Rick Perry Indicted.

[dismal]

Here's another vote for wait-and-see.

http://www.texasobserver.org/pundits-dont-get-rick-perry-indictment/

So, no legal arguments there. Just grasping at straws that he hopes will emerge later.

I wonder if he is aware that prosecutors are required to summarize the evidence supporting their charge in an indictment. It seems like if there is some huge piece of evidence that magically makes this indictment make sense to withhold it would be a massive case of prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[dismal]

The idea that he was concerned about Lehmberg's drunk driving is also fatuous nonsense. Two other Texas DAs 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, DA 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-rick-perry-will-be-co_b_5686664.html

Do you understand this is completely irrelevant as to whether or not Perry has broken a statute? Absolutely, completely irrelevant?

I think we are witnessing the problem here that no one will actually take on the request of providing a legal analysis of what statutes Perry has broken. When you do that you see how hard you must stretch to criminalize what Perry has done and why so many people on both sides think the chargers are ridiculous.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, a simple "defense for the indictment" has now moved several yards past the endzone to become "a legal analysis"?

Nice one, dismal, keep moving those goal posts.

Or feel free to take a shot at it yourself.

I'm guessing you won't.

I'm just a dispassionate observer on this topic. It seems to me like a politically motivated response by the democrats to a politically motivated action by Gov. Perry. I don't expect it to go anywhere, and doubt it will hurt Gov. Perry in Texas, but if it drags on too long it could hurt his Presidential aspirations. Not that I think he had a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining the GOP nomination, much less winning the general election, to begin with. I just enjoy pointing out your typical discussion antics when I notice them.

Well, a legal analysis in support of the indictment would be nice furtherance to the discussion.

It certainly would be, but that is not what you referred to initially. Rather, you simply stated flatly that no one had posted a defense of the indictment, and when called on that statement you shifted the goalpost to "a legal analysis". A legal analysis is not what I would expect, nor credit, from anyone other than a legal professional, and few of us in the talkfreethought community can be described as such.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-rick-perry-will-be-co_b_5686664.html

Do you understand this is completely irrelevant as to whether or not Perry has broken a statute? Absolutely, completely irrelevant?

I think we are witnessing the problem here that no one will actually take on the request of providing a legal analysis of what statutes Perry has broken. When you do that you see how hard you must stretch to criminalize what Perry has done and why so many people on both sides think the chargers are ridiculous.

Actually, all three articles did, in fact, address exactly what statutes Rick Perry is being charged with breaking.

It is also a fact that Rick Perry and multiple other people (including some here) are trying to make the case that Rick Perry was perfectly in the right to force the drunken Democratic DA out of office by any means, legal or illegal. That is the claim my post quoted above partially addresses. That is the claim that many other posts are addressing.

Not all of us need to or want to address only and always the statutes or legal analysis, nor are any of us obligated to speak only on the topics that you demand.

If you don't wish to discuss other aspects of the entire issue, feel free NOT to respond.

 

[dismal]

Do you understand this is completely irrelevant as to whether or not Perry has broken a statute? Absolutely, completely irrelevant?

I think we are witnessing the problem here that no one will actually take on the request of providing a legal analysis of what statutes Perry has broken. When you do that you see how hard you must stretch to criminalize what Perry has done and why so many people on both sides think the chargers are ridiculous.

Actually, all three articles did, in fact, address exactly what statutes Rick Perry is being charged with breaking.

I actually already know what laws Perry is alleged to have broken. I have read the indictment. I have also read several lengthy legal analyses that suggest it is complete bullshit. I would assume anyone who would come here and spend time defending the indictment would have some arguments that directly rebut the specific arguments made by the people (on both sides of the aisle) who claim this is bullshit. This has been noticeably lacking.

It is also a fact that Rick Perry and multiple other people (including some here) are trying to make the case that Rick Perry was perfectly in the right to force the drunken Democratic DA out of office by any means, legal or illegal. That is the claim my post quoted above partially addresses. That is the claim that many other posts are addressing.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Perry was entitled to use illegal means. The argument here is whether or not the means he did use were legal or illegal. Most legal analyses I have read come to the conclusion that it is absurd to argue the means he used were not legal. So here we are back to the nub of the matter again. What rebuttals do you or anyone else have to these arguments?

Not all of us need to or want to address only and always the statutes or legal analysis, nor are any of us obligated to speak only on the topics that you demand.

Well this is a thread about the indictment. Most of the discussion about it in the media has been that it is a bogus indictment. A secondary discussion could be had about the politics of it, but the politics of it are being highly shaped by the fact it is widely perceived by people on both sides as bogus.

Oddly there appear to be people here defending this indictment. You appear to be one of them. If you are defending the indictment it seems reasonable to ask you to provide a defense of the legal rationale it uses.

If you and everyone else agrees it is bogus, there will be no need to discuss the legal issues further. So do you agree it is bogus?

Is there anyone else who does not think it is bogus? Why?

 

[dismal]

So, a simple "defense for the indictment" has now moved several yards past the endzone to become "a legal analysis"?

Nice one, dismal, keep moving those goal posts.

Or feel free to take a shot at it yourself.

I'm guessing you won't.

I'm just a dispassionate observer on this topic. It seems to me like a politically motivated response by the democrats to a politically motivated action by Gov. Perry. I don't expect it to go anywhere, and doubt it will hurt Gov. Perry in Texas, but if it drags on too long it could hurt his Presidential aspirations. Not that I think he had a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining the GOP nomination, much less winning the general election, to begin with. I just enjoy pointing out your typical discussion antics when I notice them.

Well, a legal analysis in support of the indictment would be nice furtherance to the discussion.

It certainly would be, but that is not what you referred to initially. Rather, you simply stated flatly that no one had posted a defense of the indictment, and when called on that statement you shifted the goalpost to "a legal analysis". A legal analysis is not what I would expect, nor credit, from anyone other than a legal professional, and few of us in the talkfreethought community can be described as such.

Thanks for the petty quibbling and semantics. It is really much more valuable to the discussion than a substantive post rebutting any of the many legal analyses that have been posted showing the indictment is bullshit. If you continue to dance and dance and dance around I'm sure no one will notice that the substantive argument never quite gets done.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Same abuse of power, again, Democrats recuse themselves, Republican officials are responsible for this grand jury investigation. Same old denials. Perry and Palin. Two Republican governors who didn't understand these ethical things. Veto powers are not a license to commit abuses of power. This is what Perry did not bother to understand. Now he will be taught this in a rather hard manner.

Experience runs a dear school but fools will learn in no other.

- Benjamen Franklin

Yet more contempt and sarcasm oozes from my monitor - anyone got a handi-wipe...?

You are not getting this are you? There are many laws in Texas. Sometimes they clash. Thus we have laws that forbid bribery, official oppression, and so on. And we have a law the governor has veto powers. What happened here is Perry thought his veto powers were open ended and unlimited. It ain't. He has now run afoul of his foolishness. Those other laws are still binding on even a governor.
This is not new, the other Texas governor who was in fact found guilty of breaking the law and was impeached, Pa Ferguson was found guilty of exactly the same thing, cutting funding to the University of Texas because he objected to policies of those running the University. Yet, from that clear precedent, Perry learned nothing. Perry learned nothing from that and apparently did not avail himself of the expertise of legal experts that were available to him in the state of Texas whose function was to advise Texas legislators of what they can do legally or not.
The complaint against Perry was filed before he actually vetoed anything. He apparently had been warned he would have a complaint filed and yet continued on recklessly. After it was filed, he kept charging on. He was obviously not considering the repercussions to his acts carefully. Arrogant overreach.

 

[dismal]

Yet more contempt and sarcasm oozes from my monitor - anyone got a handi-wipe...?

You are not getting this are you? There are many laws in Texas. Sometimes they clash. Thus we have laws that forbid bribery, official oppression, and so on. And we have a law the governor has veto powers.

We have a Constitution that says the governor has veto powers. When laws clash with a Constitution, Constitution wins.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[KeepTalking]

So, a simple "defense for the indictment" has now moved several yards past the endzone to become "a legal analysis"?

Nice one, dismal, keep moving those goal posts.

Or feel free to take a shot at it yourself.

I'm guessing you won't.

I'm just a dispassionate observer on this topic. It seems to me like a politically motivated response by the democrats to a politically motivated action by Gov. Perry. I don't expect it to go anywhere, and doubt it will hurt Gov. Perry in Texas, but if it drags on too long it could hurt his Presidential aspirations. Not that I think he had a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining the GOP nomination, much less winning the general election, to begin with. I just enjoy pointing out your typical discussion antics when I notice them.

Well, a legal analysis in support of the indictment would be nice furtherance to the discussion.

It certainly would be, but that is not what you referred to initially. Rather, you simply stated flatly that no one had posted a defense of the indictment, and when called on that statement you shifted the goalpost to "a legal analysis". A legal analysis is not what I would expect, nor credit, from anyone other than a legal professional, and few of us in the talkfreethought community can be described as such.

Thanks for the petty quibbling and semantics.

There is nothing petty or quibbling about it, and it is not a semantic argument. You asked for one thing, and when it was provided you decided that was not enough and pretended you were asking for something else all along. It is a discussion tactic referred to as "moving the goalposts", and I can understand why you don't want own up to it, but there is no doubt that you engaged in that tactic.

It is really much more valuable to the discussion than a substantive post rebutting any of the many legal analyses that have been posted showing the indictment is bullshit.

It is valuable to expose such discussion tactics if one wants to have reasonable and rational discussion.

If you continue to dance and dance and dance around I'm sure no one will notice that the substantive argument never quite gets done.

What am I dancing around? I actually agree with you on this topic, and I thought my previous comments made that clear. That does not keep me from pointing out that you used a fairly dishonest discussion tactic in this thread.

 

[maxparrish]

It should be pointed out that the officials responsible for bringing these charges against Perry are all Republicans. The loud loutish squeals of "Politics!" from Perry and assorted right winged politicians is utter and total bunk. It is totally about a politician abusing a law in a game of politics by Perry.

Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor for this case has long been known to be scrupulously fair and has long had support of Republicans, including senators Kaye Baily Hutchison and John Cornyn. Bert Richardson who appointed him is a long time Republican. Several Travis county Democrats who may have been appointed recused themselves to avoid this very example of shrill squeals of witch hunting partinship.

For partisanship and witch hunts, look to Issa and the Benghazi witch hunting partisanship.

^^^ this!

Sigh. It seems that posters continue to over look a minor problem with this meme; its factually challenged and absent other important facts. Although a full corrective has been issued before, let us bring the endless, soothing, propaganda to heel, shall we?

1. The "non officials" responsible for writing and submitting the complaint was a left-wing, anti-Perry, advocacy group.

2. It was passed it along to McCrum from a chain of two judges (one judge assigned to another judge who assigned it to McCrum); the judges were Republicans. McCrum gave a $500 donation to the judge who appointed him, before the appointment.

3. McCrum and the Travis County Grand Jury are the "officials" involved, but it was the Grand Jury (facilitated by McCrum) that brought charges (not the Republican judges).

4. The political affiliation of McCrum is unclear. He has contributed to two judges (Republicans) and a State Legislator (Democrat). He worked as an asst. prosecutor appointed under the Bush (sr) administration, and in 2010 was supported for appointment as a federal prosecutor by both the state's Republican senators and the Democratic Congressional delegation, as well as Obama. In an op ed in 2010, a Republican supporter of his federal appointment has claimed he is a democrat.

5. Most of his peers applaud his abilities as an attorney, on the other hand McCrum is up on his own ethics charges, in a contempt of court charge for allegedly “encouraging a witness to refrain from appearing in court and avoiding subpoena by the State” (according to the Bexar County District Attorney). It is now before the State Criminal Court of Appeals.

6. The Grand Jury is made up of citizens from Travis County, the most left-wing county in Texas.

7. Grand Jury's from Travis County are well known for their dubious and/or ridiculous indictments of Republicans; e.g. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom Delay. It took all of 30 minutes to find her not guilty in a trial in another county. Tom Delay's conviction was tossed out.

"The officials" that brought the charges are not actually McCrum (who is silent on his party registration) but the "official" body of the Travis County Grand Jury, whose composition is likely reflective of the political loyalties of Travis County. We do know that one very vocal grand jury member, Rho Chalmers (sp?), is/was a delegate to the Democratic convention. And, as I said, we know Grand Jury history.

THEREFORE, the claim that the indictment of Parry was likely political is valid. While McCrum's motivations are far more murky, the body that actually brought the charges are likely to be much like prior grand juries - shills for Texas democrats.

 

[Cobalt]

You are not getting this are you? There are many laws in Texas. Sometimes they clash. Thus we have laws that forbid bribery, official oppression, and so on. And we have a law the governor has veto powers.

We have a Constitution that says the governor has veto powers. When laws clash with a Constitution, Constitution wins.

Are you suggesting that the Texas constitution doesn't forbid bribery? If not, you appear to be trying to make a distinction that is irrelevant.

 

[dismal]

Are you suggesting that the Texas constitution doesn't forbid bribery? If not, you appear to be trying to make a distinction that is irrelevant.

This case has nothing to do with bribery. Suggest reading the indictment and analyses linked to get a decent understanding of what the issues are.

 

[dismal]

So, a simple "defense for the indictment" has now moved several yards past the endzone to become "a legal analysis"?

Nice one, dismal, keep moving those goal posts.

Or feel free to take a shot at it yourself.

I'm guessing you won't.

I'm just a dispassionate observer on this topic. It seems to me like a politically motivated response by the democrats to a politically motivated action by Gov. Perry. I don't expect it to go anywhere, and doubt it will hurt Gov. Perry in Texas, but if it drags on too long it could hurt his Presidential aspirations. Not that I think he had a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining the GOP nomination, much less winning the general election, to begin with. I just enjoy pointing out your typical discussion antics when I notice them.

Well, a legal analysis in support of the indictment would be nice furtherance to the discussion.

It certainly would be, but that is not what you referred to initially. Rather, you simply stated flatly that no one had posted a defense of the indictment, and when called on that statement you shifted the goalpost to "a legal analysis". A legal analysis is not what I would expect, nor credit, from anyone other than a legal professional, and few of us in the talkfreethought community can be described as such.

Thanks for the petty quibbling and semantics.

There is nothing petty or quibbling about it, and it is not a semantic argument. You asked for one thing, and when it was provided you decided that was not enough and pretended you were asking for something else all along. It is a discussion tactic referred to as "moving the goalposts", and I can understand why you don't want own up to it, but there is no doubt that you engaged in that tactic.

It is really much more valuable to the discussion than a substantive post rebutting any of the many legal analyses that have been posted showing the indictment is bullshit.

It is valuable to expose such discussion tactics if one wants to have reasonable and rational discussion.

If you continue to dance and dance and dance around I'm sure no one will notice that the substantive argument never quite gets done.

What am I dancing around? I actually agree with you on this topic, and I thought my previous comments made that clear. That does not keep me from pointing out that you used a fairly dishonest discussion tactic in this thread.

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish here so I will leave you alone.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Particularly given that at least two Republican DA's in safely Republican districts without the investigatory powers this one had were both arrested on similar DUI's but Rick Perry never demanded they resign.

But there are key differences. To my knowledge the Republican DA's were not threatening those who arrested her, 'abusing power' by telling them to get her friend, the Sheriff to intervene, etc. These well known via public video tapes, Moreover she was not just a DA for the County, but for a "Ethics and Integrity" unit for the entire state of Texas, these were the pivotal reasons. Her continued tenure would be a mockery of her "ethics and integrity" mission.

 

[Cobalt]

This case has nothing to do with bribery. Suggest reading the indictment and analyses linked to get a decent understanding of what the issues are.

Let's set aside whether the case has anyting to do with bribery for the moment. Do you think that the Texas constitution prohibits state officials from taking or offering bribes?

 

[dismal]

This case has nothing to do with bribery. Suggest reading the indictment and analyses linked to get a decent understanding of what the issues are.

Let's set aside whether the case has anyting to do with bribery for the moment. Do you think that the Texas constitution prohibits state officials from taking or offering bribes?

I don't know if the Constitution prohibits it but I imagine there are statutes that do. Since it's not relevant to the case it has not come up in anything I have read, and I don't claim to know off the top of my head.

 

[maxparrish]

OK, I obviously didn't follow the thread closely enough. What happened when Perry filed this petition? It seems that she made a very clear-cut violation which was grounds for her removal under that process.

AFAIK he did not file a petition or follow any correct procedure for this particular DA's removal. Nor does Rick Perry actually have an issue with DA's getting DUI's as there have been other DA's issued DUI's that Rick Perry never demanded resign.

The law does provide two explicit processes to terminate a DA; a hearing before a judge and impeachment (I assume). He did not 'violate' a procedure nor is accused of having done so. He did not fire her or attempt to fire her, he tried to get her to resign for the good of her office and the integrity mission. And, as I explained above, the prior DA cases are substantively different.

In my opinion, based on various articles written on the topic, Rick Perry saw an opportunity to shut down a Democratic stronghold that also has the singular ability to investigate political corruption via this particular DA's DUI. It is my understanding that Republicans have long wanted to strip this jurisdiction of this investigative power BECAUSE the district typically elects Democrats. When this DA (a Democrat) got drunk and stupid, Rick Perry saw an opportunity to defund the division. He doesn't care about drunk DA's. If he did, he would have followed proper procedures to oust her and the two Republican DA's in the other two less powerful districts.

Partially correct, partially wrong. He did not wish to defund the division, he wished to get her out of the position for two likely reasons: a) like many have stated, she had no business in the "ethics and integrity" division and b) he could appoint someone less hostile to his side of the political divide.

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.

I had to re-read the above comment written by someone else in this thread several times to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding their meaning. Basically, they admit that Rick Perry publicly threatened an elected official with this veto unless she resigned her office on an unrelated matter - and this person thinks that's perfectly acceptable??

That was me. Yes I admit that Perry publicly threatened a veto unless she resigned. I am undecided as to whether this is ethically acceptable, but it is certainly legal.

After widespread publicity on her legal misdoings and ethical violations he wanted her to resign - as did some others in the state. He tried to use the power of the purse to convince her it would be best to resign. He used a lawful tool to influence her to perform a lawful act, to resign.

 

[maxparrish]

Do you understand this is completely irrelevant as to whether or not Perry has broken a statute? Absolutely, completely irrelevant?

I think we are witnessing the problem here that no one will actually take on the request of providing a legal analysis of what statutes Perry has broken. When you do that you see how hard you must stretch to criminalize what Perry has done and why so many people on both sides think the chargers are ridiculous.

Actually, all three articles did, in fact, address exactly what statutes Rick Perry is being charged with breaking.

Please (re-read) my comments on these articles. ALL three decorate their assertions with evocative words like "blackmail", "bribery", "abuse of power", etc. They create lurid and inaccurate descriptions of background events such as CPRIT, and speculate on things totally unproven. NONE of them do the simplest and most honest thing, quote the TWO counts that Perry is charged with AND explain the legal definitions.

He is charged with "Count One" (misuse of government property/things of value) a felony, and "Count Two" ( Coercion of a public official) which is likely a misdemeanor. He is NOT charged with subjective and legally illiterate characterizations in those articles.

It is also a fact that Rick Perry and multiple other people (including some here) are trying to make the case that Rick Perry was perfectly in the right to force the drunken Democratic DA out of office by any means, legal or illegal. That is the claim my post quoted above partially addresses. That is the claim that many other posts are addressing.

We are making the case that Rick Perry had the LEGAL right to pressure her to resign, whether or not he was morally and/or ethically in the right is a different issue.

Not all of us need to or want to address only and always the statutes or legal analysis, nor are any of us obligated to speak only on the topics that you demand.

If you don't wish to discuss other aspects of the entire issue, feel free NOT to respond.

But it would be helpful for you and other posters who make claims to point out if they are making a legal claim or a moral/ethical claim.

 

[Cobalt]

I don't know if the Constitution prohibits it but I imagine there are statutes that do. Since it's not relevant to the case it has not come up in anything I have read, and I don't claim to know off the top of my head.

We'll the constitution does prohibit it expressly. See Article 16, and specifically section 41. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.16.htm

Now the argument I would make is that coercion is merely a negative form of bribery. I think this is a pretty unremarkable stance, but I expect you will argue against it.

It seems obvious that the governor was attempting to affect the official action or influence of the Travis County DA. That he attempted to coerce her utilizing a power the constitution grants to the office he holds is not relevant. That he did so attempt is the relevant part.