less damaging than the logrolling and pork-barreling that
goes on every day in Congress as a matter of course. That is the
real conspiracy and it's perfectly legal. So is it any surprise
Congress should attract and promote those particularly talented in
conspiring to advance their fortunes at the expense of (or let's
just say it - by stealing from) others?
My no-chance-in-hell-of-ever-happening solution: A type of
antitrust law applied to politicians. No back-room communication
between politicians should be allowed. Everything should have to be
out in the open, either on the floor or in open committee hearings.
Any evidence that non-public communication went on between elected
officials ought to be considered evidence of conspiracy to defraud
the public. The minimum penalty for such would be removal from
Congress.
|9.28.05 @ 3:30PM|#
Earle has no case here, quite frankly. Look for it to be dismissed before it ever reaches trial. The fact that he had to reach for a conspiracy indictment (to claim jurisdiction) speaks for itself.
|9.28.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Whoops! Forgot to add my punchline: If Delay deserves to be
indicted for anything, I nominate that haircut.
Joke ruined. Nothing to see here. Move along.
|9.28.05 @ 3:39PM|#
These are all partisian attacks from people supporting terrorists. Delay is a valuable asset in the eternal War on Evil People who don't pray like we do, and we consider his indictment nothing less than an outright attack on our very way of life by an activist grand jury, goaded on by an activist partisian prosecutor.
|9.28.05 @ 3:46PM|#
I thought the legislature had an unspoken rule not to point out each other's ethics violations, so as not to open themselves up to scrutiny - a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction. I am curious how these jackals come to the decision that it's safe to swarm on one of their own. Is it a matter of just how much blood is in the water? (Mixed metaphorically speaking, that is.)
|9.28.05 @ 3:48PM|#
But I thought DeLay was a man of GAHWUD!
Only when it comes to vegetables, homosexuals, and abortion.
And I always thought it was pronounced "Gaw-duh".
|9.28.05 @ 3:50PM|#
Hey, look over there everybody! It's the REAL CONSPIRACY! Over there! OVER THERE! LOOK!!!
Just South of Adirondack Adam|9.28.05 @ 3:56PM|#
And, hey, speaking of those other 434 to go...
Frist's in the hot seat for shady stock deals, and Schumer may have
feloniously obtained Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit
report. I'm guessing this thing against DeLay will backfire - this
is the same guy who indicted the squeaky-clean Kay Bailey
Hutchinson and then dropped the charges after jury selection. If he
had any evidence that was worth a crap, he'd leak it.
Akira MacKenzie|9.28.05 @ 3:59PM|#
I know I'm going to draw the whiny ire of the overtly,
defensively religious on this thread when I make the following
snark.
Don't let them stop you. I certainly don't.
|9.28.05 @ 4:03PM|#
"If he had any evidence that was worth a crap, he'd leak
it."
Has the possibility that he's actually an honest DA crossed your
mind?
|9.28.05 @ 4:14PM|#
GAHWUD!
"Gaw-duh".
David,
These are good examples of two separate evangelist dialects.
The Baptist church just around the corner from my residence in the
'hood is more likely to prefer the latter... I think.
|9.28.05 @ 4:26PM|#
"Gah-wud" = white trash televangelists?
"Gaw-duh" = fundamentalists and other rabid religious
commonfolk?
This dialect question seems like a good quandry for linguist.
|9.28.05 @ 4:28PM|#
Hey, look over there everybody! It's the REAL CONSPIRACY!
Over there! OVER THERE! LOOK!!!
Anyone know that the hell he's talking about?
|9.28.05 @ 4:38PM|#
Brian, does responding to the news of Delay's indictment with "But it's interesting that the conspiracy he gets indicted for is certainly less damaging than the logrolling and pork-barreling that goes on every day in Congress as a matter of course. That is the real conspiracy and it's perfectly legal" ring any bells?
|9.28.05 @ 4:42PM|#
"Gah-wud" = white trash televangelists?
"Gaw-duh" = fundamentalists and other rabid religious
commonfolk?
Smacky,
There's probably a "sweat vs. smarm test" that could go with this.
As in, the more animated & sweaty the preacher(usally with a
live audience), the more likely he is to use Gaw-duh. If he's calm
and smarmy(in a TV studio with no audience), Gahwud is the probable
choice. They -duh suffix seems to grow out of heavy breathing, or
ranting.
|9.28.05 @ 4:44PM|#
joe - are you disagreeing with the fact that the log-rolling and
pork-barreling that goes on every day isn't the "real
conspiracy"?
Just curious, because I think it probably is.
|9.28.05 @ 4:48PM|#
the more animated & sweaty the preacher(usally with a
live audience), the more likely he is to use Gaw-duh. If he's calm
and smarmy(in a TV studio with no audience), Gahwud is the probable
choice. They -duh suffix seems to grow out of heavy breathing, or
ranting.
And for the real hammy preachers, who are really sweatin' to the
oldies, it's a whoppin' three-syllables: Gah-wu-duh !
|9.28.05 @ 5:00PM|#
And for the real hammy preachers, who are really sweatin' to
the oldies, it's a whoppin' three-syllables: Gah-wu-duh
!
A preacher that hammy probably has a sweat stain that runs from
navel to asscrack like a full body Rorschach test.
|9.28.05 @ 5:01PM|#
Yes, joe, I wrote that. I figured you were
attempting to make some clever comment about
it.
I think it is interesting what we consider a crime and what we
accept as "business as usual." If you don't care, fine, but try
making a substantive point instead of resorting to meaningless
sarcasm. I think it says something about your Democratic-liberal
blinders that any response to this topic other than "yeah hang the
dirty bastard" (which I would largely concur with due to his
behavior in congress, any illegal stuff notwithstanding) is somehow
seen as a defense or attempt to obscure the issue. Let me go way
out on a limb here and guess that had this been a democrat with
identical circumstances we'd be hearing a different tune from you.
All that seems to matter to you is which party this helps or
hurts.
At any rate, I can't stand DeLay personally. As for conspiracy, I
have no clue whether the indictment is politically motivated or
whether he really broke the law (or both) because I haven't
followed it. But the fact that we allow essentially the same
behavior in one guise as simply the routine job of a congressman
while showing indignation at similar (though less damaging)
behavior is interesting to me. My conclusion is certainly not that
we shouldn't care about DeLay's alleged behavior here, quite the
contrary; we should care about it here and in his (and others)
official duties as congresspersons.
|9.28.05 @ 5:07PM|#
I for one, would be willing to tolerate any amount of dirty dealings, unethical behaviours, filthy schemes, nepotism, cronyism, back-stabbing, you name it, from Congress IF each and every member was as big a cheapskate as I am.
|9.28.05 @ 5:11PM|#
David
good point
When I said as big a cheapskate as I am, i should have pointed out
that I nearly have a heart attack just thinking about spending
money--mine or anyone else's.
I worship Hetty Green.
|9.28.05 @ 5:17PM|#
> One Down, 434 to Go
Great title, Julian.
Government is not the solution to any problem. Government
is the problem.
Get value for your money: privatize all government functions.
Mick
|9.28.05 @ 5:20PM|#
Lowdog, have you ever heard the term
"misdirection?"
Wtf - you think that's what my comment was meant to do? Is it
possible to have this issue bring to mind anything other than the
Democratic talking points without being accused of misdirection?
I'm not carrying water for the GOP or DeLay (any accusation of such
is simply laughable) and if he's guilty I hope they nail him, as I
would regardless of which party he's from. It was simply an
observation about our tolerance for conspiracy in its official
forms.
|9.28.05 @ 5:56PM|#
joe - yeah, of course, but I was asking a serious question. To
me it would seem that going after DeLay could be the misdirection.
Or to put it another way, sometimes you have to go after somebody
just to make it look like you're doing something.
And I agree with Brian that if he's guilty of these shenanigans, he
should be convicted and serve his sentence. I also agree with Brian
that it's funny that one thing can be called "conspiracy" and the
other "politics".
So again, do you think the pork-barreling and log-rolling is or is
not "a bad thing" (whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not
is another matter, I suppose)?
|9.28.05 @ 6:01PM|#
I'm with the "he's going to get off scott free" crowd. But I only make that assesment from listening to Hannity's radio show, while driving my car. I was hoping there would be more information about it on this website. Looks like I'll have to watch the debates on tv tonight.
|9.28.05 @ 6:15PM|#
And to think...we, the taxpayers, actually pay these assclowns an exorbitant salary to rip us off.
|9.28.05 @ 7:04PM|#
It is not strictly true that Earle dropped a case against Hutchinson for lack of evidence - so far as I can tell, he had the evidence, but the trial judge excluded (or would have excluded) it on the grounds that it was improperly obtained. I believe the issue was that it was taken in a raid executed under search warrant, and the judge ruled - or would have ruled - that it should have been obtained by a subpoena. (From the little I've read, it isn't clear whether the judge had actually made that ruling, or Earle simply anticipated that he would and cut his losses.)
|9.28.05 @ 7:25PM|#
joe has previously stated he does not believe there is enough evidence to say Bill Clinton broke any laws in any of his scandals, including whitewater. Right, joe? In fact, I think you said the only thing he was guilty of was telling a fib under oath when being questioned about his past sexual history during the sexual harrassment lawsuit. So when it comes to judging Democrats, it takes DNA evidence to sway you, but when its a dirty Repuke, the bar is much much lower. So the Clintons did not lie about the value of their assets for the purpose of obtaining business loans to get richer, but Delay now....
|9.28.05 @ 7:34PM|#
Brian,
"Let me go way out on a limb here and guess that had this been a
democrat with identical circumstances we'd be hearing a different
tune from you." If only there were corrupt Democrats with records
remotely comparable to Tom Delay, we'd be able to test that.
And no, I don't believe that fact that our political and economic
system is organized in a manner different from what you would like
to see qualifies as a criminal conspiracy.
|9.28.05 @ 8:07PM|#
Brian, et al,
Acknowledging that what Delay has been involved in over the past
decade goes beyond the ordinary, legal operations of the
legislative branch is not "Reciting democratic talking points."
|9.28.05 @ 9:20PM|#
Rep. Tom DeLay is going to get off this charge(even if what he did was illegal), and it's becuase he is a politician. Almost every politician lies and/or deceives, that is want they do.
|9.28.05 @ 9:25PM|#
Rep. Tom DeLay is going to get off this charge(even if what he
did was illegal), and it's becuase he is a politician.
Does anybody think that if Rep. DeLay is found guilty that he will
pay the price?
|9.28.05 @ 10:12PM|#
And no, I don't believe that fact that our political and
economic system is organized in a manner different from what you
would like to see qualifies as a criminal conspiracy.
Acknowledging that what Delay has been involved in over the
past decade goes beyond the ordinary, legal operations of the
legislative branch is not "Reciting democratic talking
points."
Those might make more sense as replies if that is what I had said
or implied.
Let me restate for those who missed it: I was comparing behavior
that is considered criminal in some circumstances and business as
usual in others and saying that there really isn't that much
difference. That is not remotely what you just implied I said -
i.e. that I'm claiming it's a conspiracy that the political system
isn't organized as I'd like it (which is just silly on it's face so
the implication that I said it is dishonest).
The same goes for your reference to "democratic talking points." I
never said nor implied that the DeLay issue was simply democratic
talking points as one would think from reading your reply - my
reference to democrat talking points was about the allowed
responses to his indictment. Can we consider other issues that come
to mind or can we only recite the talking points without being
accused of "misdirection."
It is dishonest to reply in a way that implicitly attributes to
someone that which they did not say, even going so far as to use
quotes for effect. Sometimes it's an honest mistake or
misunderstanding, but with you it seems clear that the misreading
is intentional to allow for a better "soundbite" response. Such
rhetorical stunts may work in college BS sessions and in politics,
but I figure most people here can comprehend what was and was not
said and see through your games.
|9.28.05 @ 10:25PM|#
Apparently I misunderstood Brian.
What I object to in your statement is its implicit dismissal of the
responsibility of the particular official involved in criminal
action. It works very well for a soundbite to talk about the big
bad government, until people start not being held responsible for
their performance.
I'm a little touchy about that subject these days.
|9.28.05 @ 11:43PM|#
Has the possibility that he's actually an honest DA crossed
your mind?
Has the possibility that DeLay is innocent (until proven guilty)
crossed yours?
|9.29.05 @ 12:57AM|#
No, not really... I mean, this is the bug-man we're talking about. He'd cheat his own mother at cards to win a buck - what wouldn't he do for hundreds of thousands of corporate campaign money? He'll probably get off on some kind of technicality, though his career might not survive, but I don't doubt he's guilty as sin.
|9.29.05 @ 9:31AM|#
"Has the possibility that DeLay is innocent (until proven
guilty) crossed yours?"
Within our legal system, Tom Delay is entitled to the presumption
of innocence by the police, judge, jury, and prosecutors, until he
is proven guilty.
That procedural presumption is not an excuse to shut off your brain
and suspend your critical faculties.
|9.29.05 @ 9:41AM|#
Did anyone else actally see Delay's statement on CSPAN?
He could have been John Connelly (Whitey Bulger's FBI
handler-turned-accomplice) - hammering on the prosecutor, accusing
him of a political prosecution, declaring himself a hero...if
you've ever read "Black Mass," that media event was eerily
familiar.
|9.29.05 @ 9:51AM|#
Has the possibility that DeLay is innocent (until proven
guilty) crossed yours?
That doesn't apply to what we think, only that the state must prove
his guilt before punishment. That said, that possibility hasn't
crossed my mind. Delay's a politician, likely guilty of far more
than can be proven or even discovered.
Adam|9.29.05 @ 10:14AM|#
joe - That you don't like the accused and/or distrust him is not
an excuse to cut off your critical faculties either. The question
remains, did he commit the "crime" he is charged with?
Dr. William Hurwitz, as Jacob Sullum has written about here, is being sent
up the river by ulteriorally motivated prosecutors on "conspiracy"
charges - remember the "conspiracy of a wink and a nod"? I, for
one, despise it when prosecutors act on ulterior motives, and I
don't care who it is getting screwed. I happen to very, very much
dislike DeLay, but there's a fine way to get rid of him: at the
polls.
|9.29.05 @ 11:46AM|#
What tipped you off that Ronnie Earle had ulterior motives,
Adam? His long history of prosecuting prominent Democrats? The
complete absence of leaks leading up to the official announcement?
Or was it just Tom Delay's word?
"I happen to very, very much dislike DeLay, but there's a fine way
to get rid of him: at the polls." We don't have pariamentary
immunity in this country. If a sitting Congressman committed
crimes, he is investigated and prosecuted.
|9.29.05 @ 12:03PM|#
If a prosecutor opposes our will, then he or she is a rogue
activist prosecutor, conducting a heavily-biased witch-hunt, and we
will treat that person accordingly.
The Empire will not be opposed! You're either with us or against
us!
|9.29.05 @ 12:18PM|#
I agree that Delay's "real" crimes are what he does day to day
that passes for "politics" these days. But I will take what I can
get-- if it's a technical violation of some arcane campaign finance
law, so be it. Because he is a bastard of the first order. Capone
was brought down for tax evasion, ya know.
I have been hoping recently that the Democrats would come out of
their coma and deliver us divided government again, or at least
slow down the big guvmint conservative juggernaut. It looks like I
may have to rely on various state and federal prosecutorial
agents-- working against Abramoff, Frist, Delay, maybe
Rove/Libby/whoever on the Plame case-- and that's fine too. This
unitary government is bad for everyone.
rob|9.29.05 @ 12:24PM|#
I think it was said best by Brian Courts on September 28, 2005
at 3:29 PM.
I mean, who do you root for here?
I'm thrilled that a politician might be given his just desserts on
one hand, but on the other hand, I hate to see another group of
politicians benefit from it.
Truly a Gordian knot... Too bad we can't simply cut through both
ends the way Alexander did.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245