One Down, 434 to Go

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has been indicted on conspiracy charges and stepped down as majority leader:

A grand jury in Austin charged DeLay, 58, and two associates already facing criminal charges with a single count of criminal conspiracy, accusing them of improperly funneling corporate donations to a DeLay-founded political action committee to Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature in 2002.

UPDATE: And it looks like closet heterosexual Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) is going to be stepping in for him. (Though Dreier still only gets a 22 percent rating from Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group.) Never mind, looks like it's Blunt.

Comments

joe | September 28, 2005, 2:09pm | #

Is this a joke?

Henry | September 28, 2005, 2:14pm | #

This is a politically motivated attack, to be sure. However, I will not be listening to such arguments from anyone involved with, or who supported, the Clinton impeachment circus--so I'm hoping for some restful silence.

And, does anybody really need a grand jury to them that DeLay is a shitbag?

Jeff P. | September 28, 2005, 2:18pm | #

So many democrats around just got erections so fast that my ears popped.

drf | September 28, 2005, 2:18pm | #

Henry:

do you know the Monty Python "Mr. Neutron" sketch? Michael Palin plays a US general getting news on "how scared" the enemy is.

"Do we have any figures on how scared?"

maybe this is to get some figures on how many pounds of shit...

oh, and how about the "well, he's dun (sic) wrong. he's gotta be punished" argument, too :)

Mike Kole | September 28, 2005, 2:22pm | #

One down, 434 to go? Oh come on. There are at least 3 or 4 worth sparing.

Tom Crick | September 28, 2005, 2:24pm | #

"DeLay's attorney, Bill White, called the charge "a skunky indictment."

I usually think of the "skunky" to mean "bitchin'", like skunky bud!

"Like a dead skunk in the middle of the road, it stinks to high heaven," White said.

...but I might have used the world "skunk" to describe DeLay, and, by that, I wouldn't have meant "bitchin'".

"This is a politically motivated attack, to be sure."

Are you suggesting that the grand jury was politically motivated?

peachy | September 28, 2005, 2:24pm | #

Actually, the prosecutor responsible for the investigation has a long reputation for whacking politicians regardless of party affiliation - of the fifteen "political" investigations he's directed, twelve involved Dems. Apparently he's a real hard-ass, too...

Brian | September 28, 2005, 2:26pm | #

There goes a real sack of crap.

Not to mention Frist's SEC difficulties. If Martha had to break rocks for the Man, I want him in the Big House for a spell.

Chris | September 28, 2005, 2:27pm | #

How did Loudon Wainwright get dragged into this?

David | September 28, 2005, 2:27pm | #

And, does anybody really need a grand jury to them that DeLay is a shitbag?

Those who do, won't believe it anyway. It will be just another case of godless liberals trying to destroy one of Jesus' own.

Adam | September 28, 2005, 2:28pm | #

Republican soundbite of the day - stick with it and they'll get by fine - Ronnie Earle, the District Attorney in the case, also indicted the squeaky, squeaky clean Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and he dropped the charges after selecting a jury because he couldn't prove his case.

That said, and in consideration of the headline of Julian's post, there's Bill Frist's shady stock sale that the SEC is looking into, and apparently Senator Schumer's staff might have illegally grabbed Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele's credit history - highly questionable behavior from a man who was dogging Judge Roberts on his views on the right to privacy just a couple of weeks ago!

alkurta | September 28, 2005, 2:32pm | #

Forgive my ignorance, but what has Tom Delay done to draw such ire?

Ruthless | September 28, 2005, 2:32pm | #

"There are at least 3 or 4 worth sparing."

Mike Kole,
Did you stumble into H&R in error?

sage | September 28, 2005, 2:33pm | #

Mark my words: He will get off scot-free(sp). Prepare, folks. The revolution cometh.

Lawrence | September 28, 2005, 2:35pm | #

Tommy... watch out for your cornhole, man...

gaius marius | September 28, 2005, 2:36pm | #

mr alkurta, in the long history of corruption in american government, it is no exaggeration to say that delay might be one of the most corrupt men ever to hold a federal-level elected office. and he knew as much, knew that this indictment and others would someday come -- which is why he gutted the house ethics rules as best he could.

Eric the .5b | September 28, 2005, 2:36pm | #

Actually, the prosecutor responsible for the investigation has a long reputation for whacking politicians regardless of party affiliation - of the fifteen "political" investigations he's directed, twelve involved Dems. Apparently he's a real hard-ass, too...

That's good, at least. The campaign finance laws that result in these contortions and conspiracies are a joke, but I'm all for coming down hard on these schmucks when they conspire to break the laws they inflict on everyone else.

Darth Rove | September 28, 2005, 2:38pm | #

Aw, come on guys, you know my apprentice will pardon DeLay! I didn't spend all this time setting up these series of events just to let a little partisian dweeb bring down my Congressional enforcer!

joe | September 28, 2005, 2:38pm | #

Maybe Tom Delay's lawyer isn't the best person to lecture us about what smells funny.

Tom Crick | September 28, 2005, 2:39pm | #

"Forgive my ignorance, but what has Tom Delay done to draw such ire?

TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee), which I understand to be DeLay's PAC, took money from Sears, among others, and wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to received in donations.

The indictment included a copy of the check.

...I got this from MSNBC's site.

Girth | September 28, 2005, 2:40pm | #

I can't wait to talk to my dad about this one tonight. He has actually referred to DeLay as "cool," which shows not only his blind allegiance to Republicans but also his complete lack of understanding of the word "cool."

This -almost- makes me want to watch Hannity tonight, just to see what that asshole has to say.

Jennifer | September 28, 2005, 2:45pm | #

Guess who'll be the next recipient of a Presidential Medal of Freedom?

gaius marius | September 28, 2005, 2:45pm | #

And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world ? the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?

i'll wager you're absolutely correct, mr sage.

Charles Foster Kane | September 28, 2005, 2:46pm | #

"My first official act as Governor of this State will be to appoint a Special District Attorney to arrange for the indictment, prosecution, and conviction of Boss Jim W. Gettys!"

MP | September 28, 2005, 2:47pm | #

gaius,

I'd counter with Boss Tweed, but in doing so I'd only end up highlighting what a loathsome character DeLay is.

smacky | September 28, 2005, 2:56pm | #

Good call on the Presidential medal, Jennifer.

Adirondack Dan | September 28, 2005, 2:56pm | #

Skunky=bitchin'?

The skunk bud in Albany 20 years ago actually stunk like a skunk! You could smell it through 3 plastic baggies and the pocket of your jeans!

This is great news, especially for Jonah Goldberg. His last column was complaining about how boring everything was being on the side of the party in power.

Tom Crick | September 28, 2005, 2:56pm | #

"...the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to received in donations."

Theoretically, shouldn't they indict the House candidates too?

...now that'd get you closer to your 434 number!

smacky | September 28, 2005, 3:08pm | #

I know I'm going to draw the whiny ire of the overtly, defensively religious on this thread when I make the following snark. I just wanted to preface my comment with my recognition of this.

*ahem*

But I thought DeLay was a man of GAHWUD!

JDM | September 28, 2005, 3:09pm | #

434? Local pols are usually more corrupt, and have more influence than national politicians. The number is in the tens of thousands, I'm guessing.

Taylor Buley | September 28, 2005, 3:13pm | #

Another one bites the dust! Zing!

bigbigslacker | September 28, 2005, 3:18pm | #

"This -almost- makes me want to watch Hannity tonight"

You sick bastard....

J | September 28, 2005, 3:20pm | #

This just in! Shocking news! Delay claims innocence! (from an AP story at news.yahoo.com):
-----
"I have done nothing wrong ... I am innocent," DeLay told a Capitol Hill news conference in which he criticized the Texas prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, repeatedly. DeLay called Earle a "unabashed partisan zealot," and "fanatic," and described the charges as "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American history."

SR | September 28, 2005, 3:20pm | #

"There are at least 3 or 4 worth sparing."

Yes, I was going to say that it should 433 at most, since Ron Paul doesn't need to be indicted for anything that I'm aware of.

Brian Courts | September 28, 2005, 3:29pm | #

No doubt that he's corrupt, hell he's a politician, which is pretty much prima-facie evidence of that, as the headline implies. But it's interesting that the conspiracy he gets indicted for is certainly less damaging than the logrolling and pork-barreling that goes on every day in Congress as a matter of course. That is the real conspiracy and it's perfectly legal. So is it any surprise Congress should attract and promote those particularly talented in conspiring to advance their fortunes at the expense of (or let's just say it - by stealing from) others?

My no-chance-in-hell-of-ever-happening solution: A type of antitrust law applied to politicians. No back-room communication between politicians should be allowed. Everything should have to be out in the open, either on the floor or in open committee hearings. Any evidence that non-public communication went on between elected officials ought to be considered evidence of conspiracy to defraud the public. The minimum penalty for such would be removal from Congress.

Don Mynack | September 28, 2005, 3:30pm | #

Earle has no case here, quite frankly. Look for it to be dismissed before it ever reaches trial. The fact that he had to reach for a conspiracy indictment (to claim jurisdiction) speaks for itself.

Don Mynack | September 28, 2005, 3:33pm | #

Whoops! Forgot to add my punchline: If Delay deserves to be indicted for anything, I nominate that haircut.

Joke ruined. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Darth Rove | September 28, 2005, 3:39pm | #

These are all partisian attacks from people supporting terrorists. Delay is a valuable asset in the eternal War on Evil People who don't pray like we do, and we consider his indictment nothing less than an outright attack on our very way of life by an activist grand jury, goaded on by an activist partisian prosecutor.

Gaping-Mouthed Bystander | September 28, 2005, 3:40pm | #

But wait, Don! That wasn't funny.

Sven | September 28, 2005, 3:46pm | #

I thought the legislature had an unspoken rule not to point out each other's ethics violations, so as not to open themselves up to scrutiny - a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction. I am curious how these jackals come to the decision that it's safe to swarm on one of their own. Is it a matter of just how much blood is in the water? (Mixed metaphorically speaking, that is.)

David | September 28, 2005, 3:48pm | #

But I thought DeLay was a man of GAHWUD!

Only when it comes to vegetables, homosexuals, and abortion.

And I always thought it was pronounced "Gaw-duh".

Just South of Adirondack Adam | September 28, 2005, 3:50pm | #

The skunk bud in Albany still smells like skunk.

joe | September 28, 2005, 3:50pm | #

Hey, look over there everybody! It's the REAL CONSPIRACY! Over there! OVER THERE! LOOK!!!

Just South of Adirondack Adam | September 28, 2005, 3:56pm | #

And, hey, speaking of those other 434 to go...

Frist's in the hot seat for shady stock deals, and Schumer may have feloniously obtained Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit report. I'm guessing this thing against DeLay will backfire - this is the same guy who indicted the squeaky-clean Kay Bailey Hutchinson and then dropped the charges after jury selection. If he had any evidence that was worth a crap, he'd leak it.

Akira MacKenzie | September 28, 2005, 3:59pm | #

I know I'm going to draw the whiny ire of the overtly, defensively religious on this thread when I make the following snark.

Don't let them stop you. I certainly don't.

joe | September 28, 2005, 4:03pm | #

"If he had any evidence that was worth a crap, he'd leak it."

Has the possibility that he's actually an honest DA crossed your mind?

Ruthless | September 28, 2005, 4:14pm | #

GAHWUD!
"Gaw-duh".

David,
These are good examples of two separate evangelist dialects.

The Baptist church just around the corner from my residence in the 'hood is more likely to prefer the latter... I think.

Scott | September 28, 2005, 4:17pm | #

The Grand Jury must hate America.

smacky | September 28, 2005, 4:26pm | #

"Gah-wud" = white trash televangelists?
"Gaw-duh" = fundamentalists and other rabid religious commonfolk?


This dialect question seems like a good quandry for linguist.

Brian Courts | September 28, 2005, 4:28pm | #

Hey, look over there everybody! It's the REAL CONSPIRACY! Over there! OVER THERE! LOOK!!!

Anyone know that the hell he's talking about?

smacky | September 28, 2005, 4:29pm | #

Billy's speaking gibberish again, Brian.

David | September 28, 2005, 4:36pm | #

I think it was in response to Delay's quotes.

joe | September 28, 2005, 4:38pm | #

Brian, does responding to the news of Delay's indictment with "But it's interesting that the conspiracy he gets indicted for is certainly less damaging than the logrolling and pork-barreling that goes on every day in Congress as a matter of course. That is the real conspiracy and it's perfectly legal" ring any bells?

David | September 28, 2005, 4:42pm | #

"Gah-wud" = white trash televangelists?
"Gaw-duh" = fundamentalists and other rabid religious commonfolk?

Smacky,

There's probably a "sweat vs. smarm test" that could go with this. As in, the more animated & sweaty the preacher(usally with a live audience), the more likely he is to use Gaw-duh. If he's calm and smarmy(in a TV studio with no audience), Gahwud is the probable choice. They -duh suffix seems to grow out of heavy breathing, or ranting.

Lowdog | September 28, 2005, 4:44pm | #

joe - are you disagreeing with the fact that the log-rolling and pork-barreling that goes on every day isn't the "real conspiracy"?

Just curious, because I think it probably is.

B-Real | September 28, 2005, 4:46pm | #

Drop da Hammer, its time for action!

smacky | September 28, 2005, 4:48pm | #

the more animated & sweaty the preacher(usally with a live audience), the more likely he is to use Gaw-duh. If he's calm and smarmy(in a TV studio with no audience), Gahwud is the probable choice. They -duh suffix seems to grow out of heavy breathing, or ranting.

And for the real hammy preachers, who are really sweatin' to the oldies, it's a whoppin' three-syllables: Gah-wu-duh !

joe | September 28, 2005, 4:57pm | #

Lowdog, have you ever heard the term "misdirection?"

David | September 28, 2005, 5:00pm | #

And for the real hammy preachers, who are really sweatin' to the oldies, it's a whoppin' three-syllables: Gah-wu-duh !

A preacher that hammy probably has a sweat stain that runs from navel to asscrack like a full body Rorschach test.

Brian Courts | September 28, 2005, 5:01pm | #

Yes, joe, I wrote that. I figured you were attempting to make some clever comment about it.

I think it is interesting what we consider a crime and what we accept as "business as usual." If you don't care, fine, but try making a substantive point instead of resorting to meaningless sarcasm. I think it says something about your Democratic-liberal blinders that any response to this topic other than "yeah hang the dirty bastard" (which I would largely concur with due to his behavior in congress, any illegal stuff notwithstanding) is somehow seen as a defense or attempt to obscure the issue. Let me go way out on a limb here and guess that had this been a democrat with identical circumstances we'd be hearing a different tune from you. All that seems to matter to you is which party this helps or hurts.

At any rate, I can't stand DeLay personally. As for conspiracy, I have no clue whether the indictment is politically motivated or whether he really broke the law (or both) because I haven't followed it. But the fact that we allow essentially the same behavior in one guise as simply the routine job of a congressman while showing indignation at similar (though less damaging) behavior is interesting to me. My conclusion is certainly not that we shouldn't care about DeLay's alleged behavior here, quite the contrary; we should care about it here and in his (and others) official duties as congresspersons.

JMoore | September 28, 2005, 5:07pm | #

I for one, would be willing to tolerate any amount of dirty dealings, unethical behaviours, filthy schemes, nepotism, cronyism, back-stabbing, you name it, from Congress IF each and every member was as big a cheapskate as I am.

David | September 28, 2005, 5:09pm | #

JMoore,

They are, but only with their own money.

JMoore | September 28, 2005, 5:11pm | #

David

good point

When I said as big a cheapskate as I am, i should have pointed out that I nearly have a heart attack just thinking about spending money--mine or anyone else's.

I worship Hetty Green.

Mick | September 28, 2005, 5:17pm | #

> One Down, 434 to Go

Great title, Julian.

Government is not the solution to any problem. Government is the problem.

Get value for your money: privatize all government functions.

Mick

Wild Pegasus | September 28, 2005, 5:18pm | #

Oh, please please please tell me this is a hanging offense.

- Josh

Brian Courts | September 28, 2005, 5:20pm | #

Lowdog, have you ever heard the term "misdirection?"

Wtf - you think that's what my comment was meant to do? Is it possible to have this issue bring to mind anything other than the Democratic talking points without being accused of misdirection? I'm not carrying water for the GOP or DeLay (any accusation of such is simply laughable) and if he's guilty I hope they nail him, as I would regardless of which party he's from. It was simply an observation about our tolerance for conspiracy in its official forms.

Lowdog | September 28, 2005, 5:56pm | #

joe - yeah, of course, but I was asking a serious question. To me it would seem that going after DeLay could be the misdirection. Or to put it another way, sometimes you have to go after somebody just to make it look like you're doing something.

And I agree with Brian that if he's guilty of these shenanigans, he should be convicted and serve his sentence. I also agree with Brian that it's funny that one thing can be called "conspiracy" and the other "politics".

So again, do you think the pork-barreling and log-rolling is or is not "a bad thing" (whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not is another matter, I suppose)?

kwais | September 28, 2005, 6:01pm | #

I'm with the "he's going to get off scott free" crowd. But I only make that assesment from listening to Hannity's radio show, while driving my car. I was hoping there would be more information about it on this website. Looks like I'll have to watch the debates on tv tonight.

Rimfax | September 28, 2005, 6:15pm | #

And to think...we, the taxpayers, actually pay these assclowns an exorbitant salary to rip us off.

peachy | September 28, 2005, 7:04pm | #

It is not strictly true that Earle dropped a case against Hutchinson for lack of evidence - so far as I can tell, he had the evidence, but the trial judge excluded (or would have excluded) it on the grounds that it was improperly obtained. I believe the issue was that it was taken in a raid executed under search warrant, and the judge ruled - or would have ruled - that it should have been obtained by a subpoena. (From the little I've read, it isn't clear whether the judge had actually made that ruling, or Earle simply anticipated that he would and cut his losses.)

bigbigslacker | September 28, 2005, 7:25pm | #

joe has previously stated he does not believe there is enough evidence to say Bill Clinton broke any laws in any of his scandals, including whitewater. Right, joe? In fact, I think you said the only thing he was guilty of was telling a fib under oath when being questioned about his past sexual history during the sexual harrassment lawsuit. So when it comes to judging Democrats, it takes DNA evidence to sway you, but when its a dirty Repuke, the bar is much much lower. So the Clintons did not lie about the value of their assets for the purpose of obtaining business loans to get richer, but Delay now....

joe | September 28, 2005, 7:34pm | #

Brian,

"Let me go way out on a limb here and guess that had this been a democrat with identical circumstances we'd be hearing a different tune from you." If only there were corrupt Democrats with records remotely comparable to Tom Delay, we'd be able to test that.

And no, I don't believe that fact that our political and economic system is organized in a manner different from what you would like to see qualifies as a criminal conspiracy.

joe | September 28, 2005, 8:07pm | #

Brian, et al,

Acknowledging that what Delay has been involved in over the past decade goes beyond the ordinary, legal operations of the legislative branch is not "Reciting democratic talking points."

drf | September 28, 2005, 8:46pm | #

Smacky:

AWESOME.

mike | September 28, 2005, 9:20pm | #

Rep. Tom DeLay is going to get off this charge(even if what he did was illegal), and it's becuase he is a politician. Almost every politician lies and/or deceives, that is want they do.

mike | September 28, 2005, 9:25pm | #

Rep. Tom DeLay is going to get off this charge(even if what he did was illegal), and it's becuase he is a politician.
Does anybody think that if Rep. DeLay is found guilty that he will pay the price?

Brian Courts | September 28, 2005, 10:12pm | #

And no, I don't believe that fact that our political and economic system is organized in a manner different from what you would like to see qualifies as a criminal conspiracy.

Acknowledging that what Delay has been involved in over the past decade goes beyond the ordinary, legal operations of the legislative branch is not "Reciting democratic talking points."

Those might make more sense as replies if that is what I had said or implied.

Let me restate for those who missed it: I was comparing behavior that is considered criminal in some circumstances and business as usual in others and saying that there really isn't that much difference. That is not remotely what you just implied I said - i.e. that I'm claiming it's a conspiracy that the political system isn't organized as I'd like it (which is just silly on it's face so the implication that I said it is dishonest).

The same goes for your reference to "democratic talking points." I never said nor implied that the DeLay issue was simply democratic talking points as one would think from reading your reply - my reference to democrat talking points was about the allowed responses to his indictment. Can we consider other issues that come to mind or can we only recite the talking points without being accused of "misdirection."

It is dishonest to reply in a way that implicitly attributes to someone that which they did not say, even going so far as to use quotes for effect. Sometimes it's an honest mistake or misunderstanding, but with you it seems clear that the misreading is intentional to allow for a better "soundbite" response. Such rhetorical stunts may work in college BS sessions and in politics, but I figure most people here can comprehend what was and was not said and see through your games.

joe | September 28, 2005, 10:25pm | #

Apparently I misunderstood Brian.

What I object to in your statement is its implicit dismissal of the responsibility of the particular official involved in criminal action. It works very well for a soundbite to talk about the big bad government, until people start not being held responsible for their performance.

I'm a little touchy about that subject these days.

Douglas Fletcher | September 28, 2005, 11:43pm | #

Has the possibility that he's actually an honest DA crossed your mind?

Has the possibility that DeLay is innocent (until proven guilty) crossed yours?

peachy | September 29, 2005, 12:57am | #

No, not really... I mean, this is the bug-man we're talking about. He'd cheat his own mother at cards to win a buck - what wouldn't he do for hundreds of thousands of corporate campaign money? He'll probably get off on some kind of technicality, though his career might not survive, but I don't doubt he's guilty as sin.

joe | September 29, 2005, 9:31am | #

"Has the possibility that DeLay is innocent (until proven guilty) crossed yours?"

Within our legal system, Tom Delay is entitled to the presumption of innocence by the police, judge, jury, and prosecutors, until he is proven guilty.

That procedural presumption is not an excuse to shut off your brain and suspend your critical faculties.

joe | September 29, 2005, 9:41am | #

Did anyone else actally see Delay's statement on CSPAN?

He could have been John Connelly (Whitey Bulger's FBI handler-turned-accomplice) - hammering on the prosecutor, accusing him of a political prosecution, declaring himself a hero...if you've ever read "Black Mass," that media event was eerily familiar.

David | September 29, 2005, 9:51am | #

Has the possibility that DeLay is innocent (until proven guilty) crossed yours?

That doesn't apply to what we think, only that the state must prove his guilt before punishment. That said, that possibility hasn't crossed my mind. Delay's a politician, likely guilty of far more than can be proven or even discovered.

David | September 29, 2005, 9:53am | #

or what joe said.

Adam | September 29, 2005, 10:14am | #

joe - That you don't like the accused and/or distrust him is not an excuse to cut off your critical faculties either. The question remains, did he commit the "crime" he is charged with?

Dr. William Hurwitz, as Jacob Sullum has written about here, is being sent up the river by ulteriorally motivated prosecutors on "conspiracy" charges - remember the "conspiracy of a wink and a nod"? I, for one, despise it when prosecutors act on ulterior motives, and I don't care who it is getting screwed. I happen to very, very much dislike DeLay, but there's a fine way to get rid of him: at the polls.

joe | September 29, 2005, 11:46am | #

What tipped you off that Ronnie Earle had ulterior motives, Adam? His long history of prosecuting prominent Democrats? The complete absence of leaks leading up to the official announcement? Or was it just Tom Delay's word?

"I happen to very, very much dislike DeLay, but there's a fine way to get rid of him: at the polls." We don't have pariamentary immunity in this country. If a sitting Congressman committed crimes, he is investigated and prosecuted.

Darth Rove | September 29, 2005, 12:03pm | #

If a prosecutor opposes our will, then he or she is a rogue activist prosecutor, conducting a heavily-biased witch-hunt, and we will treat that person accordingly.

The Empire will not be opposed! You're either with us or against us!

Jeff | September 29, 2005, 12:18pm | #

I agree that Delay's "real" crimes are what he does day to day that passes for "politics" these days. But I will take what I can get-- if it's a technical violation of some arcane campaign finance law, so be it. Because he is a bastard of the first order. Capone was brought down for tax evasion, ya know.

I have been hoping recently that the Democrats would come out of their coma and deliver us divided government again, or at least slow down the big guvmint conservative juggernaut. It looks like I may have to rely on various state and federal prosecutorial agents-- working against Abramoff, Frist, Delay, maybe Rove/Libby/whoever on the Plame case-- and that's fine too. This unitary government is bad for everyone.

rob | September 29, 2005, 12:24pm | #

I think it was said best by Brian Courts on September 28, 2005 at 3:29 PM.

I mean, who do you root for here?

I'm thrilled that a politician might be given his just desserts on one hand, but on the other hand, I hate to see another group of politicians benefit from it.

Truly a Gordian knot... Too bad we can't simply cut through both ends the way Alexander did.