Rick Perry Indicted.

[maxparrish]

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.

But where the Texas Constitution speaks, Texas legal code ends. Anything statute that conflicts with a Constitutional power means the statute is unconstitutional. Of course, a statute can say no politician (including the Governor) can take a bribe because it does not conflict with the Texas Constitution.

 

[Cobalt]

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.

But where the Texas Constitution speaks, Texas legal code ends. Anything statute that conflicts with a Constitutional power means the statute is unconstitutional. Of course, a statute can say no politician (including the Governor) can take a bribe because it does not conflict with the Texas Constitution.

Of course. Which is exactly what I explained to you and dismal previously. And just because an action is unconstitutional that doesn't mean it isn't also illegal.

 

[dismal]

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.

My answer to your question is

1) this not a matter of opinion but statute
2) I am not aware of any statute that would criminalize this
3) Rick perry is not charged with this

Similarly, I am also not aware of any laws criminalizing wearing a top hat to a parade on Sunday, but these laws may exist. However, this is not what this case is about.

 

[ksen]

Rick Perry might go away for a long, long time: What even the liberal media isn’t reporting about his indictment

 

[dismal]

Rick Perry might go away for a long, long time: What even the liberal media isn’t reporting about his indictment

I see nothing new in there. What point are you trying to make by posting it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Rick Perry might go away for a long, long time: What even the liberal media isn’t reporting about his indictment

Good read.

 

[maxparrish]

Good read? Dismal is correct, its just the same old hack "he's a bad man" narrative so he must be guilty" narrative, laced with the usual innuendo, strained analogies, and historical confabulations - 100 percent devoid of any legal analysis or reference to real law.

Anyone who gobbles up an Al Jazeera journalist's lurid left wing droppings is not really seeking intellectual sustenance; they are dropping the party acid that will provide them with pretty colors and unthinking bliss.

Rick Perry may be found guilty, but he will win on appeal. The thinking left knows that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Good read? Dismal is correct, its just the same old hack "he's a bad man" narrative so he must be guilty" narrative, laced with the usual innuendo, strained analogies, and historical confabulations - 100 percent devoid of any legal analysis or reference to real law.

Anyone who gobbles up an Al Jazeera journalist's lurid left wing droppings is not really seeking intellectual sustenance; they are dropping the party acid that will provide them with pretty colors and unthinking bliss.

Rick Perry may be found guilty, but he will win on appeal. The thinking left knows that.

Perhaps max. The point of the article was how people on a national vs regional scale see the case. Regionally it's taken seriously. Nationally it's seen as more politics, melodrama, etc. Pretty predictable. And the article goes to great length to detail how democrats have recused themselves in the case and thus far everything has been handled by republicans. Maybe it's a case of regional republicans not wanting to appear partisan. But maybe not. We'll have to see.

 

[dismal]

Good read? Dismal is correct, its just the same old hack "he's a bad man" narrative so he must be guilty" narrative, laced with the usual innuendo, strained analogies, and historical confabulations - 100 percent devoid of any legal analysis or reference to real law.

Anyone who gobbles up an Al Jazeera journalist's lurid left wing droppings is not really seeking intellectual sustenance; they are dropping the party acid that will provide them with pretty colors and unthinking bliss.

Rick Perry may be found guilty, but he will win on appeal. The thinking left knows that.

Perhaps max. The point of the article was how people on a national vs regional scale see the case. Regionally it's taken seriously. Nationally it's seen as more politics, melodrama, etc. Pretty predictable. And the article goes to great length to detail how democrats have recused themselves in the case and thus far everything has been handled by republicans. Maybe it's a case of regional republicans not wanting to appear partisan. But maybe not. We'll have to see.

None of this has anything to do with a discussion about the law. This application of the actual laws that exist is where people have trouble with the case. Regionally, nationally, everywhere.

 

[maxparrish]

As someone not blessed with seeing import to a few of the unsupported opinions of the Texas print press (primarily democratic), perhaps you can explain to me why it matters? The title of the article is "Why Rick Perry might be going away for a long, long, time" and then spends the bulk of the article on explaining how sinister Rick Perry is (and, I suppose, how fair, in the opinion of non-experts the indictment must be). Ya...so?

Of what value is this article in explaining what it purports to explain?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think the "sinisterness" of Perry in the article is pointing out why Republicans are leading the charge against him.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the "sinisterness" of Perry in the article is pointing out why Republicans are leading the charge against him.

Or is he just rolling the dice because he's done as Governor?

I still maintain he's just not so bright. If you step on it with golf shoes you shouldn't start jumping up and down. To his credit he hired the best legal whores money can buy and is handing the bill to the taxpayers.

 

[dismal]

I think the "sinisterness" of Perry in the article is pointing out why Republicans are leading the charge against him.

Or is he just rolling the dice because he's done as Governor?

I still maintain he's just not so bright. If you step on it with golf shoes you shouldn't start jumping up and down. To his credit he hired the best legal whores money can buy and is handing the bill to the taxpayers.

I'm curious, why do you imagine all these people with legal training on both sides scoff at the validity of the indictment?

Do you have some legal fine points to raise that they have missed?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Or is he just rolling the dice because he's done as Governor?

I still maintain he's just not so bright. If you step on it with golf shoes you shouldn't start jumping up and down. To his credit he hired the best legal whores money can buy and is handing the bill to the taxpayers.

I'm curious, why do you imagine all these people with legal training on both sides scoff at the validity of the indictment?

Do you have some legal fine points to raise that they have missed?

If that's the case, why the dog and pony show so far? What's the point? It could be incompetence, and that's likely the best answer. Incompetence in that persons who run government offices aren't good at it, that they're there by default. Believe me I've seen my share. And of course, Perry is no exception.

 

[dismal]

I'm curious, why do you imagine all these people with legal training on both sides scoff at the validity of the indictment?

Do you have some legal fine points to raise that they have missed?

If that's the case, why the dog and pony show so far? What's the point? It could be incompetence, and that's likely the best answer. Incompetence in that persons who run government offices aren't good at it, that they're there by default. Believe me I've seen my share. And of course, Perry is no exception.

Why what "dog and pony" show?

Do you mean Perry's gleeful happiness about being indicted? Selling mug shot t-shirts and stuff? The reason for that is the substance of the indictment is so flimsy that people on both sides are mocking it, he got a nice mug shot out of it, and Perry is suddenly relevant instead of heading out to pasture.

But none of this really addresses the legal points. Which you are notably avoiding.

 

[ksen]

UPDATE:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-abuse-power-case-on-constitutional-grounds/

A Texas judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a felony abuse-of-power case against former Gov. Rick Perry on constitutional grounds, ruling that criminal charges against the possible 2016 presidential candidate should stand.

 

[laughing dog]

UPDATE:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-abuse-power-case-on-constitutional-grounds/

A Texas judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a felony abuse-of-power case against former Gov. Rick Perry on constitutional grounds, ruling that criminal charges against the possible 2016 presidential candidate should stand.

I guess judges in Texas do not get legal training.

 

[maxparrish]

UPDATE:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-abuse-power-case-on-constitutional-grounds/

A Texas judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a felony abuse-of-power case against former Gov. Rick Perry on constitutional grounds, ruling that criminal charges against the possible 2016 presidential candidate should stand.

Nothing of interest to the hyena pack - in 21 pages it merely states that the judge does not have the authority, at this point, to quash the indictment based on Constitutional arguments, and that Counts One and Two are so poorly written he is going to give the prosecutor time to amend his indictment so that it makes sense.

 

[Medicine Man]

Good read? Dismal is correct, its just the same old hack "he's a bad man" narrative so he must be guilty" narrative, laced with the usual innuendo, strained analogies, and historical confabulations....

....Like....​

"Goober, DOWN! Goober, DOWN!!"
January 26, 2015

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I serious don't 'get' the problem some seem to be having with the indictment. Rick perry punished a municipality. He didn't punish the DA, he punished the citizens. He threatened the stability of an entire community to push his vendetta. I have no problem with him coming down hard on a drunken, lying official. But don't do it by punishing the entire municipality. It's not a fucking game. It's not a mere 'token'. It's millions of dollars, and people will be hurt for it, possibly killed.

He is being indicted because he is treating the lives and livelihoods of uninvolved persons as a pawn in a game of politics, because human lives are to him a number on a balance sheet. Or, as several here seem fond of saying, a judge said so so that's the law so get the fuck over it? I'm going to support it because perry is an evil fuck regardless of the law or what a judge says and he should go down all the same.

I hope he sees the inside of a prison long enough to get shanked for all the people he's had executed.