Pinthouse Pizza
Beg to Differ, Mr. King
RECEIVED Fri., Feb. 14, 2020
Dear Editor,
In his column endorsing Margaret Moore over José Garza for D.A. [“Point Austin: About That D.A. Race ...,” Feb. 14], Michael King brushes his colleagues’ concerns about Moore’s integrity aside in favor of embracing Moore’s view of herself as a beleaguered victim of political enemies who have created a caricature of Moore and used her “as a punching bag.”
I beg to differ with Mr. King, and believe that if Moore’s public image has become a caricature, no one but Moore herself is responsible for the public perception of her as unethical and self-promoting. My daughter, Emily, was the target of the phone call that was made from the D.A.’s Office over a year ago, in which Moore’s first assistant made false statements about the contents of Emily’s police file in an attempt to make our family disbelieve our daughter and turn our back on her when she needed us most.
Had our family believed the D.A.’s Office instead of Emily, there would have been one less voice to help bring about the changes in the system that occurred as a result of the class action lawsuit that brought the plight of sexual assault victims to light in Travis County.
Emily and those of us who love her have learned first-hand the power the D.A. has over the life, liberty, and reputation of ordinary citizens. Until the phone call, our family never knew the breathtaking protection that prosecutorial immunity provides the D.A. Mr. King equates the D.A.’s Office to “a high-pressure law firm with more than 200 attorneys and staff members.” Private law firms exist for profit. The D.A.’s Office should be more than that. The D.A. herself should set the tone for the moral leadership of the most powerful public office in the community. In light of our experience, Moore has failed to do so.
In his column endorsing Margaret Moore over José Garza for D.A. [“Point Austin: About That D.A. Race ...,” Feb. 14], Michael King brushes his colleagues’ concerns about Moore’s integrity aside in favor of embracing Moore’s view of herself as a beleaguered victim of political enemies who have created a caricature of Moore and used her “as a punching bag.”
I beg to differ with Mr. King, and believe that if Moore’s public image has become a caricature, no one but Moore herself is responsible for the public perception of her as unethical and self-promoting. My daughter, Emily, was the target of the phone call that was made from the D.A.’s Office over a year ago, in which Moore’s first assistant made false statements about the contents of Emily’s police file in an attempt to make our family disbelieve our daughter and turn our back on her when she needed us most.
Had our family believed the D.A.’s Office instead of Emily, there would have been one less voice to help bring about the changes in the system that occurred as a result of the class action lawsuit that brought the plight of sexual assault victims to light in Travis County.
Emily and those of us who love her have learned first-hand the power the D.A. has over the life, liberty, and reputation of ordinary citizens. Until the phone call, our family never knew the breathtaking protection that prosecutorial immunity provides the D.A. Mr. King equates the D.A.’s Office to “a high-pressure law firm with more than 200 attorneys and staff members.” Private law firms exist for profit. The D.A.’s Office should be more than that. The D.A. herself should set the tone for the moral leadership of the most powerful public office in the community. In light of our experience, Moore has failed to do so.
Sarah Borchardt