In reading the various Republican statements (see here and here) alleging that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is engaging in an outlandish abuse of power in regard to his decision to indict House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a thought occurred to me.
For the past several years, the Justice Department under the Bush Administration has engaged in numerous and similar abuses of power. As a result, where is the Republican outrage over the sad cases of Daniel Bayly, William Fuhs, Arthur Andersen and Jamie Olis, to name just a few?
As I have noted many times, Sir Thomas More explains in the following passage from A Man for All Seasons why it is important to uphold the rule of law to constrain the abuse of overwhelming state power, even where doing so means that the Devil himself cannot be prosecuted unless he actually commits a crime:
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it, Roper! — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”
“Yes, I’d give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
The Bush Administration, Mr. DeLay and many of the Republicans who are criticizing Mr. Earle failed to uphold the rule of law in preventing prosecutions of business executives whose only “crime” was to be involved in arguably questionable business transactions that, at most, should have been the subject of civil litigation. Thus, the Republicans’ irresponsible sacrifice of these executives’ careers to the mantle of fickle public opinion has now contributed to the current environment where their own attempts to take advantage of loopholes in campaign finance laws is being criminalized.
Although abuse of state power against controversial politicians should not be condoned any more than abuse of state power against unpopular business executives, the Republicans’ criticism of the DeLay prosecution rings hollow. They should have listened to Sir Thomas.
What can I say? You are right on target. Republicans have largely looked the other way while these memebers of the business community have been persecuted. This unwillingness to take action is indeed hypocritical.
I think you’re being overly broad in your characterizations.
Certainly, you’ve been consistent in your criticism of the Bush Justice Department for their treatment of white collar crimes (or non-crimes, as you contend), but I think it’s a stretch then to criticize ALL Republicans (and only Republicans) for not snapping to your view on this matter. Without meaning any disrespect, I really think your view is that of a small minority, albeit a highly educated minority that has probably thought more deeply about the matter than most Americans. I don’t know that it’s a salient political issue for most Americans (i.e. is it REALLY something that gets the average guy’s blood boiling in the morning? I love politics and economics, and it doesn’t do that for me most days!), Republican, Democrat, or whatever.
I think you’re on much firmer ground when you offer substantive criticism of the Bush Justice Department than when you imply all Republicans are guilty for the alleged sins of said Justice Department and also guilty of hypocrisy if they then wonder where the substance is in Ronnie Earle’s indictment.
Further, you imply the Bush Administration is guilty of hypocrisy when it criticizes Ronnie Earle. HAS it criticized Ronnie Earle directly? I believe I saw a statement from Scott McLellan that expressed appreciation for DeLay’s work with the administration on the Hill, but I haven’t seen criticism of Earle from an Administration official. I’m not saying there isn’t such criticism, but I haven’t seen it and would much appreciate somebody providing it.
Obviously, the party has mounted a defense of one of its leaders, and one more robust than I would have expected, frankly. Leaving all of that — including the rhetorical excesses of pro and anti-DeLay camps — aside, my question is still: Is there substance to Ronnie Earle’s indictment?
It looks pretty thin right now. I’m not willing to go so far as to call it an abuse of power at this point (but it’s certainly a possibility), because I don’t think we have enough information to say definitively one way or the other. At some point — after the court proceedings — we will know, although I suspect even then, there will be partisans on both sides who will still construct reality according to their disposition towards Tom DeLay.
Kevin, sort of hard to thread that elephant through the needle, isn’t it?
First, you are correct that a vast majority of the Republican Party doesn’t agree with my view on the criminalization of ordinary behavior that has been promoted under the Bush Administration’s DOJ. Never suggested that they do. What I pointed out is that the firestorm of criticism from Republican leaders that the DeLay prosecution is frivolous sure is hypocritical given the number of frivolous prosecutions that are taking place in the Bush Administration’s DOJ.
Moreover, to my knowledge, no one in either the Bush Administration nor the Republican Party (and I watch for these things pretty closely) has made any meaningful public comments regarding the DOJ’s now well-chronicled abuses of power in regard to various prosecutions of business executives. The reason that they have not is simple — it’s good politics not to do so. There is nothing quite like feeding that public appetite for resentment of wealthy (and sometimes obnoxious) business executives. But in failing to do so, those leaders look pretty silly cricizing a prosecutor for doing precisely the same thing to one of their leaders.
And your suggestion that the fact that the Bush Administration spokesman has taken a more measured stance toward the prosecution than the position espoused by the more vitriolic GOP leaders doesn’t wash. A man of your political sophistication knows that such attacks are carefully orchestrated. It would look “unpresidential” for Bush to criticize the prosecution; better to let the GOP henchmen do it.
I do not share your reticience regarding the nature of the DeLay prosecution. Unless Earle has solid evidence that DeLay and his cohorts tried to hide or misrepresent something regarding the transactions involved in the matter, my sense is that this prosecution is an egregious abuse of power that should be handled through civil litigation if the state really believes that a wrong occurred. If all Earle is doing is criminalizing taking advantage of loopholes in campaign finance laws, then he has no business doing so.
But having said that, the Bush Administration and the Republican Party bear a substantial amount of responsibility for promoting an environment where deploying government’s awesome power to criminalize such things as taking advantage of legal loopholes has become accepted practice. Mr. DeLay and the GOP are now experiencing the downside of that environment, and criticizing it after having promoted it is a quintessential example of political hypocrisy.
One of the questions that intensely interests me about the politicalization of the criminal justice system is just how those involved sleep at night. I suspect they sleep very well, given we all have the capability to see and hear what our beliefs demand.
Thus a prosecution motivated by one prosecutor’s loathing of DeLay/Republicans can no doubt be justified by that same prosecutor as part of the good fight to reform campaign finance. Another prosecutor who loathes capitalism, when concocting new crimes to send businesspeople to prison, can rest more easily knowing that he or she is saving the world from greed. I listened with amazement while one prosecutor stated that his suspicion about one subsequently wrongfully convicted man’s guilt was heightened by how firm that man’s protests of innocence were. And I read with similar amazement that one sociologist — who had studied millions of Enron emails and had not found the expected indications of the widespread criminal activity he presumed — coined a new term, “Enron-style deception,” rather than question his presumption.
I’m not sure where this leaves us. But at a minimum, Tom is correct to cross-reference us to the appalling silence of the Bush administration in the face of the prosecutorial abuse by its own DOJ.
Tom K you are right on the mark again. Hey Delay- welcome to the party- the entertainment for this event is probably your worst nightmare. He ought to be grateful that at least he is not working for a corporation. They would have secretly worked very actively against him to help the prosecution create a case, fired him so as to make him financially vulnerable and to appease prosecutors, refused his legal defense in coordination again with the prosecutors and all his coworkers would have scattered to be sure they were out of distance when the accusations started flying (all one way accusations of course). Heck the whole action plan is laid out in writing by the DOJ in the form of the Thompson memo so no one can dispute that this isn’t an active and methodical strategy to force “cooperation” by giving them no other options for their own defense. No- Delay is being actively supported which is quite different than what accused civilians have to deal with. Interesting that this conspiracy includes a number of Republican elected officials…can anyone say “unindicted co-conspirators”? I’d also be curious about how he is footing what will eventually be a multi million dollar bill from Dick Deguerin on a public servants salary?
I agree this is a tragedy for him and his family and it is another prosecutor-driven waste of taxpayer resources when there are many other valid and effective options but Delay had the power to say something when it was happening to others and didn’t. He should have read Sir Thomas Moore.. By the way, his was not “the weakest indictment in the history of America”- unfortunately there are many who are in the running for that claim and Delay is certainly not in the lead in that miserable race.
You have to remember the different venues at issue here.
Mr. Spitzer is the attorney general for the State of New York, and, I believe, acts in accord with the wishes of the electorate. Mr. Spitzer usually has no trouble getting enough jurors placed in his trials who are willing to help him in his quest. His pursuit of the various executives in question is a matter between state laws and private sector executives. I think it would be inappropriate for national politicians to get involved with Spizer’s activities, since those activities don’t have a direct association with national issues (even though I agree with Tom that Spitzer is a populist dirtbag; the preceding statement is dangerous for me to present online, as I work in NYC). In short, I’m not sure the Administration has a dog in this hunt.
Ronnie Earle, however, is another story. He is not acting in accordance with the goals of the Texas electorate, and wasn’t able to get an indictment until he put together his SIXTH grand jury for the DeLay matter. The fact that Earle is chasing a politician who serves in a national legislature is certainly grounds for the national-level Republican Party and the Administration to speak out against his actions.
Are the Party and the Administration being hypocritical? Probably so, but it seems to me that maybe they are saving their ammo for fights in which they can participate, not to mention win.