Byron York and NRO got the movie. Here’s an excerpt from Byron’s article:

In another scene, Earle describes how he deals with offenders in cases like the
campaign-finance investigation. “It’s important that we forgive those who come
to us in a spirit of contrition and the desire for forgiveness. That’s
important. But if they don’t, then God help them.” The film then dissolves to a
picture of DeLay.

Look at the rule and what I wrote about it last night:

(a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make
an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be
disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing
an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or
assist another person to make such a statement.

Thus, the question is—did Ronnie Earle assist the filmakers to make an extrajudicial statement prohibited by the Rules? Look again at Byron’s description:

In another scene, Earle describes how he deals with offenders in cases like
the campaign-finance investigation. “It’s important that we forgive those who
come to us in a spirit of contrition and the desire for forgiveness. That’s
important. But if they don’t, then God help them.” The film then dissolves to a
picture of DeLay.

Does that scene make a prohibited statement about Delay? What do you get out of Earle’s statement and the accompanying imagery of the picture of Delay?

Does the scene convey anything to you about Delay’s character?

(b) A lawyer ordinarily will violate paragraph (a), and the likelihood of a
violation increases if the adjudication is ongoing or imminent, by making an
extrajudicial statement of the type referred to in that paragraph when the
statement refers to:


(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a
party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness; or the expected testimony
of a party or witness;

And…

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a
criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;

I don’t know if Earle has actually committed violations, but participating in the movie certainly conveys the “appearance of impropriety.”

Oh, and as a taxpayer of Travis County who has helped to foot the bills for Earle’s failed prosecutions of Jim Mattox and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, I really resent this part of the movie as described in Byron’s article:

At one point in the picture, Rosemary Lemberg, an assistant district attorney in
Earle’s office, explains that Earle singlehandedly pushed forward the DeLay
investigation over the objections of colleagues. “Ronnie was the only person in
maybe a group of six or seven lawyers in a room who thought we ought to go ahead
and investigate and look at those things,” Lemberg says. “We got sued every time
we turned around, we got taken to court over this, and Ronnie was the one who
just kept pushing forward with it, and saying ‘I’ll put more resources on this,
just keep hacking at it.’”

I’m going to find crime statistics and conviction rates in Travis County. I want my money spent on crimes in Travis County.

Captain Ed points us to the WPo editorial questioning Earle’s prosecution of Delay. However Byron York is reporting something ignored by WaPo that is much worse. Ronnie Earle participated in the making of a movie about the Delay case that began production two years ago:

For the last two years, as he pursued the investigation that led to Wednesday’s indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle has given a film crew “extraordinary access” to make a motion picture about his work on the case.

The resulting film is called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. “Raymond Chandler meets Willie Nelson on the corner of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in The Big Buy, a Texas noir political detective story that chronicles what some are calling a ‘bloodless coup with corporate cash,’” reads a description of the picture on Birnbaum’s website, markbirnbaum.com. The film, according to the description, “follows maverick Austin DA Ronnie Earle’s investigation into what really happened when corporate money joined forces with relentless political ambitions to help swing the pivotal 2002 Texas elections, cementing Republican control from Austin to Washington DC.”

“We approached him [Earle], and he offered us extraordinary access to him and, to an extent, to his staff,” Birnbaum told National Review Online Thursday. “We’ve been shooting for about two years.”

Does this description of the movie give you an inkling of the agenda of the movie-makers?

Let’s turn now to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct—specifically

3.09 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) refrain from conducting or assisting in a custodial interrogation of an accused unless the prosecutor has made reasonable efforts to be assured that the accused has been advised of any right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not initiate or encourage efforts to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial, trial or post-trial rights;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; and

(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07.

(emphasis added)

Now look at the commentary for (e):

6. Sub-paragraph (e) does not subject a prosecutor to discipline for failing to take measures to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor, but not in his employ or under his control, from making extrajudicial statements that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07. To the extent feasible, however, the prosecutor should make reasonable efforts to discourage such persons from making statements of that kind.

Look at this part of 3.07:

(a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement.

(b) A lawyer ordinarily will violate paragraph (a), and the likelihood of a violation increases if the adjudication is ongoing or imminent, by making an extrajudicial statement of the type referred to in that paragraph when the statement refers to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness; or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense; the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect; or that persons refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance, refusal to perform, or results of any examination or test; the refusal or failure of a person to allow or submit to an examination or test; or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; or

(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.

I would argue that giving these film makers unprecedented access and fully participating in a movie that appears to be a hatchet job could be a violation of these rules. If so, I do not believe that Earle would have immunity because he actively participated and assisted in the production of a movie that, essentially, appears to be a big, fat, prejudicial extrajudicial statement in its entirety. That gives him a measure of control over the film makers, plus he is, arguably, assisting and counseling them.

If the movie turns out to be an extrajudicial statement of the type prohibited by these rules, Earle should suffer the consequence.

David Limbaugh has a really good article up about President Bush. A lot of conservatives feel betrayed by him over issues involving the Border and spending. David says:

I don’t think President Bush has betrayed anyone. To me, he has been a study in contrasts since he emerged on the national stage. Contrary to thoughtless charges from the Left that he’s an extreme conservative, his ideology has never been easy to pigeonhole.

He has always been somewhat of a political anomaly, conservative on many things, a bleeding heart on others, resolute and firm at times, tentative and malleable at others, righteously indignant about some policies and almost apologetic on others. He’s a man who demands and returns deep loyalty, yet rewards some of his enemies, like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, for stabbing him in the back. He has a tough side and a soft side, both genuine and both very much of part of who he is.

The strong president we saw taking charge after 9-11 is the authentic George W. Bush. But he is his father’s son, and he apparently acquired from him the unfortunate notion that Republicans should be more compassionate and kinder and gentler.

I especially agree with the last paragraph I excerpted. I think that Bush’s blue-blooded Yankee background gives him a bit of a noblesse oblige perspective that neither growing up nor competing in the oil business in Midland could knock out of him. I think that we can expect the contrasts that David cites in the above and in the rest of the article. Growing up and working in West Texas after being raised by people who are very different than most Texans is a life that is a study in contrasts.

I am presently re-obsessed with Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. One of the historical studies in the book addresses the difference between the Yankee Puritans, the Southern Cavaliers and the Scotts-Irish (who comprised the vast bulk of the frontier settlers and pioneers). The Puritans established a top-down hierarchy, the Cavaliers a 3 tiered caste system (them—poor whites—blacks), the Scots-Irish a democratic system whereby they would follow strong leaders, all the while considering themselves the equals of their leaders regardless of wealth. In fact, many of the Scots-Irish leaders were not wealthy—but possessed of bravery and great fighting skill.

Bush was raised by descendants of the Puritans (there was a lone Scots-Irish in the woodpile). His formative and young working years were influenced by Texans. Most Texans are descended from or strongly influenced by Scots-Irish ancestors. Unimpressed by scions of wealthy Yankee families, they know that are just as good as some rich guy from Connecticut named George H. Bush—even if they live in a shack. I think that such an upbringing might cause competing inclinations in a person.

Go read this 1996 editorial about Ronnie Earle published in the “teasip” paper:

While serious crime in Texas has decreased for the fourth consecutive year,
violent crime in Travis County has steadily increased. From 1994 to 1995, both
the murder and the rape rates increased by over 24 percent. During the same
period, assaults increased by a stunning 66 percent. In 1993 alone, Travis
County received 139 parolees for every 100 defendants sent to prison. If Earle’s
stewardship has led to higher crime rates, then perhaps we should adopt another
approach.

Besides his traditional role as prosecutor, Earle, as Travis County
D.A., has the unique duty of heading up the state’s Public Integrity Unit. His
witch hunt against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is representative of his misuse
of this duty.

Concerned more about publicity than facts, Earle routinely conferred
with the media about the case before informing Hutchison’s lawyers. He stacked
the Grand Jury with his Democratic cronies and sought to inflate baseless
accusations with vague evidence.

On Earle’s methods, the Dallas Morning News wrote “the impression of
partisan unfairness has certainly been reinforced by the leaks and public
comment about Hutchison’s case from the District Attorney’s office throughout
the summer. That the Grand Jury investigation has been conducted with so much
fanfare – such as the tip-offs to the new media when key records were seized
from the former treasurer’s office – has added a darker tone to the cloudy
proceedings.”

Hutchison wasn’t the first political figure Earle persecuted. Earle’s
vendettas have been bipartisan; he has used his office to go after his political
enemies in both parties. Besides Hutchison, Earle “investigated” Jim Mattox, Gib
Lewis and others. Earle’s tactics earned him the appropriate nickname “Earle of
Injustice.”

If you watched Hannity & Colmes tonight, you heard Congressman Delay say that Ronnie Earle has done the exact same thing he has accused Delay’s co-defendants of doing (and Delay of agreeing too, ie. being in a conspiracy—the really unclear and confusing indictment is here). I found a July 2005 article in an Austin online publication about Earle here. It is quite interesting and I am looking forward to reading part II.

What is also interesting is this comment posted there:

Ronnie Earle says his motivations are not political, so why did he help inspire a new Democrat political action committee called, Texas Values in Action Committee (TEXVAC), whose mission is for Democrats to takeover the Texas state legislature from the GOP.

He even gave a speech at their recent fundraiser and helped bring in over $100,000 in donations. Printed on TEXVAC’s Web-site is this disclaimer:

“Note that corporate contributions are prohibited by state law, and only personal checks or credit cards will be accepted.”

That statement is simply not true. Here is what Texas state law says:

Ҥ 253.100. EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL-PURPOSE
COMMITTEE. (a) A corporation, acting alone or with one or more other corporations, may make one or more political expenditures to finance the establishment or administration of a general-purpose committee.”

Also, if Ronnie Earle is so concerned about the amount of corporate and labor money influencing campaigns in Texas then he should look at the Democrats who raised and spent more corporate and labor cash.

The following is an excerpt of a non-partisan report called “Passing the Bucks: Texas” compiled by Followthemoney.org.

“National party contributions to Texas state committees increased dramatically over the three election cycles. These committees gave just $2.3 million in 1998, $5.2 million in 2000 and $16.3 million in 2002. The Texas Democratic Party received the bulk of the 2002 contributions, taking in $11 million to the GOP’s $5.2 million.”

Ronnie Earle got an indictment against Jim Ellis because he claims that Ellis took $190,000 of corporate money raised in Texas (also called “soft” money,) and gave it to the Republican National Committee, and then over a period of two weeks, the RNC sent hard money back to Texas candidates in the exact amount.

Well, since the RNC’s soft money account and the RNC State Elections Committee account of hard dollars are completely separate, Ellis’ action was legal. And, the actual amount that the RNC gave to candidates in that election cycle in Texas equaled over $1 million during that election cycle.

(Also see a piece written by elections lawyer Cleta Mitchell.)

If Ronnie Earle is concerned about hard for soft or soft for hard money trades, read again an excerpt from “Passing the Bucks: Texas.”

“The Institute found eight trades of soft money for hard money, all between the Democratic National Committee and the Texas Democratic Party. In two trades in 1998, the DNC sent $172,500 in soft money to Texas, and the state party sent back $150,000 in hard money.

In two trades in 2000, the DNC sent $150,000 of soft money and received $125,000 in hard money. And over a series of four trades in 2002, the DNC gave the state party $255,000 in soft money, and the Texas Democratic Party sent $225,000 in hard money to the DNC.”

It seems clear to me that Ronnie Earle is partisan and is selectively prosecuting the TRMPAC case because he wants to taint Tom DeLay. TRMPAC fully disclosed their receipts and expenditures as required by the IRS.

If Ronnie Earle is concerned about a lack of full disclosure, just take a look at the filed reports of the Texas Trial Lawyers PAC that raised millions in the 2002 election cycle. Not one expenditure is listed other than campaign contributions. Is there no staff to pay for? No rent? No costs for fundraising? No telephone bills?

Maybe they didn’t list those expenditures because they didn’t want anyone to know who actually paid for it. Why doesn’t Ronnie Earle ask that question? Maybe perhaps the Trial Lawyers PAC donated tens of thousands of dollars to Earle’s campaigns for District Attorney?

Melissa Hopkins

Could Delay have been talking about TEXVAC or maybe the Trial Lawyers PAC?

Update:

Hmmm…The page seems to have disappeared since last night. Here’s the cache, but it looks weird now.

Update:

I called the editor of the site and it is down because he is transferring it to WordPress.

Lately, I’ve been writing about the really crummy movies put out by Hollywood. There are so many good historical and other stories out there, that I do not understand why Hollywood is recycling old sitcoms and putting out such stupid dreck. Even movies that are good quality are pushing an agenda that most Americans, in my opinion, don’t support.

So I decided that I would start a second blog called Hollywood Unchained. There I would post ideas for good movies and TV shows derived from good books, history or current events.

I would love for some conservative bloggers to become contributors to this blog. Is anyone interested?

Remember the days when the South was a bastion for the Democrats? Reading what Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss states in a news story to excuse MSM rumor-mongering about the Superdome takes me back to those days:

Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss cited telephone breakdowns as a primary cause of reporting errors, but said the fact that most evacuees were poor African Americans also played a part.

“If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people,” Amoss said, “it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering.”

(HT Ace of Spades)

Mychal Massie has a relevant column up today on the very subject of Democrat subjugation of Black people in the South. It is called The Lie That Keeps Living:

The well worn and errant dogma that conservative Southern (read Democrat) bigots fled their party in the wake of the civil-rights era, taking up residence in the Republican Party – which has been used by ill-informed race baiters for decades – was trod out yet again for public consumption. Let it be understood I in no way classify the author as such, quite the opposite; but it is important to note that continued usage of said misinformation supplies the haters with ammunition.

I doubt seriously that the Editor is a Republican. Does anybody reading this remember how to find contributions to parties by name?

John at Wuzzadem has more.

I have to say that I am ashamed that I got quite caught up in the rumors of what went on in the Superdome. I’ve learned my lesson.

I’ve read somewhere (I forget where) that Jodi Foster’s new movie, Flightplan, is good and compares favorably with those of Hitchcock in terms of suspense. (I may have read that at The Corner).

The previews look good. However, I will not be spending money to see the film after reading this post by Debbie Schlussel linking to her column uncovering its propagandist twist. I won’t give you the details—it’s up to you to go to the post and then to decide whether or not you want to read the “spoiler” part. (HT The Cassandra Page)

I will simply say that this movie is yet another Hollywood attempt to make Americans doubt reality and to weaken us in the service of the agenda of utopian fools.

I am, again, re-reading James H. Webb’s Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. This book contains historical stories that would make numerous inspiring and excellent movies about America’s history and the pre-American history of a strong and brave people who contributed mightly to who we are. Someone needs to make those movies.

But, the reigning elite of Hollywood can’t allow movies that would spiritually empower the American people as did movies made during WWII. Instead, they lower all standards, and us, by churning out amoral, sexualized dreck—or agenda-driven propaganda designed to show the rest of us how racist and jingoistic we are.

These self-anointed “elites” are human dandruff that needs to be flicked from our shoulders. When are we going to stop swooning over them and do a little flicking?

Captain Ed has a post about Aaron Broussard, the Jefferson Parish president “busted” by Wuzzadem. I found a particularly interesting comment by someone who was helping with rescue efforts. Bullshark says:

A disabled Katrina victim evacuated to Missouri was forced to put his dog (whom he uses as a service dog, albeit one without papers) in a local shelter so that he and his family could get a roof over their heads. He soon found housing that would allow the dog and he went back to the shelter to get his dog. One of the shelter employees or volunteers (it’s not clear which) took the dog and refuses to give it back—claiming her family had become too attached to the dog during the 3 week period.

A lot of other members in the community are incensed by this and trying to pay her a lot of money to get her to do the right thing—to no avail. This woman has some sort of personality disorder, it appears. She even went on the radio claiming that the man was faking his Katrina status—a claim that has been disproven by FEMA.

When the rest of America is opening up hearts and wallets, here we have one example of cruelty and heartlessness. I don’t know what I’d do if this happened to me.

Go here to watch the videos. The man is just devastated. I would be devastated too.

Update:

By slandering Mr. Wyrick on the radio, this heartless woman may have comitted Criminal Defamation:

21-4004

Chapter 21.—CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS PART II.—PROHIBITED CONDUCT Article 40.—CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS

21-4004. Criminal defamation. (a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4004; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 187; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 135; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 14; July 1.

Don’t mess with Texans (especially our cars).

Boy does Wuzzadem have it right. Warning: Spew Alert!

John at Wuzzadem points us to additional media stuff from Freedom Folks:

While attending the Move America Forward press conference this morning in Chicago I was struck by the paucity of media coverage.There were precisely two representatives of our local media present: a cameraman for the local ABC affiliate and a reporter from WBBM.

And then there is this from Media Blog at NRO:

After President Bush briefed reporters on his intention to visit the area affected by Hurricane Rita as soon as possible, one reporter yelled, “Sir, what good can you do going down to the hurricane zone? Might you get in the way?”

Bush, who had already started walking away, turned around:

BUSH: We’re going to make sure we’re not in the way of the operations. What I am going to do is observe the relationship between the state and local government.

Then a reporter (possibly the same one) yelled, “Well, critics are saying this is an overcompensation for the response to Katrina.”

This is why it’s impossible to have an intelligent debate about Bush’s response to the hurricanes. The press hates him and blames him no matter what he does.

I think that Bush should quoted Gen. Honore: “Don’t get stuck on stupid , reporters!”

Hugh Hewitt has some advice for the young DSCC staffers who committed identity theft against Maryland Republican Michael Steele:

First, write down this number: 202-974-5600. That’s the number for Chadbourne & Parke in DC, where you can reach Abbe Lowell. Lowell’s a bit busy right now, but he is the city’s best bet for criminal defense and he’ll get you into competent hands within the firm. It is best to be the first one to the firm before conflicts kick in. Bring your wallet. Probably dad’s wallet, if you are young staffer in over your head. In fact, you’d better tell dad right now. It isn’t what he signed you up for, and he’s going to pretty ticked that Schumer’s gotten you into this mess, but it is better to tell him now rather than wait for the storm to pass over.

Point 2: Don’t let a hometown lawyer advise you on what to do. That never works out well. If Lowell is taken, drop me a note at hugh@hughhewitt.com. There are some fine alternatives.

Hugh is also asking for suggestions on what to call this scandal.

My suggestion, given the youth of the fall guys (or gals) is Naif-Gate.

I don’t like unions.

Why am I watching Million-Dollar Baby at the moment? I am watching it and questioning why. People have said that, except for the euthanasia moment, it’s good. Why?

I’m sorry, the idea of women beating on other women for sport is ridiculous to me. I remember junior high in the 1960’s.. There were some girls who carried razor blades to fight each other. They were considered to be trash.

I have no problem with women learning self-defense, like Krav Maga—or defensive Martial Arts. In fact, I encourage it.

Women boxers?

Not my cup of tea.

I have to tell you, movies these days really stink big time.

If I were in charge, all movies would star Mel Gibson and would be patriotic or religious. But, what do I know?

Update:

Okay. I can’t even get to the euthanasia part. This stinks and I am turning it off.

Okay—it’s still on and it’s really getting more and more stupid.