From an Esquire
article on Earl:
And he became even more determined, putting corruption at the core of his philosophy. "Ethics abuse at the top trickles down like acid rain," he wrote in an essay in a Texas criminal-justice journal. "Just as an untended garden keeps on producing weeds, our eroded communities sprout crop after crop of criminals."
Then, in 1993, he indicted his first important Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. It was the typical thing, using state telephones for campaign purposes. But Hutchison had a political consultant named Karl Rove, and soon it was Earle who was in for the fight of his life. Bumper stickers appeared all over Texas denouncing the Earle of Injustice. Republicans began accusing him of everything from conflict of interest to leaking to the press to "Gestapo-like tactics." For weeks they kept up a wave of hostile press releases and telephone calls, even pushing the legal limit by contacting every single member of his grand jury. One Republican called it a "scorched-earth policy."
But it worked. Having stirred up so much publicity, Hutchison claimed there was too much publicity and got the case moved to a Republican district near Fort Worth. When the new judge made an order that would have resulted in Earle having to go through a separate hearing on each piece of evidenceand there were hundreds of pieces of evidencehe lost hope and dropped the case. His friends were puzzled. His enemies crowed: Bizarre! Flaky!
It was the low point of his career.
But that's not going to happen again, he swears, not this time.
Huh. Funny, how the latest round of smear mongering forgets to mention that little detail about Rove being Hutchison's political consultant, and how his typical shit storm of attack strategies had something to do with the case being dropped.
Hey, and look: having created the "scandal" in the first place, it can now be trotted out as evidence of partisanship! It's a twofer!
Say, you don't suppose that Earl's vociferousness in this matter might have something to do with having once been "roved"? I guess you get the enemies you deserve.
At any rate, as has been pointed out before, we are now entering new territory for Karl's dog and pony show: the courtroom.
The Rove technique operates in the arena of public opinion and punditry. There, you are free to make up any version of reality you want, the only question being how well you can make it stick. There are no standards of evidence, no accountability, nobody's under oath.
But of course in a court of law there is
a requirement of evidence, there are
standards of evidence and accountability, and you are
You can stand up before a judge and cry "Your honor, my client stands accused by a vicious partisan monster", but that will mean precisely nothing unless you can present some actual evidence
that this partisan monster has failed to make his case. And it all gets recorded, so you can't play the memory hole game where yesterday's wild rantings are casually contradicted by today's scurrilous libels, but no one notices because everyone is shouting at once. Everyone notices. People are speaking one at a time. The other guy always gets a chance to refute you, without being mocked and silenced.
Innuendo, whisper campaigns, hit pieces, outright fabrications, character assassination, gossip, outraged punditry, and all the braying right wing bloggers and their credulous amen corner don't mean shit once it goes trial.