Skip to main content

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2016, was indicted Friday in an investigation into an effort to force a local official out of office. A grand jury in Austin handed up the indictment in a long-running investigation of Perry's threat to veto state funding to the Travis County Public Integrity Unit unless District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg resigned.

The threat came after Lehmberg pleaded guilty to drunken driving and served a 45-day sentence last year, NBC station KXAN of Austin reported. Perry called on her to step down, but she refused; Perry then vetoed the funding. The grand jury issued indictments (PDF) Friday on charges of abuse of official capacity and coercion of public servant, both of them felonies.

The grand jury charged that Perry "intentionally or knowingly misused government property" by trying to harm the unit financially. "The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution," Perry's general counsel, Mary Anne Wiley, said in a statement. "We will continue to aggressively defend the governor's lawful and constitutional action, and believe we will ultimately prevail."

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...-allegations-n182051

Last edited by Crash.Override
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This one more example of Dems attempting to criminalize politics.  They've used this tactic more and more to eliminate political opponents. A couple of examples:Governors Walker and Palin

 

In Wisconsin, the prosecutor attempted unsuccessfully to attack Governor Scott Walker but were shot down by a federal judge.  Of course, the prosecutor later claimed that Walker was not a target despite direct statements in the court documents.

 

Using Alaskan state law, Dems filed 24 accusations, all proven false, in an attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and thwart any efforts in the governor's office.  This was successful in that it forced her to resign. 

 

If, Republicans desire, they will be able to use the same tactic in 2017 -- Dems will squeal like the proverbial pig under the gate. Eric Holder is a prime target, as is the president, himself

 

 

Originally Posted by David L.:

Not surprising!

_________________________________________
Not surprising, at all. Austin is a Democrat citadel in a red state, so the chances of more Democrats than in the general population is high. Plus, the old maxim that a prosecutor can obtain an indictment from a grand jury on a ham sandwich. 

 

Good article on prosecutorial over reach. 

http://columbialawreview.org/h...ich-nation_reynolds/

 

Dems, remember I cautioned against this. 

The posted article concerning why Perry vetoed funding is quite sketchy at best. 

 

Perry vetoed funding after District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunken driving.  She resisted arrest.   Lehmberg, a Democrat, was responsible for a division of the office that is responsible for fighting official corruption.  She later pleaded guilty and spent 45 days in jail.

 

"This is the footage of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s arrest. She was busted for drunk driving on April 12, 2013. She denied that she was driving drunk. There was an open bottle of vodka in Lehmberg’s car on the night of her arrest, in violation of the state’s open container law.

In the video, Lehmberg taunts the arresting officers and even threatens them. One of the officers describes action that took place off camera, in which Lehmberg kicked doors and acted violently. Lehmberg pleaded guilty to drunk driving, but refused to resign as Travis County DA. She remains the DA to this day.

The Travis County DA’s office, incredibly, runs the Public Integrity Unit — which has statewide jurisdiction."

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014...ey-and-drunk-driver/

 

Video of her arrest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

 

Democrats have no problem with keeping a drunk who endangers the public while driving  in such a  state.  Nor, letting such a person oversee the statewide office for investigating the integrity of public officials.  Not only is her integrity in jeopardy, but she could be a target of blackmail from those she might investigate. 

 

That Dems seek to place in jail, someone who believes the woman is a menace to herself and others in her personal life and incapable of overseeing a office investigating public officials pretty much show how little the Dems think of the citizens of Texas and leaves serious suspicions on the integrity of Democrat public officials.  What are they trying to hide?

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Dems continually ignore the peripheral results of their actions,  Yes, Perry will not be a strong candidate for president (he's not my first choice).  However, he's young and popular in Texas,  Hope Dems get used to saying Senator Perry in a few years. He'll probably be around for a long time.

....................and dire ole boy, if he does I hope he introduces and is successful in legislation to disallow you fanatics of like kind the freedom to carry on so on Wednesdays. No businesses open or shopping for you.

If, one had read the Columbia Law Review article I linked, one would realize how easy it is for a prosecutor to obtain an indictment from a grand jury, a procedure whereby only the prosecutor gets to tell his side of the story.  Why, a decent prosecutor could convince a grand jury that Crash and Squirrelly Dawg conspired on a crime as masterminds,  When, of course, the only time the two would bring their heads together would be if Moe knocked them together.

 

Lefties have dreamed of frog marching Rove and Cheney for years -- how's that working for you? Just one crooked Alabama governor, by my count. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Dems continually ignore the peripheral results of their actions,  Yes, Perry will not be a strong candidate for president (he's not my first choice).  However, he's young and popular in Texas,  Hope Dems get used to saying Senator Perry in a few years. He'll probably be around for a long time.

___

That means he will have plenty of time to learn how to remember more than two subjects out of three.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Dems continually ignore the peripheral results of their actions,  Yes, Perry will not be a strong candidate for president (he's not my first choice).  However, he's young and popular in Texas,  Hope Dems get used to saying Senator Perry in a few years. He'll probably be around for a long time.

___

That means he will have plenty of time to learn how to remember more than two subjects out of three.

_____________________________________________________________

And, Dems will forget the lessons learned by the rest of us almost immediately.

In the Democrat world, there is no problem with a belligerent drunk attempting to obtain favors from politicians while an arrest is being processed being the person in charge of investigating political ethics,  Please note, Perry wanted her to step down from that position, not her elected position.  Time for a personal civil rights suit against the prosecutor. 

 

Come January 2017, which veto shall Obama be prosecuted for!

perhaps benghazi.. since a dozen reports saying there was no scandal aren't enough...

or perhaps the IRS.. which proved to be another rt. wingnut non-scandal...

or perhaps any one of the other dozen 'impeachable offenses' the rt. wingnuts have screamed about , since obama's election?  rt. wingnuts, you can lead them to facts, but you can't make them think.

Last edited by Crash.Override

 

The Democrats deflect, but do not dispute my statement that, "In the Democrat world, there is no problem with a belligerent drunk attempting to obtain favors from politicians while an arrest is being processed being the person in charge of investigating political ethics, "

 

Therefore, I must surmise that they have no problem with such persons in charge of political ethics, or lack thereof. But, then, they are Democrats. 

Whatever you say, crash.

Most jobs that require a person to drive(mine included) means you have to have a valid drivers license. Whenever you get a DUI you typically lose your license for a period of time meaning you can't do your job. So typically if your employer finds out about the DUI you could lose your job. It's pretty basic and really nothing to argue about.

However, we all know that if I said the sun comes up in the east you would argue with me about it or somehow brig up a republican.
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Whatever you say, crash.

Most jobs that require a person to drive(mine included) means you have to have a valid drivers license. Whenever you get a DUI you typically lose your license for a period of time meaning you can't do your job. So typically if your employer finds out about the DUI you could lose your job. It's pretty basic and really nothing to argue about.

However, we all know that if I said the sun comes up in the east you would argue with me about it or somehow brig up a republican.

_______________

gosh, kenny.. i just can't be right.. it would blow your whole argument.. imagine that.. you could possibly be wrong and not have a clue what you're talking about.. i know it's shocking.. but, don't let those pesky facts get in your way.  i'm willing to bet you one month's pay, at LEAST one person on this forum can tell you about someone who drives for a living, getting a dui, and not losing their job.. would that help you? would you then be convinced you could possibly be wrong? i KNOW for a fact, at least one person on these forums, can collaborate my facts. what's it take to convince you that you could possibly be wrong?

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Whatever you say, crash.

Most jobs that require a person to drive(mine included) means you have to have a valid drivers license. Whenever you get a DUI you typically lose your license for a period of time meaning you can't do your job. So typically if your employer finds out about the DUI you could lose your job. It's pretty basic and really nothing to argue about.

However, we all know that if I said the sun comes up in the east you would argue with me about it or somehow brig up a republican.

_______________

gosh, kenny.. i just can't be right.. it would blow your whole argument.. imagine that.. you could possibly be wrong and not have a clue what you're talking about.. i know it's shocking.. but, don't let those pesky facts get in your way.  i'm willing to bet you one month's pay, at LEAST one person on this forum can tell you about someone who drives for a living, getting a dui, and not losing their job.. would that help you? would you then be convinced you could possibly be wrong? i KNOW for a fact, at least one person on these forums, can collaborate my facts. what's it take to convince you that you could possibly be wrong?

Crash, that is why I used the word TYPICALLY and not DEFINITELY in my post.

 

I never said that EVERY person that gets a DUI will lose their job did I?

 

I am sure there are cases where people can get a DUI and keep their job even if their employer finds out. 

 

Does that make you feel better?

 

You are so eager to be combative and argumentative that you did not ever read and comprehend my post. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

If I get a DUI I lose my job...

 

maybe things work different in the govt world.

 ____________________

not much to misunderstand, is it?

Once again, where did I say that EVERYONE who gets a DUI loses their job?

 

I read those 2 sentences and my other post and did not see that.

 

You are so eager to be combative that you simply will argue with ANYTHING I post. 

In the same Travis county, the Dems tried this same trick/

 

"1993 indictments for misconduct as Texas Treasurer[edit]

On June 10, 1993, shortly after the special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by Democratic district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury. The search was conducted without a warrant, as incident to service of the indictments in the case.[14] Subsequently, after two other grand jury indictments were thrown out, Hutchison was indicted a 3rd time [15] by a Texas grand jury in September 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. Hutchison stated that she was the innocent victim of a politically motivated prosecutor. Earle acknowledged that he had sought appointment by Democratic Governor Ann Richards, to the same U.S. Senate seat which Hutchison was ultimately elected to, but he has denied that his legal actions against Hutchison were politically motivated.[16] The case against Hutchison was heard before State District Judge John Onion in February 1994. Pre-trial motions included a Motion to Quash evidence Earle obtained without a warrant when raiding the Treasurer's office. During pre-trial proceedings, the judge did not rule on admissibility. Following the lack of a ruling, Earle declined to proceed with his case.[14] Onion swore in a jury and directed the jury to acquit Hutchison, since Earle chose not to present evidence.[14] The acquittal barred any future prosecution of Hutchison.[15]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison

 

Got that, the prosecution fell apart in court after one day -- one day!  Dirty politics by Dems, who'd imagine!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×