Posted on 08/17/2014 10:30:59 AM PDT by lowbridge
It didn’t take long for Michael McCrum to become a bull’s-eye for Republicans outraged by the felony charges against Gov. Rick Perry.
But those who know the 57-year-old McCrum say the sweeping partisan attacks against him won’t stick.
As the special prosecutor in the Perry case, McCrum is a veteran attorney — and former cop in Dallas and Arlington — who’s been on both sides in legal skirmishes.
He’s got plenty of fans, both Democrats and Republicans. And his political leanings largely are muted.
-snip
McCrum, in announcing the indictment Friday, dismissed the notion that the Perry investigation was driven by politics because the grand jury was in Democrat-heavy Travis County.
“That didn’t go into my consideration whatsoever. I looked at the law. I looked at the facts and I presented everything possible to the grand jury,” McCrum said.
McCrum was selected as the special prosecutor by a Republican judge.
Earlier, he enjoyed bipartisan support for what would have been the crowning accomplishment of his career — being named by President Barack Obama as the U.S. attorney in San Antonio.
McCrum had the backing of Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin and the state’s two Republican senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
He does have that power. Since the drunken scumbag’s office doesn’t fund itself, Perry has final say if they get any money. He said if the whiskey soused head of that office did not step down, no money. The in her cups prosecutor could have decided, along with her underlings, to work for free and pay all their own expenses, then Perry would have no power to do anything.
If you read the actual statutes cited you will see that Perry is not in the wrong, but simply doing what he was elected to do. It appears that the indictment is based on an illogical and unsupported interpretation of the law. So illogical in fact, that based on the prosecutor's apparent theory of the law (Texas Penal Code 36.03) he too is violating it.
A good summary is here.
To add, that money is the taxpayer’s money. Perry is on the side of the taxpayer in making sure that their hard earned money does not end up in the hands of a lowlife.
> It didn’t take long for Michael McCrum to become a bull’s-eye for Republicans outraged by the felony charges against Gov. Rick Perry.
IOW, James Drew is nothing more than a Partisan Media Shill.
“He does have that power. Since the drunken scumbag’s office doesn’t fund itself, Perry has final say if they get any money. He said if the whiskey soused head of that office did not step down, no money.”
Yes. And that’s coercion which is a felony which is why he’s under indictment.
Will he be convicted? who knows.
Why didn’t he just fire her.
Not only is he nonpartisan, he also prides himself on strict adherence to the law.
Defense lawyer, DA spar at contempt hearing (Mike McCrum faces 6 months in jail)
San Antonio Express News | 08/16/14 | Guillermo Contreras
Posted on 8/16/2014 7:53:50 PM by nhwingut
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3193647/posts
And she did NOT resign. She stayed in office (her right) he vetoed the budget (his right).
You might as well charge her with causing the loss of the funding by staying in office.
If you watched her arrest video, she told the cops about 100 times that “you are ruining my career.” She knew then her career SHOULD have been ruined.
But because it’s Austin and because she is democrat scum, she stayed in office. In any decent society she would have resigned in shame for all the trouble she caused.
But not in the USSA. Here Perry should face life in prison for cutting her budget after publicly telling everyone he would.
Not only that, but McCrum's legal theory demands that money appropriated by the legislature be considered property under the governor's possession or control which he then deprives the government of by his veto. That's completely illogical.
Needless to say the department which might get funded by the legislature isn't funded until such time as the legislation is either enacted into law by the governor, or the legislature overrides the governor's veto.
let me see if I can find that
Coercion has to be illegal. If her husband and kids sat her down and told her that if she doesn’t quit they will take the car keys away, should they face 100 years in prison?
The governor says I can veto your budget, you are a disgrace so if you stay there I’m not funding you. That is not coercion.
Showing up at her house late at night and threatening her kids is coercion. Threatening to cut her unit’s budget is within the law, and at worst politics.
Don’t talk yourself into dangerous nonsense by reading statutes in a ridiculous way. You do not coerce anyone with a perfectly legal act. It’s called life. That’s why she didn’t resign instead she made trouble for Perry.
There is a proper, constitutional, prudent course for legislatures stop vetoes. If that avenue is properly followed, no matter the outcome, this entire episode should be moot. This matter may not properly be brought before the Courts.
The important point here is if we can criminalize otheriwse lawful decisions made by an elected official, based on their personal reasoning, then the stack of indictments against Obama should have buried Washington back in 2010.
This tortured “legal reasoning” is far more dangerous than an idiot in charge (Perry is not the idiot to which I refer)...
“And she did NOT resign. She stayed in office (her right) he vetoed the budget (his right).”
If only he hadn’t threatened her first.
The money was already appropriated by the legislature.
Perry can’t legally with hold because he doesn’t like who the DA is.
In any case he’s been indicted by the grand jury.
Let’s see what if anything happens next.
Whaaaaat - no wacky indictments against the complicit Texas legislators?! They are just as guilty as Perry for not overriding his veto. /sarc
Under your logic, Texas should just abolish the office of governor period. You see in the real world, every decision a governor makes is coercion. A governor threatens vetos all the time to get the legislature to do what he wants. It is all part of the negotiations of crafting legislation. So under your logic, if Perry threatens to veto a state income tax, he should be hauled off to jail. What the law the partisans are using against him is meant to prevent people from threatening public officials. For example, do this or I will kill all your cats. That is what is meant as coercion. What Perry did is not coercion but pure simple legislating.
I was actually noting his take [”very dangerous precedent”] and yours. We’ll see if it’s a laughing matter when it goes to a judge; I thought Tom Delay’s case was unserious, but it took eight years and a conviction/reversal to find its way through the system, so...
“Perry did is not coercion but pure simple legislating.”
Yeah OK.
Bingo. You do not illegally coerce someone by doing something perfectly legal.
You see this is what comes of a soulless society. In a decent society you couldn’t get McCrum to even consider this indictment.
But in modern day America you have people looking at the statute and talking themselves into it.
Mr. McCrum strikes me as an absolute egotist. Any thinking person would have to acknowledge all the huge political (as in political authority) and constitutional problems raised by this indictment. McCrum comes out with a straight face and says yeah, we should threaten governors with 100 years in jail for vetoing a bill because he has a problem with a unit’s personnel.
Right again, I think they should all face 99 years in prison. Perry for daring to veto her budget, every legislator who “assisted in the crime” and of course she should because by staying in office and going after Perry, she caused the loss of funding.
And don’t tell me she won the legal right to stay in office. Perry had the legal right to veto her budget. They both should be indicted /s
He did not threaten her. He threatened the unit’s budget as is his right.
It’s not a case of “doesn’t like who the DA is.” He had a public integrity reason for the veto.
Just like she stayed in office for the high minded reason that “I can get away with it”.
I believe it’s going to be much harder for the DU Dems to obfuscate the facts than it was against Delay. This case is easier to explain and understand that it is all a political show trial, although Perry and his allies have to be active in explaining to the public the Demrat bull.
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.