So if I understand you right DC, the indictment of Perry was political but Perry trying to push the DA so he can appoint someone was professional and he was acting in the interest of the people of Tx. Are you even following what you are arguing here. I'm not going so far as to say the indictment was not politically motivated, but Perry's actions look just as politically motivated as the indictment does.
I think Perry's move was political, too, but within his rights. Lots of things that executives (e.g. presidents, governors) do is political. There still is zero evidence of a quid pro quo - a benefit he gained personally from wanting her gone. For example, Obama keeps deferring the keystone pipeline decision because it should be done for jobs, but it would piss off his base and hurt democrats in mid-term elections.
Well I know you have been following this thread, I think you just choose to not see one side and completely argue the other side: Travis County includes Austin, the state capital, DA's office controls a Public Integrity Unit that investigates alleged ethical breaches by state-level politicians. Among other things, that unit investigated the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, which is accused of improperly distributing grant money — including some grant money that was given to people with close ties to Governor Perry. * * * Lehmberg has refused to step down from her role as District Attorney. According to the Observer, this is because she does not want Perry to have the opportunity to replace her with a Republican.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Undeterred by indictment, Texas Gov. Rick Perry intends to travel to three major 2016 primary states during the next two weeks even as he faces the prospects of a highly unpresidential booking on felony charges. Good for Perry . . . bad for the republican party.
I've read that. If she resigned, the PIU would have received $7.5M in funding and could have investigated the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. If Perry appoints a republican and the new DA election is in November, where's the beef?
The beef? Perry is trying take out a democrat and put in a republican who will head a division that is looking into improper distributing grant money to Perry who then gets to run as the incumbent. You can choose to ignore all that while bitching and whining about the indictment being dirty politics, but to characterize only one side as having evidence of dirty politics is a terrible analysis.
I think the bitching and whining is that opposing Perry. This guy is as partisan a democrat as there is. [TWEET]500634429367533568[/TWEET] There is no "demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit." He was willing to fully fund it.
I know you have quoted this guy at least 3 times by now. It's one opinion that is qualified saying unless there is evidence, which he doesn't know because he didn't interview 40 people and read hundreds of pages, then the indictment is sketchy. Great, a possible sketchy indictment, happens all the time. Also you fail to recognize how Perry's action that lead to the indictment could be viewed as improper and keep quoting this guy. I don't read anywhere where he says Perry acted professionally when trying to get the DA to resign. His comments are simply of the indictment, he is not endorsing Perry's actions as governor as you are doing.
Maybe he committed murder! Maybe there's evidence he's from mars. Come on now. The indictment is sketchy because it's a REACH.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/rick-perry-indictment-is-unbelievably-ridiculous.html This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous They say a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and this always seemed like hyperbole, until Friday night a Texas grand jury announced an indictment of governor Rick Perry. ... The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost any kind of political conflict could be defined as a “misuse” of power or “coercion” of one’s opponents. To describe the indictment as “frivolous” gives it far more credence than it deserves. Perry may not be much smarter than a ham sandwich, but he is exactly as guilty as one.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/strange-case-rick-perry Perry vetoed her office’s budget when she wouldn’t resign while sitting in jail—prosecuting while incarcerated is no crime in Texas—or after getting out, either. The governor may not have been a statesman about it; he rarely is, as his ugly hysterics about migrant children in the past months have demonstrated. And it must be hard to govern Texas from the Iowa State Fair, where, on Tuesday, he gave a speech at the Des Moines Register‘s Soapbox. According to the paper, “When the Register’s moderator thanked him as he came off the stage, Perry said: ‘You’re welcome. I’m awesome!’ ” But Perry, in this case, seems to have been the lesser absurdist.
The indictment has the appearance of being politically motivated and trying to influence voters. Perry's actions were that of being a bully and trying to circumvent the voters. It's Texas and dirty politics is the backdrop to this whole situation. Surprised you only see one side
No I saw that. Then say there is no evidence that Perry had anything to gain by being able to appoint the person in charge of a unit investigating if he he got improper funding and being the incumbent in the next election. You also said Perry was acting professionally and for the people of Tx . . . which is where we need omg to talk about some bridges for you to buy. And I know, every time we start talking about Perry's actions you switch it over to the indictment . . .
http://online.wsj.com/articles/texas-chainsaw-prosecution-1408318131 REVIEW & OUTLOOK Texas Chainsaw Prosecution Criminalizing politics hits a new low with the Rick Perry indictment. Prosecutorial abuse for partisan purposes is common these days, and the latest display is taking place in the all-too-familiar venue of Austin, Texas. On Friday a Travis County prosecutor indicted Governor Rick Perry for the high crime of exercising his constitutional right to free speech and his legal power to veto legislation. Lest you think we oversimplify, read the two-count indictment. It's all of two pages. It charges Mr. Perry with abusing his office by "threatening to veto legislation that had been approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to provide funding for the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney's office unless Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg resigned from her official position as elected District Attorney." Yes, that's all they've got. Usually when prosecutors want to use the criminal statutes to cripple a political opponent, they come up with at least some claims of personal or political venality. In this case the D.A.'s office is trying to criminalize the normal process of constitutional government. The background facts don't make the case any more compelling. In 2013 police found Travis D.A. Lehmberg drunk in her car with a blood alcohol level of 0.23, or nearly three times the legal limit. A video made at the time shows her ranting against and abusing the police attempting to book her. The Democrat eventually did jail time. Mr. Perry saw a political opening and said he would veto $7.5 million in funds for Ms. Lehmberg's Public Integrity Unit unless she resigned. He argued, plausibly enough, that a prosecutor who breaks the law and abuses law enforcement shouldn't judge the "public integrity" of others in government. Ms. Lehmberg refused to step down, and Mr. Perry used his line-item veto to strike the appropriation. You can disagree with his decision, as many in the media and politics did, but that is a political dispute. Even if Mr. Perry was motivated by political animus toward the public-integrity unit, which has a history of politicized prosecutions, so what? A Texas Governor under the state Constitution has wide veto power. The legislature lacked the votes to override the veto. The indictment's absurdity is also underscored by its claim that Mr. Perry "knowingly misused government property," referring to the $7.5 million in appropriated funds. The relevant Texas statute on misuse of public property requires "custody" of the property. Mr. Perry never had control over the $7.5 million before or after his veto. It was simply unspent public money. As for the charge that he tried to coerce Ms. Lehmberg, Mr. Perry was exercising his First Amendment right to speak his mind about a public spending decision. This is what politicians are elected to do. The indictment and its interpretation of Texas law thus violate the Governor's First Amendment right to free political speech. Democrats who are defending the indictment claim that political revenge isn't a motive because Ms. Lehmberg recused herself and the charges were brought by a grand jury convened by special prosecutor Michael McCrum. But the tactic of using a special prosecutor to disguise political motives is common. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm did the same to put a patina of respectability on his secret probe of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. The larger political context is that the Travis County D.A.'s office is one of the last redoubts of liberal Democratic governance in conservative Texas, and it has a history of partisan prosecutions that fail in court. In 1994 Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was acquitted shortly after her trial began for misusing her former office as Texas treasurer. And in 2013 a Texas appeals court overturned the campaign-finance conviction of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Both Republicans endured enormous personal expense and no small amount of anxiety that they could have gone to jail on false charges. Mr. Perry has denounced the prosecution as politically motivated, and he too is likely to be vindicated. But the indictment will still do political harm because it comes when he is attempting to re-emerge as a potential GOP candidate for President after his failure in 2012. Until the indictment is tossed, it will hang over his candidacy and complicate the task of raising campaign money. Because the indictment has already been issued, Mr. Perry cannot file a federal civil-rights countersuit against the Texas prosecutors in their official capacities as two targets of the Wisconsin probe have against their prosecutors. But he can still file such a civil-rights action against Mr. McCrum and other prosecutors in their personal capacities. He should consider doing so. Too many prosecutors figure they have nothing to lose in bringing even frivolous corruption charges against politicians because the public won't remember if they fail. Think of the Justice Department prosecutors who cost Alaska Senator Ted Stevens his Senate seat in 2008 by withholding exculpatory evidence. Targeting the property and personal savings of prosecutors might start to deter some of this abusive behavior.
Axelrod wants Rick Perry to be able to run for President. Having Perry knocked out of the race is not in the Democrats best interest. barfo
Looking into what was being investigated re Cancer Prevention and Research Institute is eye opening. The charge is that $11M of $3B total was granted to a legit research organization without being properly vetted. There's no ties between the recipient of the funds and any of Perry's friends or Perry himself. Oh my! http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...d-over-11-million-texas-cancer-fund-grant.ece
No ties, except that the major investor in the company that got the $11M is a major campaign donor to Rick Perry. barfo
