Well you're reading me wrong here. I'm a libertarian so I have no dog in this fight and I've already said ITT that everyone involved is scummy. The only question I've asked/addressed ITT is if this guy actually guilty of a crime or is this just the Texas Dems using the court system to stick it to Perry?

For a libertarian with no dog in the fight, you sure do seem predisposed to fixate on the actions of the democrats while giving a total pass to anything the republicans have done. Curious how that always seems to happen with libertarians.

Characterizing Perry's actions as bullying seems kinda LOL to me. It's a pretty big double standard to say that she is only accountable to local voters but that her department is entitled to funding from the state.

Branches of government threaten to withhold funding for various things all the time in order to force policy changes

And having an open vodka bottle in the car, then blowing .239 an hour after arrest isn't a run of the mill DWI conviction. That's almost guaranteed to be hard core swerving all over the road not one too many\diminished reaction time. Then abusing the arresting officers. Isn't this the type of thing that normally gets a lawyer's license suspended if not disbarred? Just because she completed her time doesn't mean there should be no professional punishment. I really think Perry would expect a Republican to step down under the same circumstances.

Leave Rick Perry alone!

lol wut

The number of elected officials with drunk driving convictions who have not been forced to resign or barred from future office is in the hundreds, if not thousands. It includes Perry's former boss George W. Bush and VP Richard B. Cheney.

Perfect.

It's even worse than what you've stated. To be at a .24 and still be conscious means she's an alcoholic with a built up tolerance for alcohol. Normal people who are not alcoholics will lose consciousness and pass out long before getting to a .24.

Elected Officials are different then the elected District Attorney. They are, and should be, held to a higher standard. Having a convicted criminal sit as the top law enforcement officer in the county is just bad and hypocritical. At the very least she certainly loses all moral authority to prosecute DWI offenders in her county.

My understanding is that a DA is not just an elected official, she is also a practicing attorney and the same rules apply to her as would apply to other attorneys.

wat? Exactly when and where are county DA's held to higher standards than congressmen, senators and presidents, and what justification could you possibly give for that to even make sense?

And there is no rule that says you get disbarred for having a DWI conviction. Any actions taken are up to the disciplinary commission of that state. She was also subject to a grand jury investigation, which decided that there weren't grounds to remove her from office.

Where in the hell did I ever give Rick Perry a pass? Seriously, stop with the nonsense. (I'm assuming you're liberal.) That hatred you feel for Republicans? I promise I hate them at least as much as you do.

I guess it depends if you like unchecked government corruption and cronyism.

Maybe we shouldn't give them so much money and power then?

Perry? He's already handing out more of his fair share to cronies.

That's my point.

I don't hate Republicans. I don't hate anybody. In this instance I am laughing at TX Republicans in general, and Rick Perry in particular. I am also laughing at the posters who are inventing all sorts of twisted justifications for Perry's actions in order to deflect the very obvious truth that they were motivated by partisan politics. You repeatedly insisting that I can't totally 100% prove that on an internet forum qualifies.

As for being a "liberal", that is a label you apply, probably because you assume everybody else has adopted an ideology the same way you have and that's the only way you can make sense of the world, even if liberalism itself doesn't make much sense as an ideology.

I've said at least twice now that I'm not saying you're wrong. Hell, just about every decision made in government takes politics into consideration on one level or another. I'm not even trying to argue that point.

I was just wondering if there is legit evidence actually exists that could convict him in a court.

And I just assumed you were a liberal because of the way you were speaking. And I only brought it up to explain that I'm no shill for the GOP. If you try to avoid ideology when making a decision that's great to hear. I wish more people would do the same.

It's generally agreed that there is a lot of cronyism exactly because Perry's position is generally efficaciously weak in relation to other governors.

But sure we could reduce cronyism by even further reducing Perry's power but realistically we could play partisans off of each other and keep the investigative unit in Democratic hands.

Because they're making daily decisions that effect people's freedom, and they're incredibly hypocritical if they're prosecuting people for the same crimes that they are committing while they're in office. I personally wouldn't vote for any politician with a DUI prior, but especially so for District Attorney. Also, as the previous poster said, they are also practicing attorneys and are held to a higher standard as attorneys.

Edit: Please dont' take this a defense of Rick Perry's actions. I can't stand Rick Perry and it is also appears quite clear that he took the actions he took purely for political reasons to get a republican in that office, but that fact doesn't change the fact that this DA should have resigned or been impeached. It also doesn't change the fact that this indictment is lolbad stupid and a clear abuse of discretion.

Had Perry done what he did through means other than a veto, there would be a very strong case against him. But since his veto power is the tool he actually used, the case is pretty weak.

Perry's entire defense for the charges of abuse of power and coercion is, "Nah nah, I used my magic +2 veto halberd. Can't touch me!"

Perry is going to get out of this one. Like what was said earlier Perry should get the book thrown at him for crushing the investigation into the innocent man executed. This is just politics.

Also, this isn't just about her getting a DWI, that's bad enough, its that she tried to use her position to get out of it, her conduct at the police station asking them to call the sheriff and telling them things like "do you know who I am?" are atrocious. Do you seriously think somebody of that moral caliber is qualified to be in a position that has so much power over people's freedom?

You might want to think this through a little further. You're saying relatively low-level elected officials should be held to a higher standard than the people who write the actual laws because... they passed the bar? Prosecuting criminals is a heavier burden than enacting the very legislation that allows people to be prosecuted in the first place?

Our mayor and the entire city council may be corrupt as hell, but we insist that the dog catcher be the perfect embodiment of ethical purity!

I'm down with thinning the ranks of immoral lawyers. I'm not sure the place to start is with someone who went on trial, was convicted, served the sentence, got investigated to be disbarred or whatever and it was decided her minor crime didn't justify that.

Is anyone but Perry and his cronies calling for her to resign, such a co-worker? If not then it's clear it isn't necessary.