[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22419-22421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            COORDINATED STRATEGY OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Schmidt). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, tonight I think we need to speak about 
the partisanship that is not just encountered here in Washington, D.C., 
not from the people just here in this

[[Page 22420]]

body, but the partisanship we have seen from a prosecutor down in 
Austin, Texas. It is part of a coordinated strategy that those on the 
other side in this House have. It is a coordinated strategy of 
character assassination.
  A couple of months ago I spoke before the House, and I outlined a few 
simple things. I said the Democrat leadership has led their party on a 
campaign against Republicans, against the Republican majority of this 
House, through a conspiracy of character assassination and misleading 
attacks.
  The U.S. News and World Report wrote back in April: ``Democratic 
strategists, confident that voters are increasingly fed up with the 
Republican establishment, are planning an all-out attack on what they 
call `the abuse of power' by the Republicans.''
  I said at the time the liberal magazine, the New Republic, published 
an article entitled: ``How Democrats can Overthrow the House,'' this 
House, Madam Speaker, and I quote from that article: ``Democrats should 
consider fighting back by extra-parliamentary means, going beyond the 
standard parameters of legislative debate, and attacking Republicans 
not on issues, but on ethics, character. In other words, it may be time 
for Democrats to burn down the House in order to save it.''
  Those are not my words, Madam Speaker. Those are the words of the 
liberal New Republic outlining the Democrat strategy to take the 
majority in this House. ``Burn down the House in order to save it,'' 
they say.
  Well, at the time, a lot of people thought that what I was outlining 
was something that was far off; that maybe it would not happen; that 
maybe we would have some high-minded individuals on the other side that 
would say enough is enough. This is not the right strategy for America; 
it is not the right type of political discourse we should have in this 
country. But, no, no, no, we saw this just a week ago with a partisan 
prosecutor in Austin Texas named Ronnie Earle.
  After impaneling seven grand juries, he was able to come up with one 
charge, conspiracy; conspiracy against our majority leader, our 
Republican leader in the House. Well, as it turns out, those charges, 
not only were they false but they also were based on a statute that was 
not in effect at the time that they claim these events happened.
  What we saw was a partisan prosecutor that was so focused on scoring 
political points that it did not matter what the law said; and so on 
Monday, he came up with a new charge based on new evidence, he claims. 
After going through seven grand juries, Madam Speaker, after going 
through 2 years of investigating our Republican leader, intent on 
taking him down, they said in 2 days they came up with new information 
and came up with a new charge.
  It is an amazing thing that has happened. The American people have 
heard it before by watching the TV. They know the details of this.
  But I want to outline what a former U.S. Attorney from the Southern 
District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, outlined. He said, ``Ronnie 
Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business 
wielding the enormous power of prosecution. A matter of national 
gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the 
district attorney, by Ronnie Earle. If Congressman DeLay did something 
illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called into account. But he, 
like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a 
prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and 
impartial.''
  Those are the words of a former U.S. Attorney. Madam Speaker, I will 
enter this into the Record.
  Madam Speaker, also McCarthy adds, ``Ronnie Earle is a disgrace to 
his profession and has done grievous disservice to thousands of 
Federal, State and local government attorneys, prosecutors of all 
persuasions whose common bond is a good-faith commitment to the rules, 
but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle's 
excesses.''
  Madam Speaker, you may say that is just a columnist talking. But what 
does the liberal Austin American Statesman say? It says: ``Ronnie Earle 
has created a circus-like investigation alleging Republican campaign 
funding illegalities, but he has not proven it.''
  Madam Speaker, we see the Democrats' agenda is to burn down this 
House by attacking our leaders on baseless accusations, and they will 
stop at nothing until they bring down our majority.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the article by Andrew C. 
McCarthy:

                Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor

                        (By Andrew C. McCarthy)

       If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to 
     be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district 
     attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding 
     the enormous powers of prosecution.
       I don't know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority 
     Leader. I certainly don't know if he's done anything illegal, 
     let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It 
     doesn't look like it--and at least one grand jury has already 
     refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to 
     conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand 
     jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for 
     those who don't know all the facts to hazard a judgment about 
     such things.
       One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who 
     cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay, 
     a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking 
     ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney--by Ronnie Earle.
       For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a 
     prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United 
     States, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District 
     of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world's greatest job 
     because it is honest work for the highest cause--service to 
     one's own community. And it is work that has precious little 
     to do with politics.
       In their private lives, many of my fellow government 
     lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e., 
     out of a conscious rectitude holding that law enforcement 
     should be above politics) or because they were just 
     apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were 
     Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect 
     from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools, 
     was proudly liberal. Over coffee or lunch, or dinner, they 
     and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates 
     over all manner of issues.
       In the four corners of a case, however, none of that 
     mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules 
     and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors 
     have breathtaking power over the lives of those they 
     investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But 
     power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave 
     lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the 
     guilty, but of the justice system itself.
       This was especially so in investigations of political 
     corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about 
     equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your 
     politics at the door was never hard, for at least two 
     reasons.
       First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the 
     crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of 
     pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which 
     neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which 
     cuts across philosophical divides.
       Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes. 
     Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power, 
     cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies 
     in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in 
     our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of 
     financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should 
     stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste 
     resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk 
     of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest 
     citizens from participating in matters of public concern.
       The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or 
     conservative one. It is a code of ethics--of nonpartisan, 
     non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are 
     ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the 
     ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly 
     learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the 
     right way. And not least because that is the norm their 
     colleagues follow--as well as the standard by which the 
     defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small 
     percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is, 
     moreover, the standard the public demands they meet.
       People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want 
     to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the 
     public's lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job 
     done but to get it done right. The second part is just as 
     crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice. 
     No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human 
     endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be 
     regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people 
     have to be confident that if they stood accused, the 
     prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got 
     a fair fight.

[[Page 22421]]

       So there are certain things that are just flat-out 
     verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment 
     about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any 
     personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions 
     regarding the public interest are being made to suit the 
     prosecutor's private interests; and--if all that is not 
     Sesame Street simple enough--to remain above any financial or 
     political entanglement that could render one's objectivity 
     and judgment suspect.
       In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric 
     of ``avoiding the appearance of impropriety.'' In layman's 
     terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you 
     know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock 
     stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due 
     process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors 
     owe even the most despicable offenders. It is foundational to 
     the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our 
     economy, and our freedoms.
       And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind-
     numbingly brazen ways.
       As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here, 
     and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a 
     movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab's pursuit of DeLay. 
     A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access 
     to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe 
     is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated 
     and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand 
     jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury 
     room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating 
     a powerful incentive--in conflict with the duty of 
     evenhandedness--to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a 
     prosecutor, these aren't just major lapses. They are firing 
     offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over 
     the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay 
     they'd be thought firing-squad offenses.
       Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly 
     about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an 
     uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle.
       Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on 
     November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand-
     jury investigation of Delay, then uncharged.
       Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty 
     financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange 
     for exercising the public's power to dismiss charges.
       Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the 
     incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum, 
     the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to 
     indict.
       Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the 
     same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in 
     by members of the other party.
       Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They constitute 
     inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public 
     servant, regardless of whether the persons and entities 
     investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal 
     censure.
       If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone 
     else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else, 
     is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor 
     who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial.
       Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his 
     profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of 
     Federal, State, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors 
     of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith 
     commitment to the rules--but who will now bear the burden of 
     suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses.
       The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the 
     public.

                          ____________________