Gov. Rick Perry of Texas Is Indicted on Charge of Abuse of Power

[Billybob]

Aldon Smith got three felony gun charges and a dui reduced to misdemeanors and served 12 days in jail....

Transmitted via Tactical Telecommunications Device

It was over three illegal assault weapons, and later he was not charged for a false bomb threat at LAX, but hey any of us could get that lucky right?

 

[RickN]

Interestingly the Texas public seems to be siding with Perry and the legal scholars think he will be cleared if it is not dropped before making it to court.

Even the far lefties at Think Progress see a constitutional issue.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...out-texas-governor-rick-perry-being-indicted/

Professor Jonathan Turley cites the statutes and quotes them in relevant part. Turley comments: “In this case, the special prosecutor seemed to pound hard to get these square facts into these round holes. A bit too hard for such a case.”

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

Prosecutor Patrick Frey has emailed Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor who secured the indictment: “You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. This prosecution is a joke. It is perhaps one of the most outrageous abuses of power by a prosecutor I have heard of in years. I’m a prosecutor myself - writing you on my own and not speaking for my office - and I just want you to know that your actions tar good prosecutors everywhere. Thank God you never became U.S. Attorney. I hope you lose quickly and are drummed out of public life in disgrace.”

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/my-email-to-michael-mccrum/

 

[turkeyrun]

Election year political posturing.

 

[tntrex]

Politics shore is gettin nasty these days

 

[Glocktogo]

Just because some of privilege go to jail doesn't mean we have a fair and equitable system of justice, many examples prove we don't.

At this point I can't even tell what you're arguing for here? You started this thread on the premise that Perry was in the wrong because he's a Republican that expected a Democrat to do the right thing and made her suffer when she didn't. Now you've plead your case all the way down to privileged people are bad when it comes to the law?

Would you like a bigger shovel?

Interestingly the Texas public seems to be siding with Perry and the legal scholars think he will be cleared if it is not dropped before making it to court.

Even the far lefties at Think Progress see a constitutional issue.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...out-texas-governor-rick-perry-being-indicted/

Professor Jonathan Turley cites the statutes and quotes them in relevant part. Turley comments: “In this case, the special prosecutor seemed to pound hard to get these square facts into these round holes. A bit too hard for such a case.”

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

Prosecutor Patrick Frey has emailed Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor who secured the indictment: “You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. This prosecution is a joke. It is perhaps one of the most outrageous abuses of power by a prosecutor I have heard of in years. I’m a prosecutor myself - writing you on my own and not speaking for my office - and I just want you to know that your actions tar good prosecutors everywhere. Thank God you never became U.S. Attorney. I hope you lose quickly and are drummed out of public life in disgrace.”

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/my-email-to-michael-mccrum/

I'm sure Obama will find something for him for being such a good little Democrat soldier. After all, that's sure not how it turned out for Eric Holder! You can't be that partisan and not get something for your troubles!

 

[loudshirt]

Martha Stewart did 5 months, far below what the base guidelines would have called for even without possible enhancements which the judge didn't use according to this legal expert who wrote several articles on her case.

"Stewart was convicted of obstructing justice and lying to authorities. Accordingly, the obstruction of justice sentencing guidelines will apply. In light of recent amendments to the Guidelines, Stewart's initial sentencing range will be 15 to 21 months. But that is far from the end of the matter...

Stewart was also convicted of a conspiracy to obstruct justice that included her broker, Peter Bacanovic, who also was convicted. Accordingly, Stewart may be eligible for a sentencing enhancement for being "an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor" in the criminal activity. If so, that enhancement would increase Stewart's sentencing range to 30 to 37 months...

Finally, suppose the government uses the evidence supporting the dismissed securities fraud claim to show "abuse of [Stewart's] position of trust" as a member of the board of directors for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. If so, this enhancement would increase Stewart's sentencing range to 37 to 46 months...

Stewart's only hope now for a less severe sentence would be to obtain a downward departure -- that is, to hope the judge will choose to go below the applicable sentencing range. But that hope, again, is slim.

One of the avenues that I explored in my June 2003 column was to argue for a departure based on the fact that Stewart's conduct was aberrant behavior in an otherwise straight-arrow life. But as even Robert G. Morvillo, Stewart's attorney, recognized in a New York Law Journal article published last month, "[a]berrant behavior, already a difficult ground for departure for defendants to obtain[, is] now even more so under the Feeney Amendment." As I have written in another prior column, the Feeney Amendment greatly restricts federal judges in departing from the Guidelines...

Perhaps the Most Likely Sentence For Stewart to Actually Serve: 32 Months

In the end, the chances of any downward departure for Stewart at this point are exceedingly slim, no matter how creative the argument. Nevertheless, creative arguments by her counsel may help -- at least to ensure that Stewart is sentenced at, or near, the bottom of the sentencing range.

And if the range is indeed 37 to 46 months, that could make a significant difference. With a 37-month sentence, and time off for good behavior, Stewart could be out in as little as 32 months..."

Mark H. Allenbaugh, an attorney in private practice, is a nationally recognized expert on federal sentencing, law, policy and practice. He currently serves as the Co-Chair of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Committee for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and is a member of the ABA's Sentencing and Corrections Committee and the United States Sentencing Commission's Practitioners Advisory Group.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/allenbaugh/20040310.html

As to another example how about the rich kid in Texas that only got probation for killing several people while driving drunk and high on valium recently, think the average person would have gotten the same?

Martha Stewart was a big name scapegoat for the whole thing. Just like the feds interview Phil Mickelson. Just trying to put a big name out there. Phil Micklelson was investigated by the FBI and SEC just over a year after publicly complaining about tax rates, especially in California.

 

[Billybob]

At this point I can't even tell what you're arguing for here? You started this thread on the premise that Perry was in the wrong because he's a Republican that expected a Democrat to do the right thing and made her suffer when she didn't. Now you've plead your case all the way down to privileged people are bad when it comes to the law?

Would you like a bigger shovel?

No actually I agreed with Perry on the premise that drunks and other criminals don't belong in the Gov., I questioned his motivations given her bringing out the cancer center(Perry's baby) scandal and the fact he would go after her and not the scandal. Nobody seems to want to talk about the scandal do they? Why?

Then knowing many here would side with him based on the "get the drunk out of office" stance I pointed out that we have a much worse situation here that nobody cares about because it can't be made political or doesn't benefit their side. Nobody seems to want to talk about criminals in Gov. in general or the criminals who have been removed/convicted who are still drawing good pensions at the taxpayers expense do they? Why?

After that I tried to point out that if the legal issues we see politicians in are indeed only political then we have a system of justice that is broken and easily manipulated, but as I said it appears many don't want to address or fix the system instead they just want to control it for their side or benefit and only complain when their side is hurt.

I sought to follow that up with the fact that we often see justice depend on who you are, who you work for, and how much money you have which is shown over and over and again as I said makes a mockery out of the law and justice yet nobody wants to address that issue either

To be more clear about this whole issue I'm not for criminals in Gov. of any sort, I'm not for political or other manipulations of justice or money at the public's expense, and I'm against our system being controlled by and functioning as at best squabbling children on a playground or at worst criminal/ideological factions fighting over turf.

As to your statement about Perry making the DA suffer let me ask who is really suffering in this situation, the DA who still has a job or the people of Texas who do not have a public corruption unit going after a proven scandal costing them 10's of millions of dollars?

 

[Glocktogo]

No actually I agreed with Perry on the premise that drunks and other criminals don't belong in the Gov., I questioned his motivations given her bringing out the cancer center(Perry's baby) scandal and the fact he would go after her and not the scandal. Nobody seems to want to talk about the scandal do they? Why?

Then knowing many here would side with him based on the "get the drunk out of office" stance I pointed out that we have a much worse situation here that nobody cares about because it can't be made political or doesn't benefit their side. Nobody seems to want to talk about criminals in Gov. in general or the criminals who have been removed/convicted who are still drawing good pensions at the taxpayers expense do they? Why?

After that I tried to point out that if the legal issues we see politicians in are indeed only political then we have a system of justice that is broken and easily manipulated, but as I said it appears many don't want to address or fix the system instead they just want to control it for their side or benefit and only complain when their side is hurt.

I sought to follow that up with the fact that we often see justice depend on who you are, who you work for, and how much money you have which is shown over and over and again as I said makes a mockery out of the law and justice yet nobody wants to address that issue either

To be more clear about this whole issue I'm not for criminals in Gov. of any sort, I'm not for political or other manipulations of justice or money at the public's expense, and I'm against our system being controlled by and functioning as at best squabbling children on a playground or at worst criminal/ideological factions fighting over turf.

As to your statement about Perry making the DA suffer let me ask who is really suffering in this situation, the DA who still has a job or the people of Texas who do not have a public corruption unit going after a proven scandal costing them 10's of millions of dollars?

Well the entire nation now knows that the Travis Co. DA is an irresponsible alcoholic, so I'd say she's taken a pretty solid hit. As to your other concerns, they still have a public corruption unit, it just isn't being funded by the state. Lehmberg is free to continue her work on her own time, on her own dime and with whatever volunteers are willing to follow her. OR, she is free to step down as she rightfully should and clear the way for a new DA to assume her duties. Apparently that work isn't important enough for her to do the right thing. So who's actually harming the public interests of the State of Texas here?

You're absolutely right that the entire justice system is broken when it comes to enforcing public integrity. The only time it ever happens is when political foes attack their enemies out of spite. That kind of undermines the entire premise. So I agree with your calls for cleaning up the system, but get back to me when Eric Holder indicts ANYONE in the Obama administration that isn't a whistleblower. I didn't lose a dime in this Texas issue, but I sure as hell did on Solyndra, TARP, Cash For Clunkers, Obamacare and a whole laundry list of other rotten, shady deals by the most corrupt administration in U.S. history!

I just find it amusing that you're so invested in this issue in Texas, while ignoring the much larger issue that's costing all of us here dearly. You doth protest too much methinks.

 

[RickN]

Well the entire nation now knows that the Travis Co. DA is an irresponsible alcoholic, so I'd say she's taken a pretty solid hit. As to your other concerns, they still have a public corruption unit, it just isn't being funded by the state. Lehmberg is free to continue her work on her own time, on her own dime and with whatever volunteers are willing to follow her. OR, she is free to step down as she rightfully should and clear the way for a new DA to assume her duties. Apparently that work isn't important enough for her to do the right thing. So who's actually harming the public interests of the State of Texas here?

You're absolutely right that the entire justice system is broken when it comes to enforcing public integrity. The only time it ever happens is when political foes attack their enemies out of spite. That kind of undermines the entire premise. So I agree with your calls for cleaning up the system, but get back to me when Eric Holder indicts ANYONE in the Obama administration that isn't a whistleblower. I didn't lose a dime in this Texas issue, but I sure as hell did on Solyndra, TARP, Cash For Clunkers, Obamacare and a whole laundry list of other rotten, shady deals by the most corrupt administration in U.S. history!

I just find it amusing that you're so invested in this issue in Texas, while ignoring the much larger issue that's costing all of us here dearly. You doth protest too much methinks.

Well said and to be honest all his jumping from point to point made it not worth bothering with.

 

[Shadowrider]

No actually I agreed with Perry on the premise that drunks and other criminals don't belong in the Gov., I questioned his motivations given her bringing out the cancer center(Perry's baby) scandal and the fact he would go after her and not the scandal. Nobody seems to want to talk about the scandal do they? Why?

Then knowing many here would side with him based on the "get the drunk out of office" stance I pointed out that we have a much worse situation here that nobody cares about because it can't be made political or doesn't benefit their side. Nobody seems to want to talk about criminals in Gov. in general or the criminals who have been removed/convicted who are still drawing good pensions at the taxpayers expense do they? Why?

After that I tried to point out that if the legal issues we see politicians in are indeed only political then we have a system of justice that is broken and easily manipulated, but as I said it appears many don't want to address or fix the system instead they just want to control it for their side or benefit and only complain when their side is hurt.

I sought to follow that up with the fact that we often see justice depend on who you are, who you work for, and how much money you have which is shown over and over and again as I said makes a mockery out of the law and justice yet nobody wants to address that issue either

To be more clear about this whole issue I'm not for criminals in Gov. of any sort, I'm not for political or other manipulations of justice or money at the public's expense, and I'm against our system being controlled by and functioning as at best squabbling children on a playground or at worst criminal/ideological factions fighting over turf.

As to your statement about Perry making the DA suffer let me ask who is really suffering in this situation, the DA who still has a job or the people of Texas who do not have a public corruption unit going after a proven scandal costing them 10's of millions of dollars?

You still can't see the forest because you get caught up with all those dang trees. Read post #46 and just remember they do EVERYTHING big in Texas.

Edit: The cliff notes version for you is that in Texas, if the democrats had their way, indicting republican governors and congress critters would be the official sport of Texas, and the democrats "own" Travis County.