December 2, 2004
NOT PARTISAN, JUST POWER MAD:
The Texas DA pitted against the power of Tom DeLay: Ronnie Earle: good ethics cop or partisan prosecutor? (Kris Axtman, 12/03/04, CS Monitor)
Unlike most states, Texas does not give its attorney general the power to prosecute criminal acts at the state level. That task goes to the Travis County district attorney - a responsibility Earle took on, forming a public-integrity unit to look into such abuses.Over the years, there have been bills to defund the controversial unit and to transfer its power to the attorney general's office. But the unit has persisted and Earle has prosecuted 12 Democrats and three Republicans - most of them successfully.
There have been some notable missteps, though, the biggest in 1994 when he went after GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for allegedly misusing state telephones for political business. At a pretrial hearing, the judge questioned the admissibility of the prosecution's evidence and Earle declined to present a case. That led to Senator Hutchison's acquittal, and many saw the DA as an amateur.
"He should have gone ahead and tried the case," says Mr. Allison. "Instead, he dumped it in the grease. And it didn't have anything to do with politics; it had to do with his inexperience." The case still perturbs many in the GOP.
Democrats, for their part, are still upset over the prosecution of Attorney General Jim Mattox for bribery in 1985. While pushing a state lawsuit against Mobil Oil Co., the Democratic AG argued with Mobil's lawyers, which led to his indictment.
He was acquitted and years later, Jim Marston, a civil lawyer in Austin and friend of Mr. Mattox, asked Earle why he went ahead with the questionable case.
"I said, 'Ronnie, how can it be an abuse of power to threaten a lawyer? We threaten each other all the time.' He told me that elected officials are held to a higher standard. They are supposed to be [above suspicion] like Caesar's wife." It was then that Mr. Marston realized how deep Earle's principles run. "Ronnie Earle is a Boy Scout who is offended by wrongdoings, chief among them, public officials' abuse of power."
What's deeply principled about pursuing dodgy cases and ruining peoples' lives? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 2, 2004 7:03 PM
Don't ask us, ask Ken Starr.
Posted by: Social Scientist at December 2, 2004 7:22 PMOh yeah, Starr was a travesty - how dare anyone question the integrity of Bill Clinton.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at December 2, 2004 7:35 PMSS:
He was appointed to take over an investigation Bill Clinton requested.
Posted by: oj at December 2, 2004 7:36 PMAnd Clinton ultimately signed a plea to avoid a trial.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 2, 2004 7:44 PMI'll bet most of the people questioning Ken Starr's integrity don't know anything about the man. Only a tiny bit if dem spin. It doesn't take much poison at all, does it?
Don't you have finals to study for SS? Or a dissertation to defend?
I hope you do better research for your grad schoolwork than your posts here would indicate.
Posted by: NKR at December 2, 2004 10:04 PMClinton also was disbarred.
This Earle character is a catspaw for the Texas liberals, as his prosecution of the centrist Mattox clearly shows. He was on a search-and-destroy mission to end Mattox's campaign against Ann Richards.
The current attack on DeLay doesn't even have evidence. It's going nowhere.
The only good news is that demographics in Austin are moving towards the GOP and this a-hole may have to go back to chasing ambulances.
Posted by: at December 3, 2004 8:27 AMAnon:
How are the demographics in Austin changing? I had read somewhere that the county was becoming the last bastion of Texan liberalism, so I figured this was increasing the ranks of the Looney-Left there.
Posted by: Moe from NC at December 3, 2004 9:19 AMI've been reading that as Silicon Valley has become more Democratic, that the economically similar region around Austin has become more GOP. Austin has historically been the home base of Texas liberalism but it is changing rapidly as conservative, young techie families move there.
Posted by: Bart at December 3, 2004 9:29 AMNKR--
Don't you have finals to study for SS? Or a dissertation to defend?
I'm still collecting data for my dissertation. I'm thinking of titling it "Confabulation, Irrelevancies, and Ad Hominem Attacks in Response to Unwelcome Stimuli: A Comparison of Brain-Injured Patients and Republicans."
Fortunately, I don't need you to sign a consent form for voluntary public declarations. So long, and thanks for all the data.
Posted by: Social Scientist at December 3, 2004 9:43 AMSS -
I would like to be on your committee. Ready for some questions? We'll start with Juanita Broaddrick and move on to Loral from there. Then we can cover Ron Brown and Webb Hubbell.
After that, we can address Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, and Michael Scheuer. Then it's time for Craig Livingstone and the FBI files.
Of course, we will wrap up with Marc and Denise Rich and Beth Dozoretz.
As your committee chair, I will say, in my opinion, Ken Starr made a mistake in lasering in on Clinton's sexual problems (to the exclusion of the other issues). But that has nothing to do with Starr's character. He just went hunting where the game was most plentiful.