Rick Perry Indicted.

[ImGod]

So far, nobody has shown why the grand jury was wrong. Just some opinions in articles or their own opinions. Grand juries consist of random people. In Texas it's likely there were a large percentage of Republicans on the random grand jury. They review evidence that most of us don't get to see, included some that may not get to be introduced in a trial. They indicted him. Probably because most people don't like the BS politicians use to justify the shit they do and that shows in a radom sample.

There have been some lengthy legal analyses posted all of which conclude the charges are somewhere between frivolous and ridiculous.

I have yet to see any serious legal analysis suggesting they are valid.

Links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ants-to-appropriate-in-a-bill-that-he-vetoes/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-appeals-precedent-as-to-the-coercion-count/

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jon...idiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-weak-case-against-rick-perry

All I saw reading those were that a grand jury indicted him and that they thought the indictment shed no light on the evidence. Based on their opinion, reading Texas law, the indictment had little standing. However, I'm assuming the grand jury had access to evidence that could potentially come out to the general public at a later date, or may not be allowed in a trial for various reasons. So none of these "opinion pieces" over rides a grand jury indictment in my opinion. They saw enough evidence to move it to the next phase. That phase will determine how frivolous or not the charges are based on admissible evidence. No evidence, no problem for Perry. He's not guilty and we can start questioning how a grand jury would come to the conclusion they needed to indict him.

 

[dismal]

There have been some lengthy legal analyses posted all of which conclude the charges are somewhere between frivolous and ridiculous.

I have yet to see any serious legal analysis suggesting they are valid.

Links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ants-to-appropriate-in-a-bill-that-he-vetoes/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-appeals-precedent-as-to-the-coercion-count/

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jon...idiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-weak-case-against-rick-perry

All I saw reading those were that a grand jury indicted him and that they thought the indictment shed no light on the evidence. Based on their opinion, reading Texas law, the indictment had little standing. However, I'm assuming the grand jury had access to evidence that could potentially come out to the general public at a later date, or may not be allowed in a trial for various reasons. So none of these "opinion pieces" over rides a grand jury indictment in my opinion. They saw enough evidence to move it to the next phase. That phase will determine how frivolous or not the charges are based on admissible evidence. No evidence, no problem for Perry. He's not guilty and we can start questioning how a grand jury would come to the conclusion they needed to indict him.

Wow. The dream dies hard for some.

 

[Garnet]

A grand jury is a prosecutor's play toy. As has been said elsewhere, a slick prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. IIRC, the US is the only country to still use them. Even then, they aren't used in all the states.

As far as I'm concerned, this has been a big gift to Rick Perry. It's unlikely that the charges will stick. He's making hay out of this right now and is going to be able to paint himself as a conservative hero. Hell, he's already started doing that.

 

[maxparrish]

There have been some lengthy legal analyses posted all of which conclude the charges are somewhere between frivolous and ridiculous.

I have yet to see any serious legal analysis suggesting they are valid.

Links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ants-to-appropriate-in-a-bill-that-he-vetoes/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-appeals-precedent-as-to-the-coercion-count/

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jon...idiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-weak-case-against-rick-perry

All I saw reading those were that a grand jury indicted him and that they thought the indictment shed no light on the evidence. Based on their opinion, reading Texas law, the indictment had little standing. However, I'm assuming the grand jury had access to evidence that could potentially come out to the general public at a later date, or may not be allowed in a trial for various reasons. So none of these "opinion pieces" over rides a grand jury indictment in my opinion. They saw enough evidence to move it to the next phase. That phase will determine how frivolous or not the charges are based on admissible evidence. No evidence, no problem for Perry. He's not guilty and we can start questioning how a grand jury would come to the conclusion they needed to indict him.

If that is all you saw, you need to get your eyes checked immediately. The "evidence" is in what he said and did publicly, he threatened a veto if she did not resign, and when she did not he veto'd legislation providing funds to a particular state office. Unless there is some super-secret nodule of fact withheld from the public, it is almost certain he is innocent.

"The Constitution gives the Governor the right to strike out an appropriations item and the right of the legislature to overcome that veto. What if a governor objected to an office being used to investigate and prosecute particularly areas of business or society? So long as governors are not engaging in obstruction of justice or seeking to influence a particular case, there is clearly authority to seek defunding of state programs or offices through the budget process. This was not an executive order but an executive veto that is part of the legislative and appropriations process. (Even with what I consider to be executive orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, I still do not believe that they have risen to the point to warrant impeachment)" http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

 

[lpetrich]

I think the far more important issue is the deep and pervasive corruption of the law, the use of the power by the state to crush politicians and causes it ideologically hates. This is, of course, the kind of thing normally associated with third world totalitarians. But now we've seen the ideologically driven prosecution of Ted Stevens, Kay Hutchinson, Tom Delay, and now Rick Perry.

What victims they are!

Yes, victims.

I thought that right-wingers believed in taking responsibility for their actions, no matter how much doing so hurts them.

 

[maxparrish]

I think the far more important issue is the deep and pervasive corruption of the law, the use of the power by the state to crush politicians and causes it ideologically hates. This is, of course, the kind of thing normally associated with third world totalitarians. But now we've seen the ideologically driven prosecution of Ted Stevens, Kay Hutchinson, Tom Delay, and now Rick Perry.

What victims they are!

Yes, victims.

I thought that right-wingers believed in taking responsibility for their actions, no matter how much doing so hurts them.

The sarcasm and contempt were oozing out of my monitor, anyone have a handi-wipe?

 

[dismal]

I think the far more important issue is the deep and pervasive corruption of the law, the use of the power by the state to crush politicians and causes it ideologically hates. This is, of course, the kind of thing normally associated with third world totalitarians. But now we've seen the ideologically driven prosecution of Ted Stevens, Kay Hutchinson, Tom Delay, and now Rick Perry.

What victims they are!

Yes, victims.

I thought that right-wingers believed in taking responsibility for their actions, no matter how much doing so hurts them.

I thought sane people did not support making up crimes that do not exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wow. The dream dies hard for some.

There goes another irony meter.

No doubt Perry realizes that he should have just kept up the dick wagging. But he had to go slap someone with it and now he has a problem.

 

[dismal]

Wow. The dream dies hard for some.

There goes another irony meter.

No doubt Perry realizes that he should have just kept up the dick wagging. But he had to go slap someone with it and now he has a problem.

Meanwhile, back in reality, many people on the left keeping calling this indictment an abusive overreach (including NY Times editorial today) and Perry is acting gleeful about it.

 

[ksen]

This does seem to be a bit of a stretch. Presidents and governors threaten vetoes all the time. What makes this one a little different is that the threats are normally to get some sort of spending change and not to get someone fired.

 

[dismal]

This does seem to be a bit of a stretch. Presidents and governors threaten vetoes all the time. What makes this one a little different is that the threats are normally to get some sort of spending change and not to get someone fired.

He didn't fire her, he vetoed state funding to her group as long as she ran it. No one seems to dispute this was within his legal power.

The indictment rests on bizarre extrapolations from the act, not the act itself.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I wonder how many will support Perry while simultaneously calling for the suing and/or impeachment of Obama? Not that I'm worried, if Obama gets pissy enough with Boehner, he can just veto the next congressional budget, deny continuing services and declare himself King for Life!

It's a thug life muthfuckas!

 

[maxparrish]

I wonder how many will support Perry while simultaneously calling for the suing and/or impeachment of Obama? Not that I'm worried, if Obama gets pissy enough with Boehner, he can just veto the next congressional budget, deny continuing services and declare himself King for Life!

It's a thug life muthfuckas!

The "thuggishness" of national politics primarily (but not exclusively) stems from Democrats. In particular, the corruption of the law by prosecutors against national Republican figures seems most pervasive. Ted Stevens, Scott Walker, Tom Delay, Kay Baily Hutchenson, and now Rick Perry come to mind. It's the political expression of a larger related issue, prosecutorial misconduct and criminality through out the criminal justice system.

There is nothing inconsistent with supporting impeachment of the President and objecting to a prosecutor's corruption of the law - one ought to object to real abuse of power.

 

[Angry Floof]

This does seem to be a bit of a stretch. Presidents and governors threaten vetoes all the time. What makes this one a little different is that the threats are normally to get some sort of spending change and not to get someone fired.

He didn't fire her, he vetoed state funding to her group as long as she ran it. No one seems to dispute this was within his legal power.

The indictment rests on bizarre extrapolations from the act, not the act itself.

Yes, some of us are suggesting that using his veto power for the purpose of manipulating an investigation unit and not for purposes that have anything to do with the actual budget is a misuse of that power, not a use of that power. That is apparently what the court suggested as well.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd just like to say that I'm fully onboard with damning those bastards from the other side for their egregious abuses of power fueled by their selfishness and immorality while defending the brave souls on my side who are willing to properly use the tools available to them to act the best that they can in the extraordinary circumstances caused by the obstructionism and incompetence of the other side. It's too bad that the deluded fools who are supporting the other side can't properly recognize the difference.

 

[ksen]

This does seem to be a bit of a stretch. Presidents and governors threaten vetoes all the time. What makes this one a little different is that the threats are normally to get some sort of spending change and not to get someone fired.

He didn't fire her,

I didn't say he did.

he vetoed state funding to her group as long as she ran it.

That's what I said.

No one seems to dispute this was within his legal power.

You mean no one except the court.

The indictment rests on bizarre extrapolations from the act, not the act itself.

What bizarre extrapolations?

 

[Angry Floof]

I'd just like to say that I'm fully onboard with damning those bastards from the other side for their egregious abuses of power fueled by their selfishness and immorality while defending the brave souls on my side who are willing to properly use the tools available to them to act the best that they can in the extraordinary circumstances caused by the obstructionism and incompetence of the other side. It's too bad that the deluded fools who are supporting the other side can't properly recognize the difference.

If they stamp their feet really hard a bunch of times, the distinction magically disappears.

 

[maxparrish]

He didn't fire her, he vetoed state funding to her group as long as she ran it. No one seems to dispute this was within his legal power.

The indictment rests on bizarre extrapolations from the act, not the act itself.

Yes, some of us are suggesting that using his veto power for the purpose of manipulating an investigation unit and not for purposes that have anything to do with the actual budget is a misuse of that power, not a use of that power. That is apparently what the court suggested as well.

Except that is not a legal abuse (misuse) of power, and depending on what you mean by "manipulating" it is not an ethical misuse either. Governors and Presidents have the constitutional power to veto legislation funding programs that he/she may not agree with. If an executive vetoes funding for an office of business development or agency for monument building he is absolutely entitled to. And, of course, the legislative branch can try an over-ride.

Or do you think ideologically tainted "my side" government offices are exempt?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'd just like to say that I'm fully onboard with damning those bastards from the other side for their egregious abuses of power fueled by their selfishness and immorality while defending the brave souls on my side who are willing to properly use the tools available to them to act the best that they can in the extraordinary circumstances caused by the obstructionism and incompetence of the other side. It's too bad that the deluded fools who are supporting the other side can't properly recognize the difference.

If they stamp their feet really hard a bunch of times, the distinction magically disappears.

No. It only disappears if someone on the other side of the aisle, someone who's politics is always wrong, decides to agree with you. Now they're not wrong anymore. Pretty simple.

 

[ksen]

Governors and Presidents have the constitutional power to veto legislation funding programs that he/she may not agree with.

Perry didn't veto the funding because he doesn't agree with the agency that was to receive the funding. He wanted one person gone so he vetoed the funding until he got his way. Yes, the legislature could have overridden his veto. But that doesn't change the fact that he used his veto to try and make a personnel change. Unless it's an executive agency personnel issues are none of his business. The person he wanted gone was a Travis County elected official. That's not his call to make, it's up to the voters of Travis County to make that change.