Because the facts about the Rick Perry indictment matter, and Rick Perry and his supporters/apologists won't mention these facts anytime soon:
First, he used the veto to threaten a public officeholder. This is abuse of the power of his office. Presidents and governors frequently use the possibility of vetoes to change the course of legislation. But that is considerably different than trying to force an elected officeholder to resign. What Perry did, if true, can be politely called blackmail, and, when he sent emissaries to urge Lehmberg to quit even after his veto, he may have indulged in bribery. According to sources close to the grand jury, Perry dispatched two of his staffers and one high-profile Democrat to tell Lehmberg if she left her office the governor would reinstate the PIU budget. One report indicates there may have been a quid pro quo of a new, more lucrative job for the DA, which is why this case has nothing to do with his right to use the veto.It's the meeting with Lehmberg by Perry emissaries that's the most interesting part of this. This case will depend on the facts and legal arguments presented to the jury and the court by the prosecuting attorney. Many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, and all that. But the facts are certainly more interesting than Perry wants everyone to think they are.
But that's where Perry will focus his public defense.
And please note these facts up the ante on the more serious of the two felony charges; both look far more credible than they did before, although that doesn't mean Perry is already convicted before he's even been brought before a judge.
Like my Torts professor drummed into my head: "Change the facts, change the outcome." We're just gonna have to wait for the facts in this case.
Post a Comment