Archive | Odor in the Court

RSS feed for this section

Does Rick Perry’s own indictment logic bring CPRIT back into play?

Governor Rick Perry’s aggressive response to his felony indictments so far has pretty much been limited to name-calling and counter-accusations.

Partisan Democratic politics, his narrative goes, is solely responsible for this indictment.

rickperrymugshot

Obligatory Perry Mugshsot

Let’s set aside for a moment the unlikelihood that a Republican judge, who assigned another Republican judge, who named a Special Prosecutor with Republican credentials, then named a special Grand Jury containing Republican, Democratic, and non-registered jurors, could in any way secretly further some Democratic agenda. I mean, it’s hard to set all that reality aside, but let’s just give it a shot.

And let’s just pretend Perry might have a point – that this is some secret plot by partisan Democrats to derail his career. Humor me.

Stick with me here: why would Democrats do that?

Perry won’t be a statewide candidate for public office any more. He’s retiring as Governor. If you’re a Democrat who opposed Perry every chance you got, who was willing to leave no stone unturned to ensure that he’d stop being Governor…well, your prayers were already answered before this indictment. Problem solved – he’ll leave the Governor’s office  the third Tuesday in January, no matter what else happens.

Ah, but Perry’s running for President, you say? Fair point. Let’s explore that. Name me one Democrat in America who thinks it would be a disaster if Rick Perry were to become the Republican nominee for President. I’ll wait.

Fact is, if the Republicans were to nominate Perry for President, it would be the gift that keeps on giving. It would end up being a credible, qualified Democrat – Hillary Clinton perhaps – against the oops guy. The smart money is that Perry would Sarah Palin himself all year and go down in flames, handing the Presidency to the Democrats for another four years.

So, logic dictates that there is absolutely no motivation for partisan Democrats to engineer a Perry indictment.

But wait! I can hear Republican allies of Perry countering the above with “it’s the revenge, stupid.” A generation of Democrats have detested Perry since the earth cooled, and now they will get their revenge for all the years that Perry ruled that earth with an iron fist.

Oh. I get it. You’re putting revenge on the table as a possible motive? I couldn’t be tickled pinker about this, because now we get to explore that line of logic too.

If revenge is on the table, that also means that the big conference call Perry’s legal team had with reporters last week is back in play. You may recall that Perry’s lawyers trotted out an affidavit from the former Public Integrity Unit investigator claiming that neither the Governor nor his staff was part of the CPRIT investigation. And from that, they concluded that there’s no way that the CPRIT scandal could have possibly had anything to do with Perry’s threats against the Travis County DA’s office, or his subsequent veto of their funding.

But wait – I thought we just agreed that revenge is a possible motive? And if so, isn’t it still possible that the CPRIT scandal could be front and center as a motive for Perry’s actions? After all, CPRIT was full of Perry appointees, most of whom were deeply embarrassed by the entire episode. Their ethics and honesty were called into question. There’s no doubt their reputations as leaders and overseers is shot to hell. Some of those Perry appointees and allies probably had to lawyer up and defend their actions in a grand jury. One of those people remains under indictment today. Don’t you think the Governor whose friends and allies he appointed into that big mess might have been a little annoyed by that?

So either revenge is a motive, or it’s not. The only way for Perry to claim that Democratic partisans are behind his own indictments is to conclude that Democrats are seeking revenge for years of Perry being in charge. And by the same logic, the only way for Perry’s legal team to conclude that the PIU investigator’s affidavit proves that CPRIT had no part in Perry’s decision-making is to assume that a revenge motive does not exist.

So which it is, Governor?

Fact is, I still stand by my first thoughts on the indictments. The indictment document itself says next-to-nothing. We still know little or nothing about the evidence that led to the indictments. We don’t know whether the Special Prosecutor’s case is weak or strong. And we will continue to not know until the Special Prosecutor decides that it’s time for him to lay out at least part of his case. Almost the entire body of punditry on this issue so far has consisted of Democrats wishing and Republicans grumbling.

But until the Special Prosecutor tells us more, we won’t know much. But meanwhile, it’s safe to conclude that Rick Perry still hasn’t said anything worth listening to, since little of it makes any logical sense.

Comments are closed

Dear Representative Warren Chisum:

I am sure you noted with interest, as I did, the report in the Dallas Morning News regarding the Dallas judge who has ruled, in the course of two gay guys trying to divorce, that the state Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional. Thus, the judge has ruled, this gay couple can proceed with their divorce.

While I am not your constituent, I write pleading for your help today because you have long been the keeper of the flame, so to speak.

Representative Chisum, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to stop this dangerous movement in its tracks. Any God-fearing Texan knows that the intense hatred involved in divorce should stay, as the good Lord intended, between one man and one woman. I believe, and I’m sure you agree, that to give homosexuals equal footing to hate each other alongside good Christian couples, who have grown to want each other dead, would mean the destruction of the traditional family!

Thanks in advance for your prompt legislative attention to this important matter.

Comments { 2 }

The curious case of Samuel Kent

Court watchers have had an eye on Federal Judge Samuel Kent for years, presiding over the Galveston Federal Courthouse. Turns out he should have been eyed a bit more closely.

Kent was famous for his amazingly funny and sarcastic court rulings. But the briefs he was paying the most attention to turned out not to be a laughing matter.

He was sentenced yesterday to almost 3 years in prison. It seems he was groping both his secretary and his case manager, then lied about it to investigators. There’s something particularly repulsive when the folks tasked with providing the last line of defense against an unjust world are themselves causing injustice and abuse.

One person not likely to shed tears over the fall of Judge Kent is the poor downtrodden defense lawyer Kent ruled against in Smith v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co., 943 F. Supp. 782 (S.D. Tex. 1996), in which the defendant had no desire to travel to the Galveston courthouse for trial, and instead requested a change of venue to Houston. The motion was denied in classic form:

Defendant should be assured that it is not embarking on a three- week-long trip via covered wagons when it travels to Galveston. Rather, Defendant will be pleased to discover that the highway is paved and lighted all the way to Galveston, and thanks to the efforts of this Court’s predecessor, Judge Roy Bean, the trip should be free of rustlers, hooligans, or vicious varmints of unsavory kind. Moreover, the speed limit was recently increased to seventy miles per hour on most of the road leading to Galveston, so Defendant should be able to hurtle to justice at lightning speed. To assuage Defendant’s worries about the inconvenience of the drive, the Court notes that Houston’s Hobby Airport is located about equal drivetime from downtown Houston and the Galveston courthouse. Defendant will likely find it an easy, traffic-free ride to Galveston as compared to a congested, construction-riddled drive to downtown Houston. The Court notes that any inconvenience suffered in having to drive to Galveston may likely be offset by the peacefulness of the ride and the scenic beauty of the sunny isle.

As to Defendant’s argument that Houston might also be a more convenient forum for Plaintiff, the Court notes that Plaintiff picked Galveston as her forum of choice even though she resides in San Antonio. Defendant argues that flight travel is available between Houston and San Antonio but is not available between Galveston and San Antonio, again because of the absence of a commercial airport. Alas, this Court’s kingdom for a commercial airport! The Court is unpersuaded by this argument because it is not this Court’s concern how Plaintiff gets here, whether it be by plane, train, automobile, horseback, foot, or on the back of a huge Texas jackrabbit, as long as Plaintiff is here at the proper date and time. Thus, the Court declines to disturb the forum chosen by the Plaintiff and introduce the likelihood of delay inherent in any transfer simply to avoid the insignificant inconvenience that Defendant may suffer by litigating this matter in Galveston rather than Houston.

Defendant will again be pleased to know that regular limousine service is available from Hobby Airport, even to the steps of this humble courthouse, which has got lights, indoor plummin’, ‘lectric doors, and all sorts of new stuff, almost like them big courthouses back East.

Yes, Judge Kent, guess where else has lights, indoor plummin’, ‘lectric doors, and all sorts of new stuff? Prison.

Comments { 1 }