The Movie: Ronnie Earle, on a Mission from God [... to prosecute Delay!]

The Movie: Ronnie Earle, on a Mission from God The Texas DA is inspired by the Bible to prosecute Tom DeLay.

A new film featuring Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle as he pursued the investigation that led to the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay portrays Earle less as a partisan figure than as a messianic leader on a mission to rid American politics of the "evil" influence of money.

A copy of the still-unfinished film, entitled The Big Buy, was obtained by National Review Online Friday.

On several occasions in the film, Earle engages in monologues on what he believes is the sinister effect of money in politics. "The root of the evil of the corporate and large-monied interest domination of politics is money," Earle says as he takes the filmmakers on a nighttime drive around Austin. "This is in the Bible. This isn't rocket science. The root of all evil truly is money, especially in politics. People talk about how money is the mother's milk of politics. Well, it's the devil's brew. And what we've got to do, we've got to turn off the tap."

In another scene, Earle describes how he deals with offenders in cases like the campaign-finance investigation. "It's important that we forgive those who come to us in a spirit of contrition and the desire for forgiveness. That's important. But if they don't, then God help them." The film then dissolves to a picture of DeLay.

In yet another scene, Earle describes corporate political contributions, which are illegal in Texas (although state law allows corporations to fund the administrative activities of political action committees) as a problem that is "every bit as insidious as terrorism."

The film also features footage that illustrates the extraordinary access to the DeLay investigation that Earle granted filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. The Big Buy contains footage of the empty Travis County grand-jury room, as well as video of grand-jury staffers and some members of the grand jury entering the room (the face of one grand juror was obscured by the filmmakers). The film also contains footage of the original indictments of DeLay's associates, as well as those of several corporations, being sorted and copied, apparently before they were made public, on September 21, 2004, the day the indictments were handed up. There is also footage of Earle meeting with his staff attorneys, reading the indictments before they were released. "It's like that moment right after the missiles are launched," Earle says of the scene, "when it's real quiet, but it's not going to be quiet for long."

In the picture, Earle explains that he believes he bears a profound responsibility to alert the American public to the dangers of big political contributions. "I feel great pressure to get the information to the public, to point, to set a tone and to point a direction, and to say which hill needs to be taken," he explains. "When a powerful politician [Earle was referring to DeLay] can demand $25,000 for face time for large monied interests, I mean, something's wrong. What happened to face time for John and Jane Citizen who are raising two kids and they've got two jobs a piece and the kids don't have insurance? What about face time for them and the problems they're facing? Those are the problems that the country is facing."

The film features commentary from a number of DeLay critics, including Lou Dubose, author of The Hammer: Tom DeLay: God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress, columnist Molly Ivins, defeated political rival Martin Frost, Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice, and others. It also contains interviews with some Republican state lawmakers in Texas and attorneys for the defendants in the case (DeLay himself declined to cooperate with the filmmakers).

At one point in the picture, Rosemary Lemberg, an assistant district attorney in Earle's office, explains that Earle singlehandedly pushed forward the DeLay investigation over the objections of colleagues. "Ronnie was the only person in maybe a group of six or seven lawyers in a room who thought we ought to go ahead and investigate and look at those things," Lemberg says. "We got sued every time we turned around, we got taken to court over this, and Ronnie was the one who just kept pushing forward with it, and saying 'I'll put more resources on this, just keep hacking at it.'"

Though the film's tone is admiring, the filmmakers allow Earle's critics to suggest that, given the sometimes highly politicized nature of his opinions, he should perhaps work in some field other than law enforcement. "The problem that Ronnie has is that he sees something that he believes is wrong," says Roy Minton, an attorney for one of the organizations investigated by Earle. "If you ask him, when he says, 'They're doing this' and 'They're doing that,' you say, 'Alright, let's assume they're doing that, Ronnie, is that against the law?' He will say it's wrong. You say, 'Well, OK, let's assume that it's wrong. Where is it that it is against the law?'"

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the new book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

The Austin Chronicle: Politics: The D.A.'s Dodge

Only two people in Texas have the legal authority to investigate the influence-buying scandal swirling around Service Corporation International Attorney General John Cornyn and Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

Cornyn, the state's lead lawyer, can investigate almost anything he chooses. But in June, Cornyn's office issued an official opinion in the funeral scandal that may be beneficial to SCI, a move that disqualifies him as an objective investigator. That leaves Earle, the longtime D.A. who oversees the Public Integrity Unit, which was formed specifically to investigate malfeasance by state workers and officeholders. The unit has the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and to file charges against wrongdoers.

The PIU is largely funded by state tax dollars and its purpose is to uncover and prosecute criminal wrongdoing by state employees. It's an important job, and the unit's funding has increased dramatically over the past few years. This week, thanks to a budget increase approved by the Texas Legislature, the unit will nearly double in size when it gets three new employees to add to its current staff of two lawyers, one investigator, and one secretary.

But despite the appearance that Houston-based SCI bought influence at the highest levels of state government, effectively killed a state investigation into its embalming practices, and has escaped paying a record fine of $445,000, Earle's office is not looking at the company or the scandal. "We are not investigating and we don't intend to," says first assistant district attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.

Perhaps Earle is right to be cautious. After all, the last time the Democrat got involved in a big political investigation, he got crushed. Call it his Kay Bailey Hutchison Hangover. Ever since 1994, when Earle folded his tent and gave up in his highly publicized efforts to prosecute Hutchison for allegedly using her post as state treasurer for political gain, the D.A. has been cautious. Perhaps he doesn't have the stomach for the huge political brouhaha that will ensue. If that's the case, Earle does have some options. He could appoint a special prosecutor, perhaps a Republican, to review the case, which would allow him to step back from the investigation. Or he could ask federal authorities to participate in a joint investigation.

According to legal authorities close to the matter, Earle doesn't have to know for certain that criminal acts were committed to justify an investigation. Instead, the question he must answer is: "Is there reason to be suspicious?" By that standard the answer appears to be yes. Here are the questions that may justify Earle's suspicions:

Who removed files from the TFSC offices relating to the agency's investigation of SCI? Sources have told the Chronicle that former employees at the agency removed numerous files, an offense punishable by up to two years in state jail.

Lobbyist Janis Carter has told the Chronicle that she was paid by SCI to write a bill that was later passed by the Texas Legislature. The bill tossed out the TFSC's board and got rid of the agency's general counsel. How did SCI get its bill passed with such alacrity?

Did Bush commit aggravated perjury when he submitted an affidavit that appears to be less than truthful?

Why is Sen. John Whitmire the Houston Democrat who rushed to SCI's aid after the TFSC began investigating the company claiming legislative privilege to avoid testifying in the whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Eliza May, former executive director of the funeral agency? What does Whitmire who received $5,000 from SCI's political action committee and is of counsel at Locke Liddell & Sapp, the law firm that represents SCI know about his firm's work for SCI? And who came up with the list of 11 questions that Whitmire sent to Cornyn on June 15, 1998?

Documents obtained by the Chronicle show that in January of this year, Locke Liddell was sending documents relating to the SCI investigation directly to Andy Taylor, Cornyn's assistant and a former Locke Liddell partner. Did Taylor's former law partners ask him to take actions as a state official to help their client?

Why did Cornyn's office issue an opinion? The AG usually refuses to issue opinions on pending matters.

Why did Sen. Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria, who got $1,500 in campaign contributions from SCI's PAC, submit a list of questions to Cornyn's office on April 9, just one day after Cornyn circulated an internal e-mail saying he wanted to review "all instances in which the Opinion Committee believes we should decline an opinion request"? And why was Armbrister's list of 11 questions almost identical to the one Whitmire had sent to Cornyn the year before?

Were state legislators bribed by SCI? Five legislators who wrote nearly identical letters to the TFSC board inquiring about the agency's investigation reported major campaign contributions from SCI.

How has SCI thus far escaped payment of a $445,000 fine that TFSC levied against the company? Although SCI disputes some of the fines, particularly those relating to licensing issues for embalming procedures, a substantial part of the fine came from the company's refusal to honor the agency's subpoenas.

Was there an SCI conspiracy to crush the TFSC and get rid of Eliza May? Kenneth J. Hughes, an outgoing TFSC board member and strong supporter of Gov. Bush, believes the company muscled the agency, whose mission is to protect consumers.

Those are the main questions. Is Earle still an enterprising prosecutor interested in protecting consumers? That may be the biggest question of all.  R.B.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.