Noam Scheiber: THE DELAY ETHICS REPORT--COMING SPRING '06!:

[paineinthearse]

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml

THE DELAY ETHICS REPORT--COMING SPRING '06!: This tidbit from Jeffrey Birnbaum in today's Washington Post is interesting, if pretty intuitive:

The hasn't formally agreed to address the DeLay accusations. If it does, a subcommittee of four lawmakers would conduct a confidential inquiry, which could take six months to a year. It would collect documents and take testimony about DeLay's trips.

"The process can be a penalty in itself," Gross warned. "It is inherently partisan and political."

This suggests that the GOP aide quoted in yesterday's Mike Allen piece was pretty far off:

The aide said that the change will mean "a couple of great days for Democrats" but that Republicans have calculated that this will deny them long-term use of the ethics issue heading into next year's midterm elections.

Given the constant drip of new allegations, and ethics committee Democrats' obvious interest in prolonging this episode, it's hard to believe a report will be out much earlier than a year from now. At that point, the committee will either find DeLay completely innocent--which will provoke charges of a whitewash from the media and the left--or it will admonish him again, which raises the question of how long Republicans can tolerate a serial ethics offender as their majority leader. So it's hard to see how this doesn't become a campaign issue.(I suppose the GOP could really press the pace on the ethics inquiry and try wrapping it up in six months. But my sense is that the old ethics rules, which were just reinstated, give Democrats a lot of influence over the process.)

AND ANOTHER THING: Am I naive about this stuff, or is the defense strategy DeLay's lawyer tried out on Birnbaum downright laughable (or both):

Bobby R. Burchfield, an attorney for DeLay, said that none of these incidents presents serious jeopardy for his client. The primary reason, he said, is that DeLay believed that the trips were arranged and paid for by bona fide organizations unconnected to lobbyists or lobbying groups, and that DeLay had no reason to think otherwise.

DeLay and his staff considered the research center to be "reputable" and knew Abramoff to be a board member of the group, Burchfield said. Neither DeLay nor his staff knew that the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council had registered as a foreign agent, he added.

DeLay didn't know Abramoff was a lobbyist? DeLay and Abramoff have known each other for over a decade. What did DeLay think Abramoff was, a very well-paid event planner? (Come to think of it, maybe that's what lobbyists basically are...) Keep in mind also that, in addition to letting Abramoff put thousands of dollars in expenses from the now-infamous Scotland junket on his credit card, DeLay also allowed registerd lobbyist Ed Buckham to cover $184 in expenses on the same trip (in violation of House ethics rules). That would be the same Ed Buckham who left a top-ranking position in DeLay's office to start a lobbying firm--where he eventually hired DeLay's own wife!

[lateo]

1. Spring of '06?

Wow...either it is going to be huge or they are dragging their feet.

[paineinthearse]

2. It's hard work, real hard!

These things take time.