By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
By Jeff Balke
By Angelica Leicht
Kay Hutchison is a Dead Horse
Miriam Rozen is beating a dead horse ["The Case Against Kay," June 23]. The general public sensed the hypocrisy regarding the charges that Kay Bailey Hutchison used taxpayer dollars for political campaigning.
Hutchison is the quintessential example that asserts perception is often more important than substance. The earlier accusation of her physically attacking an employee would have probably destroyed the political career of one less able to use the TV camera to their utmost advantage. Our U.S. senator exudes tremendous personal warmth, which overpowers the detailed allegations concerning her actual everyday abrasiveness. While Miriam Rozen did indeed cite Hutchison's violence toward her employees, she did not give it anywhere near the emphasis it merited.
Earle's No Pearl
Instead of spending ten pages of your glorious magazine with an article from Miriam Rozen ["The Case Against Kay"] bashing someone who has been found innocent (Kay Bailey Hutchison), why not write an article about a district attorney who wastes taxpayer dollars on a personal crusade to crush a single individual?
The thing that disturbed me most about the article was Miriam's description of why Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle would allow a reporter to not only have access to secret grand-jury testimony, but help that reporter make over 1,000 copies.
Do you really not believe that any of Mr. Earle's actions could be politically motivated? Or what about your actions, do you really believe that running a story like this is not politically motivated?
You are trying Ms. Hutchison in the media after she was found innocent in court. If she is so guilty, why did the D.A.'s case rely on a single piece of evidence? It must have been closer than you would portray in your story.
The real question I'd like answered is: how much did Miriam Rozen pay for the over 1,000 copies that she made on the D.A.'s copy machine, with the help of a clerk from the D.A.'s office? Was this legal? I just wonder if the Democratic governor is going to order the new D.A. to investigate why clerks in his office allow reporters to use government resources to make copies of secret grand-jury testimony.
And Onion Stinks Too
I have been amazed by how many educated, otherwise intelligent people seem to think Kay Bailey Hutchison was exonerated of the charges against her. Miriam Rozen's article "The Senator and the Grand Jury" puts the lie to that supposition. Though many of Hutchison's transgressions were trivial viewed in isolation, taken together they constituted a pattern of illicit activities that consumed thousands of taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, because of Judge John F. Onion and D.A. Ronnie Earle, Hutchison will never pay for violating the law. I truly believe that Onion, who was renowned for his mercurial (read "difficult") nature at the Court of Criminal Appeals, simply didn't like the case against Hutchison. In the end, he outfoxed Earle and killed the prosecution. While it made for interesting courtroom drama, unfortunately it is the taxpayers of this state who (as usual) have been left holding the bag.
Hutchison's prosecution could have served as a warning to other politicians not to betray the public trust placed in them.