[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Nothing? Really?
So, is this partisan bullshit or did Perry overstep the boundaries of good taste and legitimately abuse his power in a criminal manner?
I would side with the latter. From what I can tell, it appears that the funds Perry was threatening to veto were the cash being used by the DA in question to investigate fraudulent awardings of cancer research grants. Apparently, Perry’s political donors received the overwhelming majority of these grants and the DA was investigating this. So Perry essentially threatened to veto the budget for the office that was investigating him for possibly fraudulent activities.
And I’m not buying the whole “alcoholic in need” bullshit from Perry, either. It’s especially shameful for him to pull that card given that he is an active member of a 12-step program. Where was his concern and compassion for his fellow alcoholic when two previous DA’s were arrested for drunk driving?
And I also don’t buy the partisan angle for the simple fact that there aren’t any Democrats involved in the indictment process. The special prosecutor is a Republican, he was appointed by a Republican, who was appointed by a judge whom Perry appointed.[/quote]
Let’s review the facts:
-
Commode-hugging drunk who happens to be a local Distract Attorney gets popped for DWI, demands special favors from police, threatens retaliation from her office. She gets convicted by her own office, jailed, and disbarred, but refuses to leave her post of “Public Accountability Office.”
-
Gov. Perry says a corrupt commode-hugging drunk should not be in charge of he Public Accountability Office and states he will veto funding if such a corrupt person remains at the post.
-
True to his word, Gov. Perry vetoes funding.
-
Fast forward, corrupt commode-hugging (and now disbarred) drunk files bogus charges against Perry in retaliation and a transparent attempt to harm his chances to run for President. (Something her office has done twice before to harm effective Republicans: once against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchenson and against Congressman Tom Delay — both of which were ultimately disposed of as frivolous charges and her office sanctioned.)
So, what do noted liberals think about this kind of transparent abuse of power by a prosecutor:
I’ll start with my former law school professor, Alan Dershowitz:
“‘This is another example of the criminalization of party differences.’ Dershowitz said. ‘This idea of an indictment is an extremely dangerous trend in America, whether directed at [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay or [former President] Bill Clinton.’ . … . .‘Everybody, liberal or conservative, should stand against this indictment,’ Dershowitz said. ‘If you don’t like how Rick Perry uses his office, don’t vote for him.’”
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/dershowitz_rick_perrys_indictment_is_an_example_of_criminalization_of_party
Former Obama spokesman David Axelrod:
“Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy.”
Johnathon Chait (New York mag):
“This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous”
And even the NY Times editorial board says this is absurd:
“The indictment handed up against him on Friday – given the facts so far – appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.”
When you’ve lost the NY Times Editorial Board — who are so progressive they supported Hitler and Stalin back in the day, mind you — you’re hopeless.
[/quote]
I’m not defending the DA’s behavior. I personally feel that anyone caught driving drunk should be charged with a felony carrying a minimum 10-year sentence and a permanent revocation of their driver’s license.
So the truth is that she should never have been in this position to begin with. And if she committed any abuse of power while under the influence, or threatened the use thereof, she should be subject to criminal charges. So she has two strikes against her in terms of her job security, and she shouldn’t get any strikes before she’s out.
However, it appears that Perry might have used extralegal means to remove her. I don’t entirely trust the notion that Perry was acting purely out of concern for the integrity of the DA’s office. I don’t necessarily condemn his actions, nor did I ever in my initial posts. I don’t have enough information to make a quality judgment on his actions because I don’t know the extent of what he actually did. I’m not sure if the above editorials do, either. Regardless, he is under indictment.
But this almost reminds of the argument I’ve made about Lincoln and the “Constitutionality” of some his moves during and prior to the Civil War. Denying people the most basic of freedoms, the freedom to not literally be property, is far more egregious than violating the Constitution that is supposed to protect that basic freedom for all men.
I’m just not sure that Perry’s potentially illegal methods are outweighed by the DA’s reprehensible behavior. If his actions prove to be without criminality, fine. But if they do prove criminal, then I think the issue is a question of whether or not his actions are justifiable in light of the DA’s unimpeachably illegal behavior on more than one occasion.
