"Texas Governor Rick Perry indicted by grand jury"
"
A grand jury has handed up an indictment against Gov. Rick Perry in connection with the investigation into an effort to force Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign."
The Texas Governor was indicted on counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant.
At the center of the issue is a complaint about intimidation stemming from Perry’s threat to veto of $7.5 million in state funding to the Public Integrity Unit run by Lehmberg’s office. The threat came after she pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence; Perry called on her to step down but she refused to resign her position. Perry then vetoed the funding for the PIU.
The first count , abuse of official capacity, says the Governor misused government property by threatening to defund the Travis County Public Integrity Unit in June of last year after District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunk driving.
The second count says Governor Perry misused his power by trying to coerce Lehmberg to resign or face the state pulling its funding from the Public Integrity Unit.
A grand jury was called to determine whether or not Perry broke the law when he threatened to veto the funding. As a result they issued indictments on two felony charges. If found guilty on the charges, Perry could be sentenced to a maximum 109 years in prison. (read more)
92 comments:
This seems beyond belief, but welcome to how Democrats roll.
I've heard of political payback and revenge prosecution... but this is so patently blatant. It should get an A for balls.
The question for me is does Perry have a better chance surviving this than Walker's bogus John Doe?
My gut says no.
I guess you can't say is Kafkaesque on account of Perry's position of being governor... but in a way it is.
Does Perry have to step down?
Lem said...
The question for me is does Perry have a better chance surviving this than Walker's bogus John Doe?
My gut says no.
Good question. I'd like to say that he will. It all depends how far up the leftwing blogger MSM food chain this goes and how defiantly they stand behind her. Given how the MSM loathes Perry and aids and abets Ferguson looters (and gets away with it), I'd say they we're in for another round of Perry's family ranch again.
Wait for it.
What would Garage Mahal say?
Perry will have to surrender to the Travis County Jail where he will likely be processed with what’s known as a walk-through booking. He will be fingerprinted and have a mugshot taken. It is not clear yet when the governor may turn himself in.
Unbelievable.
According to the Associated Press, the indictment is the first of its kind since 1917, when Gov. James “Pa” Ferguson was indicted on charges stemming from his veto of state funding to the University of Texas in effort to unseat faculty and staff members he objected to. Ferguson was eventually impeached, then resigned before being convicted — allowing his wife, Miriam “Ma” Ferguson, to take over the governorship.
It's Texas politics.
Evi L. Bloggerlady said...
This seems beyond belief, but welcome to how Democrats roll.
Evi nails -- now and in the future. Unable to garner popular support, D's will instead destroy the names and reputations on the ballots.
BTW, where are all the Lehmberg supporters?
So Perry faces possible jail time because he used his authority to block funding for a DA's position in Travis County because the drunk and obnoxious DA wouldn't resign after a DUI?
The indictment is a political hit job, plain and simple. And only a fool would believe that it isn't related to Perry's aggressive stance on stopping illegal immigration in a Texas.
Does anybody remember what government was invented for? Me either, but it's good they find ways to keep themselves busy. Bless their little hearts.
... related to Perry's aggressive stance on stopping illegal immigration
That's why one of the Castros twitted asking for the resignation of Perry.
The sham is orchestrated.
BTW, where are all the Lehmberg supporters?
One of the Castros... Hillary buddy.
“I looked at the law. I looked at the facts. and I presented everything possible to the grand jury.”
The proverbial ham sandwich has been indicted.
Forget it, Jake, it's Austin.
Okay, respectfully, if a person was not a partisan (I wasn't a libtard you weren't a rightie), how would we evaluate this story? What principles would a nonpartisan honor, and which would s/he dismiss?
Notice the homophonic source of this video. Obviously the Evil Brothers are behind this smear of Lehmberg.
AReasonableMan said:
"Blogger Rabel said...
Don't be dissin' phx.
He hasn't been around for a long time, I'm afraid he is lost."
Back from the island? Glad to see you're safe and well and wanted to point out that I took up for you in your absence.
As for your question, per the Texas constitution the Governor's veto power is absolute and cannot be overridden by statute.
phx said...
Okay, respectfully, if a person was not a partisan (I wasn't a libtard you weren't a rightie), how would we evaluate this story? What principles would a nonpartisan honor, and which would s/he dismiss?
Mostly, keep an eye on truth and honesty in reporting. I heard one disturbing rumor that NPR is saying the Perry wanted to cover up a breaking corruption. As I didn't hear it first hand, I can't add or subtract to it.
Anecdotal:
I heard a TV news report this morning wherein reporter was dismayed because people were more interested in googling facts about the Michael what's-his-name, than the cop who killed him. WTF is that all about?
I was also a bit put out the other day by the WaPo reporter whining about being kicked out of a McDonald's because the store wanted to close early. He puffed it into a 1st Amendment issue.
Back to Perry, keep an eye on how the media spins it.
Does Perry have veto power? Yes. So how can he be indicted for using it?
Congressmen have spending power. Can they be indicted for spending the country into bankruptcy? No. They can be voted out of office but not criminalized for exercising a constitutional power, no matter how recklessly.
And I want to add that however much lower than a snake's belly Madame Lehmberg may be, I am mightily impressed by her ability to hold her liquor.
To be that drunk and still walking and talking is a skill acquired only by years of hardcore boozing.
Hey Rabel.
As for your question, per the Texas constitution the Governor's veto power is absolute and cannot be overridden by statute.
So this must be clear-cut and the case will very soon be seen by all fair-minded people who are looking at this in a nonpartisan way as prosecutorial overreach.
Although, if the grand jury had the law in front of them and they STILL indicted him, you would think then there's probably some dispute about what you are saying.
Or is that unreasonable?
Even the left is question the indictment of Rick Perry.
David Axelrod tweeted: Unless demonstrably trying 2 scrap ethics unit 4 other than stated reason, Perry indictment sketchy.
This has far less merit than the lawsuit against Obama for not upholding the law. Perry has the right to do what he did under the Texas Constitution, Obama does not under the U.S. one.
And from ThinkProgress:
"So an important question facing whichever court is tasked with trying Perry’s case will be whether a law preventing Perry from using strongarm tactics to push out a genuinely compromised public official is an unconstitutional restriction on his discretion as governor or a valid means of reigning in corruption. This is not likely to be an easy question for the judges, and potentially, justices, who are called upon to resolve it."
Full article here.
"Although, if the grand jury had the law in front of them and they STILL indicted him, you would think then there's probably some dispute about what you are saying."
It was a grand jury and they only heard the DA's side of the case. I doubt very much that the constitutional question was raised.
The Governor of Texas doesn't have that much power to begin with.
If this stands, then the office will just be a ceremonial seat like the queen of England... w/ none of the perks.
Since it was a closed grand jury it is possible that they never heard about the DUI arrest and the video where the drunken idiot demanded that they call her pet Sheriff to get her off the hook. It was not just her drunk driving but her total lack of ethics in trying to avoid arrest through the use of political influence. Precisely what this unit was set up to police. I know that Democrats live to squander taxpayer money but who in their right mind thinks this is a good idea.
I think they should run that video 24/7 and let the people of Texas know that the Democratic Party supports drunk driving.
The Democratic Party supports drunk driving.
I'm going to tweet that everyday for as long as the sham indictment stands.
This drunken Partisan Democrat was not the only person who could investigate Perry. All she had to do is resign. In ultra liberal Travis county would have elected another leftie would have been elected and the supposedly important investigation could continue.
Do all Democrats support drunk driving?
Besides Ted Kennedy of course.
Trooper always took a cab.
Haz:
"So Perry faces possible jail time because he used his authority to block funding for a DA's position in Travis County because the drunk and obnoxious DA wouldn't resign after a DUI?
The indictment is a political hit job, plain and simple. And only a fool would believe that it isn't related to Perry's aggressive stance on stopping illegal immigration in a Texas."
She served her time. If Perry wanted her removed he had other, legal, means available. Let him face the music. I hope he gets the full 109...and time served, OF COURSE.
Is there a dashboard video of Lehmberg driving erratically?
George W. Bush
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/george-w-bush-dui-arrest-record-0
So you do support drunk driving Little Debbie. Good to know.
Too bad that this drunk wasn't Jewish.
I support you getting a grip, Twinkie.
"If Perry wanted her removed he had other, legal, means available."
No, he didn't. And the issue at hand was her serving as head of the public integrity unit, not her service as DA.
"I hope he gets the full 109...and time served, OF COURSE."
The line between a moderate liberal and a totalitarian can grow pretty thin once they're exposed to effective propaganda.
Meade said...
George W. Bush
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/george-w-bush-dui-arrest-record-0
August 16, 2014 at 1:42 PM
This isn't about George Bush in college, Meade, nor is it about Barack Obama enjoying a "little blow" in college. Nor is it about Teddy Kennedy. It's about Rick Perry trying and failing to get her to resign. This is countered by Lehmberg's attempt now to get Perry to serve a maximum of 109 years (with deborah cheering on with glee).
This a real Texas cage match and Lem should start a new tag for the ensuing rounds.
I have a firm grip on this situation.
The issue is not just the DUI but the intimidation she tried to use during her arrest.
WTF? What political job did Bush hold in government that he should resign from or lose his government job because of the DUI?
There is a difference between apples and oranges.
"No, he didn't."
Separation of powers? Okay. Withholding funds from another branch to coerce a political opponent is a violation of separation of powers. She served her time.
"The line between a moderate liberal and a totalitarian can grow pretty thin once they're exposed to effective propaganda."
Humphhh! You skipped a few levels there.
Chick, please note I said time served.
Because having a DUI in college is the same thing as having one when you are serving as the ethics watchdog or something.
So if Congress refuse to fund a war that the President starts without a congressional vote the they can be indicted?
Good to know.
That's what separation of powers means.
Good stuff.
If the governor vetoes the appropriation I would assume that it could be overridden by all of the people who support drunk driving and influence peddling when you are arrested. Isn't that the proper response and not a political indictment?
Or should we just blame Bush?
"Withholding funds from another branch to coerce a political opponent is a violation of separation of powers."
No, the executive veto power is an integral part of the separation of powers doctrine. It is restricted only by the ability of a legislature to override.
"Humphhh! You skipped a few levels there."
You're supporting putting a man in jail for life for exercising a constitutionally authorized right.
If that's not reflective of totalitarianism then what is?
Texas Constitution
Scroll down to section 14 and you'll see that the veto power has no restrictions related to rationale.
I had no idea Rick Perry was Jewish.
Thanks for the link, Trooper.
"Reed argues that it was Lehmberg's behavior after her arrest that should inform the lawsuit seeking her removal, not necessarily the DWI itself. "A thorough examination of Ms. Lehmberg's behavior during the eight-and-one-half-hour period that she was in the custody of Travis County law enforcement personnel reveals a pattern of conduct toward both law enforcement officers and judicial authorities that is indicative of the very sort of character against which the statute authorizing a petition for removal was designed to protect the public [against]: dishonest, unethical, faithless, and corrupt," he wrote in a press release."
As she was intoxicated, was she accountable for her indiscretions?
I also question the executive branch holding her and video taping her extensively. I understand they needed to document her after she started yelling and kicking the door, but does anyone think that at some point this was intentionally provocative? At one point the camera holder goads her by asking why she made a face. It's a very sad video.
"Lehmberg was arrested after a caller to 911 reported a vehicle driving dangerously on FM 620 near Comanche Trail."
Was this an anonymous tip?
Did this case go to trial and reach a verdict?
Rabel, re section 14, I'm not seeing it.
From Lem's original link:
"At the center of the issue is a complaint about intimidation stemming from Perry’s threat to veto of $7.5 million in state funding to the Public Integrity Unit run by Lehmberg’s office. The threat came after she pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence; Perry called on her to step down but she refused to resign her position. Perry then vetoed the funding for the PIU."
He erred with the threat when he could have simply acted.
"You're supporting putting a man in jail for life for exercising a constitutionally authorized right.
If that's not reflective of totalitarianism then what is?"
I was being hyperbolic. I said with time served, meaning the sentence would be symbolic.
Much the same as when I called my congressman's office and told his worker I wanted the congressman to vote for the impeachment of Clinton. I said in effect, 'I know the Senate will not vote him out, but I want him publicly chastised.'
In the real world, if convicted, he will be plead down to five years max and serve time in a golf course facility.
Wait a minute. Rick Perry told them to videotape her?
I thought it was a good idea to tape people who are in custody so we know they are not being abused. May be the cops got the idea that she was a nasty cunt who was threatening them and maybe they wanted to document everything so it doesn't turn into a he said/she lied scenario as it usually does with liberal Democrats.
You are spinning so much you should change your name to Hasbro.
Deb, you seem unusually misinformed today. You're not drunk, are you? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Just please stay off the road. Governor Perry has a long reach and you never know what will happen.
Trooper's not taking the trouble to read what I wrote and Rabel lowered himself to ad hominem attack.
Of course they Videotaped her. If they hadn't she'd be suing them right now.
She was upset at the Video because that meant she couldn't later lie and spin about her behavior.
I have no idea why Governor's can be indicted by County DA's in Texas. In most states, Governor's have the same protection as the President does regarding legal action by lower level DA's.
Perry quite rightly wanted her gone. It wasn't partisan thing, because she just would've been replaced by another liberal democrat.
That's why i don't see why Obama should be impeached. You'll just end up with Biden who'll be just as bad, in every sense of the word.
"Rabel lowered himself to ad hominem attack"
Maybe, maybe not. When, with no apparent awareness of the facts, you start calling for taking away a man's life for partisan political reasons I get a little sketchy.
Fair enough, but I explained my meaning. I understand if you choose not to accept my explanation.
But now you're back-pedaling. You left a discussion with a cheap shot.
Article 4, Section 14:
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF BILLS; RETURN AND RECONSIDERATION; FAILURE TO RETURN; DISAPPROVAL OF ITEMS OF APPROPRIATION. Every bill which shall have passed both houses of the Legislature shall be presented to the Governor for his approval. If he approve he shall sign it; but if he disapprove it, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which House shall enter the objections at large upon its journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members present agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, with the objections, to the other House, by which likewise it shall be reconsidered; and, if approved by two-thirds of the members of that House, it shall become a law; but in such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor with his objections within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by its adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall be a law, unless he shall file the same, with his objections, in the office of the Secretary of State and give notice thereof by public proclamation within twenty days after such adjournment. If any bill presented to the Governor contains several items of appropriation he may object to one or more of such items, and approve the other portion of the bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he objects, and no item so objected to shall take effect. If the Legislature be in session, he shall transmit to the House in which the bill originated a copy of such statement and the items objected to shall be separately considered. If, on reconsideration, one or more of such items be approved by two-thirds of the members present of each House, the same shall be part of the law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor. If any such bill, containing several items of appropriation, not having been presented to the Governor ten days (Sundays excepted) prior to adjournment, be in the hands of the Governor at the time of adjournment, he shall have twenty days from such adjournment within which to file objections to any items thereof and make proclamation of the same, and such item or items shall not take effect.
"But now you're back-pedaling."
If I did, then I heartily apologize for that was not my intent.
Obama threatened to veto anything he perceived damaging to Health Care bill.
Obama threatened to veto any Republican attempting to limit executive power, an obvious attempt at coercing legislative process.
Obama threatened to veto any bill requiring him to follow the law, an overt coercion of legislative prodess.
Obama threatened to veto any Medicare reform bill. Obviously attempting to coerce legislative process.
Obama threatened to veto any further Iran sanctions.
Obama threatened to veto the sequester.
Obama threatened to veto Cyber Intelligence and Protection Act.
Obama threatened to veto National Defense Authorization Act.
Obama threatened to veto House Border Bill.
Obama throated to veto "doc fix" bill.
Obama threatened a veto on House Energy Bills
Obama threatened veto of Pro-First Amendment IRS bill.
O. thrtnd veto Bonus Deprecation Extension
o the vto bill banning abortions after 20 weeks
o vto religious protection for military
House student loan plan
threatened to veto Upton "keep your healthcare act"
o the vto bill to stop taxpayer funding abortion
vto fetal pain bill
school meal bill
delaying PPaCA mandate
bill to rollback unfunded mandates
I'm tired of this.
o thrtnd vto bill with mixed oxide fuel fabrication MOX construction funding,
o thrtnd Farm Bill over cuts to food assistance.
But who's paying anything to himself anyway, and this "do nothing" congress?
The balls on these people are outrageous. Giant stinking hairy balls. That is what is become of Democrat politics as usual. Stinking like unwashed balls. That is what they are. And the people who support them are stupid. But not just regular stupid, viciously stupid. I read their comments last night so filled with glee and good cheer. I hate them more than anything I've ever hated. Their stinking slime affects everything.
I read what you wrote Deborah and basically it is nonsense.
Executives threaten to veto legislation all the time. To get the law changed. To get different people to administer the law. To alter various provisions of the law. They don't even have to give a reasonn. They do not get indicted for threatening or for vetoing funding legislation which is part and parcel of governing.
You are perfectly happy for a governor to go to jail for "Only five years" because in his role as governor he refused to fund an ethics department headed by someone who made a mockery of the idea of an ethics department. That's crazy.
I think you are only doing this to stir shit and be contrary. That's fine if that is what you want to do but it is really silly.
I can't believe that you actually think this is correct?
What's the deal. Is this DA part of Hamas or something? Then I could understand it.
What part of Perry coercing a public official to step down aren't you getting, Troop?
I don't argue to be contrary.
Walk me through it, chick. I get he can veto anything for any reason, but he can't use the monies under his control to coerce a public official.
rc, I think in Texas they don't like even the gov getting too big for his britches.
Chip, see my reply to Trooper.
I get he can veto anything for any reason, but he can't use the monies under his control to coerce a public official.
Said coercion was not a fait accompli. At a minimum, we need to find statute related to threat of coercion.
Gotta run...family party.
Also, she needs to delink the notions of asking her resign (which had legitimate grounds in public good) and vetoing a bill which didn't require a reason.
It is his fiduciary duty to defund an ethics department that is to be run by someone as ethically challenged as this woman.
Of course he used everything in his power to get her to leave. Where is the law that says an elected official needs to be indicted for "coercing or threatening" someone. Didn't she do that to the cops that arrested her? Maybe she should be indicted for that too?
Or is this just a political grandstanding indictment made for purely partisan reasons? By an office that has a long history of politically inspired indictments.
Rick Perry, I am sure, had no idea she was arrested that night. He probably heard about it like everyone else did, the next day when it was reported. I am pretty sure they don't call the governor for every DUI, even if it was an obnoxious Democrat DA.
Courtesy of "Alex" aka "Titus" over on Althouse, there's this portion of Texas Statute:
Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.
The lawyers will sort this out.
What we see here in the comments is partisan division, or personal dislike of Perry. I'm going to chalk it up to the latter.
chickelit said...
"This isn't about George Bush in college, Meade, nor is it about Barack Obama enjoying a "little blow" in college. Nor is it about Teddy Kennedy. It's about Rick Perry trying and failing to get her to resign."
Exactly. It's about Rick Perry trying and failing to get her to resign. Did he break the law in doing that? That is the question.
By mentioning GWB, my point is that people and politicians of both parties have been guilty of breaking the law when it comes to driving under the influence of alcohol.
Of course, that doesn't stop dickweeds and their sycophants from trying to use the Lehmberg video to play partisan politics.
Would GWB have been elected president in 2000 if there had been a video of his arrest for DUI?
I doubt it.
Would GWB have been elected president in 2000 if there had been a video of his arrest for DUI?
There was a reenactment in Oliver Stone's "W" which came out in 2008. This probably enabled Obama to some extent. I recall seeing a much earlier reenactment (well before 2008, perhaps before 2004).
To be fair, Meade. What is kept out of the spotlight never directly hurts a politician. For example, Obama's transcripts.
Meade, at least admit that you are an Obama partisan now, unless you've changed your mind about what your wife wrote here. Also, circumstances suggest a certain sympathy for Democratic partisanship on your part, especially of the Austin, Texas flavor. I think I understand that, and don't blame you.
By mentioning GWB, my point is that people and politicians of both parties have been guilty of breaking the law when it comes to driving under the influence of alcohol.
Also, I reiterate AllenS's apples and oranges analogy upthread. There is a huge difference between what a candidate did and what an elected official does, even if they're the same person. Most people wouldn't take kindly to Obama getting stoned in the Oval Office or snorting a little blow with ValJar.
We've been here before with this particular DA's office:
The Travis County district attorney’s office has a tense history with Republican politicians in Texas and has been accused of politicization. Austin is a Democratic bastion in a solidly Republican state.
Lehmberg’s predecessor, Ronnie Earle, indicted then-Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) for allegedly misusing state resources when she was the state treasurer. The prosecution crumbled on the first day of trial. Earle also brought a case against then-House whip Tom DeLay (R), for violations of Texas campaign finance laws. The conviction was overturned.
But this time, I'm sure it's not political. Ha.
What do you think, chickelit — Did Rick Perry break the law in trying to get Lehmberg to resign.t?
@Meade: Nope. I base this on what I've read so far of Texas statute. I believe that Lehmberg just wants a perpwalk video and a mugshot of Perry. That will be enough for her and her herd of ilk.
Getting a DUI is not a good thing. But if you are in office and get shit faced drunk, get a DUI, plead guilty, you can't complain if the Governor loses confidence in you.
The suggestion he can't use his veto power and that would be a felony subject to many years in prison (in theory more than 100) is insane.
But that is how Democrat Drunks in Austin roll.
chickelit said...
I believe that Lehmberg just wants a perpwalk video and a mugshot of Perry. That will be enough for her and her herd of ilk.
I agree. Throughout her own video the night of her arrest, she repeatedly complains about the cops ruining her political career. She is conflating her own poor judgment getting sloshed and driving with malice by others. She's a DA but still babbles about the lack of probable cause of her original stop...e.g., the law she's no doubt prosecuted successfully multiple times against others.
Subsequently, because Perry asked her to step down from her ethics position, not as the podunk DA per se, she'd like some vengeance and doesn't mind using taxpayer money to seek it...which is exactly what she is doing.
Did I miss anything?
And THIS is what Texas Democrats think is a big Texas problem? Please.
FWIW, I am not a Gov. Perry fan...I don't care a lot whether he runs, but if I did, I'd prefer he didn't . . . so that gives me no motive to defend him, I think?
At any rate, it's very hard to see how the veto can be illegal -- provided there was no bribery or corruption involved: i.e., selling a veto -- or signature -- for some personal benefit. As Blog-- er, the Illinois governor pretty clearly did.
But if all he did was threaten a veto with no personal benefit accruing, I don't see how that's illegal.
Is there some section of Texas law the specifies illegitimate stated reasons for vetoing legislation?
So everybody shut up when the Priest came in?
You've probably seen that before, Fr. Martin.
"Of course, that doesn't stop dickweeds and their sycophants from trying to use the Lehmberg video to play partisan politics."
Who are you talking about.
He's talking about himself.
Yes, he is...can we get an "Amen?"
Lem said...
That's why one of the Castros twitted asking for the resignation of Perry.
Which one...Raul or Fidel?
Amen!
Even Axelrod thinks it is sketchy!
Deborah, do you think that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is being coerced to step down from the Supreme Court?
It sure sounds like it. You believe that would be wrong, right?
Here's some more nonsense of the first order:
... he can't use the monies under his control to coerce a public official.
Wrong. He can only NOT do that IF it benefits him personally and financially. Simply refusing to fund something, by legal veto, without personal gain, is ordinary politics and is done daily in Congress. Fact is..., that is precisely how the Vietnam War ended...Congress cut off the money. Kissinger's piss ant meddling didn't result in "peace" and never could. Ask any original RVN Vietnamese today (or the late Gen Vo Nugyen Giap for that matter, in his memoirs)...go ahead, if you don't know any I can give you some names of the one I still still do.
Where do you get these revisionist ideas?
Bush's DUI was brought up during his run for governor. With the exception of Baptists (most of them Democrats when you ask), Texans don't get really bothered by drinking. The issue isn't Lehmberg being drunk. The issue was her attempt to coerce the deputies to free her because of her political position. Perhaps Meade can point to where George W Bush used his political position in 1976 to coerce law enforcement.
And in case people still don't think this is about the DA's abuse of power. Note that David Dewhurst was caught on tape trying to coerce deputies to release a family member from jail. He didn't resign, although many thought he should. Failing to resign, he was given primary challengers. First Ted Cruz beat him. Most recently, Dan Patrick beat him.
Perry using a veto to defund a special task force led by an unethical politician is exactly a proper use of his authority. The Travis County DA's office has a long history of prosecutorial abuse, and while they've been allowed to get away with it; abusing deputies that properly performed their job is a step too far.
Post a Comment