The DeLay verdict - Politics as usual? Crime and Punishment? Why it Matters

by: lightseeker

Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 14:09:58 PM CST

By null credit: texasvox.org

There is a followup AP piece on the Delay conviction today in the Chronicle. It is running on page A19 next to the extension of the front page piece. I also went back and looked at the original AP piece on the conviction. Let me spin out my concerns/dismay over how this story is evolving in terms of coverage. I focus on it because, unless things have changed dramatically , AP supplies such national "news" to media outlets throughout the country , especially smaller newspapers.  Thus my concerns on how this story is being covered, or rather "framed". Here it is from TPM:   The initial reporting is a very traditional piece of fact and position reporting, heavy on the actual details of the trial, the charges and the jury's verdict, light on context and background. That seems unproblematic. An intelligent reader anyway will come away informed and that's fine. The heart of it is this : TPM   Prosecutors said DeLay, who once held the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives and whose heavy-handed style earned him the nickname "the Hammer," used his political action committee to illegally channel $190,000 in corporate donations into 2002 Texas legislative races through a money swap.    DeLay and his attorneys maintained the former Houston-area congressman did nothing wrong as no corporate funds went to Texas candidates and the money swap was legal.    The verdict came after a three-week trial in which prosecutors presented more than 30 witnesses and volumes of e-mails and other documents. DeLay's attorneys presented five witnesses.

Cool, this lays out what happened and on its face is pretty damning. The defense apparently had no defense and the jury saw it that way.

The problem is that the charge "money laundering" is damning to be sure, but like "insider trading" or even "influence peddling", what exactly does it mean? Why is it evil? The piece does tell us that it involved the infusion of corporate cash into Texas elections , something the Lege had outlawed. Maybe that is enough for the average reader to get it, maybe not.

Now comes the follow ups , two days later. Same reporter, but the framing of the story has changed radically. If the initial story is about being convicted of a felony crime, now it is about DeLay's Democratic enemies, "getting him".

It starts with this:

Experts say edge may shift to DaLay
  AUSTIN, Texas - Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay argued throughout his trial that the deck was stacked against him by a politically motivated prosecutor and a jury from the most Democratic city in one of the most Republican states.

   But following DeLay's conviction Wednesday on money laundering and conspiracy charges, some legal experts say the edge may now shift to the Republican who represented a conservative Houston suburb for 22 years.

   Before DeLay's inevitable appeal, which his lawyers predict will be a far friendlier process than his trial, he faces sentencing next month from Senior Judge Pat Priest. While technically the money laundering charge carries a punishment of up to life in prison, the judge has wide latitude and could end up just giving him probation.

It ends with this:

Experts say edge may shift to DaLay
But even with sentencing nearly a month away, DeLay's lawyers expressed confidence they could overturn the conviction rather than just minimize the punishment.

   Although they haven't named the specific areas of the case they intend to appeal, their denied change of venue request is almost certainly to be among them. DeLay also long contended the charges against him were a political vendetta by Ronnie Earle, the former Democratic Travis County district attorney who originally brought the case and is now retired.

   "This is a terrible miscarriage of justice," said Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's lead attorney. "... This will never stand up on appeal."

Neat book-ending uh?

Oddly, the headline in the online posting of this piece, which I link, is one used widely elsewhere, if a Google search is to be believed. It simply states that the judge has many options in sentencing Delay. The one in today's print edition does the Experts Say which I use . I don't see a conspiracy in all this, but I do see a pattern as the days start to tick by. It is an effort to frame the DeLay conviction in political terms only.

The conversation that today's followup article wants us to have is over whether or not DeLay was the victim of a vendetta by his Democratic opponents, NOT whether or not he was guilty of a crime or more crucially about the corrosive impact of corporate money in our electoral politics. Surely , in light of the Citizens United Supreme Court case finding that corporations have all the rights of individuals in donating campaign money to causes and candidates, that would be an awkward conversation (for corporations, the Repubicans ) to deal with .

This is this nice touch to give the frame creditability:

Experts say edge may shift to DaLay

  But following DeLay's conviction Wednesday on money laundering and conspiracy charges, some legal experts say the edge may now shift to the Republican who represented a conservative Houston suburb for 22 years.

There are many reasons why the story , at least in the AP , is evolving as it is. possibilities that include a conceded effort to spin or frame the story to the advantage of DeLay and all the forces he stands for and with - Fox News, the Republicans, corporate interest etc. Alternatively, this could just be a reporter tying to inject some fresh zing in the stale and oft told tale of a fallen, corrupt political operative/official.  There may be others, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Here is the sting: either way it represents a sad statement of where we are in our civil discourse. The key questions should be : did DeLay commit the illegal acts of which he was convicted? what does this case tell us about the dangers of  corporate money in politics? Instead, we now are poised to simply continue the combative blather about "biased judges, juries, media." The larger frame that contains all these issues is this: There is no common good, only the will of the powerful and the acquaintance of the weak, the losers. There is no such thing as the search for what is factually true or false, only spin and advantage. There is no such thing as a concern, quest for justice, only for evening scores and using the judicial system as a tool of oppression and advantage.

What a sad prospect .

Am I making too much of this? Do I need to simply to back to my turkey and forget it? You tell me....

If you think as I do, push back, send letters to your editors complaining about this reframing.