Yes, that will be one response. But since we know that this prosecutor has indicted far more Democrats than Republicans, that is a hackish response (because it's very unlikely that several people would all hit upon the same false defense).
First FreeRepublic thread on the matter.
Of course it's hackish, but it plays perfectly into the political slugfest that the media wants. If these proceedings don't get reduced to R v. D, I'll eat my hat.
My bread hat. Which I made from a roll I bought at Au Bon Pain.
that is a hackish response (because it's very unlikely that several people would all hit upon the same false defense).
Dollars to donuts this will be pushed vociferously, anyway, ogged. They're all hacks, even your beloved Instapundit.
I think I'm not making myself clear. Yes, they'll push the prosecutor line. I'm just interested in when and how the main conservative blogs respond; it's a hackishness test.
That Freerepublic thread wasn't nearly crazy enough, their standards must have dropped. Not one mention of Democrats wanting Islamofascists to rape white women. Though there was the comment where the signature says that all Democrats are enemies of the Republic.
The Powerline Clown Brigade is sticking to the "Ronnie Earle is a partisan hack" strategy. Of course, the grand jury is just 12 Texas citizens who can do whatever they please, despite Ronnie Earle's wishes, so that strategy has some deficiencies.
Also, I should note that I don't approve of drawing any conclusions from non-blogging of even a major story (X didn't blog about the Iraqi elections! The sky is falling!). No one has proposed doing that, but I just wanted to stand up against the small subset of people who do it (like Volokh against the members of the left who root for the insurgency).
I don't care if they don't blog it. Here's a shorter version of what I'm saying: won't it be funny if they all post the same false crap at the same time?
Here's Tom Maguire's version. . It mentions, but doesn't put all that much weight on, Earle being a democrat. Actually, his take reads a lot like what I'd expect Kaus to write, except for the "here's hoping" comment.
OH MY GOD. I just clicked over to Insty, and the top post is an approving quote of Mickey Kaus, and I HAVE BEEN THINKING THE SAME THING. What does this mean?
Well so far, in addition to the "he's a partisan Democrat" line, there's the "it's a state charge, not a federal one" line, and there's also the "they only indicted on a conspiracy, because they didn't have enough evidence to tie him to a real crime" line.
I'd be really interested to know if Insty runs with that. I am, as a general rule, aagainst abuse of prosecutions for conspiracy. In the prosecution of drug crimes, it seems to be a real drag net. I don't know what Glenn's views were pre-indictment, but it will be interesting to watch.
If there are still any citizens interested in protecting human liberty, let them study the conspiracy laws of the United States.
The National Republican Congressional Committee's e-mail about the indictment (via) is all Ronnie, all the time.
Darrow: In this case there's the problem that the jurisdiction of the non-conspiracy cases is in Tom DeLay's hometown, and they're not indicting.
The best thing would be if our government had never been taken over by corrupt malevolent lunatics, but failing that I'm OK with conspiracy charges. (And in fact this particular bit of crookery was part of the way that the government got taken over by corrupt malevolent lunatics--the Texas State House was Democratic till DeLay's PAC laundered a bunch of money into legislative campaigns.)
Oh, I just like the quote, I don't know anything about this particular prosecution and think Darrow was overly harsh about conspiracy charges anyway. RICO, on the other hand...
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
Insty punts!
TOM DELAY has been indicted. I'm on travel and haven't had time to read the many emails I've gotten proclaiming his obvious guilt or persecuted innocence, but it's obviously an embarrassment for the G.O.P. On the other hand, maybe his replacement will be better at finding pork . . . .
OK, Standpipe, I've got this one coming....
Wut R.U. tockinga bowt?
Who the fuck says that the're "on travel?"
I'm on fuck around on the Internet over lunch.
Worse than Debbie Gibson's lovechild by Huey Lewis, given to the Scorpions to bring up.
Oh my God, Instapundit is really SomeCallMeTim. And so is Chopper.
I thought we were détenting.
Low-hanging fruit is always in season.
Détente: the result of having cold water poured on your puptente.
I don't understand 26. Please help out the slow child.
Would it help if I said "fuck to oboe"?
Since I posted at 10:45, waaay ahead of Insty and the rest, I don't know whether to be pleased to have avoided the category of major right-wing hack, or troubled that my stature has been pegged as "easily ignored, minor right-wing hack".
Well, I made my bed...
As to the defense (which I first saw at Media Matters) that Earle is not a partisan because he has gone after more Democrats than Republicans - considering the long history of the Democratic Party in Texas, and the relatively recent ascendance of the Republicans, that is like drawing a conclusion about the preferences of Pennsylvaina hunters by pointing out that they kill more deer than caribou.
Tom, don't worry, there you are in 11!
I think that Earle's going after Democratic politicians still shows something. If Earle were a down-the-line partisan hack, he could've just avoided prosecuting politicians till the Republicans came in. And possibly he wouldn't have gone after the Dentons in 1995, after the GOP started its climb. (I know nothing about the significance of this--just got it from Wiki.)
But I'm glad you stopped by, since I'm engaged in a massive procrastination project and had been meaning to ask some of the local lawyers about the Hutchison case. The pro-Earle Hutchison page you linked mentions that the indictment ended as follows:
Finally, presiding judge John Onion refused to make a pretrial ruling on whether he would allow the incriminating tapes into evidence. Stripped of the certainty of using key evidence, the prosecution dropped the charges in the hope of starting over later before a less restrictive judge. Judge Onion outmaneuvered Earle, however. He swore in a jury and immediately ordered them to acquit Hutchison.
Lawyers, how weird is that? Was it unusual for Earle to judge-shop? Was it unusual for Onion to swear in the jury?
(Also, the bit about the Dallas Morning News viewing the indictment as partisan goes like this:
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.
It seems a bit much for any Republican to complain about leaking from a prosecutor's office now.)
Tom, I think you come by your crazy opinions honestly. Actually, I don't even think the folks on the original list are all hacks; it really was a chance to see who would parrot the talking points, and who wouldn't.
For Tom Maguire:
"Ronnie Earle didn't indict him. The grand jury indicted him" — from grand jury foreman William Gibson, per the AP.
Hey! I liked your site very much! White is feature of Green Plane: http://www.saw2.com/ , Pair will Cards unconditionally Play Table is very good Cards , Standard Cosmos is always Coolblooded Girl Lose Tournament is very good Table