Republicans Kick Spin Machine into High Gear for DeLay

With news of the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the right-wing spin machine has kicked into high gear, attempting to discredit the charges against him. In a tactic that has become common among Republican smear-artists, TV and radio personalities, as well as DeLay himself, have claimed that the District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, is a "partisan fanatic" and that the "baseless" allegations are part of a "vengeful" investigation.

Furthermore, by claiming that the indictment itself presents no proof that DeLay committed any crime, and that DeLay is hardly mentioned in the indictment, pundits allege that the case against DeLay is flimsy and can not possibly hold up in court.

Firstly, the attempts to paint District Attorney Earle as some sort of partisan fanatic look foolish to anyone who is at all familiar with his record. In his capacity as District Attorney, Earle has prosecuted 15 elected officials, 12 of whom were Democrats, and three of whom were Republicans. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to claim that the indictment is some sort of personal or partisan vendetta, since District Attorney Earle did not even indict DeLay. A Texas grand jury indicted DeLay after seeing evidence against him. Members of the grand jury have also explicitly stated that they were not at all pressured by Earle regarding the decision whether to indict or not.

Claims by DeLay and his supporters regarding the content of the indictment -- that it lacks evidence and hardly mentions DeLay -- also reveal a complete ignorance of the law in question and the purpose of an indictment. An indictment is meant to present what charges are being brought against the defendant. Indictments rarely if ever lay out evidence of guilt, and those who claim that the lack of such evidence in DeLay's indictment is somehow not normal are either being disingenuous or are completely ignorant of the purpose of an indictment.

In this case, the charge brought against DeLay is of criminal conspiracy to violate Texas campaign finance and election laws, which prohibit use of corporate funds in elections, in the 2002 elections. In the words of Earle, "The indictment describes a scheme whereby corporate money, which cannot be given to candidates in Texas, was sent to the Republican National Committee where it was exchanged for money raised from individuals and then sent to those Texas Legislative candidates." (Basically just good old-fashioned money laundering.) Indictments are not meant to present evidence that the accused committed the crime in question; that is what a trial is for. The indictment must only inform the accused which law they are being charged with breaking. The indictment does just that.

Claims have also been made that the indictment does not actually accuse DeLay of breaking any law, since it does not claim that DeLay himself took any direct action to contravene the law. This, however, is irrelevant since DeLay is being charged with conspiracy to violate the law. In a conspiracy charge, what must be determined is that 1) DeLay entered into an agreement with two of his associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis (who have also been indicted), with the intention that a felony be committed and 2) one of the group, not necessarily DeLay himself, performed an "overt act" in an attempt to go through with the agreement and violate the law. In line with this, the indictment does claim that DeLay entered into such an agreement with the intention of violating the law prohibiting use of corporate money for campaigning, and that one of his associates performed an "overt act" as part of that agreement.

These disingenuous claims will no doubt fail to convince anyone with any knowledge of the law in question or basic legal practices. They are no doubt meant to save face for DeLay in the eyes of the public, so that if he is found innocent he can then be portrayed as being falsely accused of a crime he never had anything to do with. Also, these arguments predictably attempt to turn the tables on Democrats, so that instead of DeLay being seen as a crooked criminal on par with the Enron executives, he can be seen as the victim of a Democrat abusing his position as prosecutor to smear DeLay with trumped-up charges.

I'm not saying that DeLay is definitely guilty, or even probably guilty -- that must be determined by the judge or jury after having seen the evidence. It is absurd that people are already saying that DeLay is innocent, when they haven't seen any evidence one way or another. It is equally absurd to say that DeLay is guilty at this point, for the same reasons. My point is that these attacks on Earle for being a "partisan fanatic" are baseless when you look at his record, and that a lack of evidence in the indictment does not in any way indicate that the case is flimsy. Indictments are not meant to make the case against the person who is charged, and they are not meant to present evidence. Whether the case is flimsy or bulletproof, we'll find out soon enough in court.

Too bad these smear-artists will succeed at fooling so many people with their spinning, personal attacks, and bald-faced lying. Those of us who see through the mindless ranting of these talking heads, however, will wait until Earle presents his arguments in court to determine whether DeLay is innocent or guilty.

The only thing that makes me think it might be more probable than not that DeLay is guilty is his history of numerous ethical violations, which I will cover later. Of course even if he is guilty, that doesn't guarantee that Earle has proof of it. I'm going to reserve judgement on this until I hear more facts and less spinning.