Rick Perry Indicted.

[laughing dog]

You getting desperate, max? It's simply up to the powers to be. I think that both parties are behaving quite well in all honesty.

If I am "desperate" it is only for a little higher brow conversation; I thought by writing and conducting a symphony a few others might elevate their intellectual musicality beyond strumming a wash board and spooning water glasses.

I'll bet that symphony would resemble a Wagnerian opera.

 

[ksen]

The special prosecutor and the grand jury seem to disagree with you.

This is an appeal to authority, and unfortunately an authority legal scholars on both sides find somewhat ridiculous.

Do you have an actual argument?

I guess the best way to fight an appeal to authority is another appeal to authority.

 

[dismal]

This is an appeal to authority, and unfortunately an authority legal scholars on both sides find somewhat ridiculous.

Do you have an actual argument?

I guess the best way to fight an appeal to authority is another appeal to authority.

Or, analysis of the relevant statues and relevant precedents could work.

 

[maxparrish]

The legal battle begins. Today Perry's legal team made application for immunity from prosecution for constitutional reasons http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/08/25/perry_082514.PDF

The Writ of Habeus Corpus requests the court to exempt Perry on Constitutional grounds. That the statutes (36.04 (a)(1)) is unconstitutional overbroard, void for vagueness, and unconstitutional as applied.. (Count II)
It also says that 39.02 (a)(2) Is Unconstitutional as applied (Count 1)

I understand that one should expect it to be turned down, appealed, and then heard on its merits.

This is a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking to bar the prosecution of Applicant, Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry, on multiple constitutional grounds. Some of these grounds relate to defects apparent on the face of the statutes upon which thisindictment was based, and they could be raised by any person charged with an alleged violation of their terms. As Applicant will demonstrate, Section 36.03(a)(l) of the Texas Penal Code is fatally vague and overbroad, failing to give reasonable notice to any official about what is permissible conduct on the one hand and what is felonious conduct on the other…..

In addition, both Section 36.03(a)(l) and Section 39.02(a) are vague and overbroad as applied to this case, and that is true regardless of whether they might pass constitutional muster in some other circumstances….

Even if the statutes under which the Governor is indicted were not unconstitutional on their face or as applied, the facts alleged by the State still fail on their face to set forth any violation of those statutes. Those arguments will not be addressed now, because pretrial habeas corpus is not the remedy for factual inadequacy, even when that inadequacy is as blatant as it is here. Rather, if this
case were to go forward, they will be raised in a motion to quash the indictment.

 

[maxparrish]

Another Element of Perry's Conspiracy to Replace Lehmberg Collapses...

Remember the speculative "pre-crime", whereupon Perry was (hypothetically) covering up a crime, and going to appoint a Republican loyalist to cover his tracks? It looks like, even as speculation, that plotline is no longer worth the time it takes to dream it up.

Recent News Story Out of Texas:

AUSTIN -- Gov. Rick Perry personally called a well-known Austin Democrat to discuss her interest in replacing Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg days before the public learned Perry was threatening to withhold state funding from Lehmberg's office unless she resigned.

Austin defense attorney Mindy Montford, who previously ran as a Democratic candidate for state district judge and district attorney in Travis County, confirmed her conversation with Perry — which took place in early June 2013, to the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV on Sunday.

She said Perry informed her he intended to veto money to the Public Integrity Unit unless Lehmberg stepped down following her high-profile drunken driving arrest. Under the law, Perry, a Republican in his 14th year in office, would have named Lehmberg's replacement pending an election.

"I think I told him, of course, it would be an amazing opportunity, and I thanked him for considering me," Montford said. "The fact that I am a Democrat was surprising, and I think I mentioned that to him. I told him I would think about it, and thanked him.

"There was no acceptance because I didn't feel like it was timely at that point," she said. "We never spoke again because it became irrelevant when she did not resign."

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/poli...austin-democrat-to-succeed-lehmberg/14549933/

 

[maxparrish]

New Gets Worse for Perry Conspiracy Plotline...Lead Investigator Under Oath Says Perry Is Clean...

Lead Investigator: Perry Was Not Under Investigation When He Tried to Get Travis County’s Drunk DA to Resign
Thursday, August 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

The Texas Democratic Party and its operatives have tried to build a defense of their indictment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

According to that narrative, Perry tried to get Lehmberg removed because the Travis County Public Integrity Unit was circling around the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. There were allegations of crony corruption in CPRIT. According to the Democrat narrative, the suspicion of crony corruption had the PIU looking into Perry and several close associates. So, according to this narrative, Perry wanted to push Lehmberg out as Travis County district attorney, so he could appoint her successor and get that investigation killed off.

The Austin American-Statesman, no friend of Gov. Perry, already shattered that narrative earlier this week. The timeline of the CPRIT investigation does not match the timeline of Perry’s effort to rid Travis County of its drunk-driving, abusive DA.

Now one of the Travis County DA’s investigators has given a sworn statement in the case that ought to kill the Democrats’ narrative with fire.

Chris Walling was a criminal investigator with the Public Integrity Unit. Not only that, he was the primary investigator who was looking into the CPRIT case.

Walling submitted an affidavit on Wednesday, and in that affidavit he says:

“At no time in CPRIT investigation was Governor Rick Perry or anyone from the Governor’s office a target. At no time did I ever obtain evidence that suggested any wrongdoing on behalf of Governor Rick Perry or the Governor’s office. At no time did the evidence that I obtained as investigator ever suggest any wrongdoing on the part of any appointed Board Member of CPRIT. Any suggestion that Governor Rick Perry or anyone associated with him was being investigated is untrue; and, based on my investigation, there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests wrongdoing on the part of any individual other than the individual ultimately indicted by a grand jury.”

It’s obvious, but probably worth clarifying anyway, that Walling is not referring to the indictment of Perry there. He is referring to the lone indictment of a staffer in the CPRIT case.

Walling’s statement not only destroys the Democrats’ partisan narrative of the case, it destroys the indictment of Perry itself.

Walling’s affidavit addresses what he told the special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, about CPRIT.

“Special prosecutor Michael McCrum contacted me to interview me about the CPRIT investigation. During the interview, Mr. McCrum questioned me about Governor Rick Perry’s potential involvement in the CPRIT situation. I made it clear to him that there was absolutely no evidence even suggesting wrongdoing on the part of Governor Perry and in no uncertain terms that, after a lengthy investigation, no evidence was found to suggest wrong doing on the part of the Governor, the Governor’s office, nor any Board Member of CPRIT.”

Walling also says that he did not have any active investigation during or after the veto of PIU that targeted Gov. Perry or anyone from his office.

Walling’s affidavit raises a huge question: Did McCrum take his testimony to the grand jury? Did the grand jury ever hear this obviously exculpatory testimony?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/08/2...ied-to-get-travis-countys-drunk-da-to-resign/

 

[ksen]

lol, pjmedia

 

[dismal]

lol, pjmedia

You will clearly see there are links to the original sources.

It's like you want to crow about how you are in active denial of information.

 

[ksen]

Remember the speculative "pre-crime", whereupon Perry was (hypothetically) covering up a crime, and going to appoint a Republican loyalist to cover his tracks? It looks like, even as speculation, that plotline is no longer worth the time it takes to dream it up.

Recent News Story Out of Texas:

AUSTIN -- Gov. Rick Perry personally called a well-known Austin Democrat to discuss her interest in replacing Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg days before the public learned Perry was threatening to withhold state funding from Lehmberg's office unless she resigned.

Austin defense attorney Mindy Montford, who previously ran as a Democratic candidate for state district judge and district attorney in Travis County, confirmed her conversation with Perry — which took place in early June 2013, to the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV on Sunday.

She said Perry informed her he intended to veto money to the Public Integrity Unit unless Lehmberg stepped down following her high-profile drunken driving arrest. Under the law, Perry, a Republican in his 14th year in office, would have named Lehmberg's replacement pending an election.

"I think I told him, of course, it would be an amazing opportunity, and I thanked him for considering me," Montford said. "The fact that I am a Democrat was surprising, and I think I mentioned that to him. I told him I would think about it, and thanked him.

"There was no acceptance because I didn't feel like it was timely at that point," she said. "We never spoke again because it became irrelevant when she did not resign."

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/poli...austin-democrat-to-succeed-lehmberg/14549933/

I guess calling one democrat about the Lehmberg position means that Perry didn't contact any republicans and would have definitely offered the job to the democrat?

 

[maxparrish]

" I told him I would think about it, and thanked him.

"There was no acceptance because I didn't feel like it was timely at that point," she said. "We never spoke again because it became irrelevant when she did not resign.""

I'm sure it was a clever ruse.

 

[maxparrish]

lol, pjmedia

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/08/21/Walling_Affidavit2.pdf

 

[ksen]

" I told him I would think about it, and thanked him.

"There was no acceptance because I didn't feel like it was timely at that point," she said. "We never spoke again because it became irrelevant when she did not resign.""

I'm sure it was a clever ruse.

"Would you be interested?" is different than "I'm offering you this position, would you like it?"

It also doesn't mean Perry didn't contact any republicans as well as the one democrat.

It's smart politics to have contacted at least one democrat, I'll give Perry credit for that. But that doesn't mean she would have been his nominee if he had been successful in getting Lehmberg to step down.

 

[maxparrish]

" I told him I would think about it, and thanked him.

"There was no acceptance because I didn't feel like it was timely at that point," she said. "We never spoke again because it became irrelevant when she did not resign.""

I'm sure it was a clever ruse.

"Would you be interested?" is different than "I'm offering you this position, would you like it?"

It also doesn't mean Perry didn't contact any republicans as well as the one democrat.

It's smart politics to have contacted at least one democrat, I'll give Perry credit for that. But that doesn't mean she would have been his nominee if he had been successful in getting Lehmberg to step down.

No, it does not sound like a rock hard offer (although her comments suggest it was close to one). But it just adds to mounting evidence of "the conspiracy" as delusional speculation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Obviously, the socialist dictator is persecuting patriot Perry for the crime of loving freedom.

Obviously it upsets you that your candidate is having a difficult time, but calling the person giving him trouble a "socialist dictator" is a bit over the top.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is the Texas Governor allowed to veto spending for a Department of Government in which he is feuding with?

 

[maxparrish]

Of courese. The budget is for every government office, including the legislature. The legislature proposes, the governor either consents or does not. If he does not, if requires a 2/3rds vote over-ride.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of courese. The budget is for every government office, including the legislature. The legislature proposes, the governor either consents or does not. If he does not, if requires a 2/3rds vote over-ride.

So if a Governor was being directly investigated, all he'd need to do is veto the Justice Department spending, and that is legal?

 

[dismal]

Of courese. The budget is for every government office, including the legislature. The legislature proposes, the governor either consents or does not. If he does not, if requires a 2/3rds vote over-ride.

So if a Governor was being directly investigated, all he'd need to do is veto the Justice Department spending, and that is legal?

a) This does not appear to be relevant
b) Do you have some statute in mind? If so, tell us which statute you believe was violated. This tends to be a necessary element of calling something a crime.

 

[maxparrish]

Of courese. The budget is for every government office, including the legislature. The legislature proposes, the governor either consents or does not. If he does not, if requires a 2/3rds vote over-ride.

So if a Governor was being directly investigated, all he'd need to do is veto the Justice Department spending, and that is legal?

I imagine it is. The constitution of Texas has no limits on what the Governor may veto.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if a Governor was being directly investigated, all he'd need to do is veto the Justice Department spending, and that is legal?

a) This does not appear to be relevant
b) Do you have some statute in mind? If so, tell us which statute you believe was violated. This tends to be a necessary element of calling something a crime.

So the answer to my question is "you don't know".

So if a Governor was being directly investigated, all he'd need to do is veto the Justice Department spending, and that is legal?

I imagine it is. The constitution of Texas has no limits on what the Governor may veto.

The law doesn't end at The Constitution. There is the legal code as well.