The President of the United States by historical precedent usually refuses to comment on on-going legal cases. The most recent "no comment " came in the Valerie Plame case, in which the staffs of both the President and Vice-President were accused of leaking the identity of Plame, a covert CIA officer, apparently to "punish " her outspoken husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The inconsistency was explained by press secretary Scott McClellan as a "presidential prerogative. " It may be a "prerogative, " but it is also nothing short of jury tampering by a President and Republican-led Congress that appears to be doing everything in its power to protect an 11-term rogue congressman.
Even if you disregard DeLay 's strong-arm tactics of manipulation and subjugation, or his brain-dead absurdity in 1998 that people with "foreign-sounding names " --maybe like the French-sounding "DeLay "? --probably aren 't true Americans, he 's tainted by his own actions. He temporarily resigned his leadership position in September after being charged with money laundering and conspiracy to violate the state election code. His past legal problems include major conflicts-of-interest, allowing his own political committees to accept six-figure corporate "donations, " accepting money from lobbyists of foreign nations, obstruction of justice, and lying on federal forms. DeLay, wrote syndicated columnist E. J. Dionne, "was a pioneer in something entirely new: a fully integrated political apparatus that linked Republican Party committees, lobbyists, fundraisers, corporations, ideological organizations and the process of governing itself. "
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also known as the Ethics Committee, publicly admonished DeLay three times in 2004. The first time was because he offered to endorse the election of the son of a fellow congressman in exchange for that congressman 's vote on a key piece of legislation. The second time was because he "created the appearance that donors were being provided with special access [to him] regarding the then-pending energy legislation. " The third time was because he "used federal resources in a political issue. " In this case, he ordered the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Highway Administration to track down and return Democrat state representatives to Austin to force a quorum vote on congressional redistricting that would benefit the Republican party.
In a 73-page memo of Dec. 22, 2003, five attorneys, an analyst, and a statistician in the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice said the redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. According to that memo, revealed by the Washington Post early this month, state officials were aware that their redistricting plan, compared to other plans, was highly discriminatory. However, senior Department officials overruled the staff recommendation. Mark Posner, professor of law at American university and a former Department of Justice attorney, told the Post it was "highly unusual " for political appointees to overrule a unanimous finding.
With the earlier election of 17 Republicans to the House, assisted by funds hidden from public view, and from the new election in 2004 of five more Republicans in blatantly gerrymandered districts, the Republicans had enough members to solidify their control of the U. S. House of Representatives.
With previous House admonishments and current legal charges against him, it may be time to rid the nation of this former pest control officer --except that the President of the United States says his Texas buddy is "innocent. "