Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by oragator1, Aug 15, 2014.
I have not heard that anywhere but you are correct it was not she
This is a direct quote from the American Bar Association, which is quoting the liberal Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz
"Dershowitz made a similar point in an interview withNewsmax. “This is another example of the criminalization of party differences," Dershowitz said. "This idea of an indictment is an extremely dangerous trend in America, whether directed at [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay or [former President] Bill Clinton."
Who's claiming that?
Holder would never investigate Obama, if he did it would be like him indicting himself.
Interesting issue. On one hand, you've got some liberal writers saying the indictment looks like nothing more than partisan politics. A Texas writer says there's more to it:
Others have pointed out that Perry didn't say a thing when other DAs were arrested for DUI.
Two other DA's arrested-neither received money for operating an integrity task force with state funds.
Does not mention if either resisted arrest, had to be restrained, had to wear the spit mask, kicking the car door, insulted officers in the police station, asked often to get the sheriff on the phone.
Other than that these DUI's are exactly alike
True. They were also not investigating possible wrongdoing within a Perry program.
I don't know this answer and don't really care to look it up-but was the Integrity unit investigating Perry before the DUI or did it start afterwards. If it started before that is enough to cause some concern. If she started the investigation after her arrest then I don't think it is all that.
Then there was this
McEachern was already under fire as the prosecutor in the notorious Tulia drug busts. The drug sting, aimed primarily at Tulia’s black residents, unraveled after questions were raised about the sole undercover agent. The agent was subsequently convicted of perjury.
Perry issued pardons for the 46 people a few months after McEachern’s DWI arrest.
And in what warped moral or ethical perspective does having failed to comment before, preclude him from ever reacting?
The criminal charges are baseless and honestly having even pursued them should draw some review from the state bar in Texas, if not discipline for the attorney than maybe a note in their state rules for prosecutors on the exercise of restraint in prosecutorial discretion.
who should the bar discipline?
The DUI prosecutor with the attitude.
And I'd suggest perhaps the prosecutor who convened a grand jury to investigate and indict that which is simply not remotely a crime.
you're under the impression that she brought the charges?
Because it doesn't occur to you that a DUI in and of itself might be worth disciplinary action?
I am under the impression that she was drunk, belligerent, insulting, threatening, rude, tried to intimidate State witnesses, attempted to extort them, acted like a Hun and defecated (figuratively) on the system that she had sworn to uphold.
That's my impression.
personally? yes. but what does that have to do with "The exercise of restraint in prosecutorial discretion?"
Oh FFS. That was everhumpingly obviously in reference to the prosecutor who sought the indictment. This game you play.
The suggestion of bar discipline seems pretty silly.
The only even conceivably applicable attorney ethical rule that I could think of would be whatever Texas has denoted their version of the "meritorious claims and contentions" model rule (Model Rule 3.1). And I think you would have a heck of a time arguing that there is no non-frivolous basis to have sought the indictment.
That question, in essence, becomes whether there is a reasonable basis under existing law, or "a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law" that supports having brought the charge.
The statutes in question provide:
Texas Penal Code Sec. 36.03(a)(1)
Texas Penal Code Sec. 39.02(a).
I would have a hard time making the argument that there is no non-frivolous basis for asserting that either of the statutes were violated.
To the degree that Texas interprets their version of Model Rule 3.1 as prohibiting legal assertions intended primarily to harass or maliciously injure you could potentially argue that as well, but I'm not sure how much traction that would really get given the fact that the Travis County DA's office recused themselves, a judge appointed by Perry himself assigned the investigatory case to a judge appointed by W., who in turn appointed a special prosecutor who the two Republican Texas senators have previously recommended for appointment as a US Attorney, and the indictment was returned by a citizen grand jury. I'm not sure what narrative would explain why a bunch of judicial officials with strong GOP credentials would want to "get" Perry to the degree that you could say that the charges were initiated for the primary purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring him.
Well, if you go back to my original post, I said that if not discipline, perhaps some footnotes to their rules on the subject discourage such conduct in the future (since it casts such a loathesome light on the profession). This is not how prosecutors should use their power, to seek indictments of politicians for their lawful, political acts, it is a breach of the public trust. The sort of thing I'd like to think a responsible bar that, lacking a rule on point, would still "harumph" about. Sort of the prosecutorial misconduct counterpart to the NFL not having a disciplinary policy that punishes Ray Rice more severely.
Couldn't care less who appointed who, it's spurious data in all contexts to me. St. Michael could have been given the assignment and it still would have been the right and professional thing to say "no, even if I could convince a citizen grand jury to indict, this isn't actually illegal even if its inimical to me".