Posted on 09/19/2014 8:43:58 AM PDT by redreno
AUSTIN — The special prosecutor who secured two felony abuse of power indictments against Gov. Rick Perry is facing his own legal problems after a decision by Texas’ highest criminal court to renew a contempt of court case against him.
Prosecutors filed a contempt of court motion against San Antonio-based attorney Michael McCrum in January, after a separate case the previous fall. In it, one of McCrum’s clients was convicted of manslaughter for driving his car the wrong-way down an interstate with a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, and sparking a head-on crash that killed two men.
(Excerpt) Read more at gosanangelo.com ...
He told one of the key witnesses to ‘get lost’ so she couldn’t testify.
Ping.
Ethics charges don’t expire. That would be enough to have him removed and Perry’s case vacated. I’m sure the mistake or time lapse was “unintentional”. Isn’t that a Dem controlled County.
Quite a sleazebag, no?
“Clean hands” doctrine.
This is overwhelmingly called for. Lock this corrupt Demonicrat operative up and throw away the key.
I still don’t understand why Perry didn’t move to have the indictment quashed..
very sleazy
He needs to be Nifonged!!!
For example, it claims that McCrum told a witness to “get lost for a while.” Actually, under the sworn statement of his his own witness, McCrum's instructions telling the witness to get "lost for a while" also included the specific statement: "if they can't find you, they can't subpoena you to reappear." So not only was there an implied ethics violation, there was a clear attempt at obstruction. In fact, it's possible McCrum could be brought up for a much more serious offense than a contempt citation if intent to deceive the court can be proved.
But even worse, the paper claims McCrum denied the charge. Um, no, unless there's a court record somewhere that hasn't been printed, McCrum has never denied being guilty of the charge. His first defense was that since the court had not specifically instructed the witness that she might be called to reappear, he was free to commit felony obstruction. When that line of defense failed, he took an appeal to an appellate board that bailed him out on a statute of limitations technicality. Now a higher appellate authority has closed the door on that line of "defense." But in no case has he ever denied what his own witness has sworn he told her.
He did, back on August 25. You can read the document here:
http://www.statesman.com/documents/2014/aug/25/motion-dismiss-charges-against-gov-rick-perry/
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.