As the House Turns...on The Bug Man

Two days ago, I started working on a post addressing 1) the ethics committee rules changes instituted by the Republicans, 2) the proposal by the ethics committee chairman, and 3) a simple suggestion for the Republicans. Well, wouldn't you know it? Before I could try to make myself look like a smart guy (as opposed to a smart ass, which admittedly I am), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert went a step beyond what I was going to suggest.

Still, going back and covering items 1)-3) is a worthwhile endeavor (at least so I can feel I did not waste two days of work). The subsequent post will examine Hastert's proposal and the action actually taken by the House.

Let's start with "the DeLay Rule." Back in the middle of November 2004, the House Republicans held a closed meeting which resulted in the demise of a rule House Republicans instituted for themselves in 1993 in order to show the country that they, not the Democrats, were moral and ethical. That rule required any party leaders to resign their leadership positions if they came under criminal indictment. Given that The Bug Man was possibly being investigated by Travis County (Texas) DA Ronnie Earle, the House Republicans decided that their "moral high ground" rule should go away. Instead, they decided that the GOP steering committee would make a ruling and then put it to a vote of the GOP conference. This became known as "the DeLay Rule," although The Bug Man and his supporters said it had nothing to do with DeLay's circumstances...those damn flying monkeys are trying to appear again.

Think about this a minute. The 1993 House Republicans, complaining of how arrogant and corrupt the Democrats had become, instituted the original rule to show they held the moral high ground, and 11 years later, with their leader potentially facing a criminal investigation based on his alleged corruption, just toss the rule aside. It seems that these God-fearing righteous folk actually fear Ronnie Earle--a mere mortal--even more.

At this point, I have question: If DeLay was and is truly innocent (as he and his minions have always asserted), if he is anxious to have a fair hearing of the allegations against him (which he has always maintained), then why in the first place institute a rule that is expressly designed to protect him? And don't even try to claim that the DeLay Rule was not designed to protect DeLay. Were any other House Republicans facing the possibility of indictment? No.

Oh, but I know what some of you wingers are thinking...DeLay his own self called for the repeal of the DeLay Rule, so that proves his is clean. Now, to be fair, as reported by CNN in early January 2005, The Bug Man "asked House Republicans Monday to reverse a December rule change that allows indicted leaders to continue to hold leadership posts in the chamber." Wow--what a guy, right? Not so fast there, pardner. Right after The Bug Man called for repeal of the DeLay Rule--which applied only to Republicans--the Republican majority in the House voted to change the rules for the ethics committee. In other words, they changed the rules that applied to the entire House.

See, the House ethics committee is composed of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Before this year, the rules said that an investigation of an ethics charge would occur automatically unless a majority of the committee voted otherwise after 45 days, which effectively prevented either party from blocking any investigation. The new rule stated that unless a majority of the committee voted for an investigation within 45 days, the charge would be dismissed. This necessarily meant that either party could block any investigation of one of its members. Given DeLay's power and control of the House Republicans, that new rule meant he could make sure he would not be investigated by the ethics committee. And yet this rule change had nothing to do with DeLay's circumstances. Watch out for those damn flying monkeys!

Two other rules changes were also made. This article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has the details.

And just to seal the deal, the Republicans booted three of the Republican members of the ethics committee (which had unanimously admonished The Bug Man three times in the previous Congress) off the committee and replaced them with people more loyal to DeLay. Ah, but that is a story for another time.

So while the DeLay Rule was tossed, it was replaced with rules that protected the Bug Man even more. The DeLay Rule only applied to Republicans, and it did not constrain the ethics committee in any way. The new rules for the ethics committee--the group that could really take The Bug Man down--basically insured that DeLay would not face an ethics investigation. That's why the Democrats have refused to agree to the new rules.

In the last week, the current chairman of the ethics committee, Doc Hastings of Washington, made a proposal of compromise. As reported by the Washington Post on April 21, 2005, in return for the Democrats' agreement to accept the new ethics committee rules, Hastings would agree to establish a subcommittee to investigate the allegations against DeLay (you wingers might feel more comfortable reading a similar story from Fox News, and others can check this AP report). According to another article in the Washington Post,

Hastings also pledged that he would not allow any complaint to be dismissed automatically, but would require a full vote of the committee.

Hastings said he wanted to make the changes as what he called a "gentlemen's agreement," in writing, rather than taking them to the House floor and pushing for formal revision of the rules. Hastings said he believes it is "highly unlikely that the House would be in a mood to change the rules."

(emphasis added). The Democrats did not go for the offer, and that was a good move. Look, I know of no reason not to take Hastings at his word, but there are plenty of reasons to believe that he would not be able to see that his promises were upheld. The primary reason is seen in part in the emphasized quote above: "the House would not be in a mood to change the Rules." The House--the entire House, not a committee--voted to change the rules in the first place. Hastings has no power to enact a change in the rules either by himself or through the ethics committee. The only two people in the House that have the power to do that are Hastert and The Bug Man. Here's what could have happened: the Democrats take Hastings's deal, Hastings in good faith tries to fulfill it, and then Hastert and/or DeLay get the entire House to vote to cancel the deal, then argue that the Democrats are not able to hold up the ethics committee any longer, meaning the new rules stay in place, no action will be taken on the allegations, the charges against DeLay would be dismissed, and the Republicans announce that DeLay has been cleared of all charges.

And even if that scenario could not have happened, the deal should not have been accepted. What procedures would the "subcommittee" follow? Hastings said Republican Melissa Hart would lead the subcommittee, but who else would be on it? What procedures would be in place to make sure that the subcommittee was not comprised solely of Republicans? None of these questions were addressed.

And during this time, the Republicans were saying that The Bug Man would cooperate and that he wanted a chance to answer the charges. Hastings said

The majority leader has said over and over, in communications and publicly, that he has done nothing wrong, and he wanted to have an opportunity to state his case. This is a means by which he can state his case.

Hastert said on Sean Hannity's radio show that "Tom is ready to talk to people and clear himself." And The Bug Man sayeth, "For more than a month, I've said I hope for a fair process that will afford me the opportunity to get the facts out and set the record straight. I welcome the opportunity to address this with the committee."

As I was reading all of this, I realized there was a different deal the Republicans could have offered which the Democrats likely would have been forced to accept. Tell the Democrats that there would be a full, formal ethics committee investigation of DeLay under the old rules if the Democrats would accept the new rules for all future ethics investigations. If the Democrats refuse, the Republicans would have a very strong case for claiming that this is all a political witch hunt after DeLay. If the Democrats accept, DeLay gets his opportunity to clear his name that he insists he wants and is confident he will win. But you see, Republicans don't think that way. It has to be all their way, all the time.

And then Hastert went even further that my proposal...