Malice cannot be proven.
This is the most significant axiom learned in any Communications Law course.
Therefore, Democrats should not be surprised when their claim that Texas Governor, Rick Perry's alleged abuse of power isn't upheld. It could ultimately blow up in their face!
April 12th, 2013 Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg shook the very fabric of Austin's Democrat Establishment with an untimely D.W.I.. Yes, the D.A. was drunk. Very drunk, registering three times the required legal limit! Worse still, she resisted arrest, spewing threats and accusations at local law enforcement officials during her incarceration.
According to Lehmberg, she had consumed "only two glasses of wine." The opened bottle of vodka found in her car suggested otherwise.
To listen to her drunken drivel, it was clear that, in her mind, her arrest was intentional. Someone was out to ruin her career. Never mind the fact that there were calls complaining about her "driving all over the road." Fortunately for Lehmberg, nobody was injured.
Eventually, the D.A. pled guilty, serving 22-days of a 45-day sentence. Rick Perry asked her to resign. She refused. By law, he couldn't fire her. The question that lead to this past weekend's indictment, "could Perry's subsequent threat to veto funding of the "Public Integrity Unit," be an abuse of power? If so, he could face up to 109 years in prison.
The left leaning, Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint. State Democrats were were quick to pick up on it. State DNC Chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa called for Perry's resignation. Yet, former Obama advisor, David Axelrod admitted that the charges were "pretty sketchy." State GOP Chairman, Steve Munisteri said, "a politically motivated prosecution" yielded the indictment.
In truth, the Travis County Grand Jury was overwhelmingly stacked with Democrats. Austin is said to be a "liberal island in the midst of a conservative sea." Under the Texas Constitution, Perry had every right to veto funding of the Public Intregrity Unit, which he did. The question that looms is "did Perry have the right to threaten a veto, in the event that Lehmberg refused to resign?"
Veto threats are used constantly by Chief Executives, from Presidents down. Lehmberg's behavior was unbecoming of her office. The jail video led to an investigation of Lehmberg by a separate grand jury. It determined that she should not be removed for official misconduct.
Perry called the allegation, "a farce." He stated, "I think Americans and Texans who have seen the video would agree that this is not the type individual who should be heading up an office that we want to fund." Perry said in an August 16th press conference. "I wholeheartedly and unequivocally stand behind my veto." Perry added that he would have not vetoed the funding had Lehmberg resigned.
Why didn't Lehmberg simply resign? Had she done so, Perry would have appointed a Republican to fill her position. Lest we forget, under her stewardship, the Public Intregity Unit wrongly indicted Tom Delay. Although Delay was eventually acquitted, his career was ruined. They also indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson who, like Delay, proved innocent of charges.
In short, this is partisan politics at the very worst. Most Americans should be outraged by it. To suggest that Perry wanted Lehmberg out, so that he could appoint a Republican, is presumptious. After personally reviewing the video,I concluded that this women should have resigned unconditionally.
The highly partisan Lehmberg was in process of spearheading another "Delay-Hutchinson" style witch hunt. It concerned alleged misappropriation of funds in the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Something unexpected took place. Lehmberg got busted for drunk driving! Then she resisted arrest. Her antics were seen all over local television. As one Travis County Democrat admitted, "Lehmberg was raked over the coals by party bosses for her actions." Yet, she remained in office. In essence "lip service and a mild slap on the wrists!"
Did Perry indeed abuse his power? His attorney, David L. Botsford didn't think so, stating that he was "outraged and appalled" at the decision.
"This clearly represents political abuse of the court system and there is no legal basis in this decision." Botsford added.
Still, Special Prosecutor, Michael McCrum will evaluate the indictment. "I took into account that we're talking about a Governor of a state-and a Governor of the state of Texas, which we all love." McCrum said. "Obviously that carries a lot of importance. But when it gets down to it, the law is the law."
Which translates into "what?" It can obviously go either way.
Conservatives can and will rally behind Perry. Lehmberg is a partisan hack who is, based on her liquor store receipts, a drunk. Perry's request for her resignation was the correct one. His refusal to fund any office headed by her made sense, especially considering the office was all about "ethics!."
Had Democrats had been truly interested in maintaining the Public Integrity Unit, they would have pressured Lehmberg to resign. This, they didn't do. Hence, we can conclude that the state Democrats cared only about keeping a Democrat in that position. Nothing more.
Should the case go against Perry, there could an outrage so prolific that the entirely credibility of the criminal justice system could become suspect. In reality, the case is absurb.
For grassroots America, Perry represents family, Christianity, opportunity, country, freedom from big government, and old fashioned American values. To Perry supporters, Lehmberg is the "poster child" for today's Democrat Party. She represents everything that conservatives loathe. In their eyes, there never was a case to begin with!
Conversely, if the ruling goes in Perry's favor, as it should, Perry will draw benefits. His decisive action reflects strong leadership ability; something desperately lacking in the current administration.
America is tired of Presidents who check the polls prior to making decisions. They are ready for a Chief Executive who doesn't make "political correctness" the prime consideration. They want courageous, decisive leadership. Perry knew that there would be partisan repercussions from his veto. But he concluded that Lehmberg, based on her actions, was unfit for the post.
Sadly, Texas Democrats missed a golden opportunity to place the state first. Lehmberg's refusal to resign, and her parties reluctance to advocate her resignation, is inconsistent with their plea for Republicans to acquiesce to Democrat demands on the national level.
When assessing Attorney General, Eric Holder's laissez faire approach to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the I.R.S., Travis County's indictment is woefully inconsistent. But wait! Were not all alleged wrong doers in Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the I.R.S. Democrats? And don't forget about immigration! Holder seems to have a tendency to enforce the laws that he personally thinks are just. Who cares about what the laws actually read.
This double standard is at the root of Democrats' credibility. Justice itself is supposed to be blind, never partisan. Americans hate double standards. While the mainstream media has been slow to catch on, their credibility has likewise become suspect. Perhaps it's time for them do their job!
Post a Comment