Anonymous wrote:The DA also threatened the cops, lied to the cops, etc.etc. If you think this person should be in charge of ethics, well, you can't change stupid.

That IS ethical to progressives

When she did those things she was very drunk. As we all probably know, drunk people do dumb things, things they would never do sober. Now if she was doing those things while on the job, or drunk while on the job, then there would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Since she did not do these things while on the job, then it becomes a matter of how likely would she. It's only her first DUI, she has shown remorse and entered/completed alcohol dependency treatment. She deserves to maintain her job as long as she doesn't repeat her offenses. Same as you and I would.

No, she doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:The DA also threatened the cops, lied to the cops, etc.etc. If you think this person should be in charge of ethics, well, you can't change stupid.

When she did those things she was very drunk. As we all probably know, drunk people do dumb things, things they would never do sober. Now if she was doing those things while on the job, or drunk while on the job, then there would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Since she did not do these things while on the job, then it becomes a matter of how likely would she. It's only her first DUI, she has shown remorse and entered/completed alcohol dependency treatment. She deserves to maintain her job as long as she doesn't repeat her offenses. Same as you and I would.

Anonymous wrote:

He threatened them to get rid of Lehmberg, and when they didn't, he defunded them

No. He suggested she resign. He said that he did not want her in charge of the ethics commission. When she didn't, he vetoed the money--which was his right.

So is approving a government contract, but if you do it for the wrong reasons you go to jail. The veto constitutes coercion, and the proof is in his own words. His mistake was to say it out loud.

Anonymous wrote:

He threatened them to get rid of Lehmberg, and when they didn't, he defunded them

No. He suggested she resign. He said that he did not want her in charge of the ethics commission. When she didn't, he vetoed the money--which was his right.

Actually, allegations say that he did use coercion, as shown by this NPR article.

He threatened them to get rid of Lehmberg, and when they didn't, he defunded them

No. He suggested she resign. He said that he did not want her in charge of the ethics commission. When she didn't, he vetoed the money--which was his right.

Anonymous wrote:

In this country we have legal ways of removing elected officials.

Perry did not remove her. He did not have the power. He defunded the state money for the ethics commission. He did not want her controlling ethics money. Would you?

He threatened them to get rid of Lehmberg, and when they didn't, he defunded them. What she did is completely irrelevant. He used coercion for a political aim, which is what is wrong here, not what she did as there is a separate court case concerning Lehmberg's actions.

In this country we have legal ways of removing elected officials.

Perry did not remove her. He did not have the power. He defunded the state money for the ethics commission. He did not want her controlling ethics money. Would you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DA also threatened the cops, lied to the cops, etc.etc. If you think this person should be in charge of ethics, well, you can't change stupid.

In this country we have legal ways of removing elected officials.

And we have grand juries to indict those who don't follow those legal avenues. What you think about lehmberg's behavior is irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:The DA also threatened the cops, lied to the cops, etc.etc. If you think this person should be in charge of ethics, well, you can't change stupid.

In this country we have legal ways of removing elected officials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DA also threatened the cops, lied to the cops, etc.etc. If you think this person should be in charge of ethics, well, you can't change stupid.

So you also know better than the hearing that allowed her to stay on the job?

Here it is.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/district-attorney-fights-job-civil-trial-dwi-conviction/story?id=21157821

You're not the first one to think of this.

Anonymous wrote:The DA also threatened the cops, lied to the cops, etc.etc. If you think this person should be in charge of ethics, well, you can't change stupid.

So you also know better than the hearing that allowed her to stay on the job?

The DA also threatened the cops, lied to the cops, etc.etc. If you think this person should be in charge of ethics, well, you can't change stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the number of liberals along its ridiculous, you are probably right. No way you can see those vids and not see why Perry wanted her out.

if this is true then he's actually guilty.

Not necessarily. Weird leap of logic.

Not really. Defunding Ethics to avoid his own investigation is a crime, but so is defunding it to get rid of her.

All that is alleged. Yet we have a drunk DA who blows a 2.3. That's not alleged.

Yes, the DA had a BAC of .23. She was charged, convicted, served time, and separately allowed to keep her job. Perry doesn't know better than that separate hearing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the number of liberals along its ridiculous, you are probably right. No way you can see those vids and not see why Perry wanted her out.

if this is true then he's actually guilty.

Not necessarily. Weird leap of logic.

Not really. Defunding Ethics to avoid his own investigation is a crime, but so is defunding it to get rid of her.

All that is alleged. Yet we have a drunk DA who blows a 2.3. That's not alleged.