Let's end the day with the Rick Perry mugshot.

Courtesy of CBS News: 

Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, turned himself in Tuesday afternoon to be booked and have his mug shot taken at the Travis County Justice Center. The governor was indicted last Friday on two felony counts of abuse of power, which he called "baseless political charges." 

"I'm here today because I believe in the rule of law. And I'm here today because I did the right thing," he said as he entered the courthouse. "I'm going to enter this courthouse with my head held high knowing the actions that I took were not only lawful and legal, but right," Perry added, promising promised that he would veto funding for the Travis County-based Public Integrity Unit again if was given the chance.

Perry maintains that the indictment is a political attack that infringes upon his right of free speech as both a governor and a private citizen. 

"This indictment is nothing short of an attack on the constitutional powers of the office of governor," Perry added. "There are important fundamental issues at stake. And I will not allow this attack on our system of government to stand. I'm going to fight this injustice with every fiber of my being. And we will prevail. We'll prevail because we're standing for the rule of law," he said.

God I love that picture!

I hope someday to see another former Governor face in a similar mugshot.

As for Perry's contention that this is all a political witch hunt, here is a Texas blogger and political expert who begs to differ: 

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 D.A., which is why this case has nothing to do with his right to use the veto. 

But that’s where Perry will focus his public defense. 

Of course, he will also continue his argument this is another manifestation of partisan politics in Austin. That claim is as misleading as his veto rhetoric. There wasn’t a single Democrat involved in the investigation and indictment. In fact, Perry appointed the presiding judge in the case, Billy Ray Stubblefield of the 3rd Judicial District. Stubblefield named retired Judge Bert Richardson of Bexar County (San Antonio) to handle the grand jury investigation, and Richardson picked Mike McCrum to be the special prosecutor in the case. McCrum, who withdrew his name from consideration for U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, had the support of the two Republican Texas U.S. Senators and the state’s Democratic officeholders, which hardly makes him a Democratic Party hack. (A Washington gridlock over the confirmation process in the U.S. Senate caused him to withdraw.) 

That all makes it hard to sell the partisan attack narrative that reporters are spreading for Perry. 

The idea that he was concerned about Lehmberg’s drunk driving is also fatuous nonsense. Two other Texas D.A.s were arrested for DUI during Perry’s tenure in office and he spoke not a discouraging word about their indiscretions. Kaufman County D.A. Rick Harrison drove the wrong way into traffic and was found guilty of drunk driving in 2009 and in 2003 Terry McEachern, D.A. of Swisher County, was convicted of a DUI. Perry said nothing. It’s probably only coincidental that both of those individuals were Republicans and did not oversee an investigative unit responsible for keeping elected officials honest in the capitol.

I can hardly wait to see how this whole thing plays out.