Pat Buchanan: Ronnie Earle should be "behind bars"
On the October 11 edition of the nationally syndicated radio show Imus in the Morning, which also airs on MSNBC, MSNBC news analyst and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan followed other conservatives (see here, here, and here) in attacking Travis County, Texas, district attorney Ronnie Earle for his prosecution of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Buchanan claimed that Earle should be "behind bars" for his involvement in DeLay's recent indictment on conspiracy and money-laundering charges.
From the October 11 broadcast of Westwood One and MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: We're talking to Pat Buchanan here on the Imus in the Morning program, 17 till the hour. Even people who are not fans -- we're kind of switching gears here, slightly -- but, even people who aren't fans of Tom DeLay think that this looks a little flimsy, what they have on him, or not?
BUCHANAN: They ought to put that guy, Earle, behind bars. Look, I mean, look what he did. He indicts DeLay, on Friday, so DeLay's lawyers come in on Monday and said, "Ronnie Earle has indicted DeLay for violating, in 2002, a law that wasn't even passed and enacted until 2003" --
[laughter]
BUCHANAN: --and so Earle has got egg all over his face. So, he impanels a grand jury --
IMUS: Over the weekend, I guess, right?
BUCHANAN: --and in five hours they indict him. Well, it's unbelievable.
IMUS: Yeah.
BUCHANAN: I mean, really. I was talking with a friend of mine in the green room last night, and we were talking about this -- you know, the criminalization of politics is appalling. It used to be good enough that you'd go out there, and you beat the guy, fair and square. And he's out for four years, and you have a good laugh. But, now's it's, uh, it's not satisfactory or if you can't beat him, you put him in prison.
I think I can agree with Robertson on this point - "the criminalization of politics is appalling".
And as a result, we should be grateful we have people like Ronnie Earle who have dedicated their lives to working against this. But it's nice at the same time to expose the hucksters like Robertson who want a tough line on criminals until it hits too close to home.
Pat B. has so many role models that ended up "behind bars" (or should have) in his Nixon days, so it follows naturally that he thinks this way.
Eddie, I think you're mixing up your "Pats"...this is Buchanan, not Robertson...understandable considering their similar political bent.
However, Robertson would probably call for a "Christian" punishment like stoning instead of jail time for Ronnie.
And I thought that Pat was showing some guts when he criticized Bush for the Iraq War. Oh, well, I guess they got to him, too.
I used to like Imus...he showed some guts once in a while. Then he had Zell Miller on his show and all but offered to lick his shoes. It was really disgusting.
Hey, at least he didn't suggest he should be assassinated!
"Hey, at least he didn't suggest he should be assassinated! --rufus t firefly
--------------------------------------------------------
Progress.
So what about this charge that DeLay violated a law in 2002 that was enacted in 2003? Maybe my head's been under a rock, but this is the first I've heard of this. Wouldn't the grand juries throw something like this out instead of handing out an indictment?
Don't confuse my point of view, I think DeLay is as dirty as they come, but it's looking more and more like DeLay's lawyers are going to be able to "O.J." him no problem.
"So what about this charge that DeLay violated a law in 2002 that was enacted in 2003? Maybe my head's been under a rock, but this is the first I've heard of this. Wouldn't the grand juries throw something like this out instead of handing out an indictment?
Don't confuse my point of view, I think DeLay is as dirty as they come, but it's looking more and more like DeLay's lawyers are going to be able to "O.J." him no problem."...by pete592
===============
Pete, I'm no fan of Delay's, and don't doubt he's been involved in some shady dealings over his career (hey it's politics--I'm betting most politicians have)...HOWEVER this is starting to look a bit "odd".
======================
Report: Jurors refused to indict DeLay Prosecutor took charges to three grand juries
Thursday, October 6, 2005; Posted: 12:08 p.m. EDT (16:08 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Texas prosecutor became angry when a grand jury refused to indict Rep. Tom DeLay on money laundering charges, according to two sources directly familiar with the proceeding.
"The mood was unpleasant," one person said Wednesday, describing Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle's reaction.
The sources said Earle became visibly angry when grand jurors last week signed a document declining to indict, known as a "no bill," for money laundering charges.
--------------
Dick DeGuerin sought to have the original conspiracy charge dismissed Monday by arguing in a court filing that the indictment was based on a law that the Legislature changed in 2003. The original indictment alleges that the illegal acts date to 2002.
Shortly after DeGuerin filed his motion, the third Travis County grand jury brought an indictment against DeLay that included one count of conspiracy to launder money and one count of money laundering.
DeGuerin said Earle sought the latest indictment because he was "trying to patch up a terrible blunder he made last week for indicting Mr. DeLay for something that wasn't a crime."
Earle said in a statement released late Tuesday that he sought the second indictment of DeLay on Monday because he became aware of additional evidence.
[link to www.cnn.com]
=================================
I generally agree with Pat Buchanan on MOST issues (not all, but most)....I do think he's gone over the TOP here suggesting Earle should be behind bars....maybe IF these charges amount to NOTHING he ought to be severely reprimanded IF it's (somehow) PROVEN his motivation was purely political revenge.
Big IF though, let Delay go through the process--see how it goes. Like the man or not, he's innocent till proven guilty.
"So what about this charge that DeLay violated a law in 2002 that was enacted in 2003?"
This did strike me as rather confusing. I don't remember what the clause is called, but you can't indict someone for committing a crime at a time when no law prohibiting said activity existed.
Am I missing something here?
Always do a fact check before you believe somebody like Pat Buchanan. It's clear to me that Buchanan's claim is at least an exaggeration.
Delay has been indicted on at least three counts, and they are all very similar.
First, Delay was indicted on criminal conspiracy. Then there were two follow-up indictments on additional charges of criminal conspiracy and money laundering.
Delay's lawyers have argued that the first charge of criminal conspiracy was not covered by state election laws at the time.
Regarding the other two charges of money laundering and criminal conspiracy, Delay has maintained that he acted within the law, but he has not argued that those laws (ie those against money laundering) were off the books at the time of the alleged criminal activity.
Returning to the first allegation: I am not a lawyer, so I won't comment on the legitimacy of Mr Delay's defense. However, please note that a Grand Jury of ten Texas citizens specifically assesed "whether or not a crime has occured" before indicting delay. So the Grand Jury certainly, after due deliberation, didn't agree with the interpretation of the law advanced by Delay's lawyers and Pat Buchanan.
I don't remember what the clause is called, but you can't indict someone for committing a crime at a time when no law prohibiting said activity existed. - from mdprime
I think you're referring to ex post facto laws which are expressly prohibited in the Constitution.
"So what about this charge that DeLay violated a law in 2002 that was enacted in 2003?"
The reason why they indicted on the conspiracy charge is that Delay waived his right to the statute of limitations --- thus allowing him to be charged on the conspiracy on a previously enacted law.
With that same evidence... and kind of like a insurance policy Earle also sought, and received indictments on the money laundering charge and something else. More than likely he got someone to flip (DeLay's ex business partners who also have been indicted). The money laundering charge is much more serious. I think Delay should should quit whining about the prosecutor and start preparing for his case as he is going to really piss off a jury if he goes to trial with this "the prosecutor is out to get me" nonsense.
As far as Buchanan goes... he really made me laugh! Saying Earle should be behind bars. I'll bet there are thousands of prisoners he has put away also blame the prosecutor and wish he was behind bars also...
'll bet there are thousands of prisoners he has put away also blame the prosecutor and wish he was behind bars also...
No doubt about that and I also agree with you he should get ready to be prosecuted, all his talk about Earle isn't going to help him when he gets toasted in court. Buchanan says these idiotic things to get attention along with the other defenders and apologists of DeLay. The prosecutors during the Clinton smear years never even heard that kinda nonsense even though their attempts to prosecute Clinton were in fact sophomoric fantasy and the up-coming prosecutions of many GOP 'ers are based on criminal activity.
I used to think Pat was a moderate Repugnant, now I'm not so sure. I agree with Eddie-George, "Robertson [wants] a tough line on criminals until it hits too close to home". It appears Buchanan has recently drank from the Repugnant trough.
I think some of us were fooled when Pat came out agains the Iraq War. We thought that maybe he was becoming rational. The more likely explanation is that he is really a xenophopic isolationist. When it comes to domestic party politics, he's apparently just another wingnut.
And what do you expect from far right Holocaust denier? (Cf. [link to www.holocaust-history.org] )
Who invited Pat Buchanan to become a "news analyst" in the first place? He must work for free. He is a consummate isolationist and a xenophobe. After giving that appalling speech at the Republican National convention in '92(?), Pat Buchanan shouldn't be asked his opinion on how to arrange a sock drawer.
Pat Buchan is in no small part responsible for poisoning reasonable public discourse since he "graduated" from politician to news analyst. Now a whole generation of kids think he must make sense just because he's on the tube flapping his gums so much.
You'd think he would have gotten the message when nobody voted for him, but some people just won't take a hint.
Sorry. I feel so much better.
Pat Buchanan would like nothing more then to keep the Republicans in office as power brokers. What should be clear here is DeLay and his lawyers are not focused on the charges as much as they are focused on Earl. The Republicans are masters at name calling and for DeLay, they will go to their vault and take out the golden lies to keep DeLay from meeting Ba Ba in the showers of a prison. I would not be surprised if DaLay's lawyers misquoted a law, thinking that all they needed to do was get closed to a law, because, after all, they are in Texas where they have a strong "good oh boy" network. The lawyers were wrong about the 12 jurors and instead got 12 jurors with heart and were willing to deliver based on effidence at hand. We need more folks like Earl and the 12 jurors in our Nation.
Joseph
I've not found a copy of the real indictments yet.. but as far as I can tell from available information (on the MSM Sites), Delay was indicted on Criminal Conspiracy and Money Laundering. Perhaps the actual criminal code was a very specific subset of that law, but can anyone here actually argue that they think that Texas didn't have Criminal Conspiracy and Money Laundering laws on the books in 2002?
Seriously.
It didn't become illegal to act in a Criminal Conspiracy or to commit Money Laundering in Texas until 2003? Wow. What the hell was bush doing down there as Governor. He couldn't have suggested to the Legislature that they actually make crimes illegal?
Now, let's be rational here. There had to be criminal consiracy and money laundering laws on the books in 2002. When going after someone as powerful and nasty as Delay, do you think that Earle would have picked the wrong criminal code in this case?
:-P