credit: huffingtonpost.com
I’ve been following the Rick Perry persecution since his leftist-fueled arrest in August of 2014. Perry, as regular readers will recall, made the mistake of demanding that an alcoholic prosecutor convicted of DWI step down from her position as the leader of the state public integrity unit. Those articles are:
Rick Perry: Politics Criminalized
Rick Perry: Dismissal or Pursuit?
Rick Perry: Prolonging The Spectacle
For the latest news, Fox reports:
A Texas judge on Tuesday [01-27-15] refused to dismiss a felony abuse-of-power case against former Gov. Rick Perry on constitutional grounds, ruling that criminal charges against the possible 2016 presidential candidate should stand.
In 44 pages of decisions and orders, District Judge Bert Richardson, who like Perry is a Republican, rejected calls from Perry’s pricy defense team to toss the case because its client was acting within his rights as chief executive of America’s second-most populous state when he publicly threatened, then carried out, a 2013 veto of state funding for public corruption prosecutors.
Richardson wrote that, ‘Texas law clearly precludes a trial court from making a pretrial determination regarding the constitutionality of a state penal or criminal procedural statute as the statue applies to a particular defendant.’
And so, for the time being, the circus goes on:
Perry has spent more than $1.1 million of his campaign funds on his defense — and Richard’s ruling means it will likely continue for several more months at least.
David Botsford, one of Perry’s defense attorneys, said the legal team had filed a notice of appeal. Another attorney, Tony Buzbee, issued a statement saying that the former governor ‘acted lawfully and properly exercised his power under the law’ and that his continued prosecution ‘is an outrage and sets a dangerous precedent in our Democracy.’
Perry was indicted in August on charges of abuse of official power and coercion of a public servant. He is accused of publicly threatening — then making good on — the veto of $7.5 million in state funding for a public corruption division within the office of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. That came after Lehmberg, a Democrat whose county includes Austin, rebuffed Perry’s calls to resign following a conviction and jail time for drunken driving.
As I’ve previously noted, it is entirely appropriate–and certainly not illegal–for a governor to demand that a public official who has been convicted of crimes that render their continued service untenable, resign. It is also entirely appropriate and legal for a governor to make a veto threat–for virtually any reason–and then to carry out that veto threat. There is, in fact, a highly specific Texas precedent that bears directly on this case, and in Perry’s favor. But the Travis County prosecutors office, a pocket of virulent leftists in a red state, has a long history of politicizing the law.
Texans for Public Justice, a left-leaning watchdog group based in Austin, raised concerns that gave rise to the criminal case. The group’s executive director, Craig McDonald, released a statement Tuesday saying, ‘The prosecutor and a grand jury have said there’s compelling evidence against Perry. That evidence should be presented in court for all to see. The chances of that happening improved today.’
And there we have the essence of the corrupt social justice ethic: “We’re not political hacks, oh no, we’re doing this so the public will have the chance to see everything. Let the public decide.” Such faux-nobility and concern for the public welfare is less than touching. We don’t prosecute innocent people because the process is the punishment and does enormous damage. Ethical prosecutors would never have brought such a case.
“In a 60-page motion filed in August, Perry’s attorneys had said the law being used to prosecute him is unconstitutionally vague and decried ‘attempts to convert inescapably political disputes into criminal complaints.’
Richardson did rule Tuesday that one of the charges against Perry was vague, but he gave the state time to correct it. [skip]
Top national Republicans initially lined up to praise Perry and decry the criminal charges against him — but they’ve been less vocal about their support as the case drags on.
Even Fox engages in deceptive reporting upon occasion. The opinions of Republicans, and a great many prominent Democrats, about this case have not, in the least, changed. Not a single person who initially expressed outrage over this case, not a single credible legal analyst has changed their mind, but with the passage of time, public interest shifts to new outrages, and in the age of Obama, they are plentiful.
Richardson had previously refused to toss the case on a series of technicalities Perry’s lawyers raised, including questioning whether the special prosecutor assigned to the case, San Antonio attorney Michael McCrum, was properly sworn in.
McCrum has said from the start that the case is stronger than it may outwardly appear, and that it should be heard by a jury.
McCrum’s statement tells the story: Don’t be distracted by the facts. This case isn’t really as weak as it obviously appears to be, just let me get it in front of a jury, and we’ll get the Republican bastard somehow.
As with the case of Tom Delay, Rick Perry will eventually be exonerated. But by then, his political career may well be over, which was the point from the beginning of this political witch hunt, aided and abetted by any judge that allows this obvious injustice to proceed.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
At the moment, I’m far more concerned about Perry’s recent comments that he believes that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t actually a right, but rather a privilege that the government bestows upon us.
Dear Chip Bennett:
I’m cautious about this one. Rick Perry does have a very good record on Second Amendment issues, so I’ll let this play out a bit before I have any opinion on it. I doubt he’s going to be a contender for president in any case.
Perry shit in his own mess kit on this one. Comparing a privilege to a right.
If Texas passes an open carry bill which negates the reconstruction era law against open carrying a handgun, they will only have recognized that we have that right and they were wrong to pass and enforce a law which is blatantly unconstitutional.
In any event I will not carry openly but I feel it is not the governments place to tell someone they cannot.
Paul in Texas
Reading comprehension is important.
Paul, if you had read the article carefully, what Perry was referring to was the state-granted right to open carry, not the right to carry & bear arms.
He even goes on to say that he prefers concealed carry himself.
Now, if you think that this requirement is a violation of your innate civil rights, feel free to open carry -without a permit- in a state which requires a permit and see how far you get. States have long enjoyed this prerogative and I seriously doubt that will change any time soon.
If I were you I would place the gun laws of California, Chicago, and New York at a greater concern than Perry’s misinterpreted remarks.
Yes, reading comprehension is important.
Perry says that he doesn’t like open carry, and that anyone who carries a gun out to be “backgrounded, vetted, and trained”:
(Note: there very well may be some conflation/confusion of open carry with concealed carry here – whether on the part of Perry, or the reporter.)
…and (here’s the important part) believes that concealed carry is a government-granted privilege:
So, in Perry’s world (if the first part of the quote applies to open carry, as opposed to constitutional carry), one should not open carry, but one may only concealed carry upon grant of that privilege by the government.
Such a view, if accurate, is in stark contrast to the second amendment.
“The State granted right to open carry?” The Constitution was adopted as a limit on government powers. “Shall not be infringed” can only be interpreted as our natural rights, endowed by our Creator, cannot be limited by any government law.
Casey, I think you may want to rethink your position on this issue. Simply because a State has enforced unconstitutional (read illegal) laws for a long time does not make those laws legal or right.
Comparisons with other States ie: California, New York, etc. has no bearing on Perry’s statement that he thinks any form of rights can be reinterpreted as a government granted privilege.
I do have a Texas license to carry concealed, and as I mentioned would not carry openly even if the law against open carry is struck down, however, that law passed during reconstruction was and is unconstitutional.
Paul in Texas
Pingback: Rick Perry: Prosecutor Hardest Hit | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Rick Perry: Pyrrhic Victory | Stately McDaniel Manor