Comments on: Indictments and Public Opinion http://www.anthonares.net/2005/10/indictments-and-public-opinion.html Chronicling and Commenting on Human Progress Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:05:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Anthony Kendall http://www.anthonares.net/2005/10/indictments-and-public-opinion.html#comment-20 Anthony Kendall Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:03:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2005/10/indictments-and-public-opinion.html#comment-20 In the case of DeLay, his indictment may have been a politically charged issue, and thus saying that one should always step-down is going too far. I agree with you there. By that reasoning, Clinton should have stepped down even though I believe that (as you mentioned), though he perjured himself, pursuing the charge through to impeachment was a politically motivated decision. DeLay will, if he's actually innocent, emerge from his trial as such and very likely resume his political career. But, if he'd stayed on as Majority Leader during that time, the mere imrpession of a potential criminal leading the nation would have painted all Republicans with the same dirty brush. The same goes for a potential Rove and/or Libby indictment. The reason that DeLay and now (potentially) Rove and Libby are different from the Clinton impeachment, is that they are facing actual serious criminal situations. Clinton was lying to a grand jury to protect himself politically, but not to shield himself from prosecution for further criminal charges (though the Ken Starr thing was tied into the whole Whitewater investigation, it was very peripeheral). DeLay is charged (rightly or wrongly) with laundering more than a hundred thousand dollars in violation of a century-old law in Texas, and Rove and Libby are facing potentially being charged with willfully disclosing the name of an operating secret agent. I guess what I'm saying is that whether or not the person should step down is, as you said, up to the discretion of the individual/administration, but when it's money laundering or intimidation that you're facing, not lying about screwing the secretary, the cards should be read quite differently. Taking a step aside from partisan interpretations, I hope these indictments actually scare politicians into being more reputable. I certainly don't think a president would make the mistake of lying to a grand jury again (at least not soon). So, hopefully, they clean up fundraising a bit, and think twice about using any means necessary to discredit their opponents. Though this may be more than a little idealistic, I would prefer a bloodthirsty media and legal establishment, because there's more than enough chum in the water than needs cleaning up in Washington. In the case of DeLay, his indictment may have been a politically charged issue, and thus saying that one should always step-down is going too far. I agree with you there. By that reasoning, Clinton should have stepped down even though I believe that (as you mentioned), though he perjured himself, pursuing the charge through to impeachment was a politically motivated decision. DeLay will, if he’s actually innocent, emerge from his trial as such and very likely resume his political career. But, if he’d stayed on as Majority Leader during that time, the mere imrpession of a potential criminal leading the nation would have painted all Republicans with the same dirty brush. The same goes for a potential Rove and/or Libby indictment.

The reason that DeLay and now (potentially) Rove and Libby are different from the Clinton impeachment, is that they are facing actual serious criminal situations. Clinton was lying to a grand jury to protect himself politically, but not to shield himself from prosecution for further criminal charges (though the Ken Starr thing was tied into the whole Whitewater investigation, it was very peripeheral). DeLay is charged (rightly or wrongly) with laundering more than a hundred thousand dollars in violation of a century-old law in Texas, and Rove and Libby are facing potentially being charged with willfully disclosing the name of an operating secret agent.

I guess what I’m saying is that whether or not the person should step down is, as you said, up to the discretion of the individual/administration, but when it’s money laundering or intimidation that you’re facing, not lying about screwing the secretary, the cards should be read quite differently.

Taking a step aside from partisan interpretations, I hope these indictments actually scare politicians into being more reputable. I certainly don’t think a president would make the mistake of lying to a grand jury again (at least not soon). So, hopefully, they clean up fundraising a bit, and think twice about using any means necessary to discredit their opponents. Though this may be more than a little idealistic, I would prefer a bloodthirsty media and legal establishment, because there’s more than enough chum in the water than needs cleaning up in Washington.

]]> By: Tom http://www.anthonares.net/2005/10/indictments-and-public-opinion.html#comment-19 Tom Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:45:00 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2005/10/indictments-and-public-opinion.html#comment-19 Only problem with an "always step-down" philsophy is that it assumes that the person doing the inditement is not doing it for some political objective of their own and that they are only serving the law. I think Clinton's supporters would say that his impeachment was politically motivated. Although he did break the law, Clinton's actions in most other situations probably wouldn't be worth persuing if he was a private citicen. The decision to follow with impeachment was probably partisan, as well as the voting on strict party lines on both sides. Indeed, I personally feel that Tom DeLay's inditement was totally politically charged and had the purpose of simply making DeLay step down since (voluntary) Senate rules require him to. The reason I think this is not just because the prosecuter is a very strong Democrat, because I'm willing to believe that most professionals like him are able to put politics aside to do their own jobs. What makes me suspicious is that the prosecutor had to go to 10 grand juries before one of them would agree to go with the inditement. Indeed, one of the jurors on that jury admitted on camera that he had is opinion already formed before he got there based on media coverage and didn't look at the evidence when forming his judgement. And even that is only one person on a grand jury (20 members?), but the most suspicious piece of evidence is that DeLay was originally charged with a crime that wasn't actually passed into law until after the date in question. Once this was exposed to the media, the prosecutor had to go back and come up with something else to indite with a week later. If the prosecutor had been following this case for two years, it seems like that wouldn't have happened. I cite all this as to support my claim that inditement should not automatically require a stepping down from the post. Rather, the president should use his discression to determine whether or not he should require the person to step down based on the current situation, whether he thinks the inditement is credible or pure political tripe or whatever. Otherwise, it only takes one ambitious prosecutor, judge, or grand jury to remove anyone from office, at least for a while. Only problem with an “always step-down” philsophy is that it assumes that the person doing the inditement is not doing it for some political objective of their own and that they are only serving the law. I think Clinton’s supporters would say that his impeachment was politically motivated. Although he did break the law, Clinton’s actions in most other situations probably wouldn’t be worth persuing if he was a private citicen. The decision to follow with impeachment was probably partisan, as well as the voting on strict party lines on both sides.

Indeed, I personally feel that Tom DeLay’s inditement was totally politically charged and had the purpose of simply making DeLay step down since (voluntary) Senate rules require him to. The reason I think this is not just because the prosecuter is a very strong Democrat, because I’m willing to believe that most professionals like him are able to put politics aside to do their own jobs. What makes me suspicious is that the prosecutor had to go to 10 grand juries before one of them would agree to go with the inditement. Indeed, one of the jurors on that jury admitted on camera that he had is opinion already formed before he got there based on media coverage and didn’t look at the evidence when forming his judgement. And even that is only one person on a grand jury (20 members?), but the most suspicious piece of evidence is that DeLay was originally charged with a crime that wasn’t actually passed into law until after the date in question. Once this was exposed to the media, the prosecutor had to go back and come up with something else to indite with a week later. If the prosecutor had been following this case for two years, it seems like that wouldn’t have happened.

I cite all this as to support my claim that inditement should not automatically require a stepping down from the post. Rather, the president should use his discression to determine whether or not he should require the person to step down based on the current situation, whether he thinks the inditement is credible or pure political tripe or whatever. Otherwise, it only takes one ambitious prosecutor, judge, or grand jury to remove anyone from office, at least for a while.

]]>