Tom DeLay, Dan Rostenkowski, And A Partial History

Howard Kurtz appraises the coverage of the new "Tom DeLay" rule adopted by the House Republicans, ands tells us that "Blogger Mark Kleiman provides a history lesson".

And so he does, although it is woefully incomplete:

In 1993, when Dan Rostenkowsi was indicted, the Republicans in the House were looking for a way of pinning his strictly private financial scandal on the other Democrats in the House. Someone had a clever idea: make it a rule of the House Republican Conference that anyone in a leadership position who was indicted would have to step down. So the rule was duly passed.

Left unmentioned - in the case of Tom DeLay, Reps are worried about a politically motivated Democratic State prosecutor.  By way of contrast, Rostenkowski was indicted by a Federal grand jury.  In fact, the Federal prosecutor who eventually decided to seek an indictment was Clinton appointee Eric Holder.

Now, the Rostenkowski probe grew out of the House Post Office investigation, the original impetus for which was surely political.  Beyond that, the House Republicans should have been more careful in setting the standard at "indictment"; "Federal indictment" would have been a bit more cautious, since we are finally seeing a fairly predictable result.

Mr. Kurtz seems to be dismissive of the notion that Tom DeLay could be the victim of a politically motivated prosecutor, saying this:

If lots of people are really getting indicted without cause, shouldn't the House hold hearings on it, rather than worry about shielding indicted Republican leaders?

First of all, we are talking about a State prosecutor - is that the proper subject of a House hearing?

Secondly, does Mr. Kurtz really not believe that politically motivated prosecutors sometimes stalk the land?  I need to review his position on the Ken Starr era (as noted below).  Or the Lawrence Walsh era.

MORE:  Let's give some play to the notion that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle (Dem) is a straight-shooter doing his job.  However, the opening two paragraphs of this Houston Chronicle editorial from early 2003 do pose a logical challenge:

Until recent years, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature, held most statewide offices and caused the big scandals. Now the situation is reversed, but some Republicans want their scandals to be exempt from investigation.

During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts.

The news that, back when every officeholder was a Democrat, Mr. Earle mostly prosecuted Democrats is not fully responsive to the question at hand.  Times have changed in Texas, and, for all I know, Mr. Earle is part of a desperate rear-guard action.  Or maybe he is a great American.

STILL MORE:  Maybe we should ask Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison:

Earle’s politically-motivated indictment of Senator Hutchinson on charges that she used state funds to run her senatorial campaign made even his own supporters cringe. The charges were dismissed when Earle refused to present evidence at trial.

More on that here, although we should note that the article we are linking to was originally published in a college newspaper.  Trust the young 'uns, especially when the excerpt the Dallas Morning News:

On Earle's methods, the Dallas Morning News wrote "the impression of partisan unfairness has certainly been reinforced by the leaks and public comment about Hutchison's case from the District Attorney's office throughout the summer. That the Grand Jury investigation has been conducted with so much fanfare - such as the tip-offs to the new media when key records were seized from the former treasurer's office - has added a darker tone to the cloudy proceedings."

A counterspin version is here.  What becomes clear is that they play hardball in Texas - who knew?

UPDATE:  Media Matters is whining, but they can't get the date right on the Houston Chronicle editorial (scratch June, try March, gents), they slide past the fact that the editorial is from 2003, when the Texas redistricting brawl was just warming up, and, they skip past the lead sentence in the Houston Chronicle editorial on which they base their case.  Here we go again:

Until recent years, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature, held most statewide offices and caused the big scandals. Now the situation is reversed, but some Republicans want their scandals to be exempt from investigation.

The Media Matters folks are also blissfully unaware of the Kay Bailey Hutchison story, or at least they pretend to be.

Comments

[TexasToast]

Ronnie goes after everybody - He prosecuted Kay Bailey Hutcheson a few years back and the prosecution failed because the court refused to allow the crucial evidence.

DeLay has not yet been indicted - so what is the fuss? (smile)

[KBiel]

We politic like we play football here in Texas, except with politics shoulder pads and helmets are optional.

[Jor]

How many democrats has Earle prosecuted? How many republicans? Facts are irrelevant right?

[Barnestormer]

"Secondly, does Mr. Kurtz really not believe that politically motivated prosecutirs(sic) sometimes stalk the land?" [Proceed to reference FEDERAL special counsel as examples, having just made a federal/state distinction].

Unless the point is intended to be limited to targeting elected officials (which it may well be on this thread; in which case please ignore this comment as OT), have the state examples not been abandoned too early? Moving beyond Texas, I hear there's a bit of a flap in Florida, for instance. Something about the pharmacological habits of a certain conservative radio personality.

[Dedman]

It amuses me infinitely that you cited and quoted my 1996 college editorial.

Whatever the case, then, as now, the general consensus was that Earle would target his political opponents and those of his pals, whether they were Republican or Democrat. Time was, there were fierce battles in the Democratic primaries here, so Earle would sometimes target the Democrat who he or his pals opposed. It was just a Republican/Democrat thing.

Also, the problem is really that the power to prosecute states ethics violations rests in the hands of our district attorney who is elected within one county (Travis County in Austin). It would seem to make more sense to have that prosecutor be fully accountable to the state. Thus, either the Texas Attorney General or perhaps the Texas Ethics Commission should have that job rather than one of the 200+ District Attorneys in Texas.

[Thomas Nephew]

The news that, back when every officeholder was a Democrat, Mr. Earler mostly prosecuted Democrats is not fully responsive to the question at hand. Times have changed in Texas, and, for all I know, Mr. Earle is part of a desperate rear-guard action. Or maybe he is a great American.

It seems pretty responsive to me. Guess it depends what your question is. Mine is "Does Earle go after politicians whether they're Democrats or Republicans?" -- yes. I suppose yours is "Does Earle have the temerity to maybe indict Tom DeLay?"

If "for all you know" Earle is part of a "desperate rear guard action" *or* he's "a great American", maybe you should save everyone the trouble of reading your speculations on the subject, or add a few more like "he's sending me deadly brainwaves right now."