Frist and DeLay aren't the only two in trouble. Just last week, this occurred.


Interesting times.

Note: I originally had a link and quote here from an op-ed piece. I replaced it with something a little less opinionated. Well, unless you believe in media bias. Hi Leo. :)

Of course they (democrats) are out to get him. Of course the Republicans were out to get Clinton. Of course (insert any political name and/or party here) are out to get (insert any political name and/or party here).

It is the nature of politics. If you choose to make yourself a target by how you conduct your political affairs, then you better have your house utterly above reproach and completely in order, and watch what you say with unceasing diligence.

If DeLay deserves to be convicted, then so be it.

When scandals and such hit, I have found the level of outrage and/or support is directly related to the dislike/support of the politician (and his politics) in question. So it was with Clinton (whether the Monica ordeal or buddhist fund raising or whatever), Byrd (saying the "N" word a couple times in an interview), Lott (praising....Strom Thurmond), Rostenkowski (and the House post office scandal), McCain (wife addicted to drugs), Rush (pain killer addiction and the attempts to find grounds for indictment)......the list is endless. I don't pay mind to much of them, because, well, they are ALL political in nature.

That's not the whole enchilada though, scaeagles. It is easy to say that it is all political, but there are also laws in question here. Laws that DeLay may have felt (unless proven innocent, of course) that he was above. People in government should not be above the law though. And I do pay attention when the members of this, or any administration, break the law. That's not "just politics".

One can complain about what spurred the investigation and argue that it is politically motivated. But, just as was the case with Clinton, nobody forces you lie or break the law. Once you have crossed the line, you have to be held accountable.

Sounds like SMcS is going to get him personally.
:D

Of course, MBC, which is why in my post I said "If Delay deserves to be convicted, so be it."

I have done some looking around about Earle. I see a lot of similarities between this and a case he brought against KB Hutchison (Republican Senator from Texas) shortly after she was elected. She was also indicted by a grand jury, but the case was eventually dropped (there are all sorts of opinions from everyone as to why). She had just taken the spot occupied by Lloyd Bentsen, who was appointed Secretary of the Treasury (she best the person that Ann Richards had put in the spot vacated by Bentsen, I believe). It was a democrat strategy to try to hurt her politically early on and perhaps induce someone like Richards to run against her ithe next time she was up for reelection. The dems were not happy about losing the seat.

Similarly, with all the negative press about DeLay (note I did not say undeserved), I think they view him as vulnerable in the next election.

Now....does any of this mean that he didn't do it? No. But I think there are clear political motivations. From what I have read, the patterns are clear. There are those that say, though, that Earle has prosecuted more Dems than Republicans, and plenty of others that say the exact opposite. Who knows.

Again, if he's guilty, convict him.

One other thing about Mr. Earle that I think is particularly relevant - note the part I put in bold as particularly telling:

Self-inflicted wound (Ronnie Earle investigates Tom DeLay and fund raises using DeLay)
Houston Chronicle ^ | May 20, 2005 | Editorial

District attorney's poor judgment in speaking at a Democratic fund-raiser provides an unintended boost for DeLay's defenders.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has spent the past year investigating corporate funds collected by political action committees connected to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. So far, a grand jury has indicted three of the Sugar Land representative's associates for violating Texas election laws.

Republicans have accused the veteran prosecutor, a Democrat, of conducting a partisan witch hunt. Earle's attendance and remarks attacking DeLay at a Democratic fund-raiser last week in Dallas damaged the credibility of his investigation with a stunning display of prosecutorial impropriety.

Earle was the speaker at a May 12 event sponsored by the newly created Texas Values in Action Coalition, a Democratic political action committee with the stated goal of winning back control of the Texas Legislature. The affair raised more than $100,000, and organizers credited Earle's presence with boosting attendance.

In his speech, the prosecutor talked about the corporate contribution case and took a swipe at DeLay. "This case is not just about Tom DeLay," Earle told the crowd. "If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before."

Contacted after the event by the Chronicle's Michael Hedges, Earle didn't back off his comments. He provided a transcript of the speech, and said he would make the same statements again to any group that was interested in honest government.

Houston defense attorney Rusty Hardin represents Warren RoBold, a Republican fund-raiser indicted in the Travis County investigation. Hardin, a former Harris County prosecutor, finds it "incomprehensible" that Earle would go to a political event and discuss matters under investigation by his office. "I'm dumbfounded that he would give the DeLay people that kind of fodder."

Hardin doesn't believe that Earle's investigation is motivated by a bias against Republicans. Instead, he contends that the Austin-area district attorney goes after targets for behavior he finds objectionable, whether or not an actual violation of law occurred.

According to Hardin, he told Earle in a courtroom conversation that "you have a history of indicting people whose conduct you don't approve of and you want to stop. You leave it to your assistants to worry whether there's a criminal case involved."

Earle is an elected Democrat, so his attending a party fund-raiser is legal. However, it is inappropriate for a prosecutor to discuss a case under investigation in a political setting, or to single out a potential target of that probe for criticism.

The fact that Earle refuses to recognize his blunder and would do it again calls into question whether he has the necessary impartiality and judgment to conduct the investigation that to a great extent will determine whether Texas election campaigns will be financed and perhaps determined by corporations or by individuals.

Yep

Who would these "others" be?

And who cares what anyone "says" about that fact, since it's a demonstrable fact?

Looks like Blunt is going to take DeLay's place. That happened quick. No delay there...

Various things I have read is all I can say. Where does one find the actual data, other than accepting what Earle has said?