So much bandwidth has already been used discussing the House Republicans decision to change the rules regarding holding a leadership position under indictment, that it’s hard to find anything new to say. Hyopcrisy, thy name is Republican. At least today, anyway. ‘
There are, however, two things worth noting. The first is that the rule was one originally created by Republicans to use against Democrats.
House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats’ ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.
The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay’s associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans’ proposal last night.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: “If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing.”
Of course, the point—which apparently mattered in 1993, but not so much now—is that an indictment is not a conviction. Nevermind the notion that perhaps congressional leaders have a responsibility to hold themselves above reproach.
Speaking of conviction, Josh Marshall brings to light the other important point here.
Here’s my question. And it’s a genuine question since I don’t know the answer. Does the Republican caucus currently have a rule which would force DeLay to relinquish his post after conviction if he remains free on appeal?
The earlier rule would have made such a rule superfluous since any leadership office had to be surrendered on indictment. But with that changed, is there such a rule? And if not, does the GOP caucus plan on imposing one?
And in the interest of completeness, is there any stage in the criminal justice process when a GOP caucus member in a leadership office has to resign his post? If the judge sentences DeLay to wearing one of those radio beacon collars around his ankle so that he doesn’t leave the vicinity of the Capitol, could he continue as leader then too? Or would that be too much?
My bet? House Republicans will impose no such rule should DeLay be convicted. That would leave them and their leadership still somewhat vulnerable should deed done in the dark come to light. They will, however, have to decide if they wish to have a convict—free on appeal, yes, but a convict nonetheless—as their leader in the house.
I predict, should DeLay be convicted, is that a close-door meeting will be held after which Delay will be “invited to resign,” and will accept the invitation shortly thereafter. Thus, the need for a rule concerning house leadership with convictions will be rendered moot, at the immediate situation will have resolved itself.
