August 18, 2014

"But regardless of how strong the charges against Perry are, it is worth noting how fitting they are."

"Put simply, the case against Perry points to an aspect of his political persona that is well known in Texas but has too often been overlooked in the national portrayal of Perry."

From a piece at The New Republic titled "The Charges Against Rick Perry Are Thin. But They Are Also Clarifying." It's by Alec MacGillis, who's written numerous TNR articles about Scott Walker, including "The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker" (which is the only one I took the trouble to read and blog about).

ADDED: Thin but clarifying is like fake but accurate.

179 comments:

EDH said...

Earlier today I made this point point of comparison about the character and tactics of Public Corruption Units.

Don't they, as part of plea agreements, routinely include securing a promise by the target of the probe to resign his or her public post in order to avoid prosecution?

In other words, prosecutors will use their office to threaten to prosecute if the target will not resign a public office as part of a plea deal.

How is this different than the "Coercion of a Public Official" alleged against Perry?

SteveR said...

Thanks for your previous reading which kept you from reading now which kept me from reading.

Nonapod said...

He is, at heart, a political operator and a striver who has wielded the many levers of power available to him

In other words, he's a successful national level politician.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

The Left has found lying works...
as does prosecutorial abuse. The only way this stops is IF Republicans do the same to Democrats.

Clayton Hennesey said...

The two local Dallas blogs, both liberal, are as quiet as mice about this subject. They no want to catch the Ebola through similar discharges of bodily fluids.

libertariansafetyguy said...

We all have mental models and we all filter data in our world in order to keep our mental models safe and secure. It's amazing what this statement and others like it say about the mental models the liberals use and the data they filter. Of course, same goes for me and the how I'm judging this statement and what drove it.

The problem is that it's so hard to overcome a inappropriate mental model with a rational argument. Most people with either react emotionally to the challenge or they will filter out the data. Few people will test their own assumptions. And that's why democracies fail...

MadisonMan said...

I think the only question for Alec MacGillis should be: Do you think a law enforcement agent who breaks the law should resign? Yes or No.

That's the big question I have: Why is the drunk driver still an employee of Travis County?

Anonymous said...

Between this and the NPR lady glasses Perry is looking like a winner. This may give him an edge over Scott Walker in the primaries. Which has been the Democrat plan all along.

The Crack Emcee said...

Everybody's dancing around what I've been saying plainly:

The racists are obvious (Rick "Niggerhead" Perry and his family are famously disliked, I learned, while working recently in Lubbock) and they're being torpedoed for it. Not a tragedy.

Those all-white juries are coming back to bite them. No one will be coming to their aid, and few care, because, we know, justice was rarely served on all that and few have an inclination to do so.

But it will be done.

Rick Perry won't be hurt - he's rich. But he will go away.

And that'll make room for an American.

And, please, don't speak of a lack of fairness in a scheme where is was never given.

It's Rick Perry's "career" as Clark Kent that's dying.

Be glad it's not more (my new word) generalized,...

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
I think the only question for Alec MacGillis should be: Do you think a law enforcement agent who breaks the law should resign? Yes or No.

That's the big question I have: Why is the drunk driver still an employee of Travis County?"

Democrats don't resign. Former WI AG Lautenschlager didn't resign and she had a DUI with proporty damage. She also exceeded state-allowed limits in the use of vehicles.

Brando said...

If we had anything approaching a decent Department of Justice it would be investigating the prosecutor's office which brought this sham indictment. When you consider that they are charging him with vetoing funding legislation simply because the veto was motivated by the fact that Perry didn't want to provide funding for an office led by a drunk driving prosecutor, you're getting deep into corruption country. This is exactly the sort of grimy crap that should be shut down.

Not that I would expect anything from Holder. He's a hack through and through, and everyone should have known that from his involvement in the Marc Rich pardon. He's a latter day John Mitchell.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Diogenes of Sinope said...
The Left has found lying works...
as does prosecutorial abuse. The only way this stops is IF Republicans do the same to Democrats.

8/18/14, 11:02 AM

Agreed. Some Republican prosecutor needs to indict Obama on fraud charges for his intentional lies to get ObamaCare passed.

That would nip this shit in the bud.

mesquito said...

Signal to the Deep State:

Sure it's bullshit but keep talking about it anyway.

Brando said...

If McGillis and his fellow travellers can find a shred of decency they'll be denoucing the indictment and calling for a federal probe against the people who are behind it. This is the sort of thing which if left to stand by being defended by any party (because it was done by "our side"), it turns over a dark chapter in modern politics. We'll have crossed the line into sham prosecutions and severe abuse of power.

On the other hand, this has been only good press for Perry. Once any thinking person (i.e., no one on the New Republic masthead) read past the "Perry Indicted" headline, they realized that he's being railroaded.

mesquito said...

And yes, if my insurance guy made the same claims about his policies as Obama made about the ACA he'd be going to the penitentiary.

mesquito said...

emcee came to Fort Worth and talked to some people, I see.

Beldar said...

@ EDH, re resignations: You're correct, and a prominent recent example was with the forced resignation of NY governor Eliot Spitzer by federal members of the U.S. Attorney's public integrity unit. (They were initially put in charge of his investigation because it was suspected that the large sums of cash he was moving around had to do with blackmail or bribes instead of hookers.) At the time, they took some heat in the press for forcing this resignation: They had enough to indict him for minor federal crimes, but some folks thought that forcing a resignation was only the province of New York State law enforcement officials, and not something in which the feds should meddle unless they were going to prosecute under federal law.

"Appearance of impropriety" is the touchstone here: Even if Lehmberg's attempts to wheedle and coerce special treatment after she was arrested aren't clear enough to warrant convicting her for a crime based on that, they certainly raise such gigantic questions about her own ethics and integrity and fitness for public office that she, of all the possible prosecutors in Texas, ought not be the State of Texas' first-line bulwark against corrupt officials!

I think she ought to have lost not just her driver's license for a while but also her law license based on that same misconduct.

Brando said...

"Agreed. Some Republican prosecutor needs to indict Obama on fraud charges for his intentional lies to get ObamaCare passed."

I doubt that would stop partisan Democrats. You're implying that they understand cause an effect, or the concept of shame. Instead, they'll decide their only mistake was not hitting harder.

GOP has to put the pressure on the DOJ to investigate this, and if it won't, impeach Holder. Let him defend himself and explain why he has no prosecutorial resources to investigate an obvious sham indictment aimed at influencing a presidential election.

Henry said...

I usually try to read the linked articles before I comment, but I'm not going to bless such thin gruel with a click.

Instead, I will go off on a tangent. Nonapod quotes: "He is, at heart, a political operator and a striver..."

"Striver" is an interesting put-down. It is the insult of the gentry against the ambitious. The way things are done is that you inherit the money, inherit the mantle, and thus make the calling of jackals and buying of dispensations most effortless.

The striver, on the other hand, is seen to work to get ahead. He may even sweat.

In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens personifies the striver in the suitably named Mr. Stryver -- Sidney Carton's employer:

Mr. Stryver, a man of little more than thirty, but looking twenty years older than he was, stout, loud, red, bluff, and free from any drawback of delicacy, had a pushing way of shouldering himself (morally and physically) into companies and conversations, that argued well for his shouldering his way up in life.

That could be Mr. MacGillis describing Mr. Perry, could it not? The Democratic Party's jackals in the press could learn something from Mr. Dickens. Not least, the art of simile:

Mr. Stryver shouldered his way through the law, like some great engine forcing itself through turbid water, and dragged his useful friend in his wake, like a boat towed astern. As the boat so favoured is usually in a rough plight, and mostly under water, so, Sydney had a swamped life of it.

MathMom said...

"Put simply, the case against Perry points to an aspect of his political persona that is well known in Texas but has too often been overlooked in the national portrayal of Perry."

What would that nationally portrayed aspect be?

That he is a dunce? And now you find out that he can read and has read the Texas Constitution?

Or are they surprised that he has huevos, and is not a metrosexual, and that he doesn't back down because a George Soros group has set their dogs on him?

Remember, my governor packs heat.

Nathan Mates said...

Bigger question: what dirt does Lehmberg have on Travis county leaders that she hasn't been asked to leave after this incident?

Now that would be an interesting question for reporter(s) out to make a name for themselves.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

Serious question: Do poeple ever consider the consequences of not oly treating political opponents as outright enemies but also using the power of the State to attack them? I mean, releasing confidential records, shady prosecutions, IRS shenanigans...if those can't be opposed through legal means and if there's no popular will to fight them (because of moral genusies like Alec here) what do people suppose witll happen?

AustinRoth said...

Crack went to Lubbock for work?

Why would they import a black janitor from out of state?

Larry J said...

Curious George said...
"MadisonMan said...
I think the only question for Alec MacGillis should be: Do you think a law enforcement agent who breaks the law should resign? Yes or No.

That's the big question I have: Why is the drunk driver still an employee of Travis County?"


Hell, Ted Kennedy killed a woman and not only didn't resign, he was repeatedly reelected and even ran for president.

It seems laws seldom apply to Democrat elected officials.

Skyler said...

Go ahead, you marxist communist progressives. Just go ahead and hold out a slobbering drunk as your standard bearer.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Brando said: I doubt that would stop partisan Democrats. You're implying that they understand cause an effect, or the concept of shame. Instead, they'll decide their only mistake was not hitting harder.

Im only half serious about the idea. But i would love to see the shrieking if Obama had to give a mug shot.

When Republicans sicced a special prosecutor on Clinton, the Dems quickly decided to let the special prosecutor law quietly expire.

My real preference would be for every Republican to have a plan to talk about how the Democrats have way over stepped to satisfy their corrupt and greedy need for power.

There is a long list. Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, Kay Hutchinson, "Deem it passed", IRS, National Park Service, Obama rewriting federal laws.

Make all Dems pay a price for this shit.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Be glad it's not more (my new word) generalized,...

Pretty vague threat, there, chief. You seem to relish the idea that someone's career would be ended--they might even end up unemployed like some kinda loser, huh? Anyway isn't this Texas "law enforcement" taking action against a white man? Are you claiming they're acting on behalf of the oppressed minorities just this once? Or does logical consistency run and hide at the mere sight of your username?

Brando said...

"Serious question: Do poeple ever consider the consequences of not oly treating political opponents as outright enemies but also using the power of the State to attack them? I mean, releasing confidential records, shady prosecutions, IRS shenanigans...if those can't be opposed through legal means and if there's no popular will to fight them (because of moral genusies like Alec here) what do people suppose witll happen?"

The unfortunate thing is that their partisans will be fine with this, as ends justify the means. Contrast this with the real heroes of Watergate--the people of Nixon's own party who could not defend his abuses and ultimately were the cause of his stepping down. That is the essential element in defending the rule of law and our institutions, and putting the country and democracy first. If the Democrats today cannot step to the plate it will be a sad day indeed.

And unfortunately I don't see them stepping to the plate. This makes us a more dangerous country than what we were in 1974, or perhaps the Democrats are just more corrupt than the GOP. Take your pick.

traditionalguy said...

Is that a whiff of War on Women that I smell. Texas men have a style that keeps the upper hand over bad cattle, bad horses and bad women.

garage mahal said...

Has there ever been a legitimate investigation of a Republican? NO!

Brando said...

"Make all Dems pay a price for this shit."

It has to be the key talking point for local and national media appearances from here on out. The media will pick it up if there's enough national outcry--and this is a case that's easy enough for low information voters to understand.

I'm dead serious about Holder though--while I don't think there's a case for impeaching Obama, his AG would be seriously derelict in his duties if he didn't have this mess investigated and prosecuted. Let the Democrats try and defend this power move to protect a drunk driving DA, and indict a sitting governor over his veto. Let them try and explain why this isn't worthy of a federal investigation. And if he won't move on it, let Holder defend himself from impeachment. Politically and legally, there's a stronger case for that than there is for impeaching Obama, and it would get one of the worst modern AGs out of office.

Scott M said...

Has there ever been a legitimate investigation of a Republican? NO!

"Ever" is a pretty big word, eelpout.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

The racists are obvious...

Yes, you are.

Brando said...

"Has there ever been a legitimate investigation of a Republican? NO!"

I don't think your statement technically qualifies as a straw man, but maybe it's more of a straw donkey.

Are you suggesting that this particular indictment is perfectly legitimate? If so, please explain, as I'm genuinely curious as to how this one can be defended.

William T. Sherman said...

So once again Texas Democrats are making charges that they claim are fake but accurate. Remind me again where Dan Rather was from?

Ignorance is Bliss said...


Has there ever been a legitimate investigation of a Republican? NO!

Nixon and Christy both come to mind.

traditionalguy said...

Is it true that Perry offered the Dems a compromise that he would appoint Rosemary's assistant, another Dem, if Rosemary didi the right thing and resigned?

If true, then this is totally about getting Perry. Or otherwise it shows that the Dems fear her more than Perry.

Skeptical Voter said...

With stuff like this "indictment" of Ham Sandwich Governor Perry, he should simply say "bring it on" you drunken old harridan.

Scott M said...

If true, then this is totally about getting Perry. Or otherwise it shows that the Dems fear her more than Perry.

That would dovetail with what was mentioned upthread...that the Democrats in TX fear what she knows and have concerns about her loose-lippedness.

garage mahal said...

"Ever" is a pretty big word, eelpout.

Eww Scott with the eelpout burn. It's.just.so.devestating

Brando said...

"If true, then this is totally about getting Perry. Or otherwise it shows that the Dems fear her more than Perry."

Still, what a dumb move--it's not like you can indict a governor and keep the whole thing hush hush. This was obviously going to blow up in their faces, and with the extra scrutiny it's likely that anything she knew would get out anyway.

Or, maybe they were just that arrogant to think this would make Perry look bad and not backfire on them.

Scott M said...

It's.just.so.devestating

I wouldn't say "devestating" (partially because that's a misspelled word), but I would say hilarious inside baseball.

Drago said...

Uh oh.

Looks like noted WI high school graduate garage is posting "off the leash" again.

This should be fun to watch.

garage mahal said...

Are you suggesting that this particular indictment is perfectly legitimate?

I don't see any explanation in this thread on why this indictment IS illegitimate. Did Perry try to coerce a public official that ran afoul of a Texas statute? Perry can clearly call for a resignation and he can clearly veto. I think the problem was combining the two.

broomhandle said...

"Serious question: Do poeple ever consider the consequences of not oly treating political opponents as outright enemies but also using the power of the State to attack them? I mean, releasing confidential records, shady prosecutions, IRS shenanigans...if those can't be opposed through legal means and if there's no popular will to fight them (because of moral genusies like Alec here) what do people suppose witll happen?"

Just so. Historically, this trajectory has always led to violence. The ignorant and smug don't understand that it can happen here and so see no need for restraint. Liberals really are destroying this country.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Look, whatever anyone wants to say about Rick Perry, he's no Scott Walker.

But it would appear that the first thing he did was kill all the lawyers in the public corruption unit.

That's not quite as endearing as keeping the New Jersey riff-raff out of New York City, but it's a start.

damikesc said...

Garage, can you explain how he coerced a public official? When Obama threatens vetoes, is that what HE is doing?

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

It's not the quality of the evidence, but the "seriousness" of the charge that matters for liberals. Campus "rape" or normal politics ... it doesn't matter.

Birkel said...

"garage mahal" wants to know why the indictment is illegitimate.

1)The First Amendment protects the governor.

2) Beyond that, the statute is constitutionally void for vagueness and/or overly broad if it doesn't protect threats of perfectly legal action -- such as a veto -- as per Texas case law.

3) The governor's actions do not fit the definitions of the laws Governor Perry allegedly broke.

Take your pick, smart guy.

Drago said...

garage: "I don't see any explanation in this thread on why this indictment IS illegitimate."

LOL

No, of course you don't.

You would have had to read the original post and follow additional links provided in the original posting to all the arguments about what makes these charges illegitimate to actually see the arguments as to why these charges are illegitimate!

I mean, wow, that would be a handful of clicks, then reading, then comprehending.

We understand why it's beyond you.

garage mahal said...

Take your pick, smart guy.

Predictably dumb and absent any relevant material to the discussion.

Brando said...

"Did Perry try to coerce a public official that ran afoul of a Texas statute? Perry can clearly call for a resignation and he can clearly veto. I think the problem was combining the two."

That's pretty thin gruel, and I suspect if a GOP DA's office were indicting a Democratic governor you'd be taking an opposite tack. Perry absolutely has the power to veto funding, and nothing in his veto power is limited by the qualification that he cannot do so to get a DA to resign. This is not the equivalent of say vetoing funding for an office unless he received campaign donations or gifts--the DA in this question was a convicted drunk driver who as such could bring into question the effective operation of her office.

The indictment is based on a rather tortured reading of the law in question (about trying to "influence" another public official--here, the "influence" is getting a compromised officeholder to resign, rather than say trying to get action taken or not taken on some area of policy or prosecutorial action). No reasonable reading of the law would justify the indictment in this case.

I get that a lot of people don't like Rick Perry, so he makes an uncomfortable victim in this case. But this sort of action sets a dangerous precedent, where partisans engage in no holds barred warfare to bring down the other side, all the while taking all the legitimacy out of our legal and political system. In my opinion, wherever you stand on the spectrum, it isn't worth it to use this tactic.

Birkel said...

So, "garage mahal", do you think the First Amendment doesn't apply to Governor Perry?

Do tell.

tim in vermont said...

If the local voters loved her so much, they could have ponied up the cash that the state was paying in extra subsidy for the office.

As for threatening a veto, what is it that garage has for putting people in prison, remember, this is a prison case, for speech?

Drago said...

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...
It's not the quality of the evidence, but the "seriousness" of the charge that matters for liberals.

Quite so.

Who can forget Tom Foley and dems actually admitting they had no evidence for their insane Lyndon Larouche/Gary Sick inspired October Surprise conspiracy theories yet the dems voted to formally investigate anyway due to the "seriousness" of the charges.

In an election year, of course.

Of course.

Drago said...

Birkel said...
So, "garage mahal", do you think the First Amendment doesn't apply to Governor Perry?

The left typically, where ever the left gains critical political mass, does not think any of the amendments apply to non-leftists.

And the left operates on that working assumption.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Brando said...
"Has there ever been a legitimate investigation of a Republican? NO!"

Are you suggesting that this particular indictment is perfectly legitimate?


garage has one argument and one argument only-- change the subject.

garage mahal said...

So, "garage mahal", do you think the First Amendment doesn't apply to Governor Perry?

Here is the statute:

§ 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.

I think the evidence is pretty strong he attempted to coerce a public official.

Unknown said...

I live in Austin (actually the burbs) and watched the original mess unfold. It was about as ugly as it gets, and had Rosie stopped and submitted when she was arrested she might have been fine, but trying to use her office as a way to get out it was so far out of line that not responding would have shown that there's two types of citizens - those that have to follow the laws and those that live outside the law. The irony that an official charged with oversight looking out for government corruption....

Travis County is heavily liberal (you have to go through Texas to get to Austin) and officials there partially funded the office after the veto, which is pretty incredible to me. Travis County followed up with a GJ indictment (if that's the right term), compounding the idea that liberal government officials are more concerned about the Democratic party than public safety or fair governance.

David said...

"It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this."

Lincolnesque.

Birkel said...

Oh boy. "garage mahal" offered a self-refuting cut-and-paste of the statute as evidence of...

If I thought you had the ability to read and understand statutes without partisan blinders shielding you from the obvious I'd take a minute to explain why you are so hilarious.

Instead I'm laughing and pointing.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
So, "garage mahal", do you think the First Amendment doesn't apply to Governor Perry?

Here is the statute:

§ 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.

I think the evidence is pretty strong he attempted to coerce a public official."

Really? How so?

Unknown said...

garage mahal, I don't know if the 1:31 was supposed to be joke or not. I'm going to assume you are ignorant and not trolling, which could be pretty dumb on my part.

What part of the 36.03 do you think he is violating? What "SPECIFIC exercise of his power" or "duty" are you referring to? Are you deliberately misreading this statue? And did you mean to exclude the part that excludes the Governor form this, as the guy in charge of the State?

David said...

"I think the evidence is pretty strong he attempted to coerce a public official."

You would, Garage.

Not to mention First Amendment and Separation of Powers issues.

Which of course you would not mention.

It's amazing how liberalism today can drain a person of principles.

Jim Gust said...

Here's the video of the drunk driver, in case you missed it:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/this-is-who-texas-democrats-are-defending.php

Quaestor said...

garage mahalI think the evidence is pretty strong he attempted to coerce a public official.

That you're not "up to speed" on this story is typical. That you've copied the text of the statute from one of you're favorite lefty sites is also typical and obvious.

It would help you realize what a foolish conclusion you have drawn if you knew there was a lot more to § 36.03 than you have quoted.

Anonymous said...

Here is an example of how Garage argues:

This is Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

I think the evidence is pretty clear President Obama committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bob Ellison said...

This is not new, and does not spell the end of the American experiment. Corrupt government will always be with us.

Glenn Reynolds is right, though. The people who took part in this should be tarred and feathered. Grand juries are anonymous, so maybe we should do away with them. But tar and feather the court officials who took part in this miscarriage.

Build a little monument somewhere to the elected officials who were so badly treated: Tom Delay, Rick Perry, and Ray Donovan should be etched in stone near the top.

garage mahal said...

Really? How so?

By threatening a veto if the DA didn't resign. Veto = fine. Calling for resignation = fine. Had he kept his mouth shut there would be no case. Otherwise, what does "influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power" mean?

garage mahal said...

It would help you realize what a foolish conclusion you have drawn if you knew there was a lot more to § 36.03 than you have quoted.

Okay....? Enlighten me.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Really? How so?

By threatening a veto if the DA didn't resign. Veto = fine. Calling for resignation = fine. Had he kept his mouth shut there would be no case. Otherwise, what does "influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power" mean?"

No, how specifically is threatening a veto illegal under the statute?

Rocketeer said...

Just curious: why did you stop at (b), Garage? Let's continue with the statute in question:

(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.

As governor, Perry is part of the Executive Branch under the Texas Constitution, ergo, a "member of the governing body of a governmental entity." As if that weren't enough, the Texas governor's veto power is plenary (go ahead, I'll wait while you Google what "plenary" means).

Governor, and veto, are covered by this exception.

Sham indictment.

hombre said...

Mostly what the charges against Perry are "clarifying" is the high level of tolerance many Democrats and their journalistic consorts have for perversion of the criminal legal process for political purposes.

One might even argue that they are developing an appetite for it.

tim in vermont said...

Same way they won the Alaska Senate seat.

Not sure why they would quit now.


Aside: I always figured garage was just having a little fun with us. It looks like he really believes what he says. That is pretty sad.

Birkel said...

"garage mahal" wrote:
"Veto = fine. Calling for resignation = fine."

So each of the individual actions was fine? And Governor Perry had the plenary (I'm assuming you looked it up after the last commenter used the word.) power to veto anything he wanted?

Good. We're in agreement. The indictment is nonsensical.

Matthew Sablan said...

If anyone made a claim about an accusation against a Democrat, I'd be surprised if it got published. "Yes, Obama isn't abusing his power in an illegal way, but a law suit clarifies how much he has been willing to push and bend presidential authority."

Birkel said...

Just to pretend for a minute that "garage mahal" is serious in his reading of the statute, we should all consider where it would leave the analysis.

Under the "garage mahal" analysis the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" would violate Texas state law.

You're up, "garage mahal".

Quaestor said...

@ garage mahal

You really should refine you browsing habits and edit your favorites list. There's information out there, true information, but you have to know how to find it. Some sources, evidently some of those you trust, are just not reliable. Section 36.03 of the Texas code has a considerable legislative history, and has been amended. The text you quoted is outdated, ergo the source you lifted it from is unreliable.

Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 67, Sec. 1, 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


See the difference? (Hint: that's a pun.)

Bob Ellison said...

garage mahal said, 'Otherwise, what does "influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power" mean?'

Very good question. I'd say that statue is anti-American bullshit. The courts should find it in their musty robes to declare it incomprehensible.

For God's sake, man, how do you exercise influence without declaring what you will do if you don't get what you want? Children and dogs know how to do that.

The Governor of Texas is supposed to avoid it?

garage mahal said...

So each of the individual actions was fine?

Except opening his big dumb mouth about it.

Bob Ellison said...

Uh, *statute. I'm at a weak computer right now.

Rocketeer said...

Now you're not even trying, GM.

Henry said...

As best I can tell, Garage has proved that Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg is guilty of Coercion of Public Servant or Voter. Where's the indictment?

The Godfather said...

If I gave credence to the allegations in the TNR article, I might question whether to put Perry onto my mental list of acceptable Republican Presidential candidates, but MacGillis lacks credibility. He says the charges against Perry are "fitting" because Perry is an operator and a striver who acts for his own best interest and that of his wealthy supporters, and not for conservative principles. Perry's alleged "crime" is that he used the powers of his office in an attempt to get a drunk and bully out of a powerful position. If that's what operators and strivers do in Texas, well God bless the operators and strivers.

Birkel said...

"garage mahal" wrote:
"Except opening his big dumb mouth about it."

And now we have run directly into the First Amendment. The First Amendment was the first of the reasons I offered as to why the indictment is ridiculous. I will note that you thought my First Amendment comment was "(p)redictably dumb and absent any relevant material to the discussion."

I will note that you just admitted the only way to read the statute the way you really, really, really want it to read would be to make it the criminalization of speech.

The. First. Amendment.

Paco Wové said...

A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant...;


So, a question for the resident Law Professor: how is this statute not a violation of the 1st Amendment? If you tell a politician you won't vote for them, or if you advocate that somebody's budget be cut if they persue certain ends, are you in violation of this statute (notwithstanding the out given government officials – like Perry – in subsection (c))?

Just Mike said...

I forget where I first read the idea that Liberal Ideaology is like religion to its adherents, but every day presents more evidence of it's apparent truth. Like true believers when it comes to the perceived corruption of their opponenets, no proof is neccessary. An article of faith. Conversely when it comes to the alleged corruption of their own, no quantity of proof could suffice.

Henry said...

Also, if the charges are frivolous, could not those that brought them be charged with the same crime?

Quaestor said...

Actually when I wrote, The text you quoted is outdated, ergo the source you lifted it from is unreliable, I was being generous.

Quoting an outdated text of a law is stupid, but forgivable. However, it looks like garage has quoted a spurious "edit" of the statute that has been trimmed for propagandistic effect, which is malicious.

Enlightened now? (stupid question)

campy said...

"But this sort of action sets a dangerous precedent, where partisans engage in no holds barred warfare to bring down the other side, all the while taking all the legitimacy out of our legal and political system."

This
sets the precedent? Have you been paying any attention to politics lately?

Just Mike said...

@ Curious George: Democrats don't resign because they think they're better than you.
http://www.ego-vero.net/main/?p=805

Seeing Red said...

According to Insty, a Soros-backed front group is involved.

Henry said...

Actually, even if the charges were thick as clotted cream, would not the bringing of the charges against a Governor exercising his veto power be itself a violation the law?

Henry said...

I'm using Garage logic here. Bear with me.

Joe said...

This issue is reflective of Liberal philosophy; that is, any reduction of the welfare state is criminal.

Brando said...

"This sets the precedent? Have you been paying any attention to politics lately?"

I guess I mean it takes the precedent that much further. When reliably liberal publications and commentators think the Democrats have gone too far, they may have finally bitten off more than they can chew.

Quaestor said...

The Godfather wrote: [MacGillis] says the charges against Perry are "fitting" because Perry is an operator and a striver who acts for his own best interest and that of his wealthy supporters, and not for conservative principles.

But according to the received wisdom that motivates "progressives" a governor who acts for his own best interest and that of his wealthy supporters is adhering to conservative principles.

Alex said...

Anyone remember Memogate? It's the "seriousness of the charge" all over again!

Alex said...

Rick Perry is a very bad man and thinks bad thoughts! Travis County DA is going to send Rick Perry into the cornfield!

David said...

Now for something even more serious.

Obama plans to address the nation at 4 PM Eastern on the situation in Ferguson. Gov. Nixon has suspended the curfew but retained state policing of the area. My guess is that he felt a curfew might not be sustainable after an Obama address.

Can something better come out of Obama's taking this role? Obviously there are politics involved but what else does he hope to gain? He will likely say all the right things, but if t really out the situation gets out of control after his speech he is going to be blamed and the politics will start to ratchet up even more. I think it's lucky the Missouri governor is a Democrat. Lyndon Johnson's attempt to make George Romney look bad in the Detroit riot was a real factor in making things worse.

So far he protests have involved only isolated violence. But this may be a tough night. It takes only a few people determined to cause big trouble to set things off.

damikesc said...

§ 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.


Ignoring that you left out much of the law, a simple question:

How is demanding a resignation a means of influencing a public official in their official duties?

The problem was that she was, you know, a fucking drunk who could've killed somebody being so blitzed that she was blowing three times the legal limit HOURS later.

By threatening a veto if the DA didn't resign. Veto = fine. Calling for resignation = fine. Had he kept his mouth shut there would be no case. Otherwise, what does "influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power" mean?

Obama threatens vetoes if legislation isn't to his liking regularly.

ALL politicians do.

And what specific part of the exercise of her official power was impacted? She wasn't fired. She didn't have her budget cut as a DA. She had the budget cut as head of the Integrity Unit (which shouldn't be headed by a fucking drunk).

grackle said...

Rick Perry won't be hurt - he's rich. But he will go away.

Perry has won every elective office he's ever ran for. So he will retire undefeated, not able to run for Governor again because of a term limit of two consecutive terms for that office. A little different than "go away."

I doubt he will enter the presidential primaries again, doubt he would win if he did and further doubt he would win a Presidential election if he should by some long shot become the GOP nominee.

After sitting out the next Texas Governor's campaign he could run for Governor again. Nothing in the Texas constitution prevents it.

Texas men have a style that keeps the upper hand over bad cattle, bad horses and bad women.

"Bad women," I've been involved with a couple of them over the years. I relish every memory. Some of the best moments I've ever had. Never had any upper hand, though.

I think the evidence is pretty strong he attempted to coerce a public official.

The statute as quoted by the commentor refers to only two types of coercion: "to violate the public servant’s known legal duty," or towards "a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner." Coercion to resign an office isn't mentioned in the law – just the two situations about "legal duty" and voting. As far as I can tell Perry did neither.

garage mahal said...

Quoting an outdated text of a law is stupid, but forgivable. However, it looks like garage has quoted a spurious "edit" of the statute that has been trimmed for propagandistic effect, which is malicious.

I lifted it from Patterico actually. He had the exception (c) split off from the statute. Did the veto threat take place in a governing body, and were there deliberations? You're the expert on Texas statutes so maybe you can explain. (I don't know)

Beldar said...

Here's an interesting quote from a comment made by a very prominent and very progressive Houston criminal defense specialist, David Berg, on a very silly HuffPo piece entitled "Why Rick Perry will be convicted:

"As a Yellow Dog Texas Democrat (you could not pay me enough money to vote for Perry) and trial lawyer I can say with confidence that virtually none of the "evidence" mentioned in this blog is admissible in a trial of these charges. What I can say, while wondering why my wife's picture is on this comment and not mine, is that the Travis County DA's office has a long and undistinguished history of vindictive political indictments against Republicans that crumble in the courtroom (Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson) or on appeal (Tom Delay)."

Quaestor said...

Rick Perry is a very bad man and thinks bad thoughts! Travis County DA is going to send Rick Perry into the cornfield!

If Michael McCrum wants to appropriate my avatar he'll have to arm wrestle me for it. Come on, McCrum. Come on , you weed.

Rocketeer said...

Under Article 4 of the Texas Constitution, the governor is a "member of the governing body of a governmental entity", i.e., the Executive Branch, for purposes of the statute. Deliberations are not a requirement; the language is included to clarify that deliberations are considered an "official action" for purposes of the exception.

Sham indictment.

Quaestor said...

garage mahal wrote: Did the veto threat take place in a governing body, and were there deliberations?

Are you really this dense, or is it an act? It doesn't elevate you in the view of others in either case.

From the law: For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity. The word includes is not a synonym for is restricted to.

Read the statute again. Or better yet, get someone else to read it to you aloud, very slowly.

Anonymous said...

MadisonMan asks...

That's the big question I have: Why is the drunk driver still an employee of Travis County?


Because she's a Democrat, and Democrats don't have principles, they just have a lust for power.

Hagar said...

"Forget it; it is Travis County" is right.

Tom DeLay did some serious things he should not have done elsewhere, though, IIRC, they could not make make even those stick legally. The Travis County charges never was anything bud Texas B.S., but the media still keep bringing them up as if they were serious whenever DeLay's name is mentioned.

I do not think these charges against Rick Perry will make much headway with anyone but Garagey Democrats, but I do not think Rick Perry will be nominated. I heard him on O'Reilly (really Shannon Bream), and he was discussing the Travis County indictment as if it was a serious matter. And he was muffling even that, so I think he will be like John Kasich; a good governor in his home state where his actions can speak for him, but he will never be able to make his case on the national stage.

Rusty said...

Rocketeer said...
Now you're not even trying, GM.

No. This represents a steam out the ears level of thought for our garage.

Drago said...

garage insists upon entering the fray.

Hilarity ensues!

Unexpectedly!

garage mahal said...

I'M PASTING THIS PORTION OF THE STATUTE. IT MEANS SOMETHING DAMMIT! LOOK I'M EVEN BOLDING IT! CAN'T YOU TELL WHAT IT MEANS BY ME PASTING IT OVER AND OVER?????

Matthew Sablan said...

"He will likely say all the right things,"

-- For a given definition of right things.

Revenant said...

Take it easy on garage. It has all been downhill for him since November of '08.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"while working recently"

Ha, yeah right Crack. We know how allergic to work you are.

Unknown said...

Garage,

(1) what specific duty or responsibility did RP coerce or threaten? That she not resign after malfeasance? I promise, that's not a duty or of any government official responsibility (at least in Texas).

(2) the bolding (not me or mine) is to point out the specific items you seem not to be able to read, probably in hopes that you could get someone to read it to you.

Rocketeer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rocketeer said...

To be fair, Garage, it's one of the more transparently worded statutes I've ever run across. By this point, I would have expected that copying, pasting, linking and bolding should be enough even for you. Then again, I spend a lot of time around a particularly bright 4-year-old most days so my expectations may be unfairly high in your case.

Quaestor said...

This may help you, garage. Vetoes do not issue from deliberative bodies. They come from the executive. Under Texas law that means the governor. A governor doesn't need to deliberate anything that is inherently within gubernatorial powers.

Your obsession with "deliberations" is irrelevant. The exception to the law, the part that applies to Perry, is this: It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity... The governing body is the governorship, and it has exactly one member, Rick Perry.

garage mahal said...

To be fair, Garage, it's one of the more transparently worded statutes I've ever run across. By this point, I would have expected that copying, pasting, linking and bolding should be enough even for you. Then again, I spend a lot of time around a particularly bright 4-year-old most days so my expectations may be unfairly high in your case.

Hey thanks man. You're copy/paste skills are awesome. But you didn't link to anything. But I'm just going to take your word for it that the portion of the statute you pasted totally clears Perry of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Just like Perry's legal team will be doing for sure.

"Look at this piece of paper! Just look at it!!"

Drago said...

Quaestor: "A governor doesn't need to deliberate anything that is inherently within gubernatorial powers.

Your obsession with "deliberations" is irrelevant."

We are going to continue seeing much that is irrelevant from garage!

The popcorn keeps popping.

And garage keeps doubling/tripling down.

It's as entertaining as I hoped it would be!

Drago said...

garage: "But you didn't link to anything."

LOL

This from the guy who didn't use any of the links in the original post to identify the reasons why this indictment is nonsense on stilts!

It just keeps getting funnier!

Rocketeer said...

Hey, thanks for the compliment.

Unfortunately, I can't return it. Your simple reading comprehension skills suck. The portion of the statute that I pasted - after you failed to - does totally clear Perry. A fair reading of the indictment, and the controlling statute, has legal and political analysts from across the spectrum (including Alan Dershowitz and David Axelrod - David Axelrod, for Pete's sake!) absolutely slamming the DA.

I guess if I can offer you any congratulations at all, it's for your obviously strong sense of pride and loyalty, even if it is the perverse pride you take in and pigheaded loyalty to your own stupidity.

garage mahal said...

The governing body is the governorship, and it has exactly one member, Rick Perry.

"governing body of a governmental entity" means....the governor? And a veto threat is an "official action". Okay. You may be right.

Big Mike said...

@Beldar, many thanks for your contributions to these blog posts about Perry and Travis County (why do I think the historic William Barret Travis would be appalled at what's going on in the county named for him?).

A couple days ago you wrote the following regarding the DA:

And finally, FWIW, as a practicing lawyer in Texas since 1980 who has taught legal ethics in Bar-approved continuing legal education courses, I would not support disbarring the prosecutor. That this is a ridiculous indictment ought to result in its being dismissed, and in him being publicly shamed, and in him never again being selected as a special prosecutor. But one bad, obviously political indictment should have political consequences to him without stripping him of his entire profession and livelihood. The worst part of this is not a breach of legal ethics, it's just bad prosecuting (independent of any ethical considerations).

Really, Beldar, can you tell me how to stop prosecutors from stunts like this one without hitting them very hard in the wallet once caught? It's not as though disbarring the DA would stop him from ever making any money. He could maybe get a job as a waiter or an unskilled laborer. Where is it written that once a person earns a DA's salary and perks he or she is entitled to at least that much salary and those perks forever?

Unless it hurts, really hurts, to get caught I don't see how you stop the bad behavior. In the 18th century we used tar and feathers. I don't think we should have to go back there.

Birkel said...

Also, there's still that testy little First Amendment problem.

Do I need to link to the First Amendment, "garage mahal"?

Alex said...

The point is the Democrats are making a criminal case out of politics. Pure and simple.

Alex said...

BTW, this is pure Alinsky. Even though the case will be thrown out, the average voter got to see headlines - "Rick Perry indicted on charges".

Mission accomplished.

tim in vermont said...

I really did think garage was pulling an Alex on us. But either he is an operative for somebody sent to disrupt the blog with nonsense. They do it to lots of blogs, or he is a stone cold idiot who believes every word anybody to the left of Hillary Clinton says.

Beldar said...

@ Big Mike: Thanks for the kind words and constructive follow-up. I may have been less than crystal clear earlier.

The special prosecutor here, Michael McCrum, is a veteran criminal defense lawyer from San Antonio who was appointed for the investigation and prosecution of the Perry indictment. Before flipping to the defense side, he was a long-time assistant in the U.S. Attorney's office, and he was himself nominated to be the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas by Obama on the recommendation of Hard Left Dem Congressman Lloyd Dogggett, but his nomination was withdrawn. He's also the subject of an unrelated ethics charge himself that's working its way up and down the state-court system. He's apparently accused of having improperly influenced a witness in a criminal trial against one of McCrum's clients to make herself unavailable for easy recall to the stand by the prosecution.

From what McCrum apparently has admitted in the ethics proceeding against him, I'm not surprised that his conduct drew the complaint, but he's tap-dancing on the edge of the ethical and other rules against witness-tampering. That it's an unrelated proceeding which is still pending, of course, means it's no basis to disqualify him as the special prosecutor against Perry. But I'm surprised and disappointed that any district judge would consider appointing someone with that baggage to be a special prosecutor in an alleged public corruption case. He was a horrible, horrible choice, and his actions so far as special prosecutor are outrageous. But for reasons I've previously explained, I don't think his actions so far as Perry's special prosecutor are ever going to get any traction as the basis for an ethics complaint against McCrum.

There's a completely separate question of whether in addition to the temporary suspension of her driver's license, Travis County D.A. Lehmberg's own law license ought to be at risk. If only her drunken driving conviction is considered, her law license is still probably safe despite her guilty plea. But in my judgment, she's so far gotten away with a more serious crime than even her drunk and reckless driving — the abuse of her public office, captured on video, during her arrest and incarceration. Of that she stands uncharged, as yet, at least to my knowledge and at least in the relevant tribunals other than the court of public opinion. And as to her, I personally think the Bar ought to have jerked her ticket for at least a year (which also would have compelled her resignation). But I'm not at all surprised that the Bar hasn't, and don't think it will.

The Crack Emcee said...

So, to one guy, I'm only fit to be a janitor, and to another, I'm allergic to work.

But you're not racists.

Sure you're not racists.

I've spent the morning talking to a representative of Time Warner Music. They contacted me. They like my work. I don't know what'll come of it, but it just happened - online and by phone:

I told them, as someone who's been working your "race hustler" beat since before Michael Brown, I wanted to fight for blacks and reparations - they liked it.

Keep laughing.

Culture beats politics,...

Drago said...

crack: "I told them, as someone who's been working your "race hustler" beat since before Michael Brown, I wanted to fight for blacks and reparations - they liked it."

LOL

Having worked with the Artists & Repertoire lawyers I can tell you that they will tell you how wonderful all your thoughts about any and all subjects are.

Because you are right?

No.

Because you are a musical artist and most musical artists are idiots outside of music and the lawyers are humoring you.

I can't tell you how many stories I've heard the execs/reps relaying about some absurdity uttered by the artist where the lawyer simply smiles, nods their head and requests politely that you sign the deal.

Too funny.

Drago said...

Alex said...
The point is the Democrats are making a criminal case out of politics. Pure and simple

Leftists always, always, end up criminalizing opposition to their policies/views.

The only limiting factor in this criminalization of opposing views is how far down the road to serfdom a nation has traveled.

Birkel said...

Criticism of one person (e.g. The Crack Emcee) is not criticism of the groups to which that one person self-identifies (e.g. blacks).

For example, I believe The Crack Emcee is a self-absorbed obnoxious jerk. I believe this because of The Crack Emcee's writings. The Crack Emcee has agency for his own actions and those actions reflect only on The Crack Emcee.

The narcissistic behavior is entertaining, to my mind.

Carry on.

Drago said...

FWIW, I'm hoping crack gets a deal going here.

Based on some of what I've heard out there, there is no way crack's ability doesn't rise to the level of what is currently commercially acceptable.

I,of course, cannot speak to the viability or sustainability of cracks product offering.

ken in sc said...

Rick Perry is not my first choice anyway. Let's see if they can torpedo Ted Cruz.

Drago said...

crack: "Culture beats politics,..."

Not really the correct way to look at it. Politics and culture are not in conflict.

But, as Andrew Breitbart has pointed out many times prior to his demise, without question politics run downstream from culture.

Think of it this way, electricity and magnetism used to be thought of as distinct fundamental forces.

This was later shown to be false in that the 2 forces are really facets of the same phenomenon.

Culture and politics are similar in that way.

tim in vermont said...

Drago,
I know it is fun at first to poke at he whom I will not name, but honestly. He has his own blog. People who want to read about his obsessions can go there.

Bill Crawford said...

Good luck, Crack. Hopes it works out for you.

Drago said...

crack: "The Crack Emcee said...
So, to one guy, I'm only fit to be a janitor, and to another, I'm allergic to work."

Perhaps you are only allergic to janitorial work?

Your reaction to the word "janitor" was quite visceral.

Was your ex a janitor?

Think of the clean up supplies available to her if she were. You know, for her "extracurricular" activities.

Douglas said...

My only question for all the post-modernists and progressives and lefty-feminists (but I repeat myself) on this board is this: Why isn't Perry's attempts to force Ms Lehmberg out of the Public Integrity Office part of the War on Women (TR)? After all, Lehmberg is a woman, holding high office, and he's trying to force her out? The fact that she has a serious alchohol abuse problem and abused her authority by threatening the officers who arrested her for DUI - that's irrelevant, right, law is just a cover for power, right? Here, Perry should be denounced for his attempts to reinforce the patriarchical power structure by eliminating an oppressed female from power. You, from MADD, over there, keep quiet.

tim in vermont said...

Looks like the left is going for this as hard as they went to prove that typewriters in the '70s could format text in precisely the same way as MS Word so that when you laid one on top of the other, they matched precisely.

You know that had they had half a brain, they could have at least used a font like Courier.

The real mouth breathers are doubling down.

Be said...

I read the janitor comment as more of a dig against Texas culture.

Be said...

Sometimes I wonder if Crack isn't the Black Power Gracie Allen, as we can't see his facial expressions while he's typing his responses.

The Crack Emcee said...

Drago,

"Having worked with the Artists & Repertoire lawyers I can tell you that they will tell you how wonderful all your thoughts about any and all subjects are."

Having been signed to more labels than you know exist, I'll have to pass on your take on things.

I mean, you're Drago,...

garage mahal said...

That's the big question I have: Why is the drunk driver still an employee of Travis County?


Because she's a Democrat, and Democrats don't have principles, they just have a lust for power.


From Beldar's link.

"The idea that he was concerned about Lehmberg's drunk driving is also fatuous nonsense. Two other Texas DAs were arrested for DUI during Perry's tenure in office and he spoke not a discouraging word about their indiscretions. Kaufman County D.A. Rick Harrison drove the wrong way into traffic and was found guilty of drunk driving in 2009 and in 2003 Terry McEachern, DA of Swisher County, was convicted of a DUI. Perry said nothing. It's probably only coincidental that both of those individuals were Republicans and did not oversee an investigative unit responsible for keeping elected officials honest in the capitol."

The Crack Emcee said...

Stop playing the victims, guys:

Pull the white race up by it's bootstraps.

Michael Brown was a criminal - a "game changer" they said.

Rick Perry got glasses and thought he was smart.

Enjoy, racists,...

Be said...

A few years back, had a rough flight that ended up landing me on a military base in Newfoundland. Next to me was a young Frenchman heading out to an internship at some broadcast affiliate in NYC. He was nervously chatting away about Icarus getting too close to the sun, etc, and other pretentious things that young, ostensibly educated French people generally talk about.

When I finally could get a word in, just said, "If God had intended Man to Fly, He'd not have invented the railroads."

Got The Look. (I found one of those Fundamenatlists!!1!)

Asked him if he'd ever heard of Burns and Allen. (He didn't.)
Told him that he'd missed out on a lot of subtle (almost Zen-like - the French are Big into Zen) humor. Gave him a writing assignment, asking for a precis on the humor of Burns / Allen, Jack Benny, Lucille Ball, then bought him a beer.

Be said...

If I could see him in action, I'd think of Crack as a Black Jacques Tati.

Hagar said...

I hesitate to get into it with Garage again, but what Perry vetoed was the State funded" part of her activities. He could not touch her county salary, nor the county salaries of the other two officials mentioned.

Be said...

This said, are we finally seeing the gears om the normally well-oiled Democratic Machines finally starting to wear down?

I'm not particularly sympathetic to Perry. I've generally liked Chris Christie, though I don't like his continuation of the stance on gun control there. I don't know nearly enough about Scott Walker; need to bone up (both on past posts here and elsewhere).

In any event, will be interesting to see the results of the unfair targeting by a failing machine.

Drago said...

crack: "Having been signed to more labels than you know exist,..."

Lots of acts have been signed to labels, with nothing coming of it.

Next.

crack: "...I'll have to pass on your take on things."

No one cares.

You probably don't believe in gravity.

Yet there you sit on your arse.

Drago said...

garage: "The idea that he was concerned about Lehmberg's drunk driving is also fatuous nonsense."

LOL

Mind reading is clearly an court proceedings admissible skill set for dems.

I love how garage simply can't admit the obvious.

Yet he's too dense to understand what's going on.

Makes for some entertaining reading.

Drago said...

Be said...
Sometimes I wonder if Crack isn't the Black Power Gracie Allen, as we can't see his facial expressions while he's typing his responses

Crack is simply doing his part for the obama and the left.

Crack magically decided to go "Race Warrior" at precisely, precisely, the time that the dems/obama decided that ginning up more racial animosity was a requirement for electoral survival.

Crack is simply playing a soros-type funded role in the continuing soap-opera political strategy of the lefties.

Transparent.

Drago said...

crack: "Michael Brown was a criminal - a "game changer" they said"

Note to self: stealing from convenience stores does not make someone a criminal.

garage mahal said...

In any event, will be interesting to see the results of the unfair targeting by a failing machine.

Again, from Beldar's link:

"Of course, he will also continue his argument this is another manifestation of partisan politics in Austin. That claim is as misleading as his veto rhetoric. There wasn't a single Democrat involved in the investigation and indictment. In fact, Perry appointed the presiding judge in the case, Billy Ray Stubblefield of the 3rd Judicial District. Stubblefield named retired Judge Bert Richardson of Bexar County (San Antonio) to handle the grand jury investigation, and Richardson picked Mike McCrum to be the special prosecutor in the case. McCrum, who withdrew his name from consideration for U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, had the support of the two Republican Texas U.S. Senators and the state's Democratic officeholders, which hardly makes him a Democratic Party hack. (A Washington gridlock over the confirmation process in the U.S. Senate caused him to withdraw.)"

Oops.

richardsson said...

I recall some public statements by David Brock in the last two weeks about public corruption, and I see today that one of the funders of this lawfare is the Open Society Foundation, so I can deduce where this trail leads. I think she will soon distance herself from this idiotic mistake, but it won't work. The You Tube tapes of the Travis County DA arrest carryings on have already trumped any value that the Perry mug shots might have brought her. I think Rick Perry is, as they say, extremely lucky in his enemies.

Birkel said...

Now "garage mahal" is pretending another prosecutor isn't a Democrat?!? McCrum is a Democrat. He has donated only to Democrats. President Obama nominated him for a position.

Come on "garage mahal". It's like you aren't really trying.

Drago said...

Birkel said...
Now "garage mahal" is pretending another prosecutor isn't a Democrat?!?

The dem playbook is a very very very thin one.

garage mahal said...

Yep those damn Democrats control everything in Texas.

Drago said...

garage mahal said...
Yep those damn Democrats control everything in Texas

LOL

It figures that would be your fallback position after absorbing another rake to the face!

The dems certainly control McCrum.

Again, this is what happens when garage attempts to participate without adult supervision.

garage mahal said...

The dems certainly control McCrum

" In fact, Perry appointed the presiding judge in the case, Billy Ray Stubblefield of the 3rd Judicial District. Stubblefield named retired Judge Bert Richardson of Bexar County (San Antonio) to handle the grand jury investigation, and Richardson picked Mike McCrum to be the special prosecutor in the case. McCrum, who withdrew his name from consideration for U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, had the support of the two Republican Texas U.S. Senators ..."

Yep, you nailed it again Dragster.

Drago said...

crack: "Having been signed to more labels than you know exist,..."

Just as an fyi crack, my primary role with this client was specifically dealing with the inconsistencies and cost of those inconsistencies between different label practices.

The very first item dealt with in my first week there were how many different record labels there were, geographical/national/cultural/genre/volume/etc differences and how those labels serviced the artists contractually.

So, you may have chatted with a few labels in your illustrious career, but I was working on the other side of the operation and dealing with all the labels.

But only all of them.

For one of the largest music organizations in the world.

It was one of more interesting engagements I've worked on.

Drago said...

garage: "Yep, you nailed it again Dragster."

Yes, I did.

You might want to consider revisiting a GED to update your high level logic/comprehension skills.

Nothing you posted contradicts the fact that McCrum is carrying the dems water on this.

Nothing.

Another stellar garage performance!

Again, you really shouldn't be posting while unaccompanied.

garage mahal said...

You're either a weapons - grade hack or weapons - grade stupid. I tend to think it's both.

Birkel said...

So now "garage mahal" believes there are no Democrats in Austin, Texas?

McCrum donated only to Democrats.
McCrum has been described by friends as a Democrat.
President Obama nominated McCrum for a position.
McCrum was a trial lawyer.

Which of these facts, "garage mahal", indicates McCrum is or is more likely to be a Republican?

Quaestor said...

Crack Emcee wrote: Stop playing the victims, guys

When I read this my irony reflex forced about nine ounces of Coke Zero through my nose and then all over my expensive Apple Bluetooth keyboard. I think you own me a new keyboard, Crack.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Hagar,

He could not touch her county salary, nor the county salaries of the other two officials mentioned.

Are you telling me that the salary of the three was $7.5M?

The Godfather said...

This is now officially a garage and crack (including anti-garage and -crack) thread. Good night.

Hyphenated American said...

The best response would be to induct the liberal DA for corruption.
Eye for eye is the best method.

Hyphenated American said...

"So, to one guy, I'm only fit to be a janitor, and to another, I'm allergic to work.

But you're not racists.

Sure you're not racists."

I am not sure you are fit to be a janitor, does not seem like you can handle the responsibility....

Anyway, why is it racist to doubt your abilities? Do you think that because you are black, you are inherently capable of being a rocket scientist?

P.s. So, talking to a representative from warner brothers is the highest achievement of your whole life?

Be said...

Going to bed, with this song in my head.

http://youtu.be/maYqITlI2is

tim in vermont said...

Drago, you are ruining this blog by humoring the monomaniac. I know it is funny at first to watch him respond exactly as you predict he will every time, but it gets pretty boring after a while.

Unknown said...

---I lifted it from Patterico actually. He had the exception (c) split off from the statute.

Had it split off for EMPHASIS, clown.

I think you are revved up on this case because you have a thing for the not-attractive, obese, bullying alcoholic DA. Have you written her a letter yet?

Oh by the way, there was no defense of Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_%22Duke%22_Cunningham

Hagar said...

@Michelle,
No. In addition to her prosecutorial duties, the Travis Co. DA oversees a state funded program having something to do with "ethics in government," and the governor vetoed that.

Hagar said...

Sorry. He vetoed the funding for the program, which he has authority to do. The program itself would, of course, be the legisslature's business.

Hagar said...

Come to think of it, it is a little bizarre that the Travis County DA would be overseeing a program directed at the State of Texas government, but you will have to talk to the Texas state legislature about that.

Drago said...

garage: "garage mahal said...
You're either a weapons - grade hack or weapons - grade stupid. I tend to think it's both."

LOL

Well, that's precisely the "analysis" one would expect from some backwoods high school grad.

Thanks for playing.