Politics Perry Indictment

Rosemary Lemberg's actions were reprehensible and she tarnished the integrity of her office. Even though she said that she would not resign, she said she would not seek re-election. Had she resigned, then Perry would appoint the new Travis County DA. That person would be in charge of investigating him and his involvement in the cancer institute fund scandal. So, you can see added motive for pressuring her out of office than only moral integrity.

Rick Perry is stupidly going to run for President again and he can't have a cancer money misappropriation scandal over his head!

 

I tried to ignore this story because it seemed so obviously political....and it is but perhaps not in the way people think. I found this article to be spot on....

"1) The case is about politics. Within hours of the indictment by a Travis County grand jury, Perry denounced it a partisan attack by political enemies. When he turned himself in for booking Tuesday, the governor cast himself a victim of retribution for vetoing funding for a Democratic district attorney.

The Travis County district attorney is not prosecuting Perry. The state district judge in the case is a Republican appointed by George W. Bush when he was governor. The judge selected San Antonio lawyer Mike McCrum as the special prosecutor in the case. McCrum served as a federal prosecutor in the administration of President George H.W. Bush and was supported by Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison as a potential U.S. attorney candidate.

2) Perry punished a district attorney for drunken driving. Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was convicted last year of driving while intoxicated. A video of her post-arrest tirade in jail in which she had to be restrained by officers has been widely distributed, including by Perry’s federal political committee, RickPAC.

As Christy Hoppe reports today, when two other district attorneys faced the same charges under similar circumstances, Perry did nothing. One involved a Kaufman County district attorney arrested in 2009 after driving the wrong way down a street and hitting another car. It was his second conviction for DWI. The other was a Swisher County district attorney convicted and jailed after a family called police to report him swerving into oncoming traffic and running off the road.

One difference is that Perry had leverage over Lehmberg, whose office contains the state-funded Public Integrity Unit. Another difference, Lehmberg is a Democrat. The other two district attorneys were Republicans.

3) The case is about a veto. As Perry and his lawyers have said, governors have the right to issue a veto for virtually any reason they want. The indictment is about an alleged abuse of power. It contends Perry threatened to veto funds in an unsuccessful effort to muscle a duly elected county officials from office.

One way to think about the prosecution: It’s perfectly legal to veto something. And it’s perfectly legal to demand that an elected official you don’t like should resign. But it might be illegal to link the two.

For example, it’s legal to make a campaign contribution. And it’s legal to ask somebody to do something. But it’s illegal to tie one to the other. One area apparently explored by the grand jury was whether there were post-veto discussions in which the issue was no longer a veto but whether Perry’s side considered paying state money to restore funding if Lehmberg would leave or take another job.

4) The district attorney was investigating insider dealing in a Perry program. At the time of the veto, the district attorney’s public integrity unit, which investigates public corruption, was looking into questions about Perry’s signature Texas Cancer Research and Prevention Institute. A number of big Republican donors were investors in projects that got state money. At least one Perry political contributor got millions of dollars in taxpayer money without proper review.

If Lehmberg resigned, Perry would have appointed her replacement.

5) The indictment was an effort to damage Perry’s 2016 presidential hopes. After his disastrous 2012 bid crystallized by a nationally televised “oops” moment in which he couldn’t remember the three federal agencies he promised to abolish, Perry has sought to rehabilitate his political image. He’s studied issues, brought in experts on issues both domestic and foreign. He’s traveled extensively talking to voters, especially in the early GOP nominating states of Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.

The prospects of every story about him for months including the word indictment can’t be helpful. But there’s another school of political thought. Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post suggests the whole episode might actually help Perry fire up the Republican voters he needs.

“Rather than play the victim as too many conservatives do when treated unfairly by the media or opponents, Perry is rising to the occasion. Coupled with his attacks on the president for inaction on immigration and dispatch of national guardsman to the border, Perry is stepping out at the Republican willing — and able — to take on liberal incompetence and abuse. This surely will be his 2016 theme if he runs for president.”

In the end, a jury might have to decide whether Perry is guilty of a crime or of just good old-fashioned, hardball politics. Whatever they decide, they’ll likely have more than just the conventional wisdom to guide them."
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews....ry-indictment-story-might-be-incomplete.html/


Politics, American style. Perry fell off the tightrope, that's all.

 

Isn't a program's viability, and therefore it's funding, contingent on it being properly run?

 

Again, what's at question here is Perry's authority to make that determination when considering a veto. From vball's post above:

 

That is the only crime here as they all do this shit.

 

For a grand jury to return an indictment there should be some strong evidence to prove blackmail and coercion, not just a casual relationship between the two. Or, there is more that one of this woman on the jury:

http://mediatrackers.org/national/2...ve-democratic-party-delegate-jury-proceedings

 

Red just about every veto threat is for political reasons. He did not abuse his power as he has the right under Texas law to veto for ANY reason (as has been reported in many places NOT named Fox). He also has the right to threaten veto.
Those are the reason executives are given veto power to exercise political will. The DA criminalized a political act.
As to the witch hunt the DA in Austin has tried to do similar several time before. I heard them cited this morning on MSNBC and all have been tossed.
As a popular saying notes; "A DA can get a grand jury to indict a sandwich". There is a reason for that it is true. I sat on grand juries and have seen them in action.
I agree there should be more accountability in public office...the DA should be investigated for his abuse of power.
Finally FYI I am no Perry fan either. He is a blowhard and opportunist...however he should be no more harassed by frivolous partisans than the president should be sued for his use of executive privilege.