One of the "facts" those who believe this use to support their theory is Delay's lawyer alleging that Earle "participated in grand jury deliberations" or "shopping." Only trouble is, there's no evidence of this. And Delay's lawyer admits it.
In fact, funny thing is, almost all the claims of impropriety on Earle's part come from...hold your breath, I know you'll be surprised...Delay's lawyers. Who...let's face it, they're not unbiased (obviously, laughably not unbiased). Which, again, is fine--it's their job to spin. But people not being paid who-knows-how-many dollars to create a smokescreen for him should not be taking their statements so uncriticaly.
Which brings me to the misrepresentative linking. Our friends over at the Media Blog On National Review Online are, of course, conservatives. So to them, every question raised about the legality of Earle's actions and/or his ethics is Gospel Truth. No matter who raised it or what self-apparently transparent motives they might have.
Which is why their link to the story that says Delay's lawyer has no evidence of grand-jury shopping is contained in this paragraph:
Now it's looking like the tables might be turned, as DeLay's attorney, top Texas lawyer Dick DeGuerin, is looking into Earle's grand-jury shopping and possible misconduct. As much as the media would like to fit the DeLay indictment into their portrait of GOP corruption, it's looking like this puzzle piece just won't fit.
You get that? They're making a claim while providing a link to a story that casts doubt upon their claim. I don't know, maybe they just expect their readers not to follow the links. Or maybe they know that most National Review-type conservatives learned a long time ago how to juggle denial and delusion when necessary.
If I had to put money down, I'd put it on the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment