Bias or Collusion in Houston DA Office?


Like a magician, Devon Anderson redirects the audience’s attention

In an 11 August 2015 article on The Blaze, the reported on a Devon Anderson press conference announcement saying Lauren Reeder (the Assistant District Attorney who was also on Planned Parenthood Board of Directors) would not be a part of the investigation into Planned Parenthood.

Fast forward to Monday, 25 January 2016 when the breaking news centered on the indictment of the whistle-blowers in the Planned Parenthood case:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Show Continues

On 27 January 2016, Devon Anderson released an angry statement purportedly in response to statements from the counsel representing David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt (refer to the embedded video below).

Her Words and Other Conflicting Issues

  1. Her “Inconvenient” Statement

    In the announcement provided above, Ms. Anderson tried to distance herself from the outcome of her own decisions regarding the prosecution of whistle-blowers rather than an enterprise like Planned Parenthood when she claimed:

    The inconvenient truth of criminal investigation is that it doesn’t always lead where you want to go.”

    1. The Really Inconvenient Truth

      As succinctly shown by David Jennings at Big Jolly Politics in his 27 January 2016 article, Anderson’s statement does not pass muster:

      “As the old saying goes, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if (she wants) to. It all depends upon the evidence given to the grand jury and how the evidence was presented. For Anderson to blame the grand jury is simply nonsense. She is quoted as saying ‘The inconvenient truth of a criminal investigation is that it doesn’t always lead where you want to go.’ While that may be true it is also true that the inconvenient truth of her actions in this case will result in more brutal abortion procedures by Planned Parenthood.”

  2. Next, She Wraps Herself in a Pro-Life Flag

    Next, Ms. Anderson attempted to further obfuscate the matter by claiming what would seem to be an impossible allegiance.

    “Anyone who pays attention knows I’m pro-life. I believe abortion is wrong, but my personal belief does not relieve me of my obligation to follow the law.”

    However, the problem with claiming allegiance to an idea is that nobody can see whether that idea really floats in your head.  That is why most of us don’t bother with a politician’s words and go on to review their actions — and when we review your actions, more pro-abortion events become evident than pro-life in her history.

    None of us live perfect lives; therefore, facing temptation makes up part of the human condition.  Facing and overcoming temptation comes primarily through Divine intervention (1 Corinthians 10:13; Galatians 5:16; James 4:7; Ephesians 6:10-18; Hebrews 2:18; and many other verses).  Thence, most Christians know that others “will know (us) by (our) fruits” (Matthew 7:16).  We do not want to hurt our being able to show others the path to God; so, we guard our reputation with a vengeance.  We know that “the steps of a good (person) are ordered by the Lord” (Psalms 37:23).  With this in mind, can anyone see that Ms. Anderson seems to have put an effort into seeming “pro-life” (as she professes).  I am not saying that Christians (or others) should be treating Ms. Anderson judgmentally or that we can presume to know her heart (1 Corinthians 2:11; Jeremiah 20:12; Mark 2:8; and many other verses).  I am saying that God has given us resources (2 Corinthians 9:10; Matthew 25:14-30; and many other verses) and we need to act wisely (Matthew 10:16) as we grow those resources.

    Therefore, the first question centers on whether Ms. Anderson really reflects the “pro-life” stance that she professes.  In my opinion, she does not in the least show any evidence of a concern for the weakest among us.

    The second question centers on each of our response to the first question.  That second question balances on whether each of us think that Ms. Anderson deserves to remain in office.  In my opinion, the volume of fetal screams emanating from Houston abortuaries requires that we do not allow her to repeat her current record.

    1. No Evidence of Her Pro-Life Thoughts, but at least Two Pro-Abortion Decisions

      As revealed in a 27 January 2016 article written by Associated Press author Paul J. Weber, Ms. Anderson seems to have a past with pro-abortion decisions involving grand juries.  In that article, Mr. Weber says (emphasis mine):

      “But the case against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, anti-abortion activists who live in California, is now perhaps Anderson’s most visible case since she first took office in 2013.

      It also has a somewhat familiar ring to it.

      Anderson was barely three months into office when the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue accused a Houston doctor of performing late-term abortions. The activist behind those allegations, Troy Newman, was also a founding member of the Center for Medical Progress — the anti-abortion group headed by Daleiden, whose videos set off investigations by Congress and Republican efforts to cut off Planned Parenthood funding.

      Operation Rescue had released disturbing photos and accusations from the former staff of Dr. Douglas Karpen. A grand jury declined to indict Karpen; the abortion provider’s lawyer, Chip Lewis, said Karpen was smeared by doctored pictures and false allegations made by individuals who were paid by Operation Rescue.

      (Author’s Note: Observe two things from this.  First, make note of Chip Lewis.  He appears later in this saga.  Second, refer to the full length videos posted by Center for Medical Progress and observe how there are no breaks in those videos [and, therefore, no possibility of tampering with said videos]).

      Similar observations of impropriety were published by Don Hooper of Big Jolly Politics in his 26 January 2016 article.

    2. Evidence of Pro-Abortion found by Following the Money

      Just as Don Hooper found:

      One of Anderson’s largest campaign contributors is a criminal defense lawyer named Chip Lewis – Karpen’s attorney.

      As those who click the above link will know, Don pointed out that:

      “So far, in one year, Lewis has donated $25,100 to Devon Anderson. Who knows if Durst has contributed under one of his many aliases.

      • $10,000 on February 4, 2014
      • $5,000 on May 23, 2014
      • $1,000 on September 17, 2014
      • $9,100 on September 25, 2014

      This does not include the funds that Lewis donated to Mike Anderson, which were ultimately transferred to Devon’s campaign account. Lewis gave Mike Anderson $12,531.

      • $10,000 on February 27, 2012
      • $1,000 on April 2, 2013

      Even in the shadow of the latest courthouse rumors surrounding Lewis, he is hosting a fundraiser for Devon later this month. What has Chip’s investment in the Andersons done for him?”

      Still, for those who really need to see the records (for only the first four contributions listed above), those were put online in a 28 January 2016 LifeNews article in the form of these images of forms documenting substantial contributions from Chip Lewis – Karpen’s attorney:

  3. Next, She Claims “That’s the Law”

    The next phase of Ms. Anderson’s self-defense involved her claim that she was constrained by the law to indict the whistleblowers:

    “I’d like to address some of the comments that have been made in the last few days. First, at a press conference today, the defense attorneys asked me to re-present the investigation to another grand jury. I’m not going to do that. We have a longstanding policy against grand jury shopping. That means that when a grand jury comes back with a decision we don’t like, we don’t go and find another one to get the result we want. That violates the integrity of the whole system. The only time we re-present is if new evidence comes to light.

    Twelve Harris County citizens have spoken and I respect their decision even if it conflicts with my personal belief. The defense attorneys also said today that the tampering with a government record cases should not have been charged as felonies since young people who are caught with fake IDs typically face misdemeanor charges here. But, under Texas law, if a person uses a fake IDs from another state, it is a felony charge. That’s the law.”

    1. Ms. Anderson, Do You Claim not to have Prosecutorial Discretion?

      If all of your actions are done because “that’s the law,” what law changed that allowed you to reduce the penalty for first-time marijuana offenders, meth offenders, and cocaine offenders?  Since you obviously have prosecutorial discretion, what keeps you from not prosecuting whistleblowers?  Is it your debts owed to Chip Lewis or your association with your assistant (Lauren Reeder, the Assistant District Attorney who was also on Planned Parenthood Board of Directors)?

    2. If Buying Fetal Bodies Breaks the Law, Why Aren’t You Prosecuting the Other Buyers?

      In a 28 January 2016 post at Rhymes with Right, Greg revealed the results of his use of the Texas Public Information Act to uncover the fact that four Texas universities are purchasing fetal body tissue. Why isn’t Ms. Anderson indicting these local offenders of the same offense she charged the whistleblowers?  “That’s the law.

  4. Finally, Ms. Anderson Claims No Close Affiliation with Her Assistant

    In her closing statements in this PR piece, Ms. Anderson claims that her assistant has had no affect on this case, that there is no appearance of impropriety, and that Ms. Reeder is just one of 600 employees.

    “There’s an allegation also that one of out prosecutors who happens to be on the board of Planned Parenthood was involved in this investigation and the presentation to the grand jury. That is simply not true. In August, the day after our lieutenant governor asked me to investigate the allegations of misconduct by Planned Parenthood, this prosecutor notified me of her affiliation with this organization. We immediately sent out a press release revealing her relationship to the public. At that time, I said that (in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety) “I’m taking steps to make sure she’s not involved in any matter of this investigation.” And that is what happened. She’s a fairly new prosecutor who would never have been assigned to an investigation of this magnitude anyway.

    And for the record, we have 600 employees, 300 of whom are prosecutors, in our office.

    As the district attorney of Harris County, I will never let my personal beliefs conflict with my obligation to follow the laws of this state. In this case, an independent grand jury concluded that laws were broken and indictments followed. The two defendants are represented by counsel and will have day in court.”

    1. Do you claim that a press conference is sufficient to prove that no impropriety occurred?

      Unless you will accept that standard for those indicted in this case, would you open your records to show that Ms. Reeder did not have access to this prosecution?

    2. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, do you plan on indicting those who sold and all parties who bought fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood?  Do you plan on

      Unless you can show even application of the law (not only inside of your office, but also against those who contribute to your campaign, and to those who have benefited from your blind eye), you should step down.

    3. You claim that Ms. Reeder is just one of 600 employed by your office

      If Ms. Reeder is just one of 600 employees, how many of the other 600 have the title of “assistant District Attorney?”  How many have the access to your office that she has?  Does she actually have more access (attends more meetings with you, shares more resources like e-mail, or is situated more closely) than other employees?

Supporting Fire from Anderson’s Allies in the Press

Just to be fair, there are still those in the press, like the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle, who will take the word of any prosecutor who sides with Planned Parenthood abortionists.  If this post upsets you and you cannot find it in yourself to stand up for the innocent, then pick up one of these worthless rags and bury your head.

For those of us who feel so sickened that we must take action, I urge you to get up and act.

One thought on “Bias or Collusion in Houston DA Office?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.