Not sure what you're reading but it's Texas Observers and some other local Texas newspapers. I've essentially condensed it into a single paragraph.
If this is true the story is being badly mis-reported. I.e., Perry wants her out for nefarious purposes, not because of her DUI etc.
Fern
I think there's a difference between political concessions and asking for the resignation of an elected official (sorry, Canuck here and I may be wrong on her being elected).
The thread is largely missing one important part of the story, lets rehash through it...
The Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg works in Texas's Public Integrity Unit - essentially a part of the Texas Government that's solely purpose is to look for corruption with-in Texas.
As you probably already know, Lehmberg was convicted of driving drunk and acting extraordinarily unprofessional during her arrest. Once it become public, Rick Perry demanded she resign and if she didn't - he'd veto funding for the organization. She didn't resign and he veto'd funding.
Why didn't she resign, because the Public Integrity Unit was investigating CPRIT. The organization grants public funds for cancer research but something fishy was going with whom received the money. They found out that an exec was picking favorites on who got the donations. Who got the donations? Groups/people with ties to Rick Perry. That exec has been indicted and resigned.
If Lehmberg has resigned, Perry would have been able to appoint whomever he wanted into the Public Integrity Unit and kill the investigation.
The argument is that Perry used Lemberg's DUI as cover to save his buddies but that's hard sell in court. Here's the kicker - supposedly Perry went behind closed doors and told Lemberg if she didn't fight him he'd find her a job someplace else.
If they could prove it in court, Perry will undoubtedly be found guilty. Last but not least Lehmberg is an elected official who's responsible to Travis County so Perry killing her funding doesn't really play out...
Evidently it's not only war that is an extension of politics, it's also the grand jury.Rho Chalmers, who disclosed to the Houston Chronicle yesterday that she was a member of the grand jury that indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was an active delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention during grand jury proceedings. Chalmers active participation in Democratic state politics is important because she claimed yesterday to the Houston Chronicle that her decision to indict Perry, a Republican, was not based on politics.
For me, its not a political decision, Chalmers told the newspaper. Thats what a grand jury is about take the emotion out of it and look at the facts and make your best decision based on your life experience.
More troubling, however, is the fact that Chalmers attended, photographed, and commented on an event with Democratic state Sen. Kirk Watson while grand jury proceedings were ongoing.
Watson was a witness in front of the grand jury. On June 27, 2014, Chalmers shared a photo of the Watson event on a community Facebook page she started called Developers Dungeon. Senator Kirk Watson telling the story of the Wendy Davis fillibuster (sic), she wrote in a comment accompanying the picture.
Rho Chalmers Kirk Watson Post
The grand jury was selected in April of 2014 and its proceedings did not conclude until it returned two indictments of Perry last week. While grand jurors are not generally prohibited from engaging in political activity, Chalmers apparent giddiness at attending an event for a grand jury witness calls into question her ability to objectively scrutinize his testimony. Watson had testified before Chalmers and the rest of her colleagues on the grand jury just one month before Chalmers attended his event. Knowingly seeking out participation in an event featuring a grand jury witness while grand jury proceedings were ongoing also seems highly questionable.
Numerous posts from both of Chalmers Facebook pages her personal page, which she shares with her husband, Davis, and her Developers Dungeon page make clear that she is a partisan Democratic activist, and that she was an active participant in the Texas Democratic Partys state convention in June while grand jury proceedings were ongoing.
In one Facebook post on her personal page from June 28, she snapped a selfie showcasing her convention credentials.
Rho Chalmers TDPC Selfie
In a separate post on her Developers Dungeon page, Chalmers showcased her Texas Democratic Party convention credentials and bragged about her participation on the partys Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee was challenging but fun. A little over half a day to resolve everything but we got er done! she wrote. She then liked and shared that post using her personal Facebook page, where she noted that she was pleasantly surprised that I wasnt completely lost on this committee.
Rho Chalmers TDPC Credentials Rho Chalmers Rules Committee Pleasantly Surprised
Each of these posts was made while the grand jury was convened and its proceedings were ongoing.
Other Facebook activity from Chalmers also demonstrates her partisan political leanings. Her personal Facebook page shows that Chalmers likes the following Facebook groups: University Democrats, Central Austin Democrats, Black Austin Democrats, and South Travis United Democrats.
The University Democrats Facebook page crowed about Perrys indictment shortly after it was announced.
Chalmers also implied support of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis in a post, photo, and comment from November 24, 2013.
Rho Chalmers Blue Texas Wendy Davis
Wow, a blue Texas, she wrote, referring to a national weather map from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[C]oming soon when wendy davis wins! commented one of her friends.
[G]rin, Chalmers replied.
Apparently one of those non-political grand jurors who indicted Perry was "an active delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention during grand jury proceedings."
http://mediatrackers.org/national/2...ve-democratic-party-delegate-jury-proceedings
Evidently it's not only war that is an extension of politics, it's also the grand jury.
I've been on a Texas jury before but never a Grand Jury. Anyone know if they go through Voir Dire? If so some lawyer screwed up.
Interestingly, it's only Texas and California that even allow the so-called key-man selection system. While affirming Texas' right to use its system in 1977, SCOTUS did warn against it.They do not. If I remember right they are selected by a judge, who I guess would still be a lawyer that screwed up. Grand jury proceedings aren't adversarial, it's just the prosecutor presenting his case. That's why people always say that prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict basically anyone they want. The standard is pretty low.
It's amusing to see the progression though. Now it's a left wing system using the grand jury as a tool against the ring wing majority. The earlier cases were due to the ring wing majority using the grand jury as a tool against minorities. What goes around, comes around. Doesn't make it right, but it does offer a certain chuckle factor.Back in 1977, the Supreme Court warned that, although it has upheld the facial constitutionality of the key-man system, the Texas system is highly subjective and susceptible of abuse as applied. Indeed, it observed later in the same opinion, Because of the many facets of human motivation, it would be unwise to presume as a matter of law that human beings of one definable group will not discriminate against other members of their group. Castenada was the last of the Courts series of six opinionsthe first issued in 1940 and the last in 1977involving the selection of grand jurors in Texas. In each of these cases, the defendants challenged the racial composition of the grand juries. Nearly a half century has passed since the High Courts last opinion on the Texas key-man system but, in light of the random selection system adopted in most of the nation, Texas continues to taunt Washington by its reluctance to either adopt the random system or prescribe that the key-man system result in grand juries that are representative of the community.
The key-man system attracts challenges on grounds that it is subject to abuse. The principal complaint is that the jurors are drawn from those directly connected with the criminal justice system including attorneys, bailiffs, court reporters, probation officers, and the like. Also, many jurors are drawn from those persons who are considered pillars of the community, and retirees. Many of these may have strong ties with law enforcement officers who bring their cases and appear before a grand jury. It is argued that all these selections are inherently more likely to buy into whatever the judge, prosecutor, or officers say. Subject to the bar on repeated service within a twelve-month period, the recycling of jurors also occurs. In this manner, a large slice of the community can be overlooked or ignored for grand jury selection. Worse, the selection of repeats can be viewed as effectively disenfranchising portions of the population, i.e., those elements that the judge and commissioners dont know. Accordingly, it is argued that those grand jurors selected under the key-man system inadequately reflect a fair cross-section of society.
But perhaps it is the appearance of impropriety, which is fostered all too easily by the key-man system, that remains its principal fault. As a single judge selects a limited number of jury commissioners and the jury commissioners chose the grand jurors this method has been interpreted as engendering nothing better than a pick-a-pal process. This can lead to strong ties between the grand jurors and elected officials or government employees who are investigated by the grand jury and also with police officers. With this information, the critical public is, perhaps, left believing that where theres smoke, theres firethat favoritism and cronyism infect the criminal justice system from the very start of formal proceedings.
Perry will continue to claim that this is a partisan witch hunt. But there wasn't a single Democrat involved in the investigation and indictment.
A Republican judge, appointed by Rick Perry, appointed another Republican judge to handle Perry's corruption case. San Antonio attorney Michael McCrum was named as special prosecutor. McCrum was a U.S. prosecutor under George H.W. Bush and was submitted for U.S. attorney by Sen. John Cornyn. And Perry was indicted by a randomly selected grand jury of his Texas peers.
I'm just wondering if we ever got an explanation how a DA in the public integrity unit would ever have the words come out of their mouth, Call the sheriff!, when they get arrested. Did we get an official spin excuse on that or does anyone else find that the most F'd up part of this entire situation?
I'm just wondering if we ever got an explanation how a DA in the public integrity unit would ever have the words come out of their mouth, Call the sheriff!, when they get arrested. Did we get an official spin excuse on that or does anyone else find that the most F'd up part of this entire situation?
Ahh, so the public integrity DA who is a perfect example of no public integrity got a pass from her buddies. Then we have Gov Rich Boy who decides that's not how he wants the public integrity office to operate and is dumb enough to announce why he vetoes funding for that office. Haha so F'd up all around...
Unless she didn't actually utter those words, I'm not sure what more I need to have a grasp of. A DA should be beyond reproach in behavior (at least as much is possible when referencing scum, that is, lawyers), regardless of what office they're out of. This particular DA was in the Public Integrity unit? That means even more beyond reproach. This DA went and got drunk (that's fine), decided to drive (immediate black mark), and then wanted a justice system peer to be called when jailed? And she is a DA in the Public Integrity unit? Buwhwhahahahaa!!! How much more could one DA f*ck up?? The 'justice system', composed of like buddy scum (again, lawyers), gives her a pass? Gives a DA a pass? Whoopto doo. No sh*t they gave her a pass. Police give other police passes, doctors give other doctors passes. To even infer 'the system' worked as designed there is just an amazing statement.
Worse, this moral failure of a DA didn't even resign out of the shame she should have felt she brought that office. Not surprising given she's a lawyer, who have only moral standards when they need to preach about them, but still, one would think her boss might have said, Having a drunk driver working at the Public Integrity office is too much, even for government lawyer scum like us...you can resign or be given jobs cleaning the bathroom.
So really, I don't fault Perry here for punishing that office. Obviously a message needed to be sent to them that they're not above themselves. Where I fault Perry is he was dumb enough to actually say why he did it. Seriously, who is that dumb? Even if he thought he was in the right (especially legally), why would you sign yourself up for the extra BS you don't already need at your job? Your staffer can unofficially deliver to the appropriate parties why the veto is happening, and you remain insulated. Not that I cared about Perry for POTUS before, but even if I did, this would really make me wonder about his qualifications for the job; not that Bummer had any real qualifications either, but that didn't stop him from getting elected either.
Chuck
Uhh-wah-uhh-wah-uhh-wahUhh-wah-uhh-wah-uhh-wah.
Texas law does not empower Perry to punish Lehmberg or the govt unit she serves because of her personal misdeeds, which were merely an excuse in the first place.
Dance around that all you want.
Does Texas law grant him the power to veto without justification?Uhh-wah-uhh-wah-uhh-wah.
Texas law does not empower Perry to punish Lehmberg or the govt unit she serves because of her personal misdeeds, which were merely an excuse in the first place.
Dance around that all you want.
Well, this is indeed quite interesting, but you are right that proving such intent in court would be very very difficult.
Reality is probably that her DUI simply became an extremely convenient tool for Perry to get what he wanted. With the fact of a DUI, no one would charge Perry with improper discipline.
...now, is the HP that arrested her one of Perry's buddies? WAS SHE SET UP?!
Not if the trial jury too is composed of active Democrat Convention delegates.Yep, that intent can be a mofo to prove.
Not if the trial jury too is composed of active Democrat Convention delegates.
Does Texas law grant him the power to veto without justification?
Its very material. Why not answer it?Immaterial, because that's not what happened.