In today's Austin American Statesman editorial (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editoria l/stories/12/23delay_edit.html), the Statesman gleefully editorializes that the indefinite postponement of Tom Delay's trial may result in Mr. Delay's fall from power. Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives prevent someone under indictment from serving as Majority Leader. As the editorial notes, "once he was indicted in September, he had to give up his post until the charges are resolved. The longer he's out of office, the less likely he can get it back." The Statesman has forsaken its Clinton- era editorial stance that no one should be punished or even held in judgment unless actually convicted of a crime. Nope, now the Statesman is thrilled that an innocent-until-proven-guilty person is suffering punishment because of a grand jury indictment. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has often been called an inept partisan who routinely humiliates himself with his political witch hunts, but this time he has scored big. That is because Earle doesn't need to have a conviction. Of course, he'll ultimately drop the charges again or a judge will laugh them out of court. So for Earle to be successful, all he needs to do is keep Delay under ongoing indictment but avoid actually going to trial. A conviction would not be any more effective for Earle's political purposes than the indictment he has already shopped for and obtained with his three grand juries. Finally, there is great irony in the final paragraph of the Statesman's editorial, "One other aspect of this flurry of appeals pushed by DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, should be noted: Imagine if every felony criminal defendant had a legal team with the same skills and resources to maneuver on his or her behalf as does DeLay. Of course, few do. Though DeLay is entitled to employ all the defenses at his disposal, the courts should treat him like any other defendant, even those who must rely on court-appointed lawyers: innocent unless proved guilty, but due no preferential treatment." Why then does the Statesman opine and revel in the fact that Mr. Delay , who is "innocent unless proved guilty", should face punishment and loss of his job because he cannot get his day in court? GREGG