Posted on 08/25/2014 8:38:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
The country is reeling - especially within the political realm - over the gross abuse of power demonstrated in the indictment of popular Texas Governor Rick Perry. The whole scenario is so bizarre it is almost laughable. There is plenty of corruption in government, but usually it is the garden variety kind, like theft, lying, nepotism, etc., which is corrected with prosecution. This rises to a more disturbing level, because it is the prosecutor who is corrupt. How do you fix that?
Rooting out corrupt Democrat lawyers is more difficult than prosecuting regular Americans, due to the incestuous relationship between state bar associations and judges. They look out for their own and protect them, while targeting conservative attorneys. No judge or prosecutor in Texas will want to prosecute Travis District County Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, because of the risk of retaliation by her as a powerful public prosecutor. In her position, she has connections and influence with the Texas Bar and the Bar’s attorney discipline judge.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted in the same Texas county in 2005 for allegedly conspiring to break election laws. He was convicted in 2011, and only after appealing was he eventually acquitted in 2013, eight long years later. He warned Perry last week about the biased legal system, “You better take this seriously,” he said. “All of the judges are Democrats. And we polled 300 jurors, and the best I got was a Green Peace activist.”
The targeting of conservatives through the left-leaning legal system is taking place all across the country. Brett Kimberlin, a radical activist who was convicted for bombings in Indiana in the 1970s, is suing several prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Ali Akbar and Robert Stacey McCain. Because he’s demanding $1 million, they have been forced to set up a defense fund and hire attorneys.
Conservative lawyers are at even more risk of being targeted, because the liberal state bar associations can also come after them. Time and time again, conservative prosecutors who have attempted to root out wrongdoing by the left, including corruption by judges, have been targeted by both state bars and judges. Former Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline had his license to practice law revoked after he tried to prosecute abortion clinics for child rape and illegal partial-birth and late-term abortions. Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was disbarred after he went after judges who were trying to thwart his enforcement of illegal immigration laws (disclaimer).
Sadly, a clever, dishonest prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich.” The indictment of Governor Perry all started out of political revenge. Lehmberg was arrested for a DUI in April 2013, and a blood test revealed she was intoxicated at an astonishing three times the legal limit, with a .239 BAC. She was recorded on video exhibiting disorderly conduct toward the police, and had to be put in restraints. She pled guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail.
Perry rightfully called for her resignation, but she refused. Consequently, when it came time for Perry to sign off on a $7.5 million budget for her Public Integrity Unit – which had a history of targeting Republicans – he line-item vetoed it, which he was authorized to do under the Texas Constitution. Lehmberg convinced a Texas grand jury to indict Perry for the veto on two felony counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. The special prosecutor who handled the case, Michael McCrum, is a top attorney who would have little difficulty indicting a ham sandwich.
Even the left has been critical of the indictment. The New York Times, no friend of Perry, penned an editorial saying, “...bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.” Greta Van Susteren, one of the few liberals on Fox News, asked, “Does that mean every veto by a Texas governor that a D.A. does not like risks an indictment? That's absurd.” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz compared it to a Soviet Union show trial. Democratic strategist David Axelrod called the indictment “pretty sketchy.” E.G. Austin wrote in The Economist, “The veto was unusual and arguably petty, but almost certainly legal.” Texas Democrats have privately admitted they did not want to support Lehmberg’s reelection.
Perry calls it a "chilling restraint on the right to free speech. This indictment is fundamentally a political act that seeks to achieve at the courthouse what could not be achieved at the ballot box.”
Fortunately, the indictment was so over the top that Perry is likely to beat it, and it will serve as a deterrent to future political persecutions using the courts. It has brought to light a serious problem in our legal system, the partisan leftist bent of the judiciary and state bar associations. As attorney Michael McClelland once explained to me, this imbalance is a result of liberals’ attraction to easy government jobs and mind numbingly dull bar committees for their hobbies. Conservative lawyers would rather make money in the private sector, and, being more likely to have children, would rather spend time with their families rather than toil away their free time discussing things like diversity committees.
Ironically, the wrongful prosecution could catapult Perry into the White House, as Republicans rally around him. He is handling the ordeal graciously, coming across as a leader. Michael Lind, writing for Salon, warns Democrats they have overreached and it may backfire on them. He quotes Talleyrand, observing Napoleon’s execution of the Duc d’Enghien: “It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake.”
Looking at the big picture, the DUI offense by Lehmberg was atrocious and she should have resigned. For her to remain in office grossly undermines the rule of law. It wasn’t just a couple of drinks, and she’s not just any elected official, she is THE law enforcement official responsible for prosecuting DUIs. Perry correctly attempted to remove someone from office who could have potentially killed someone while drunk driving. If she had done the right thing and resigned, none of this would have ever happened.
unable to do it on the highway the drunk driver is now trying to drive Texas off into a ditch
hopefully Texas will cancel her work permit
Good Image of a typical Democrat woman.
FORWARD!
correct
“If she had done the right thing and resigned, none of this would have ever happened.”
Trying to get a liberal to do the right thing is like trying to teach a pig to sing — It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
Drunky, the wonder DA.
Usually characteristics of limo liberals.
A stumbling and staggering Lehmberg told the officers she wasn’t able to properly walk the line “because it hurts.” Several times she begins attempting to walk the straight line disregarding the officer’s instructions. After finally allowing the officer to demonstrate his instructions (to put one foot in front of another) without being interrupted, she admits, “I can’t do that.”When attempting to stand on one leg, the crocked DA almost fell over again, telling the officer,
After Lehmberg tells the officer, “I can’t do that,” the officer explains that because of the fact that she failed the sobriety tests, and because of her “erratic driving,” which included her driving in the bike lane (thank God a bicyclist wasn’t in it), “going southbound in a northbound lane of traffic” it left him no choice but to arrest her. She was then handcuffed.
The drunken wench clawed and Spit at Officers During Arrest..
Just another dyke pissed off at men. Most lesbians are drunks, so she follows the pattern.
Unfortunately the author makes the same mistake republicans and conservatives continue to make...they think they can beat the commies without defeating them in their own arena. Perry should have called for a special seesion of state legislature and had laws passed specifically to get this broad ousted, and the judge disbarred. He didn;t, now he’s toast because he will be seen as weak.
I’ve never been a big fan of Gov. Perry, but we all certainly need to circle the wagons around him in this instance.
He’s certainly a handsome man.
she is!!!
Perry was even going to try to get her replaced with a democrat. That shows me it wasn’t political. But the DA’s office in Travis County has been an arm of the national democrat party for decades.
Perry has turned this around on that drunk. I like him for President.
That being said, regardless of his reason, Perry has the absolute right to veto legislation, and the courts need to stay out of this. My hope is that the judge who gets this case will promptly throw it out, impose sanctions, and refer the people responsible for disciplinary action and disbarment.
One interesting thing about this case. In general, even in the “political” cases, there is some activity which was done in relative secrecy. For example, Tom DeLay was likely moving money in a way that hid it from some view — legally, it turned out, but it wasn’t public knowledge until they prosecuted it. The same is true in most of the cases, there’s e-mails that come to light.
Like with the bridgegate in New jersey, where at first there was nothing, then they found that some underlings might have done something, and now the question is whether the Governor knew.
Or with the Walker case, where there does appear to be something illegal someone did, but more importantly for this discussion it was something hidden from view, and then revealed.
In those cases, the mere act of hiding things makes it look like there might be a reason it was hidden, which lends credence to the charges.
In the Perry case, absolutely NOTHING was hidden. Perry just came out openly and did something every Governor does — said he would veto spending. His reasons were stated publicly — to have the convicted head resign. There were no e-mails detailing some secret purpose, or some kickback, or anything not know.
Perry then vetoed the money, publicly.
So the question becomes — why would someone publicly commit a crime, without trying to hide it. Clearly Perry had no expectation that this was a crime. And clearly, NOBODY ELSE did either, because it was well after the initial threat, and after the Veto, that a left-wing organization came up with the novel legal theory that this could be a legal violation.
When nobody who knows what you did thinks it is a crime until someone concocts a bizarre argument for it, there is little reason to actually prosecute. Clearly nobody was trying to commit a crime, or to act in a way that they thought was criminal.
At worst, this would have ended up with a finding and a warning for future Governors to take care. The idea that a prosecutor wants to PUNISH Perry for doing something NOBODY knew was a crime, is ludicrous, and everybody who fears being arrested for doing something they think is legal knows it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.