Monday, November 22, 2004

Arizona Caucus Member Votes on Ethics

So how did your Republican Representative vote on the rule change to allow indicted criminals to lead our Congress? The investigation is ongoing as the caucus vote is an unrecorded voice vote. Here's how it stands:

J.D. Hayworth has some balls and voted no, despite having recieved over 15K from DeLay's ARMPAC.

John Shadegg thinks his vote is none of your business. 4K from ARMPAC.

Jeff Flake (who just announced he's breaking his word on only serving 6 years) will be writing you a letter if you are a constituent, but otherwise isn't saying. 5K from ARMPAC.

Jim Kolbe is doing the same as Flake. 5K from ARMPAC.

Trent Franks voted yes to criminals in charge and doesn't care if you know it. 20K from ARMPAC... hmmm wonder if that had any influence with him?

Big Dick Renzi is avoiding his phone. Perhaps Katherine Harris is bugging him for a date. 20K from ARMPAC (Wonder how he voted considering most of him campaign was financed by leadership pacs?)

4 Comments:

At 7:27 PM, Blogger Michael Bryan said...

You are technically right, of course. A person under indictment is only likely a criminal, since a grand jury's indicment or prosecutor's information must be supported by probable cause. But you display an ignorance of the law as it is actually practiced. Any defense lawyer will tell you that the notion of innocent until proven guilty carries no weight with most jurors; they figure if you are indicted, it must be because you did something. In this case, the facts speak pretty clearly of criminal culpability on the part of DeLay. Despite my own broadminded acceptance of the 'innocent accused' standard, I have no hesitation calling him was he assuredly is: a criminal. He's an influence pedlar of the most brazen and crass type. He's a carbuncle on the face of American political life.

He should certainly get his day in court, but he should not have one of the highest political posts in the land from which to coordinate his defense or to taint the jury pool in the mean time with groundless charges against the prosecutor. Next thing you know the prosecutor's IRS files will be in the press, his family will be followed by FBI agents, and he will be harrassed by Homeland Defense agents. Witnesses will be placed in witness protection without informing the prosecutor of their whereabouts, or be threatened with deportation, indefinite detainment, being stripped of their citizenship, or declared an enemy combatant. You are wrong that the House leadership rule is wrong-headed and quaint. The rule guarantees that an indicted suspect cannot use his considerable political clout to his advantage during the pendency of the trial. As to abuse of prosecutorial discretion being an issue, the Bar and the voters will deal with that should it ever happen. I'm really not surprised that Republicans would immediately suggest that on officer of the court and an elected official with decades of public service behind his reputation is doing this as a political ploy, it is the sort of thing Republicans would do, but I think this prosecutor's record speaks for itself. This prosecutor has gone after 3 times as many Democrats as Republicans for campaign finance abuses. Bias or improper motive on the part of the prosecutor is nothing but a political smear to cover the smell of DeLay's corrupt ass.

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(So confused) Those are sure a lot of assumptions to be making in order to justify ignoring "innocent until proven guilty." This is no way to write objective rules. There is no reason to throw out objectivity & real justice in favor of "the probablity" of conspiracy theory on what might happen & public perception.

Technically correct is correct when writing law. Wouldn't you agree? Such subjectivity has no business in law and rule making.

Then ends don't justify the means.

 
At 1:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odd how whenever a Republican public figure is accused of doing something illegal, immoral, or unethical, it is a conspiracy theory and a lynching by public opinion. When it is a Democrat, an accusation is as good as a fact, and a molehill is as good a mountain for purposes of impeachment

 
At 11:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If that comment was directed at me in particular then I have to ask: why just because I question Michael's arguments am I a Republican blindly defending my party? How do you know I'm not a Democrat?

That sure is an easy way to side-step the deeper more important issue of "innocent until proven guilty" and objectivity in law. Michael's claims have no basis in fact. There is no proof that De Lay would do the things Michael claims or even has the power to. Those claims are completely irrelevant to the primary issue -- is the rule objective?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home




Feeds:
RSS/Atom Feed Site Meter
Powered by Blogger