Last week was a pretty bad week for me, some bad personal news, some other stuff… So it was with some joy that I heard about the misfortune of Tom DeLay, who is finally being charged with at least ONE of the crimes he has committed over the past few years — money laundering in regard to the recent elections in Texas. I laughed out loud when Randi Rhodes played a clip of DeLay on her show where he claimed he didn’t even know for what he was being indicted. When the commentator quoted the indictment (which, BTW, is available on The Smoking Gun, um, Mr. DeLay), DeLay responded simply that it wasn’t the indictment he had received.

Apparently, he finally got a chance to read it though, because in an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News, he claimed that the indictment, “Doesn’t state any facts on it.”

The interview, available here, also does a nice job of proving how FOX hosts use the “some people say” or “some would suggest,” lines to introduce opinion. For example, the following questions from Chris Wallace in the same interview:

And there’s been a lot of criticism from supporters and opponents of you that the indictment that Ronnie Earle has presented so far is pretty thin, doesn’t state a lot of facts on it.

Hmmmm… there’s been a lot of criticism from opponents as well? Oh yeah, I’m sure all the Democrats are lining up to criticize Ronnie Earle, now that he decided to finally indict a Republican for crimes instead of his usual penchant for only charging Democrats. Out of the fifteen officials Earle has prosecuted, twelve have been Democrats. So much for party prejudice against Republicans, eh?

Another great line from Wallace:

There’s some speculation that Ronnie Earle, the prosecutor in this case, has gotten someone to flip on you, that someone inside TRMPAC or someone inside the corporations or someone inside the Republican Party will say that you were involved in this.

There’s “some speculation?” Really? By whom?

In trying to defend himself, Delay also offers, “I tried to live within the spirit of the law.” So while he may not have actually followed the law, he tried to live within the spirit of the law? Hmmmm… Let’s see. The school bus has a STOP sign and red lights because drivers failed to see kids crossing in front of the bus or elsewhere. Knowing that is why the “stop in each direction when a bus’ red lights are on” law was enacted, I could simply follow the “spirit” of the law and just carefully creep around the bus. That way I could be off on my way without waiting for all them damn kids to get on and/or off the bus, and I’d absolutely be able to stop quickly and not hit a kid that came out of nowhere. That’s following the “spirit” of the law, right? Or littering… Don’t litter… Why are there laws against littering? To prevent beautiful places and areas where people live from becoming contaminated by garbage. But how about at those stop lights where everyone throws out their cigarette butts and soft drink cans, and the highway crews stop there and pick stuff up every so often? I suppose throwing your garbage there would honor the “spirit” of the do-not-litter laws because I’m not contaminating fresh areas where people live and walk and/or enjoy the scenery… I’m doing it where everyone else does it and someone will be along to clean it up anyway. That’s the “spirit” of the law, right? Or what about keeping my loaded pistol on the top of the refrigerator where my kid can’t get to it instead of locked up in a gun cabinet with my rifles and such? The spirit of the law here would be to protect children or anyone else from getting easy access to it, right? Well, I lock the doors and anyone who comes into my house is generally a responsible adult, and kids can’t reach up that high, so I’m honoring the “spirit” of the law here, right?

I love how Republicans are so against “interpretation of the law” on the Supreme Court, but it’s fine to do it with other ethical decisions. I can’t wait to see the rest of these crooks taken down, one by one. Rove, it’s your turn next.