Reply With Quote
infidelity is an imprisonable offense in USA?
I thought was the national sport.
I would like to see the number of husbands who served prison time for getting hummers or lying about said hummers.Why is Clinton better than the thousands of other philandering husbands who have served time in prison for this very exact crime?
infidelity is an imprisonable offense in USA?
I thought was the national sport.
You think it's a joke, but let these fanatics have any power and infidelity will be a punishable crime.
Nah, I doubt it -- it was just a ploy to discredit Clinton that blew up in their faces. They should've quit while they were behind. I can't say I believe the Democrats are above the same kind of thing.
I am just wondering where Dan's observation is on the "new" indictment. Or his comments on other grand juries would not indict and Ronny Baby thru a temper hissy fit. You know Dan is so even handed in these matters.
I have already commented many times on both indictments. Go back and reread my posts.I am just wondering where Dan's observation is on the "new" indictment.
A hissy fit? Yeah, according to 'some sources' I bet. Earle is like the male version of Katherine Strayhorn, he's one though grandpa.Or his comments on other grand juries would not indict and Ronny Baby thru a temper hissy fit. You know Dan is so even handed in these matters.
According to some sources, Earle wasn't able to hoodwink a grand jury into supporting his cinematic career.
Ronnie Earle prosecuted and convicted himself once for failing to file timely paperwork. Now that's accountability.
Yes, let us talk about accountability. Normally I would put a link in here, but I want to be sure everyone has the chance to read about your Ronnie Babby, the accountable one.
October 06, 2005, 7:33 a.m.
Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor
The abuses of power in the Tom DeLay case should offend Democrats and Republicans alike.
If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous powers of prosecution.
I don't know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader. I certainly don't know if he's done anything illegal, let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It doesn't look like it and at least one grand jury has already refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for those who don't know all the facts to hazard a judgment about such things.
One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay, a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney by Ronnie Earle.
For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United States, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world's greatest job because it is honest work for the highest cause service to one's own community. And it is work that has precious little to do with politics.
In their private lives, many of my fellow government lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e., out of a conscious rec ude holding that law enforcement should be above politics) or because they were just apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools, was proudly liberal. Over coffee, or lunch, or dinner, they and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates over all manner of issues.
In the four corners of a case, however, none of that mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors have breathtaking power over the lives of those they investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the guilty, but of the justice system itself.
This was especially so in investigations of political corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your politics at the door was never hard, for at least two reasons.
First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which cuts across philosophical divides.
Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes. Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power, cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest citizens from participating in matters of public concern.
The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or conservative one. It is a code of ethics of nonpartisan, non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the right way. And not least because that is the norm their colleagues follow as well as the standard by which the defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is, moreover, the standard the public demands they meet.
People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the public's lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job done but to get it done right. The second part is just as crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice. No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people have to be confident that if they stood accused, the prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got a fair fight.
So there are certain things that are just flat-out verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions regarding the public interest are being made to suit the prosecutor's private interests; and if all that is not Sesame Street simple enough to remain above any financial or political entanglement that could render one's objectivity and judgment suspect.
In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric of "avoiding the appearance of impropriety." In layman's terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors owe even the most de able offenders. It is foundational to the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our economy, and our freedoms.
And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind-numbingly brazen ways.
As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here, and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab's pursuit of DeLay. A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating a powerful incentive in conflict with the duty of evenhandedness to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a prosecutor, these aren't just major lapses. They are firing offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay they'd be thought firing-squad offenses.
Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle.
Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand-jury investigation of DeLay, then uncharged.
Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange for exercising the public's power to dismiss charges.
Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum, the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to indict.
Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in by members of the other party.
Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They cons ute inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public servant, regardless of whether the persons and en ies investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal censure.
If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else, is en led to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.
Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of federal, state, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith commitment to the rules but who will now bear the burden of su ions fostered by Earle's excesses.
The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the public.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
* * *
What does a smear opt. piece by an obvious partisan have to do with any real facts concerning Ronnie Earle? There is nothing new or breath-taking in this article. Ronnie Earle called 3 grand juries and two of them felt there was enough evidence to indict Delay on 3 separate charges, two which carry life sentences. I would say, that's a pretty good day for justice and for Prosecutor Earle.
What a stunt.
I guess we all should touch ourselves now.
You got to be kidding me, right!
So, I wonder if he's presented a Grand Jury with the evidence to indict himself for accepting corporate and union money in 2000. Glass houses and all that...
DeLay accuses Earle of taking corporate funds
If Earle promises to give the $250 back, would you forgive him?
It's not like he conspired to hide or launder the contribution; but if $250 is the best the smear machine can come up with, they're in big trouble.
I just thought he was a law and order guy? I mean, if (as according to Nbadan) he filed on himself for something as innocuous as missing a filing deadline, wouldn't it be appropriate for him to seek an indictment against himself for taking corporate contributions?
And, as far as your attempted deflection to DeLay, there was no conspiracy -- which is why that indictment was dropped and the only "evidence" Earle presented to two subsequent Grand Juries (one of which "no billed" DeLay) was that DeLay had made the statement that he was "generally aware of what his associates are doing," taking that as an admission that he conspired or had knowledge of a crime.
Finally, there is nothing connecting the $198,000 dollars in corporate money that went to the national organization with the over $4.1 million dollars that came back to Texas congressional races. There are only 14 states that prohibit corporate donations -- and, with all the money that was sent to the various races around the country, there is absolutely no chance of connecting those dots.
But, we do have campaign contribution forms, (timely) filed by Ronnie Earle that show he accepted $250.00 from the AFL-CIO. And, if you'd read the article, there are other contributions from corporations -- given under the corporation name (not an officer or individual in the corporation) -- for other unspecified amounts.
And, further, how 'bout the practice that Earle engaged in over the past 3 years of this witch hunt whereby he would dismiss charges in exchange for cash contributions to his pet causes?
You're the one attempting to deflect from DeLay.And, as far as your attempted deflection to DeLaySo even if he did it, you don't care. Understood. If it can't be proven, so be it. I'm perfectly willing to wait and see. You've definitely made up your mind already, so why even bother posting further?Finally, there is nothing connecting the $198,000 dollars in corporate money that went to the national organization with the over $4.1 million dollars that came back to Texas congressional races. There are only 14 states that prohibit corporate donations -- and, with all the money that was sent to the various races around the country, there is absolutely no chance of connecting those dots.I read the article -- if there was anything above $250 (you can add decimals to try and make it look bigger, but it changes nothing), you can bet a conservative newspaper would have reported it.But, we do have campaign contribution forms, (timely) filed by Ronnie Earle that show he accepted $250.00 from the AFL-CIO. And, if you'd read the article, there are other contributions from corporations -- given under the corporation name (not an officer or individual in the corporation) -- for other unspecified amounts.How about it? Charge him with something if you can.And, further, how 'bout the practice that Earle engaged in over the past 3 years of this witch hunt whereby he would dismiss charges in exchange for cash contributions to his pet causes?
No, my post was specifically directed at the comment made by Nbadan about the honesty and integrity of Ronnie Earle -- so squeeky clean he'd "write his own mother a ticket," as they say. I wasn't even talking about DeLay and his troubles which, I predict, are just about over.
No, I'm saying there can be no crime without a specific allegation that the $198,000.00 (<< do the decimals confuse you?) was laundered through the national organization and that Tom DeLay had knowledge of that action. And, to my knowledge, no such evidence has been alleged. All Ronnie Earle has done -- according to his own office and the poorly written indictments -- is allege that just because corporate money (from Texas) was donated to the national organization in an amount less than what was contributed to Texas races, from that organization, that a crime was committed. Then, he went on to say that since Tom DeLay stated that he was "generally aware of what his associates are doing" in the context of what was an extremely long interrogation then he must have a) known that a crime was committed and b) was part of some conspiracy.
Doesn't it bother you that Earle presented the indictment to a second Grand Jury who "No Billed" Delay and that Earle then squashed that "No Bill" long enough to get a third Grand Jury -- just empaneled to issue an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle excused the first Grand Jury's long deliberations -- even asking for an extension of that Jury -- because the case was complex and they needed all that time to dig through the facts of the case and make an informed decision only to rush into the brand spankin' new Grand Jury this Monday and, before they were even issued their parking passes, rammed through an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle authorized a movie about his office and the secret deliberations of a Grand Jury in relationship to this case? Finally, doesn't it bother you that Earle stood up at a Democratic fund raiser and all but assured the crowd that he was going to bring DeLay down -- all before he had even been charged with a crime?
I know, that's all too nuanced for you to grasp, right?
Again, the amount is insignificant in relationship to the holier-than-thou posture Earle has taken. That was the point of the post.
I'm not a prosecutor but, here's hoping someone does...I was merely suggesting that, with his record of holding himself accountable, he'd do it himself.
tro
dont you know what a grand jury is?
earle
see that bas in court
So, you weren't on the grand jury. Congratulations. Wait for the trial -- if there is one -- like everyone else.No, I'm saying there can be no crime without a specific allegation that the $198,000.00 (<< do the decimals confuse you?) was laundered through the national organization and that Tom DeLay had knowledge of that action. And, to my knowledge, no such evidence has been alleged.Not really. He's partisan, that's for sure. Just let the process proceed. If your boy can beat it, he'll beat it.Doesn't it bother you that Earle presented the indictment to a second Grand Jury who "No Billed" Delay and that Earle then squashed that "No Bill" long enough to get a third Grand Jury -- just empaneled to issue an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle excused the first Grand Jury's long deliberations -- even asking for an extension of that Jury -- because the case was complex and they needed all that time to dig through the facts of the case and make an informed decision only to rush into the brand spankin' new Grand Jury this Monday and, before they were even issued their parking passes, rammed through an indictment? Further, doesn't it bother you that Earle authorized a movie about his office and the secret deliberations of a Grand Jury in relationship to this case? Finally, doesn't it bother you that Earle stood up at a Democratic fund raiser and all but assured the crowd that he was going to bring DeLay down -- all before he had even been charged with a crime?
If you're all up in arms about this, you probably were against Clinton's impeachment over blowjobs too, right?
the left had not problems smearing ken starr during the clinton impeachment trial..
just saying...
Glad you admit he's a partisan...
Wow, you are dense...so, you still think Clinton's impeachment was about a blowjob?
If you think it wasn't a colossal waste of time and money, you are the dense one. I was against it until I saw how stupid the charges were and that following through with the trial would only hurt the Republicans who were stupid enough to press the non-issue. So, you should be happy this is going through -- if it's as bad a case as you say it is, Earle will be discredited.Wow, you are dense...so, you still think Clinton's impeachment was about a blowjob?
I completely agree.the left had not problems smearing ken starr during the clinton impeachment trial..
just saying...
That's show biz, folks.
That's a non sequitur.
First of all, the investigation started out as one in which it was alleged the President was involved in a shady land deal. There were many indictments and convictions of some very powerful and close associates of the Presidents; Chief among them, Governor Jim Guy Tucker and Webster Hubbell.
Now, I know this is hard for the Left to accept, but Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr only pursue tangential investigations into other matters, such as the Monica Lewinsky affair and allegations of perjury AFTER receiving direction from a three-judge panel appointed by then Attorney General Janet Reno.
Starr wasn't a loose cannon on a witch hunt and he didn't just make up investigations out of whole cloth. As allegations of wrong doing came to his attention through the normal course of the Whitewater investigation, he presented them to the panel and they thumbs-upped or thumbs-downed pursuing those allegations.
I think former FBI Director Louie Freeh's statement is very telling in this respect, The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice as a result of his attempts of deny Paula Jones a fair adjudication of her sexual harrassment lawsuit against him.
He was disbarred for it, as well...do you recall?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
