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 ...
Austin is Libtard Central so he’s probably up to his ears in it.
And I see little or nothing wrong with what I read there.
Gee, how did Mr. McCrum miss that section of the statute?
It’s always possible McCrum is just a fool, but my guess is he is worse than a fool.
IMHO this indictment will be thrown out. Even IF the statute didn’t have that clause in it.
And BTW someone please send Mr. McCrum over to NJ to arrest all the democrats who forced Senator Toricelli to drop out of an election.
Then swing by D.C. and gather up all those still alive who coerced Richard Nixon into resigning.
Oy.
It is not. Did you read the link provided in this thread showing that there is a very plain exception for government entities performing government functions (veto). The only crime here is the misuse of prosecutorial power.
Are you really this obtuse? It is irrelevant if people on the right would be outraged in your scenario. We would not be entitled to file criminal suite against him for doing what is entirely within his rights as president.
“Clearly he does not, which is why he called for her to resign. It’s really not difficult. “
It’s not difficult. When he then witheld appropriated funds to coerce her to resign he stopped all other investigations. This wasn’t the only case the PIU was working.
He stopped a legal dept from being able to do the business they were created for.
There were legal ways to get her to resign, or recalled.
This wasn’t a good option.
“The prosecutor is not a Republican.”
Oops my bad.
” Stop digging. You’ve lost. “
Haha well I could hardly lose. I’m not the one under indictment lol.
AS i wrote in another post. Perrys actions were questionable enough that he got indicted.
Whether he gets convicted or not, who knows.
Of course if he gets convicted or even has to cop a plea the Perry’s lost.
I guess that from now on all executive vetoes are subject to judicial review.
If he had that power, he would have simply fired the bitch.
He does have a duty to do his best to see that state funds are spent wisely. Keeping the public integrity funds out of the bitch's hands was certainly advisable under the circumstances.
Nonsense.
Perry committed the crime of governing while Republican. His actions were no more "questionable" than Tom Delay's.
“Nonsense.
Perry committed the crime of governing while Republican. His actions were no more “questionable” than Tom Delay’s.”
Well I see the echo chamber is working.
Hard to argue that he didn’t get indicted.
Let’s see what happens next.
I won't expect someone not even conversant with the basic facts to actually read the statute. You thought, just for example, that the prosecutor was a Republican. You also don't have the slightest idea how the statute defines coercion, despite there being numerous links in this thread.
I was under the impression all the Bush family operatives quit this place long ago, so I have to assume that your use of the the leftwing dog whistle "echo chamber" identifies you as a libtard. Good luck trying to use facts and logic, when you actually attempt them for the first time.
“I was under the impression all the Bush family operatives quit this place long ago, so I have to assume that your use of the the leftwing dog whistle “echo chamber” identifies you as a libtard. Good luck trying to use facts and logic, when you actually attempt them for the first time.”
Make all the assumptions you want.
Unless you’re a legal professional all your cutting and pasting doesn’t really mean anything. A Special prosecutor asked for and got an indictment.
Sorry if I put your knickers in a bunch.
The fact that a lot of people here agree that there’s nothing here, doesn’t make it so. That’s behind the echo chamber comment.
I remember back in Oct 2012. The echo chamber insisted all the polls were wrong and slanted and Obama was going to go down.
Funny how the polls pretty much matched the outcome.
Perry has been indicted.
We’ll see what happens next
Right. Because "Special Prosecutors" have such a great track record in Texas. And because the standard for indictment by a Grand Jury is SO high.
Politically motivated "Special Prosecutions" by Texas Democrats against Republicans holding major office are now Oh-for-two. That's the track record of YOUR Party, there Lefty. It's about to become Oh-for-three.
Except, unlike Hutchinson and Delay, Perry is not going to roll over. He's going to hold McCrum personally liable for abuse of process, and this sh!t is finally going to stop once and for all.
Step out of your Leftwing echo chamber and actually read what real lawyers have to say about this flimsy "indictment" [not the press releases of a leftwing scumbag, held in contempt for witness tampering in a multiple homicide case. He never once disputed the facts of witness tampering, but he did manage to escape contempt on an appeal review based on a process-related technicality. True scum. Your Pal, Lefty.]
That is why Perry wanted Lehmberg to resign. If she had resigned, Perry could have appointed her replacement and he would have appointed someone that would squash the Delay prosecution before it would be heard by the State Court of Criminal Appeals.
[emphasis added]
Perry's veto threat and subsequent veto had no possible relationship to Lehmberg's appeal of the Delay case to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Perry exercised his line-item veto on June 14, 2013. It was not until September 19, 2013 that the 3rd Court of Appeals overturned Delay's conviction.
Apart from its impossibility, why would you conjecture this motive on Perry's part? If it had been true, then Perry would have criminal liability. Is that what you are attempting to imply?
So, the key date is the date that that State Court of Criminal Appeals would hear the case.
Conservatives would be enraged because the Federal government would be extracting taxes from Wisconsin citizens, but denying them all the benefits of the taxes they paid.
This is not superficially different, this is categorically different.
Perry moved to allocate the taxes Texans paid to other uses - he did not allocate them to non-Texans.
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.