Rick Perry indicted
Rick Perry becomes the latest in a long line of Republicans who have been the target of malicious prosecution for political reasons: Scott Walker, Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens. He won’t be the last.
It is no accident whatsoever that it was a Travis County grand jury that indicted Perry on two felony counts for abuse of power. Travis County is essentially Austin, the Berkeley of Texas, a county with a history of such anti-Republican political indictments. As Bryan Preston says:
This indictment is political. Every bit as political as the kangaroo court charges that former District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, lodged against numerous Republicans over the years ”” both because that office is politicized, and Travis County is full of guttersnipes and fools.
But that doesn’t mean that the charges will get thrown out. The legal jeopardy to Perry is quite real.
Earle got former Rep. Tom Delay, Republican, convicted on crimes that were not even committed in Travis County, and were not even crimes at the time they were supposedly committed.
Those convictions were eventually thrown out, but not before Earle had totally destroyed Delay’s career and tainted the entire Republican Party ”” which was the goal all along.
Anyone who doesn’t think Democrats play tough, and dirty, is a fool.
Oddly enough, however, this indictment has been questioned by none other than David Axelrod, not known for his Republican-friendly nature:
“Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy,” Axelrod tweeted.
Alexrod joined Texas’ junior Sen. Ted Cruz on Saturday in giving his support to Perry, while other high-profile lawmakers have largely remained silent on the politically-charge issue.
I highly doubt that Axelrod has suddenly become objective and non-partisan. So his criticism of the charges indicates to me that he thinks there might be some backlash, especially considering the videotape of DA Rosemary Lehmberg, the woman in question who would not resign despite her drunk driving incident and especially her questionable and threatening behavior afterward.
“Anyone who doesn’t think Democrats play tough, and dirty, is a fool.”
Unfortunately that means way too many Republicans. They don’t seem to have a clue who they’re reaching across the aisle to work with.
KLSmith:
They don’t call Republicans “the stupid party” for nothing.
If anyone wants to know what an abuse of power looks like, this indictment is it.
Seriously, how many vetoes has Obama threatened without getting indicted?
How could this woman have any credibility prosecuting anyone else for a DWI case, or any other for that matter? It’s a bit like having Rosie O’Donnell in your metallurgy faculty.
It is all filthy politics, true, unfair and unjust, most of all a wild abuse of discretion.
BUT the coercion and extortion statutes are literally – – literally – – violated in politics and law enforcement all the time. This is one of the unrecognized, widespread aspects of corruption which affects and infects America.
Perry was ill advised to try to induce the DA’s resignation by threatening to cut off funds in a way which affected her, even broadly. He was, literally legally, coercing her.
There is no “political” exception to the law; quite the contrary.
He is not a bright man. Everyone knows when a politician falsely says he is doing something for legitimate reasons when he is not. It is part of the deeper tedious baloney of politics.
But the false face is presented precisely to avoid liability for the actual coercion and extortion taking place.
What Perry was alleged to have done was coercion, but more-so it was dumb, allowing another political idiot to do something idiotic.
What’s missing here is the simple truth that every piece of the political filth in every State should be indicted.
After, of course, they’ve been lynched.
To be upset that it’s selectively applied to the Texas blowhard first is foolish, it needs to be more universally applied.
KLSmith:
It’s in our nature to err on the side of tolerance and compromise. I think the limits of this good nature is where reaching across creates moral hazards.
Tonawanda:
Managing funds is fiscal prudence and an integral aspect of executive responsibility. However, corporate politics are not civil politics, where democratic leverage is characteristic of its strengths and failures.
n.n. @ 8:46 – – Perry was inducing the DA to resign by threatening something he could do using his power as a public servant, withhold funds which would affect her or a third party.
That is not democratic leverage, regardless of the fact that it takes place every day.
The problem is that otherwise illegal coercion takes place every day in disguise, mostly against average citizens, and mostly corruptly.
The sad truth is that Perry was truthful. In other words, dumb.
He should have used his position to constantly campaign for the DA’s well deserved resignation.
He stupidly did not. He (apparently) legally coerced.
Read Patterico.com , Tonawanda.
Perry was neither stupid, nor outside the law.
Does anyone think Perry would have been indicted in any other jurisdiction in Texas? As one pundit, I’m not sure who, said, “A Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich.” In other words, it doesn’t take much in the way of evidence to get that indictment. Ronnie Earle’s track record certainly shows that. Earle also indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R Senator, Texas) three times – all unsuccessfully. What a thug!
Democrat operatives will begin describing Perry as an indicted criminal even if he is not convicted. That’s the way they play the game – down and dirty. They are thugs.
John Wiley Price, Dallas County Commissioner is now under an 11 count Federal indictment for fraud and money-laundering.
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/john-wiley-price-breakdown/
Texas Democrats are all crooked.
It is easy to spot the concern trolls in this arguement. They’re the ones referring to Governor Perry as “stupid”, while at the same time proving by their own statements that they themselves are ignorant of the facts and the law of the case. If Perry is stupid but right, what does that make y’all?
I’ve read where Perry is accused of being guilty of coercion by tying his veto to Lehmberg not resigning. Imagine the progressive hue and cry if Lehmberg were a Republican and Perry did nothing at all.
——
Okay, now that’s funny.
“They don’t seem to have a clue who they’re reaching across the aisle to work with.”
They’d rather reach across to their traditional allies and marriage partners, than touch the likes of Sarah Palin. That’s how they are.
Kas @ 10:32
I have read Patterico and Volokh and others. I do not agree with their analyses, although I very much want to make clear that reasonable people can disagree.
I also want to make clear that I am assuming facts which may not be true, or which I misunderstand, or which I have not completely considered, and if that is true I hope to learn differently.
I think this is what Perry’s position was: I will veto funding of the DA’s ethics unit if the DA does not resign because she was convicted of drunk driving.
If she does resign, I will not veto those funds.
The first thing to notice is the irrelevance of Perry’s reason for the veto to the purpose of the funding. Calling for a DA’s resignation for drunk driving is reasonable. Vetoing funds for an ethics unit in her office if she does not resign because she was convicted of drunk driving is unreasonable and irrelevant. That is the stupid part.
Although there are a half dozen subsidiary legal questions, the gist is the relationship between the threat and the call for resignation. Maybe the facts will show otherwise, but it seems as if the sole purpose of the threat was to induce the resignation.
Ironically, if this had been communicated privately, maybe folks would see more clearly the wrongness, the underhanded, across the line behavior which is being dismissed as mere politics.
Perry’s best defense (as the facts seem to be) is the First Amendment. The Texas case cited by Volokh was precisely based on the First Amendment.
In other words (and I am simplifying) the court was saying that all the elements of coercion were met, but the threat element was protected free speech, protected public blustering by a public figure against another public figure.
That court may be right, but I am not bowled over by the reasoning (which is another topic – – but in a word, superficial).
My bias is against Perry, I will admit that. The glasses, which I sort of liked, have come to look phony to me, especially in conjunction with the bad dye job. But more-so because of stuff like this, which shows to me he is not that bright, as eminently likeable as he is. As a person he appeals to me a lot (especially after watching the Roger Simon video). I think I would love to have a beer with Perry, I just do not want to him to represent me against the Left.
Coercion is an anticipatory offense, a crime which punishes people for what they intend (for instance) and not what they have done. In that respect it is like solicitation, where the mere asking is enough (again, simplified).
The bigger discussion which this ought to spawn but will not, is the wide-spread common use of coercion and extortion (colloquially understood) throughout all of American politics, used against common citizens to deprive them of their rights.
I may very well be wrong, but the defense of Perry on free speech grounds does not quite match up to the level of outrage most people understandably feel.
The defense of Perry on abuse of discretion grounds is strictly a subjective, political, non-legal argument, although objectively it is the strongest intellectually.
The chief defense, that the DA is an obnoxious drunk, is irrelevant but highly entertaining, and her just desserts for being a malicious jackass.
This post is disjointed, please forgive.
Tonawanda has lost it.
It’s called “lawfare” and Dems and environazis and atheists use it.
I hope T can recover.
DC @ 11:35AM – –
I understand the motives involved and find them despicable, hateful and divisive, like everything else done by the Left.
I hope my legal understanding is not correct. It certainly would not be the first time.
What I am going to say is hindsight, but if I were advising Perry I would have told him NOT to tie the DA’s resignation to the funding, if only as a matter of prudence and choosing better methods.
I will continue reading about the legal arguments involved and try to find out what I am not getting. I get that it is lawfare and politics, I just don’t get how that necessarily undermines the legality of count two in the indictment.
In the meanwhile, I will go to the Shady Rest to recuperate and listen to live music, knowing what I have opined is categorically inconsequential except for my standing, which does mean something to me.
It is all about process, not legality. Process: the grand jury and a “special” prosecutor indicting another GOP ham sandwich. Twisting words, intents, and laws to suit process is not legality; neither is legality a correct deferral to bad laws.
Mz. DWI Lehmberg forgot to be…eerrrr…how to say this ya know sensitively…oh, yeah..Be Black. That way, the Useless-Feckless Holder, with the aid of a current vacationer in the Vineyard, could aid her victimized self. So Sorry, Ugly White Girl.
NeoConScum,
While what you say is true about Lehmberg being the wrong pigmentation, she is a self-proclaimed lesbian. I bet she thought that alone would make her bullet proof.
I’m sorry to say that my oldest son and his wife are among the Austin liberals many of whom are a bunch of aging neo-hippies.
Fortunately, I live in a VERY conservative county near Austin so I don’t have to suffer their knee jerk liberalism much.
I love my son and his wife but we have learned not to talk politics at the dinner table.
The Left is at war. Their enemies, though, are at a picnic or shopping at a mall. Great
Y @ 5:02PM – – The Left is at war. Their enemies, though, are at a picnic or shopping at a mall. Great
This is exactly true. This is the reality. This is the puzzle and the frustration.
We are Germans who know and are disgusted by what Hitler is about. That is where we are.
There is no reason why the Left should not feel emboldened and arrogant. The reasons have been repeated endlessly on this site and others: total control of the bureaucracy, the education system, ruthless political exploitation of charitable organizations, the soviet media, the degradation of popular culture by the Left, and much more.
And we have not only epicene Republicans, but also mainline “conservative” and non-Left commentators on our side who will not even consider reality.
Just as an example, they will not even consider the fact that BO is a red diaper baby who never renounced his marxist loyalty, under every biographical circumstance indicating he never renounced his marxist loyalty.
I like to water and examine my tomato plants and feed my goldfish. I am hanging on to the free, peaceful, beloved human existence America gave me being born when I was in America.
There are probably not many food stamp recipients (to pull an example) who feel the same way. Or social security disability recipients. My guess is that millions upon millions (not all, not all) of these folks feel resentful for not getting more.
The non-Left is really unfocussed, but don’t ask me how they can get focused. I try to ignore the question in my mind because I do not have a clue, and I am busy having a peaceful conversation on my back deck while I can.
An enormous amount of energy was wasted on Richard Nixon, who was unfairly and unjustly maligned. The energy was wasted almost exclusively by “conservatives” (NOT “liberal” Republicans) who had no affinity for Nixon but who reacted instinctively (and nobly) to the hatred of the Left.
So too, the non-Left today wastes energy by defending the stupid. Are we victims of a double standard? Welcome to the totalitarian society we are fast becoming, where resistance is literally futile.
The brilliant Steyn has consistently and eloquently articulated what passive serfs we have become, all hail the local police/regulatory state. There is almost no governmental absurdity we will not put up with, and if it occurs to anyone to do so, we quickly realize the futility and the downside.
Rush is not quite as forthcoming on the question of citizen acquiescence, but he brilliantly explicates the underlying circumstances.
Let me see, who else is there?
It would be wonderful to rally around, but Palin has been successfully ostracized, and that is just reality. It is not her fault. She is doing wonderfully, considering.
The whole circumstance requires an historical re-think, but even the folks who are capable of getting it don’t.
An historical re-think if it happens will be providential, and I pray, pray, pray it happens.
In the meanwhile I feed my goldfish.
You can debate the legal issues; you can even think Perry is guilty of something (a point that most of the prominent legal minds disagree with). But you are missing the point:
This is a political attack, and the only way to “win” is by political counter-attack. I agree with neo-neocon: *that* is what worries David Axelrod.
Lehmberg IS NOT a sympathetic figure. Quite apart from the legal wrangling (which I believe Perry will win), the political narrative is very easy for Republicans to win as well.
Keep hammering on the point that Lehmberg was corrupt and a drunkard; both of which are on tape for everyone to see with their own eyes. Keep repeating that Perry was trying to remove a corrupt official.
With that as the narrative, Dems will look like the party trying to prop up criminals…which of course, they are. Sorry to say, but all the educated analysis counts for NOTHING: it’s what the LIVs think that counts.
Handled with even a minimum of skill, this will become a negative for Democrats nationwide.
Well, I was spectacularly wrong. When I went to Ace this AM the site highlighted Patterico’s pointing to an exception to the Texas coercion statute which does make count two of the indictment baseless.
I had read Patterico and somehow did not see this. I cannot explain why, but I did not.
Plus, and this may have been additional sloppiness on my part, I thought Volokh had stated that the exception was enacted in the wake of the case he cites, but rescinded. That is why Volokh stated (contingently) that he thought the case was binding precedent. There was no reason to cite the case if the statutory exception existed.
Part of my reasoning was that if the statutory exception was rescinded, all the more reason why the main coercion statute was applicable to Perry.
So, it looks like I was the stupid one, which actually is a good thing. Now I can catch up with everyone else: count two is absolutely baseless and corrupt itself.
Not that it matters, mea embarrassing culpa.
This is from April but a decent overview. http://www.texasobserver.org/everything-wanted-know-rick-perrys-new-scandal/
@Tonawanda,
We’re glad that you’re back with the rest of the team! 🙂