“[b]y the weird logic of the indictment, Mr. Perry would have been in the
clear if he had simply vetoed the funding without threatening to do so
first.”Well that's true of extortion in general. You are
perfectly within your rights to report someone to the IRS but you can't use
the threat of reporting to extort something from the individual.I'm somewhat of a fan of Perry and also believe it's disgraceful
that the DA is still holding her position, but I see these charges as serious.
That said, I find criminal prosecution in this situation extremely troubling and
hope that Derschowitz et al are right.
After months of politically motivated attacks on and an absurd lawsuit against
our President for doing his job, the same conservatives who have brought
politics to this shameful level are now defending Rick Perry for ABUSING (not
merely using) his veto power? I find this almost.comically absurd.
Abuse of power is a sign of his future.
I've read several "liberal" commentators that are concerned with
criminalizing rough and tumble politics. The gist of the argument is: Is Rick
Perry a nice guy? No, but that's just politics and we shouldn't bring
the criminal justice system into it. I can agree with that, but it doesn't
make me like politics very much. (When either side does it.)
Part of the story is being missed or ignored. Pressuring a convicted lawbreaker
to leave office probably sounds legitimate. Problem is, that Public Integrity
Unit was investigating a cancer research institute that was one of Perry's
pet projects. (One of its former high-ranking officials now faces a felony
corruption charge.) If the district attorney had stepped down before she was up
for re-election, Perry would have picked her replacement, who could then
presumably have quashed the investigation. There is a very good
chance that Perry was exercising improper political pressure to help a crony.
If so he needs to be held accountable.
Oh please! If Obama did the exact same thing, your opinion would be to somewhat
different, wouldn't it? You would be screaming about it for weeks, if not
months or years! I am not exaggerating! They even wanted and have talked about
impeaching the president! Well, republicans or should I say many conservatives
are good at pointing their fingers at what others do, when they are doing the
same or worse! You must admit, the one thing republicans have excelled at, since
Obama first took office, is the ability to point their fingers in more ways than
anyone could ever imagine. What road are you talking about? Maybe you should
think twice. Republicans went down that road years ago!
There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes, but the principle problem
is that Democrats have a double standard. They think that a political person
should be able to "officiate from her jail cell to "prove" that the
Republican Governor was guilty of something.Let's look at that.
A convicted and sentenced Democrat wants to bring down a Republican Governor,
who has not been convicted of anything. She wants us to think that driving
drunk is just a minor offense, when the court told us that it was a major
offense, requiring 45 days in lockup. She thinks that she is sufficiently
"sober" to lead a group of Democrats to the "truth" about Perry,
when she insists that her "indiscretion" was minor, compared to his
"crimes". That brings back images of Clinton shaking his
finger at us as he declared that he did not have sex with that woman. He was
found to be a liar. His license to practice law was revoked. He was a hero to
the Democrats.Not much has changed. The more offensive the crime,
the more that the Democrats cheer.
Yes Mitt run - please. That would be very entertaining.
@A Quaker,If it's a question of ethics... you take care of THAT at
the ballot box, not by sending somebody to jail.You need to
differentiate between unethical... and criminal. Is what he did
"Criminal"?Could it have been taken care of at the ballot
box??I think so.But he kept winning at the ballot box...
so they tried this....
We need Mitt Romney to Run in 2016. The only opposition they ever had on Mitt
(Dog on the roof of the car, Successful family, Successful career, Faithful,
Actually has business experience, Likeable, Better looking than any of the
Kennedy's, oh and a comment about the 47% which turned out to be true,
comments about Iraq-which turned out to be true, comments on the economy-which
turned out to be true....Run Mitt Run!
If gov. Perry is indited for abuse of power,How come obama hasn't been
served an served one ?
Wait a sec. This is not a partisan Democratic indictment of Rick Perry. In
fact, the Democratic county prosecutor is not in the picture at all. He recused
himself so as NOT to color the process with partisanship. The indictment was
from a grand jury led by a special prosecutor, a REPUBLICAN, formerly a federal
prosecutor appointed by President GHW Bush. In turn, that special prosecutor
was chosen by a senior state judge, a REPUBLICAN originally appointed to the
bench by none other than Texas Governor George W. Bush.The charges
against Perry are serious. His attempt to remove this particular prosecutor
goes to the integrity of government itself. Earlier in his term, two
prosecutors from other counties, both Republicans, ran into the exact same DWI
problems, arrests and jail. Perry took no action against those two gents, who
still serve, so his actions in this case clearly had something to do with the
government oversight function of this particular county's prosecutor, and
the ethics situation in his administration. The only one making this a partisan
circus is him.
"....Unless there is more to this story than what the prosecution has made
public, the case should be dismissed...."______________________________Based on what the prosecution
charges, I'm not about to dis its case as not being a good one.
This isn't a question of whether Rick Perry was using his prerogatives as
Governor inappropriately - the question is whether he broke the law. Unless
there is more to this story than what the prosecution has made public, the case
should be dismissed and I suspect it will be.
The criminal indictment of Perry for exercising a statutory power, and the
contemplated civil lawsuit against the President for admittedly failing to
enforce various laws, doesn't bear comparison.First, a civil
lawsuit is designed to require a person to perform a legal duty. A criminal
prosecution is designed to punish a person -- to put him in jail. If you
can't see the difference, (a) you've never been in jail; and (b) you
belong in a banana republic, where criminalizing politics is the name of the
game.Second: There is ample precedent for the executive branch
being sued to enforce the law. Train v. New York, for starters (which compelled
President Nixon to expend funds appropriated by Congress rather than
"impounding" them, as he claimed he had the right to do). The only
question is whether Congress, as an institution, has what's called
"standing" to bring the lawsuit. Previous lawsuits against the
executive (mostly by Democrats) were rejected because it was individual
legislators, or small groups of them, proposing to sue, as opposed to the
The indictment charges that Perry used what would otherwise be a perfectly legal
tool for an illegal purpose, and thus committed unlawful acts. Perry was using
his official capacity to coerce a public servant to resign. It looks like Perry
saw an opportunity to replace a Democratic DA whose office was investigating his
dealings with the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Perry is
effectively saying “Staff the department that is in charge with
investigating my conduct with a person of my liking or I will defund that
department until you do.”
I am no expert in Texas Constitutional law, but to me the greater concern is
indicting a Governor outside of impeachment for crimes he had committed while
executing his office.If he had been caught driving under the
influence, a civil indictment is one thing; questioning a veto...I think an
impeachment would be more in order.
@JoeCapitalist2I find it somewhat hypocritical, or your
understanding somewhat limited and bias.The Constitution provides no
remedy for disputes between Congress and the President that involves the Courts.
The Congress can impeach a rogue President (overstepping Constitutional
authority is a crime) and can override a veto. And in cases of impeachment, the
only role the Courts play is to preside over the trial in the Senate (because
the Vice President would have an interest in the outcome)The
President can veto for any reason he wishes, that is his check on Congress. Lawsuits are not part of the remedy. A law that Congress has passed,
and the President signed can be challenged in court, but that is not one branch
suing the other.An impeachment is an indictment, nothing more,
@GaryO,The letter asked if the INDICTMENT is a concern (not
Perry's behavior). You went on and on about what Perry did, but the
question is... Is the indictment a concern?Sounds like no concern to
you. But... will you be consistent and not be concerned when a
Democrat Governor is indicted for vetoing something, or talking about vetoing it
to warn the legislature that he expects changes before he will sign it? And you will be consistent and support the recent law suit against Obama
for breaking the law... Am I right?Or is it a one-way street with
you?I said BOTH are a concern (Obama suit and this one).
That's consistent. But you think one is a travesty and the other is just
fine... what does that say? Partisan blinders?I think I'm
dealing with reality. It may be you that has partisan blinders on.I'm consistent... Obama can veto for any reason, and talk about his plans
to veto (he's done it... on the budget). And Perry can veto any bill he
wants... for ANY reason he wants. And he can warn them of his plan to veto.
Remember, liberals have no problems with questionable legal maneuvers designed
to cripple the opposition. Whether it's this indictment, the completely
partisan persecution--without a shred of evidence-- of Republican Governor
Walker in Wisconsin; the tendency of Democrat legislature members to flee to
deny quorum in an attempt to prevent the other side from passing a law and on
and on.Democrats, simply put, abuse the legal system. It's one
law for Republicans and the rest of the country, and no law for Democrats. Laws
like filing deadlines don't apply to Democrats: ask Torrecelli in New
Jersey and Charlie Rangel--they are above the law! Obama believes that
Congressional laws are just suggestions, to be rewritten by the Executive at
will. Democrats have rammed this indictment of Perry through a
grand jury that, apparently, has at least one if not more Democratic campaign
operatives on it. Yet the liberals here at Desnews seem to think that we should
be happy about this abuse of law! Whatever the faults of Swallow and Shurtleff,
at least they never decided that the appropriate solution was to arrest their
political opponents under pretense--only Democrats like that sort of banana
It is not hypocritical at all to be very concerned about the action taken
against Perry while still supporting the lawsuit against Obama. A civil lawsuit
is completely different than a criminal indictment.If Democrats
think Perry overstepped his bounds, then take it to civil court and let a judges
weigh in on the issue just like Obama's opponents have done.Lawsuits, recall elections, and impeachment are political tools to restrain
power. Threats of criminal indictments when you just disagree with someone
politically are out of bounds.If this indictment is just, then it
would be also just to indict Obama for breaking the law numerous times. Not a
smart move at all by those who would support such a thing, but if it is fair in
this case it would also be fair in the other.
It is very sad that good men and women are hounded out of office. Everyone has
at least one skeleton in the closet. In the case of Speaker John Boehner
threatening to sue Obama, I think it is a ploy to get the President off the golf
course and the fund-raising trail. Someday, Obama may thank Speaker Boehner for
this wake-up call. Obama was elected to lead. So, show some leadership, Mr.
President! You've excluded the Republicans out of the ACA negotiations.
Doing so is exactly what Obama has accused the recently "retired" Iraqi
Prime Minister of doing, is it not? The "pen and phone" method of
governing is not what the Constitution is all about. Hence, the frustration in
Congress and Speaker Boehner's threatened lawsuit.
riverofsunI'd like to be out there exercising and becoming
healthier, but instead I'm sitting here at a job that pays less now that it
did during the Bush years, just glad that I'm not part of the discouraged
true double digit unemployed.
Hey 2 bits - "Let's get back to the point of the letter... does this
NOT concern you? Not at all???"I understand that you're
frustrated . . . And I would like to empathize with you, but I cannot. I'm
just too much in touch with reality I guess. Instead, I would
suggest that you empathize with me, and just try to face the facts.Perry broke the law, and he has been indicted for breaking the law. It’s
that simple.And yes it concerns me that a Republican leader, an
arbiter of Republican thought, had the arrogance and the audacity to trample his
state's Constitution and very blatantly and vocally exceed his authority
and break the law.I believe Perry's behavior emphasizes the
lack of respect for government and Constitutional authority now so prevalent in
"Conservative" circles.I find his heinous behavior
un-American and tragic . . . Because it demonstrates an anti-American mindset
extending beyond Perry and his gravitas-inspiring horn-rimmed glasses. It
demonstrates the mindset of millions of anti-government, anti-American types who
call themselves Conservatives.
Leftists, Rightists, Middle grounders..Hey, aren't we all having a
great time?If we did not have this local Utah political forum, and we
weren't sitting in front of our computers, we might be doing something
crazy like exercising and trying to become healthier.
gmlewisAnd I'd like to add that a lot of the people Gov. Perry
helped during Katrina were African American. I mention that because many who
post here have a knee jerk belief that Republican or conservative equates to
racist.DN SubscriberFinally, after reading all that one
sided stuff, you point out that the Democrats use lawsuits, recall drives, and
frivolous attacks to do personal harm to Republicans all the time. Something
many who post here like to ignore. And like you said, you can tell who they are
afraid of by who they sling the most mud at.
Perhaps the DN is hoping the deletion of Perry makes it easier for Mitt Romney
to give it the old college try, again?Just think of the increasing number
of Mitt Romney articles on the horizon!Just not sure that everyone else in
America is as in love with Mitt as the people in Utah are.
Esquire,Apparently you aren't familiar with the tactics that
YOU use. Here's one from Alinsky: "pick the target, preferably a
person, then freeze it, personalize it, and polarize/isolate it from
sympathy"That is exactly what the Left is doing in Texas. Do
you support that tactic? I made a mistake when I said to let a
grand jury examine the facts. As someone pointed out, a grand jury made the
indictment. The next step is to prosecute in open court, not in a closed grand
jury session. Let ALL the facts be presented in open court and let a jury of
his peers decide whether the Democrats in Texas should be allowed to smear their
Governor or whether they should clean out dirty politicians from their own Party
Is there no end to the inanity of republicans?Blame, accuse, impede,
gripe, and obstruct... and then say that Dems use "politically motivated
tactics". Seriously?This is laughable!AND-- This is also why you
don't see a republican president.And why you won't for quite
"Do Perry supporters think it would be OK if Obama threatened to veto a
funding bill in order to get this convicted Republican lawbreaker to resign from
the Senate?"Yes. The veto power is the veto power. It can be
exercised for any reason at all. The remedy for an exercise of that power you
don't like is to elect someone else to hold it.And it's
not a function of being a "Perry supporter" or not. It's about the
rule of law. You don't care about it. Regarding the lawsuit
against Obama -- different. Suing an official *civilly* to force someone to
comply with the law is how the system is supposed to work. Our firm defends
public officials in such proceedings all the time.
"that any political leader who is indicted, is "required" by
republican rules in Texas, to immediately step down."Well? He
was indicted. He has not stepped down. Must have been more of a
suggestion than a requirement.That, or you are mistaken
@GaryO,Re: "Then President Obama has the right to pressure
Republican Senator Mike Crapo to resign by threatening a veto"...You're playing a game of hypotheticals...#1. The President
didn't ask him to resign.#2. What exactly would change, and how
would individual people have reacted IF he HAD asked him to resign?... Who
knows!IMO President Obama has the right to veto ANY legislation he
wants... for ANY reason he wants. But I don't pretend to speak
for others or know the thoughts of anybody else (like some people do).=============Let's get back to the point of the letter...
does this NOT concern you? Not at all???I mean playing hypothetical
games with it is one thing... but the letter asks if it's a concern or
not!Evidently to some... it's not a concern, or they dodge the
question.Is it a concern?I mean you know sooner of later
someone's going to use this same tactic when a popular Democrat governor
threatens to veto something (especially if he's thinking of running for
The criminalization of politics -- almost exclusively the province of the Left
-- is something that both conservatives and true liberals ought to be appalled
at.From these comments, I see that many people who call themselves
liberals are actually leftists. Noted.
@Mike RichardsGovernor Perry was indicted by a Grand Jury.
I agree this is not a cut and dry situation. I can understand the need to
indict, but I also can understand the need for extreme caution.But a
simple consistency check, if Obama were to threaten to pull funding from the
Border Patrol in Texas unless Rick Perry stepped down, and veto any legislation
that would go to that affect, and a grand jury were to indict him on that...
would that be dangerous precedent, or a step in the right direction?
@ Mike Richards, "Alinsky tactics"? My goodness, that is a creative
argument, worthy of the political propaganda hall of fame....
@ DN Subscriber, Palin was not hounded out of office. She saw dollar signs and
chased them. That's all. She got no more heat than anyone else who serves
in those kinds of positions. She didn't want to bother.
What's dangerous are the Alinsky tactics that the Left is using to smear
Republicans. Perry may be guilty, if so, let a grand jury examine the facts;
but, don't let Democrats use their Saul Alinsky tactics to steal an
election.Everyone knows that one of those tactics is to falsely
smear the opponent, but to never address the facts. Many who post in the
Deseret News do the same thing. They partially quote someone or
"recall" what they thought someone said, all in an effort to draw the
discussion away from the point made in the editorial or in the letter.
That's a Saul Alinsky tactic. (Look up Saul Alinsky if you don't know
why using his tactics is wrong.)Now to a point being made by the
Democrats who compare this with the threat to sue Obama. The politician in
Texas was caught driving drunk and sentenced to 45 days in jail. To me, that
would be sufficient grounds to demand a resignation. Obama can't be tried
and sent to jail. There is no comparison.
What it all boils down to is that Perry had NO RIGHT to use the threat of a veto
force an elected official and political opponent out of office.. . .
Just as Obama would have no right to force a Republican Congressman out of
office through the threat of a veto.It is astoundingly unethical,
and it is revealing of the supreme arrogance and bad judgment on Perry's
part that he would even consider such an action.Perry's
behavior clearly demonstrates his unsuitability to hold high office.It is completely senseless on any practical, moral, or ethical grounds to
support this governor and his actions.
The "reason" the indictment was brought, was that in TEXAS, a republican
rule, not democrat, it only applies to republicans--that any political leader
who is indicted, is "required" by republican rules in Texas, to
immediately step down. Democrats saw a chance to get rid of Perry. It is as
simple as that. He won't step down.
Yeah, this whole fiasco reminds me of Boehner threatening to sue Obama. When
will we read the op-ed on that?
@DN SunscriberWhere there's smoke there's fire. Perry is walking
the very edge of legality here, and indictments are NOT like simple accusations.
They don't fall out of the sky.I see no indictments of our esteemed
President anywhere on the horizon.The GOP better wise up, and fast.
They continue to send unsavory nominees for president, and they keep getting
shot down.The GOP is it's own worst enemy.I see a
democratic president again, and very likely for 2 terms. What a nice
change it would be to see a worthy candidate form them...but alas....
Hey one old man – “'Political.' Maybe"No,
not really. A recognition of Perry’s criminality is NOT just political.
Perry's criminal abuse of his authority should be transparently obvious to
everyone.According to the Republican narrative, the DA had been
found guilty of a DUI, and that meant that Perry had the right and the duty to
pressure her to resign by threatening a veto.OK . . If it’s
good for the goose . . . Then President Obama has the right to pressure
Republican Senator Mike Crapo to resign through by threatening a veto,
doesn’t he?As you may recall, Idaho’s Mormon Republican
Senator Mike Crapo was convicted of a DUI just outside the DC beltway in
2012.Do Perry supporters think it would be OK if Obama threatened
to veto a funding bill in order to get this convicted Republican lawbreaker to
resign from the Senate?If not . . . Why not?
You can always tell who the Democrats fear, and who rising Republican candidates
are. The Chicago playbook and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals demand that you
personalize your opponent and destroy them by whatever means. Gov.
Sarah Palin was hounded out of office by endless, baseless lawsuits. Gov Scott
Walker was harassed by numerous lawsuits and a recall drive, all of which
failed, but probably damaged him as a candidate. Gov. Chris Christy has been
attacked by frivolous allegations about "bridgegate".Now,
Gov Perry is the latest target.Meanwhile, Obama's actual
violations of laws go unchallenged.
DUI is a serious offense.Rather than choosing whether or not to
resign, how about we enact federal and state laws that automatically removes
anyone who pleads guilty to or is convicted of a serious crime.Heck,
that may even solve the term limit issue.
@JoeBlow,I agree with Dershowitz too. This is an extremely dangerous
trend.I also agree that both sides have overreached when they do
this.I have to point out one point of disagreement. You equated
this and Republicans suing President Obama. I agree they are basically the
same thing, but there are some critical (Constitutional) differences you deftly
avoided when equating them.... The Governor clearly has the
Constitutional authority to Veto legislation (it's right there in their
Constitution). The President also has the authority to veto legislation, but he
does NOT have the right to ignore laws he didn't veto and allowed to go on
the books, or to pass his own laws if the Legislature will not pass the laws he
wants, or to nullify the Legislative Branch's oversight of his power and
actions by "Going it alone". THAT... is NOWHERE in the
Constitution.One is authority clearly given in the Constitution...
The other is not.So there's a difference. But in the end the
result is the same... because the other side feels injured and wants to
retaliate... and they do... and we get this dangerous trend...
Perry’s use of the veto to force a resignation rather than out of
objection to the appropriation itself was an abuse of power. Whether he broke
the law will be up to the courts to decide. How Mr. Dershowitz reasons that this
particular use of legal redress to resolve a dispute is un-American is the most
curious statement I’ve ever heard the learned law professor make.
The vetoed funding for the state's Integrity Unit had been designated to
investigate the actions of the governor and his friends who had directed money
set aside for cancer research to instead fund businesses contributing to his
campaign funds. The drunk driving incident is unacceptable and drunk drivers
need to be punished for endangering our lives, but Mr. Perry saw this as an
opportunity to put a stop to an investigation that he didn't like. There
are three reasons why many of us Texans don't want him to run for
president: 1. He is an embarrassment to the state of Texas, 2. He does not work
well with anyone who disagrees with him (which is great if you like government
shutdowns), and 3.... um.... 3... um... oops, I forgot the third one.
This type of thing is in the Democrat play book page one.Some have
alluded to the Republican lawsuit against the president. If Obama would
actually follow the law instead of making it up as he goes along, the House
wouldn't have to sue him. That said, the House Lawsuit is extremely dumb.
If Obama has broken the law then there is a Constitutional remedy already in
They do everything BIG in Texas, including slimy, mud-slinging politics. What
goes round, comes round.
Political?Maybe.But sometimes, when a politician has
become powerful and entrenched in his office, it may be necessary for people who
are not part of his political machine to stand up against the tide and try to
see that what's right is done.Remember our own Shurtlef /
Swallow mess?One side wanted to sweep it under the rug and keep it
there.The other wouldn't allow it.Remember all the
political posturing by the GOP before the Tribune brought it all out into the
open?It's in court now. Let the courts do their job.
"Politicians who make decisions people don’t like ought to be voted
out of office..."Couldn't this also apply to Gov.
Perry's attempt to induce the DA to resign?I actually have no
opinion on the charges. I've seen this before in Texas - from both sides -
and have learned to remain skeptical. But I'm annoyed with the argument
put forth in this editorial. Its primary foundation seems to be, "Even
people we normally disagree with see it as we do!" Well, then it must be
true!It also left out not insignificant details found in an op-ed
also appearing today. Author Catherine Rampell notes:"Problem
is, that Public Integrity Unit was investigating a cancer research institute
that was one of Perry's pet projects. (One of its former high-ranking
officials now faces a felony corruption charge.) If the district attorney had
stepped down before she was up for re-election, Perry would have picked her
replacement, who could then presumably have quashed the investigation."As for such actions being totalitarian in nature, if this is true then
I've been living in a totalitarian state for decades now.
There has been very little in the media about the legal theories underlying the
indictments. On the surface, I might agree, but there is more to the story.
I'll leave it up to the court to sort it out rather than try to spin this
for a partisan purpose or a pseudo-concern about the Constitution, blah, blah,
blah. JoeBlow makes a good point that some will decry the Perry indictment and
then take the opposite position when it comes to the President of the United
States. This hypocrisy is sickening.
This analysis is without depth. For an example of trying to make a political
vendetta out of this I would pose the following questions to the writer or to
any apologist for the Deseret News.What party appointed the judge to
oversee the indictment? What are the political affiliations of the District
Attorney who pursued the indictment? Where was the indictment rendered (what is
the make-up of the county in that part of the state)? HIs veto aside, what are
the other grounds for the indictment (it was not just about a veto)? Do any
subsequent actions of the governor show a malicious intent? And finally, what
law and precedent in Texas state law might determine the validity of the
indictment?It must be fun to throw brickbats at the opponents of
seemingly popular Republican/Tea Party governor's critics. However, it is
facile in the extreme.
Do you think?
As a Texan, I have admired Gov. Perry for many years. I agree with the author
that these charges against him are bogus and dangerous to our political system.
I would be aghast if he didn't have the chance to run for
President because of these spiteful indictments. He isn't perfect, but
he's a better candidate than any others that have been identified so
far.If he is nominated as a Presidential candidate, I hope the
people of Louisiana will remember his compassion for the refugees that Texas
took in during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Other states helped, but Texas
received the majority due to Gov. Perry's leadership.
I never thought I'd say this but Alan Dershowitz is right. Actually I
thought he was right a couple of other times, but his efforts to remove God
completely from public discourse has made me a little cross with him.
Nevertheless, bringing charges against political figures for doing their job
according to the rules is more than chilling - no matter how much we disagree
with the specific ways they do their job. The liberals support him here because
they know if this can be done to Perry, it can also be done to any of the
liberal politicians for doing their job in unpopular ways, even if they have the
legal right to do so. Hopefully these charges will be thrown out without wasting
a lot of time and money on something so frivolous and vindictive. Simply put and
in agreement with this editorial, "If you don't like what an elected
official does, vote them out of office."
Well, it's pretty simple to look ahead and see what track this thing is on.
Beginning in January 2015 it is possible that President Obama will need to use
the veto power quite a lot, as there could well be a Republican Congress that
will be sending him a lot of legislation that he doesn't want to to sign.
Imagine if the precedent of indicting a chief executive for using veto power was
to become legal and fashionable.
Boy, the world seems to have turned upside down. The Deseret News is quoting
the likes of Alan Dershowitz, the Washington Post and David Plouffe to support
their editorial position. Certainly the indictment against Governor Perry seems
a bit over the top. But as you state so clearly "[b]y the weird logic of
the indictment, Mr. Perry would have been in the clear if he had simply vetoed
the funding without threatening to do so first." Too bad the governor
wasn't smart enough to understand that.I also find it ironic
that the DN calls this indictment, which has a political motive attached to it -
from both sides - has ignored the House of Representatives attempt at
"dragging a constitutional ...decision into the courtroom solely on the
basis of a partisan disagreement" in their lawsuit against President Obama.
Perhaps the DN would care to explain the difference. Or is it just that Alan
Dershowitz hasn't yet spoken out about it?
"Dershowitz calls the two felony indictments brought against Texas Gov. Rick
Perry as “un-American” and part of an “extremely dangerous
trend,”"I have to agree with Dershowitz. And,
in general the Republicans will join with Dershowitz and yell
"un-American" and "extremely dangerous" and the Democrats will
defend this and list why this is substantive.And then we take the
talk of impeachment of Obama and the actual law suit filed against him. This is
also "un-American" and a "Dangerous trend". And the partisans
will switch roles.And, I have little doubt the people on both sides
will comment on how one is completely justified and the other is bogus.In the end, they are both partisan, political maneuvers, plain and simple.