I just sent this to Michael McCrum via his online form:
You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. This prosecution is a joke. It is perhaps one of the most outrageous abuses of power by a prosecutor I have heard of in years. I’m a prosecutor myself — writing you on my own and not speaking for my office — and I just want you to know that your actions tar good prosecutors everywhere. Thank God you never became U.S. Attorney. I hope you lose quickly and are drummed out of public life in disgrace.
UPDATE: Thanks to Scott Johnson at PowerLine for the link.
UPDATE x2: Add one more voice to the mix. From the comments, Jeff Greeson, a prosecutor in Northern California, says he sent McCrum this:
I am a prosecutor in Northern California, but I write today as a citizen, and am not expressing the opinion of my employer or the elected district attorney.
Your abuse of the judicial process is a crime against democracy itself. I hope whatever tawdry political favor you are going to get from the Harris County democrat party machine was worth your personal honor. While I am not familiar with the Texas Bar’s ethics code, I cannot conceive of an ethical system that would permit a cheap political prank disguised as a solemn legal duty. You have brought great shame on yourself and our profession.
Damn straight. Great statement, and well said:
Democrats really screwed up here.
UPDATE: Sometimes you want to listen to someone who’s really angry. This is one of those times:
UPDATE: Thanks to Moe Lane at RedState for the link.
Jonathan Chait — lefty leftist Jonathan Chait, I say! — admits today that the indictment of Rick Perry is absurd. Don’t believe me? In a post titled This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous (yes, that is really the title), Chait says:
They say a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and this always seemed like hyperbole, until Friday night a Texas grand jury announced an indictment of governor Rick Perry. The “crime” for which Perry faces a sentence of 5 to 99 years in prison is vetoing funding for a state agency. The conventions of reporting — which treat the fact of an indictment as the primary news, and its merit as a secondary analytic question — make it difficult for people reading the news to grasp just how farfetched this indictment is.
. . . .
The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost any kind of political conflict could be defined as a “misuse” of power or “coercion” of one’s opponents. To describe the indictment as “frivolous” gives it far more credence than it deserves. Perry may not be much smarter than a ham sandwich, but he is exactly as guilty as one.
I often find Chait irritating, but I appreciate his honesty and spot-on analysis here — and, as you can discern from his last sentence, his conclusion does not flow from any love for Rick Perry. Likewise, I guarantee you that I would be equally critical of such an absurd indictment whether it were brought by a Republican or a Democrat, against a Republican or a Democrat.
There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about what is actually alleged and why it’s so silly, so I have done some work to try to make it clear to you, the interested and educated non-lawyer (and to the lawyers too!). I’ll bury the legal analysis under the fold, but trust me: it’s interesting and I try to make it easy to understand. Click on the “more” button if you’re interested.