So you have been indicted by a corrupt, partisan Democrat prosecutor named Ronnie Earle, from arguably the most leftist county in the state of Texas. After the first indictment is thrown out because the "crime" for which you were indicted wasn't even a crime when you "committed" it, the prosecutor goes grand jury shopping and on his third attempt, he finally secures an indictment after reportedly verbally haranguing the second grand jury after they failed to come back with an indictment. So after you are finally indicted, you are ordered to report to be arrested and your mugshot taken. For Congressman Tom Delay (R) of Texas, this mugshot could have been political suicide. You have seen mugshots before - Think Nick Nolte with his wigged out hair and pained expression. Can you imagine what the Democrats would have done with Delay's mugshot had he worn the same expression? They would have attached it to every campaign commercial, the "mainstream" media would have blasted the image all over the news, and Delay would have been a political dead duck. Instead of frowning for the camera, Delay made a genius move and "mugged" for the camera instead. He even wore a suit and his House of Representatives pin on his lapel along with a huge happy grin on his face. Does that picture look like a mugshot to you? It could be hanging on his office wall instead. Way to go Congressman Delay! You totally disarmed the Democrat attack machine with that one. If you want to know what could have happened instead, take a look at this mugshot of former Congressman (and current prison inmate) James Traficant (D) of Ohio. All I can say is, "Oh My!". 
Now ask yourself, could you get reelected with a picture like this floating around out there?
My thanks to thesmokinggun.com for the use of their photos.
Good Day to You, Sir
4 comments:
On what possible basis do you call Ronnie Earle corrupt? Because Tom DeLay says so? Delay accepts money from people who sell others into slavery (see Saipan) and broke the election laws of his state. Earle had a duty to indict.
In response to Howard Davis above:
How is Ronnie Earle corrupt? Let's see, he indicts Delay, then it is pointed out to him that the law Delay broke didn't exist when Delay did it. Is that corrupt? Maybe not. Definitely incompetent for a D.A from a major metropolitan county. What happened next veers toward corruptionland. Earle goes to another grand jury with additional charges (why didn't Earle go after these charges in the first indictment?)and the grand jury refused to indict. Apparently, according to one of the grand jurors, Earle became abusive and intimidating when he didn't receive his indictment. So what does Earle do? He goes grand jury shopping, finds a third one, and finally gets his indictment. That is not justice Mr. Davis, that is a vendetta. D.A.s are supposed to represent justice, not vendettas.
then it is pointed out to him that the law Delay broke didn't exist when Delay did it, - This is a made up fact. The Texas lawS (plural) that DeLay broke, were in effect. Just accept it.
the grand jury refused to indict -- So you were inside the grand jury? The proceedings were secret, so unless you were there, you are getting your information from DeLay and his lawyer. They have a very different spin on things than the average Texan. You can choose to believe Delay, that is your right; but I trust the offical record which shows an indictment.
That is not justice Mr. Davis, that is a vendetta. D.A.s are supposed to represent justice, not vendettas. -- Again, you have not presented a single fact that points to corruption -- a very loaded word. Ronnie Earle has indicted more Democrats than Republicans. That is fact. He has no vendetta against Delay, he has a vendetta against criminals. And his obligation as a public servant is to go after those criminals regardless of who they are.
Excuse me, then why did Earle have to re-indict Delay? And why did Earle have to indict Delay on different charges if the first ones didn't stick?
I am too worn out to type anymore, so here is the text of letter sent to Earle from Delay's lawyer.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011927.php#011927
Yes, I already know what you are going to say sport. You are going to accuse me of using Delay's lawyer to bolster my argument. Well news flash for you: Delay has not been found guilty by a jury yet (much to your chagrin), and I choose to believe Delay on this one. I know you are capable of this too. Remember our little conversation about Juanita Broaddrick? You choose not to believe her. I choose to believe Delay. If he goes to jail in a fair and square trial, I will admit that I'm wrong (something Democrats seem incapable of doing). Let us see Delay convicted first there sport. You do believe in innocence until proven guilty right?
Post a Comment