Texas Gov. Perry indicted ...

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: LeatherNLace


On the other hand, the Lehmberg case was very public and very demeaning to the office, regarding her behavior caught on video. Have no idea if any of the others reached that level of... disgusting behavior.

Here is the thing..I agree with you that she should step down. I also think it is not Governor Perry's right to over-ride voters by offering money to demand the same.

Much like I think KKK Rallies suck...but would fight for their right to assemble an espouse nonsense if the government decided to pick and choose who could do so.

Principles, like laws, only mean something if we stick by them when they are inconvenient.

a reply to: Indigo5

So the law is more important than the principle? Or vice versa?

And...I am not sure the application of the law as stated will apply to this case unless Perry had an ulterior motive.

All he has to do is argue that, due to leadership issues, he had no confidence in the department to execute it's charter. There was no "offer" of money, per se, but rather a withholding of funding.

Flak Flash

The man behind the indictment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) was accused of witness tampering earlier this year by a Texas District Attorney. Mike McCrum, a special prosecutor in Texas, secured a two-count grand jury indictment of Perry last week alleging the long-time governor had abused his office. But McCrum’s past, which includes extensive work as a defense attorney, cast shadows over his current crusade against alleged abuses of power.

Texas Special Prosecutor Accused of Witness Tampering

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Indigo5

So the law is more important than the principle? Or vice versa?

It is not Laws vs. Principles. Principles are an individual foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning, while Laws are a system of rules that a particular country or state establishes.

And dictatorship is when a person of power exercises their individual principles, or lack thereof as law.

To conflate the two is to undermine the foundation of democracy.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yes, and no. When it is clear that a law conflicts with standard principles, ethics, then the law should be reexamined. When one does the right thing, and is in conflict with a law for no other reasons than the technicality of it, then something is wrong. At least, that is my opinion.

There must be a rule of law, but those laws must be subject to principles. Laws without principle are the beginnings of tyranny, IMO.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Indigo5

There must be a rule of law, but those laws must be subject to principles. Laws without principle are the beginnings of tyranny, IMO.

Again you are conflating the idea of individual principles which vary from person to person, with laws.

Here, let me illustrate this within your post..

---

There must be a rule of law, but those laws must be subject to Governor Perry's principles. Laws without Governor Perry's principle are the beginnings of tyranny, IMO.

a reply to: Indigo5

There are principles or some call morals, which govern the lion's share of our laws.

Murder is bad. Theft is bad...see what I mean?

A law without principles would be..hmm... it is against the law to sell a 32 oz soft drink. There you get a conflagration of principle. There you are walking a line that leads to tyranny when the govt thinks they know better than I how I should live my life and there are not sound principles guiding the law.

I get what you are saying. On the other hand, given your example perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that the vast majority of people would agree that a DA that leads an ethics investigation unit, who is arrested for DUI and then attempts to use her position to avoid prosecution, attempts to use cronies to get her out of the rock and a hard space and is then convicted, should step down from her position. That would imply the principle is right.

If Perry had another reason to force her out and close the ethics unit down, as in to avoid prosecution, then he should burn. The DA should still step down, and the fact she wont and she has crony support to remain is disgusting.

a reply to: Indigo5

BTW...thanks for the debate. I love this kinda stuff. Makes one think and I appreciate that it is civil and honest.

Update: Just heard this on the radio here in Austin a few minutes ago, went online and found the article they were quoting . . . . interesting.

Source: www.texastribune.org...

The Big Conversation

Mindy Montford, a former candidate for Travis County DA and daughter of former state Sen. John Montford, confirmed on Sunday that Gov. Rick Perry called to see if she was interested in replacing District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, the Austin American-Statesman and KVUE-TV reported.

The conversation to gauge her interest took place in June 2013, before Perry's threat became public to veto funding for the public integrity unit if Lehmberg did not resign. "The revelation shows the level at which Perry was directly involved in attempts to force Lehmberg’s resignation and appoint a successor in the days leading up to his June 14 veto — rather than high-level aides coordinating the effort and briefing the governor," wrote the Statesman's Tony Plohetski.

Perry's reaching out to a Democrat "also indicates the governor’s effort to possibly be bipartisan in naming a Lehmberg replacement." Montford ran for DA in 2008, losing in a party primary runoff against Lehmberg in the contest to succeed Ronnie Earle.

This would not be the first time Perry has pushed for a position for a Montford. In 2009, Perry backed Montford's father for UT System chancellor, a post eventually given to Francisco Cigarroa.

Hmmmm, this might not be the exact article KLBJ is quoting, they just came on again and said that Perry also spoke with D Senator Kirk Watson about the situation before the veto.

Imho, and as this statement from Montford shows Perry just wanted Lehmberg out due to her condition, no politics involved, she just isn't fit for the position. Public outcry from both sides insisted he do something about it.

And as this statement shows Perry realizing it was an elected position went to the runner-up for the Dems to take her place. Kinda like the Miss America pageant and if for any reason they cannot perform their duties the runner-up will stand in.

Lol, now I have an image of Lehmberg in a bathing suit stuck in my head, aaaarrrrrgh, even with the sash and roses she ain't no Miss Congeniality that's for sure.

STM

a reply to: seentoomuch

I read an article that covered that as well. It appears that Perry was just trying to take out a bad apple, not trying to subvert the system.

The support that DA is getting from Dems in the area is disconcerting. It makes me think they have something to hide that someone a bit less controllable might pursue.

50 page motion submitted to drop the charges. Gag! can you imagine the amount of legalese in those 50 pages that, in effect, say because the charges are vague the case should be dropped.

I did it in one phrase.... lol

Update, lol.

Someone on Perry's staff or Perry tweeted this last night at around 7:20 PM and an hour or so later Perry tweeted that it was unauthorized by him . . .



Source: www.dallasnews.com...

originally posted by: Daughter2
I hate threads like these. You could put your ideas into one post but instead you spread them out in multiple posts so when someone adds important details, they will be on the second page.

He wasn't charged because he thought she should leave office. He is being charged because by law he can not withhold funding to get someone to step down.


Heck, right now I think Perry should leave office but if I tried to bribe people to withhold his paycheck, I would be charged with a crime.

It's the typical right wing so called Christian belief. They seem to think they get to judge what's right and wrong - if they laws don't agree with them they get to break them.

...and we have a winner.

Beautiful post.