Where was the coersion? How did she threaten them? Try again. http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/five-things-know-about-perry-indictment/ It Will Be Hard to Dismiss Prosecution as Partisan Witch Hunt: There is long-standing animosity between the Travis County district attorney’s office and the Republicans who rule the Texas Capitol. There have been plenty of failed attempts over the years to move the investigative power out of that office and into an agency such as the Texas attorney general’s office, which has been under Republican control for some 15 years. Naturally, Perry and his fellow Republicans are calling the indictments against Perry the result of a partisan investigation by an office controlled by Democrats — the same office that prosecuted former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican, later acquitted on appeal. But Lehmberg and other Travis County officials recused themselves from the case and are not prosecuting it. One year ago a Republican judge from Bexar County, Bert Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to handle the prosecution. McCrum, a criminal defense attorney in San Antonio, is a former Dallas police officer who began his career as a federal prosecutor during the George H.W. Bush administration, according to his online bio. In 2009, the state's two Republican U.S. senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, recommended him to become U.S. attorney for the Western District, according to published reports. He was described as a “consensus choice” by the news site Main Justice because he had the backing of House Democrats and the two home state senators. He ultimately withdrew his name because of gridlock over nominations on Capitol Hill. McCrum’s bipartisan credentials makes criticizing the investigation as a partisan witch hunt a tougher sell.
I believe that I know very little Texas constitutional law and that politicians, regardless of the letter next to their name, tend to be less than ethical. Watching one side castigate the other without a leg to stand is both disappointing and very telling.
You really don't see a difference between that and "I will take away the funding from your department if you don't resign". Are you really that dense?
Depends on the particulars. I'm not in Texas so I only know of the story wheat has been posted here which is mostly anti-Perry sources and commentary. Color me skeptical. I do see one of the highest law officers for Travis County failiing to do the right thing TWICE: she was arrested and I suppose convicted of DUI and tried to bully her way out of the charges. Then she protected her own career potentially at the expense of the work her program was trying to do by not even offering to resign. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not make them dense. I see the criticism of Perry; I just don't take it to then endzone like you are so eager to do for obvious political motivations.
Why she might or might not have resigned has nothing to do with whether or not Perry broke the law. For some strange reason in this thread about Perry you keep ignoring anything Perry did, and are only focused on the woman. Make your own thread about her.
The charges against Perry are inextricably bound up with her... or did you just want to forget that part of the narrative?
No they aren't. Perry either broke the law or didn't. It is not bound up with her at all except that she was the person that Perry targeted when he may have broken the law. Why Perry did what he did is bound up with her, but it has zero to do with whether or not he actually broke the law. Yet, you have spoken little to not at all about what Perry has done, and focused almost entirely on the woman.
I never said anything to indicate that he was just looking for a chance to break the law. What I'm saying is that if he broke the law, it doesn't really matter why he did it. Every post you've made deals mostly with why he might have abused his power rather than issue of if actually did abuse his power according to the law.
"...she was the person that Perry targeted when he may have broken the law." --FB I find your use of the verb "targeted" to be provocative. I'm no Rick Perry-lover; I'm just hear to slow down the Cadre of Back-slapping Liberals.
Then you are failing because no liberal is supporting the woman as being an outstanding hero of person who's the best at her job ever, but more importantly because you aren't discussing the topic at hand. Perry did target the woman with whatever he did.
Why is she required to offer to resign because some guy who's not her boss wants her to? Certainly true - what makes you dense is the lack of understanding of the concepts of blackmail and/or coercion and your weird desperate quest to link to things have nothing to do with each other.
Perhaps instead of trying to debate a topic you admittedly know so little about, you'd be better off first spending the 5 minutes required to learn more about the topic too? "I'm not in Texas" is a dumb excuse when you are debating something on the internet.
This is worth repeating. For those in denial, the man prosecuting this case is a Republican, was appointed a Federal prosecutor by a Republican President, was recommended by 2 Republican Senators to become U.S. attorney for the Western District, and a former Dallas police officer. Again, where is the "conspiracy" here. Perry is being prosecuted because he broke the law. Perry is being prosecuted because he broke the law.
Didn't she kind of put herself out there? I don't see anyone here asking for her resignation or for charges to be filed against her for her attempt to manipulate her arrest using the power of her office.
Even Liberals are not unanimously behind this... http://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-criticize-rick-perry-indictment-2014-8
Because other people who aren't named giddyup are trying to stick to the topic which is whether Perry broke the law or not, instead of talking about the lady.
