Which Is It?

House Republicans change a rule to protect Tom DeLay.  With the revision, he will not have to step down from his leadership post if he is indicted by what some House Republicans believe is a politically motivated Democratic prosecutor down in Texas.

Democrats are outraged.  So outraged, in fact, that they may actually get around to adopting the rule the Republicans are scrapping.

But in an odd yet timely coincidence, the Clinton Library opens today.  And this is how Clinton's impeachment is described:

..."The impeachment battle was not about the Constitution or rule of law, but was instead about a quest for power that the president's opponents could not win at the ballot box."

Evidently, there are some circumstances under which some Democrats take seriously the notion of a politically motivated prosecution.

MORE:  Tom DeLay is a walking quote machine:

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

Hamlet weeps.

And we love this:

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan. "Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said. "I think that is redundant wrong."

Oh, you know that the "redundant" bit is just my wishful thinking.

Comments

[Thomas J. Jackson]

There is a huge difference between being charged and convicted. Clinton was charged but not convicted-so under your view should he have resigned or been thrown out?

[mikem]

Clinton was in fact convicted by the House of Representatives. He was found guilty and impeached. The Senate decided only on whether he should be removed from office. That does not change the fact that he was impeached, which is the sole prerogative of the House of Representatives. The President of the United States had stood before Americans, swore to tell the truth under oath(!), and bald face lied, at the same time calling other Americans liars in order to cover his own lies. Great example for all Americans to follow. Clinton was a disgrace. Blowjobs and cigar sex with a young female employee in the White House. Truly the liberal version of a women's rights activist.

[Jor]

Hilarious! We still find a way to blame things on Clinton -- keep streching our imaginations. Do you approve of the Delay Rule TM? Just say "Yes, I do". How many conservative newspapers have to say this is a bad idea, before the internet amen choir wakes up? You control all three branches of government, seriously, stop just yelling amen after anything a republican does. Its not good.

[Jor]

Oh, and I think we can add "limited, decentralized (in terms of power) govt" to another "conservative value" that obviously is taking a back seat for the perpetual war. I'm sure Delay's experience exterminating insects is absolutely critical to our success in the war. Thank god for the amen corner strict biblical, constitutional, and principlaled stances.

[Robert Crawford]

You realize this rule was made by the House Republicans themselves, don't you?

And that the House Democrats have no equivalent rule?

So if you're going to whine about the Republicans REMOVING the rule, you should be riding the Democrats for NOT HAVING ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Cecil Turner]

I think TM is pointing up the hypocrisy on both sides. And Robert is correct that many commenters appear to've missed the point:

House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted. [emphasis added]

That said, I think it's a bad rule. It appears to have its roots in an attempt at holier-than-thou party spin, and runs afoul of the "innocent until proven guilty" dictum. Also, such a one-sided rule provides incentive for exactly the sort of political prosecutions that would further coarsen political discourse. (As opposed to, say, setting up a review panel to evaluate situations and temporarily remove leaders pending the outcome of a court case if warranted.)

If the Democrats incorporate such a rule, it'll not survive the first encounter with a perceived political prosecution. They'd be better off not to incorporate one in the first place, as the Republicans would have. A couple snide chuckles at Republican expense would seem to be the better bet at this point. (And though I'd like to claim I'd refrain in a similar situation, I probably wouldn't.)

[Crank]

Maybe they could just have amended the rule to provide for indictments by Ronnie Earle.

[TM]

I will thank Mr. Crawford for his cogent clarification. As to Mr. Jackson's pont that "There is a huge difference between being charged and convicted", well, yes - being charged by a politically motivated prosecutor from the rough-and-tumble state of Texas is quite different from being convicted.

And no, I did not think that Clinton should have resigned in response to his impeachment. We had a Constitutional process, which played itself out.

And while I am at it, I will second Mr. Turner's point - passing a "holier-than-thou" rule may have had some political benefit at the time, but the consequences were predictable.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Ronnie Earle is notorious for doing just what Delay is complaining about. He indicted Kay Bailey Hutchison about ten years ago on goofball charges and lost quickly. In Travis County you don't even have to resemble a ham sandwich. Just be a political opponent of Earle.

[Geek, Esq.]

This whole thing has been an early Christmas present to the Democrats.

Is having Bug-Man as their Majority Leader really worth all of this bad press and embarrassment? DeLay is compromised--one would think the possibility of him stepping down or of someone challenging him would have come up by now.

Classic example of blowback.

[KBiel]

mikem,

You most certainly do not have your facts straight. An impeachment is just like an indictment. Just as a prosecutor presents evidence and testimony to a grand jury who will decide whether the prosecutor may procede to trial, an impeachment hearing in the House has House members who provide evidence and testimony for the House to decide whether or not to procede to trial. If they so vote to procede to trial, then the president (or any defendant, such as a federal judge) is then considered impeached, just as in a criminal trial a defendant is considered indicted. The real trial, determining guilt and consequences is held in the Senate. House members again act as the prosecutors. So, while Clinton was impeached, he was never convicted of anything and no consequences were attached, no matter how much we might have wanted it.

[gigglejr]

I believe Clinton was "convicted" of perjury by a Federal judge. He paid a fine and settled the case.