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.
Yeah, I think you're right. That, and the fact that there happens to be some pretty serious shit in the news lately (ISIS, Ferguson) has overshadowed this debacle.
Douche is definitely an appropriate term for him. If these charges prove true, the level of sheer stupidity to do something like this and think he'd get away with it is mind-boggling. The guy even threatened retribution against those who are going after him during a recent press conference.
The thread topic is about Rick Perry, not pink tutus. Given your propensity for demanding that people maintain rigid adherence to the thread topic, I shouldn't have to make the same request of you. Oh wait, you only believe in conservative principles some of the time and therefore have no conservative principles. Of course you would then turn around and violate whatever standards to which you hold others.
So, partisan bullshit, or legitimate beef? What say you, Push?
The New York Times: "overzealous prosecution." Perry had "good reason" to seek her dismissal:
"Ms. Lehmberg was arrested in April 2013 for driving with a blood alcohol level of more than three times the legal limit, and she verbally abused the officers who found her with an open bottle of vodka. She ranted and raved at the local jail, threatening sheriff's deputies, and she had to be restrained in a chair with a hood over her head. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail."
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.'"
If this spin master thinks it is a bad move, you know it is a bad move. It'd be like Justin Amash supporting an Obama position, you'd have to look at the Obama position and think "welp looks like he got this one right."
Didn't something similar to this just happen?? A governor created an investigative committee or something of the sort, then immediately put rules in place that forbid it from investigating his office.. Tried google but the fu is week today. Seems like I remember hearing that but cant remember what state.
Definitely politically motivated sham job. I wasn't very up on the case until recently and I am not particularly fond of Perry (rubs me the wrong way much like he does beans), but this is pretty cut and dry to me.
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.
I didn't come to my initial conclusion based on the consensus of the liberal pundit community. Why would I? Their opinion does not have bearing on the facts of the case. This isn't anything close to a question of my intellectual honesty. It's a question of the facts that I used to evaluate the situation.
The facts that I was working with at the time were stated. He threatened a line-item veto of the budget of the person investigating him. To me, that looks suspicious on the face of it. After further investigation, it appears that the move is politically-motivated. It also is clear that not all of the facts are in yet. It would be foolhardy to say with certainty that this is entirely politically-motivated. Perhaps it's a little of both, with a much larger helping of the political kind rather than the criminal kind. Who knows? But what do the opinions of a bunch of liberal pundits, most of whom I don't pay much attention to anyways since I am not a liberal despite popular opinion to the contrary, have to do with the facts of the case?
And quite frankly, you and others are usually quick to dismiss most things from liberal sources strictly on the basis of their liberality. Why do they suddenly fortify your argument instead of detract from it?