Texas Governor Rick Perry indicted by grand jury

[DMX7]

http://kxan.com/2014/08/15/texas-governor-rick-perry-indicted-by-grand-jury/

AUSTIN (KXAN) – A grand jury has handed up an indictment against Gov. Rick Perry in connection with the investigation into an effort to force Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign.

At the center of the issue is a complaint about intimidation stemming from Perry’s threat to veto of $3.7 million in state funding to the Public Integrity Unit run by Lehmberg’s office. The threat came after she pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence; Perry called on her to step down but she refused to resign her position. Perry then vetoed the funding for the PIU.

A grand jury was called to determine whether or not Perry broke the law when he threatened to veto the funding. As a result they issued indictments on two felony charges: abuse of official capacity and coercion of public servant. If found guilty on the charges, Perry could be sentenced to a maximum 109 years in prison.

An indictment indicates the grand jury believes the state has a strong enough case to send to trial and is not a finding of guilt. Special prosecutor Michael McCrum oversaw the presentation to the grand jury who has been meeting on and off this summer.

McCrum told reporters that he plans to meet with Perry’s attorneys on Monday.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm. The perils of autocratic leadership styles. I wonder why someone didn't tell him that he might get in trouble.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, it IS Travis County.

Should be interesting. FWIW that bitch was drunk on her ass and was driving from grass to grass when they arrested her.

[DMX7]

Well, it IS Travis County.

Should be interesting. FWIW that bitch was drunk on her ass and was driving from grass to grass when they arrested her.

Classic blame the victim. But in this case, she is not the only victim, so is mother justice.

[pgardn]

Well, it IS Travis County.

Should be interesting. FWIW that bitch was drunk on her ass and was driving from grass to grass when they arrested her.

He should be indicted in any county if he used his office to pull funds.
Thats just a stupid overplay when the opportunity arises.
But, coming from the idiot we all know, it's not surprising.

But it is hilarious the funds were to go into the public integrity unit.

[Franklin]

I'm not a defender of Rick Perry but I have to say you're fooling yourselves if you think that Perry is the only politician who has done something "illegal", and that every other politician is clear like an infant.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, it IS Travis County.

Should be interesting. FWIW that bitch was drunk on her ass and was driving from grass to grass when they arrested her.

Sure and it well could end up in federal court. So how do you feel about Obama's use of executive orders?

[Twisted_Dawg]

Actually, I think that the Dems fucked up by indicting him. This effectively takes him out of the Republican Presidential race. Had he stayed in he would have drained off financial resources and supporters that would hurt other Repug candidates like Rand Paul. Now that money and votes go to the remaining players. Perry had no chance of winning the Presidential election being a carbon copy of George W. Bush. The Dems would have loved a Hillarry vs Perry election. Good job Dems! Thanks!!!

[Twisted_Dawg]

http://kxan.com/2014/08/15/texas-governor-rick-perry-indicted-by-grand-jury/

AUSTIN (KXAN) – A grand jury has handed up an indictment against Gov. Rick Perry in connection with the investigation into an effort to force Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign. Special prosecutor Michael McCrum oversaw the presentation to the grand jury who has been meeting on and off this summer.

McCrum told reporters that he plans to meet with Perry’s attorneys on Monday.


Well, it IS Travis County.

Should be interesting. FWIW that bitch was drunk on her ass and was driving from grass to grass when they arrested her.

Mike McCrum is a very skilled attorney from San Antonio. Being an attorney, I'm sure he is a die hard Democrat.

[boutons_deux]

Well, it IS Travis County.

Should be interesting. FWIW that bitch was drunk on her ass and was driving from grass to grass when they arrested her.

She's not being indicted, RickyBobby is.

[pgardn]

Actually, I think that the Dems fucked up by indicting him. This effectively takes him out of the Republican Presidential race. Had he stayed in he would have drained off financial resources and supporters that would hurt other Repug candidates like Rand Paul. Now that money and votes go to the remaining players. Perry had no chance of winning the Presidential election being a carbon copy of George W. Bush. The Dems would have loved a Hillarry vs Perry election. Good job Dems! Thanks!!!

Like the Republicans have a chance anyway with a house full of retards.
Jeb Bush is the only chance IMO. But he married a Hispanic and is not ready to kill people at the border.
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul... Seriously who?
Who?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I think that the Dems fucked up by indicting him. This effectively takes him out of the Republican Presidential race. Had he stayed in he would have drained off financial resources and supporters that would hurt other Repug candidates like Rand Paul. Now that money and votes go to the remaining players. Perry had no chance of winning the Presidential election being a carbon copy of George W. Bush. The Dems would have loved a Hillarry vs Perry election. Good job Dems! Thanks!!!

The state democrats are much more concerned about 'turning Texas blue' and with the increasing minority populations and an electorate more and more skeptical of GOP efforts to gerrymander its bound to happen one of these cycles.

Every gaffe of the state GOP establishment and their populist extras bring that closer to reality.

Greg Abbot as state attorney litigated the states redistricting efforts in court. Little surprise that he is rewarded the candidacy. Interesting thought that all lawyers are democrats though.

[pgardn]

The state democrats are much more concerned about 'turning Texas blue' and with the increasing minority populations and an electorate more and more skeptical of GOP efforts to gerrymander its bound to happen one of these cycles.

Every gaffe of the state GOP establishment and their populist extras bring that closer to reality.

Greg Abbot as state attorney litigated the states redistricting efforts in court. Little surprise that he is rewarded the candidacy. Interesting thought that all lawyers are democrats though.

Lots of defense lawyers definitely are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lots of defense lawyers definitely are.

I'm sure. I just thought it ironic that the Perry's lawyer is the GOP candidate and he is pigeonholing the profession. I am betting he is going to get some cognitive dissonance at some point.

[angrydude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

[pgardn]

I'm sure. I just thought it ironic that the Perry's lawyer is the GOP candidate and he is pigeonholing the profession. I am betting he is going to get some cognitive dissonance at some point.

The ambulance chasers are especially active in funding Democrats.
The Texas Hammer... you had a frack truck run over your face, see me, I'll get your respect back.
Its mostly for the elected judges though.

I just love this whole thing involves the Public Integrity branch of the great State of Texas.
You got an alcoholic head of the Dept. telling the arresting officer he has ruined her career.
And you got Ricky Bobby, it's too good.

[FromWayDowntown]

Lots of defense lawyers definitely are.

Lots of criminal defense lawyers and Plaintiffs' side civil lawyers are.

Prosecutors on the criminal side and defense-side civil lawyers tend, in my experience to be conservative.

[pgardn]

Lots of criminal defense lawyers and Plaintiffs' side civil lawyers are.

Prosecutors on the criminal side and defense-side civil lawyers tend, in my experience to be conservative.

Totally agree.

The Ads for the "accidents never happen" lawyers are a very artistic. The drama, the injustice, the $

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The ambulance chasers are especially active in funding Democrats.
The Texas Hammer... you had a frack truck run over your face, see me, I'll get your respect back.
Its mostly for the elected judges though.

I just love this whole thing involves the Public Integrity branch of the great State of Texas.
You got an alcoholic head of the Dept. telling the arresting officer he has ruined her career.
And you got Ricky Bobby, it's too good.

Civil litigation in Texas is a mire of corruption. I won't dispute that. Anyone who succeeds in it should have their credibility questioned along those lines.

Abuse of executive power does have legs especially within the populists. Constitutionally the governors office is not supposed to have that power. That she should be shitcanned is besides the point.

[DarrinS]

Lol @ any Dems bitching about abuse of executive power

[pgardn]

Civil litigation in Texas is a mire of corruption. I won't dispute that. Anyone who succeeds in it should have their credibility questioned along those lines.

Abuse of executive power does have legs especially within the populists. Constitutionally the governors office is not supposed to have that power. That she should be shitcanned is besides the point.

Definitely.

But there is still a great deal of humor in the whole thing.
This is really good material for Stewart or Colbert.
It may not be Washington enough, but making my State look like a bunch of blithe wandering rednecks... Beautiful.
Somebody take this thing and run with it, please.

[pgardn]

Lol @ any Dems bitching about abuse of executive power

Eric Holder is one of the largest scum wads in government.
He is just not as blatantly stupid as the Perry crew.
He wants to be president, he seriously does.
And he did last election as well.

Then you have the blatantly evil, Johnny Edwards.

[Aztecfan03]

Sure and it well could end up in federal court. So how do you feel about Obama's use of executive orders?

This is peanuts compared to what Obama has done.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is peanuts compared to what Obama has done.

You aren't going to see me defend Obama on this, but you see how its the same thing. Political theater turned back in on itself.

[pgardn]

This is peanuts compared to what Obama has done.

Obama has not yet threatened to remove an elected official from the opposing party by withholding federal funds.

So the democrats elected a fat drunk to protect the State from corruption, you got a problem with that?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it IS Travis County.

Should be interesting. FWIW that bitch was drunk on her ass and was driving from grass to grass when they arrested her.

Well, thats not worth anything. She pleaded guilty to drunk driving and admitted as much. That has nothing to do with Perry breaking the law.

[Aztecfan03]

You aren't going to see me defend Obama on this, but you see how its the same thing. Political theater turned back in on itself.

yea i know i was just saying.

Could the DA have been fired in some way? Was she elected to the position and able to be recalled? If so Perry should have supportd something like that instead of doing what he did.

[MannyIsGod]

yea i know i was just saying.

Could the DA have been fired in some way? Was she elected to the position and able to be recalled? If so Perry should have supportd something like that instead of doing what he did.

None of that matters. None.

Perry shouldn't have done what he did. Thats the only thing that matters here.

[Aztecfan03]

None of that matters. None.

Perry shouldn't have done what he did. Thats the only thing that matters here.

I just said he should have done something different.

That doesn't change the fact that she shouldn't have that job anymore.

[ElNono]

It's just a huge conflict of interest, even if Perry's action was under the guise of a noble act. That's the office that's supposed to investigate the State.

He should've just veto'ed the funding without the treat. Just a bad move.

The woman fucked up and she did her time in jail. Somehow, I don't think Perry will face the same fate.

[The Reckoning]

i prefer the older law and order shows to the new SVU and criminal intent ones though. olivia is a dime when she's in uniform though.

[Winehole23]

the Public Integrity Unit lost the DeLay case on appeal, but not before ruining his political career. in this case, I tend to doubt liberal, Travis County officialdom will do so well. might even backfire.

[boutons_deux]

"guise of a noble act"

:lol

[Aztecfan03]

A lot of liberals are calling this idictment bullshit or at least "sketchy" and "very thin"

[boutons_deux]

After Suing Obama, Indicted Rick Perry Now Believes Political Disputes Don’t Belong in Court

On Fox News Sunday, Perry was making excuses after being indicted for abuse of power. The Texas governor said, “This is way outside the norm. This is not the way that we settle differences, political differences in this country. You don’t do it with indictments. We settle our political differences at the ballot box.”

It is funny that Perry would say this because in 2012, he supported a lawsuit that sued the Obama administration over contraception being included in the ACA. Perry praised suing President Obama over a very political dispute, “As is becoming all too predictable, the Obama Administration is continuing its unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion into every facet of American life, this time mandating that our religious institutions violate their own beliefs. It has to stop. I commend General Abbott for taking this much-needed action, part of an ongoing battle over our right to practice our faiths, and live our lives, without Washington interference.” The contraception lawsuit from the states was later thrown out of court due to a lack of standing.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable, because Gov. Perry was indicted for abusing the power of his office while trying to get another elected official to resign. Perry is correct this is something that should have been resolved at the ballot box. The Travis County DA had already announced that she would not be running for reelection.

www.politicususa.com/2014/08/17/suing-obama-indicted-rick-perry-believes-political-disputes-belong-court.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[The Reckoning]

civil ≠ criminal

[TeyshaBlue]

This has about a 3% chance of success.....but that likely wasnt the point. lol TX Dems...still bringing strong words to a gunfight.

[xmas1997]

Hmmm. The perils of autocratic leadership styles. I wonder why someone didn't tell him that he might get in trouble.

GW Bush assured him it was okay.

[boutons_deux]

It Will Be Hard to Dismiss Prosecution as Partisan Witch Hunt:

There is long-standing animosity between the Travis County district attorney’s office and the Republicans who rule the Texas Capitol. There have been plenty of failed attempts over the years to move the investigative power out of that office and into an agency such as the Texas attorney general’s office, which has been under Republican control for some 15 years.

Naturally, Perry and his fellow Republicans are calling the indictments against Perry the result of a partisan investigation by an office controlled by Democrats — the same office that prosecuted former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican, later acquitted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/19/tom-delay-conviction-overturned-by-texas-court/) on appeal.

But Lehmberg and other Travis County officials recused themselves from the case and are not prosecuting it. One year ago a Republican judge from Bexar County, Bert Richardson, appointed (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/08/sa-lawyer-named-special-prosecutor-in-rick-perry-possible-coersion-case.html/) a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to handle the prosecution.

McCrum (http://www.mainjustice.com/2014/08/16/michael-mccrum-special-prosecutor-of-texass-rick-perry-and-the-road-not-taken/), a criminal defense attorney in San Antonio, is a former Dallas police officer who began his career as a federal prosecutor during the George H.W. Bush administration, according to his online bio. In 2009, the state's two Republican U.S. senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, recommended him (http://97.74.206.199/mainjusticedemo/tag/michael-mccrum/) to become U.S. attorney for the Western District, according to published reports.

He was described as a “consensus choice” by the news site Main Justice (http://www.mainjustice.com/about/) because he had the backing of House Democrats and the two home state senators. He ultimately withdrew his name because of gridlock over nominations on Capitol Hill.

McCrum’s bipartisan credentials makes criticizing the investigation as a partisan witch hunt a tougher sell.

Prosecuting Public Corruption is Easier Said Than Done:

The old adage is prosecutors have so much sway they can “indict a ham sandwich.” Getting a conviction is another story.

The charges in this case are abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony, and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony.

In a report (http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/rick-perry-charges-will-be-challenging-to-prove-ex/ng35r/#f03ad3f5.3554830.735461) in the Austin American-Statesman, legal experts said prosecutors would have a tough time making both charges stick. Two key points stand out in particular:
For the first count, the statute requires that prosecutors show Perry “intentionally or knowingly” abused his office and that he acted with “intent to harm,” both relatively high bars.

And in the second charge, Perry can cite an exception (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.36.htm) in the criminal statute, which exempts “an official action” taken by “a member of the governing body of a governmental entity.”

Democrats suggest (http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2013/06/perry-veto-of-funds-could-cripple-cprit-inquiry-dems-say/)Perry had an ulterior motive — namely, to stop the public integrity unit’s inquiry into state cancer grants amid allegations that some were being improperly awarded to his donors.

But Perry says he was trying to stop state dollars from flowing into an agency that had “lost the public’s confidence.”

“I wholeheartedly and unequivocally stand behind my veto, and will continue to defend this lawful action of my executive authority as governor,” he said.

This is Terrible Timing for Perry:

Perry, the longest-serving governor in Texas history, was considered all but washed up after his once promising presidential campaign imploded on a presidential debate stage, when he couldn't remember that third federal department he wanted to shutter.

But Perry was making a methodical comeback, with positive reviews in the media, a new chief strategist (http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/08/look-perrys-new-guru-jeff-miller/) and a border crisis that seemed tailor-made for a Texas governor who had turned off conservatives in 2011 with his embrace of college tuition breaks for certain undocumented immigrants. His 2016 star was rising.

Now he has a big distraction. Yes, fellow Republicans — including Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal — have rushed (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ted-cruz-defends-rick-perry-110077.html) to his defense. Yes, Perry can use the controversy to criticize Democrats for partisan overreach and possibly even raise money.

But next week, Perry is expected to turn himself in at the Travis County courthouse, have his mug shot taken and get fingerprinted.

Meanwhile, Texas taxpayers are picking up the cost of his $450-an-hour lawyer, leaving him open to criticism as the bills keep rolling in. And Democrats are already using the indictment to tar Perry and other potential GOP presidential hopefuls with legal woes, namely New Jersey Chris Christie, embroiled in Bridgegate, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is facing questions about his campaign finance activities.

"I guess the requirement now to be a Republican presidential contender is either an indictment or a pending indictment," said Will Hailer, executive director of the Texas Democratic Party.

Perry has plenty of answers to explain his actions, but what he really needs is to put this behind him way before any voting takes place in the 2016 race, assuming he joins it. As they say in politics, when you're explaining, you're losing.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/five-things-know-about-perry-indictment/

yep, RickyBobby's slimey-TX-Repug echo chamber + plus his egomania make him first class Pres material.

the cancer project surely stinks like typical TX bullshit, transfer of taxpayer dollars to Repug contributors.

will he wear his Dedicated-Follower-of-Fashion vanity glasses for his mug shot? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Tug of War Between Republicans Seeking Same Base Supporthttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/us/tug-of-war-between-republicans-gov-rick-perry-and-sen-ted-cruz-seeking-same-base-support.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

TX Repugs vomiting two more fucking losers onto the national stage.

Barton, Gohmert, RickyBobby, DeLay, Cruz, shrub-for-brains dubya, etc, etc. What a bunch of assholes. Thanks, TX Repug voters!

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure and it well could end up in federal court. So how do you feel about Obama's use of executive orders?

God you are stupid.

The governor of Texas has a LINE ITEM VETO.

The President doesn't.

Get over it, bitch. Even hard core national democrats are running from this one.

[CosmicCowboy]

x-bj-BLTRRo
vRMTp_ATP6M
bDgkJ8HN3vQ
a1Uo9d28FQ0

[pgardn]

The fat drunk unit is also investigating a conflict of interest case involving Perry.
If you want to stop the funding just stop it.
If you want the fat drunk to leave ask her to leave.
Problem, all of the above got tied together.

Perry is a dumbass for setting himself up. You can't use the threat of a veto to force a fat drunk (elected official) who is investigating you to leave. It maybe very difficult to tie together, but Perry has constantly over stepped, so once again he set himself up for this to even get to a grand jury. It is Austin, they have pulled some stranger stunts before, so he does not recognize this ?

The list of crazy ass things he has tried to pull, the vaccine he tried to shove thru, to screwing with UT, is just ridiculous. He should just keep to his business friendly Texas theme... And he is going to run for president again, seriously...

[boutons_deux]

The fat drunk unit is also investigating a conflict of interest case involving Perry.


Ex-official indicted over $11 million Texas cancer-fund grant

A former high-ranking official of Texas’ cancer-fighting agency has been indicted in connection with an improperly awarded $11 million grant to a Dallas-based biotechnology firm, prosecutors announced Friday.

Jerald “Jerry” Cobbs, 62, is accused of deceiving officials of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas when he failed to disclose that a grant to Peloton Therapeutics did not undergo a required business or scientific review.

The indictment by a Travis County grand jury is another blow for the reputation of CPRIT, which since spring 2012 has been embroiled in controversies over how it has awarded grants.

In 2007, voters approved creation of the agency to distribute up to $3 billion for cancer research and prevention. It was once considered a signature accomplishment for Gov. Rick Perry, who championed its birth. At the time, only the National Cancer Institute was a larger source for such research.

Cobbs’ indictment comes a year after the Travis County district attorney’s Public Integrity Unit opened a wide-ranging criminal investigation into CPRIT. Prosecutors said their CPRIT investigation is now over, and they don’t expect any other charges.

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said Cobbs, as CPRIT’s chief commercialization officer, deliberately failed to disclose to the agency’s executive director and general counsel that the Peloton grant hadn’t been vetted by the proper committees as state law required.

Peloton, which is using laboratory discoveries at UT Southwestern Medical Center to try to develop new anti-cancer drugs, was awarded the grant. No charges were considered against anyone connected to Peloton, said Rob Drummond, an assistant district attorney.

Cobbs turned himself in Friday and was released on an $85,000 bond. He and his attorney didn’t return calls seeking comment.

State law prohibits a person from fraudulently causing another person to sign a document affecting a financial interest. The charge of “securing execution of a document by deception” is a first-degree felony punishable by from five to 99 years in prison.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20131206-ex-official-indicted-over-11-million-texas-cancer-fund-grant.ece

[ChumpDumper]

Neither Lehmberg nor Perry should keep their jobs after all this.

[CosmicCowboy]

Neither Lehmberg nor Perry should keep their jobs after all this.

Well, Perry is resigning at the end of his term.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, Perry is resigning at the end of his term.Not because of this. Don't be disingenuous

[RandomGuy]

God you are stupid.

The governor of Texas has a LINE ITEM VETO.

The President doesn't.

Get over it, bitch. Even hard core national democrats are running from this one.

It isn't the veto itself that got him in trouble and that is illegal.

It is tying it to the quid pro quo threat. "either do X, or I will kill your budget with my veto"

The ultimate issue is whether you want your governor going around publicly using this veto to pressure public officials into doing things or issuing orders that only the legislature can and should.

What if he had threatened to do the same thing to a public official that was investigating him for bribery?

The public has an interest in this, and that is to make sure that people at the top are held accountable.

Perry wants this spun as "its partisan", since that plays well to his base. Don't buy it, because once you delve into the particulars of what is being alleged, the issue is a lot clearer. You are smarter than that. And yes, she should have resigned and did act like an ass.

Don't take my word for it, do some reading on the specifics. If you like, I can provide you some links.

[TeyshaBlue]

This has about a 3% chance of success.....but that likely wasnt the point. lol TX Dems...still bringing strong words to a gunfight.

[vy65]

Civil litigation in Texas is a mire of corruption. I won't dispute that. Anyone who succeeds in it should have their credibility questioned along those lines.

Abuse of executive power does have legs especially within the populists. Constitutionally the governors office is not supposed to have that power. That she should be shitcanned is besides the point.

That's cute.

[CosmicCowboy]

It isn't the veto itself that got him in trouble and that is illegal.

It is tying it to the quid pro quo threat. "either do X, or I will kill your budget with my veto"

The ultimate issue is whether you want your governor going around publicly using this veto to pressure public officials into doing things or issuing orders that only the legislature can and should.

What if he had threatened to do the same thing to a public official that was investigating him for bribery?

The public has an interest in this, and that is to make sure that people at the top are held accountable.

Perry wants this spun as "its partisan", since that plays well to his base. Don't buy it, because once you delve into the particulars of what is being alleged, the issue is a lot clearer. You are smarter than that. And yes, she should have resigned and did act like an ass.

Don't take my word for it, do some reading on the specifics. If you like, I can provide you some links.

I get the politics.

If they wanted to accuse him of taking bribes from the cancer guys that's what they should have charged him with.

Bottom line, the governor can veto any damn thing he wants and all the legislature has to do is over ride the veto if they disagree with him.

[ChumpDumper]

Well had he not openly threatened the veto the way he did, he probably wouldn't have been indicted. He's pretty stupid that way.

[RandomGuy]

[its the democrats]


One year ago a Republican judge from Bexar County, Bert Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to handle the prosecution...

McCrum’s bipartisan credentials makes criticizing the investigation as a partisan witch hunt a tougher sell.


It might be the Democrats, but it should have its day in court, IMO. Given that the officials involved are going out of their way to make it not about the politics, it seems that we might want to give them a bit of leeway, since the public interest in keeping officials in check in terms of not abusing public trust is pretty clear.

Personally from everything I have read, Perry is a fairly clean guy, all things considered. I say that relatively, as he has the unavoidable stink of favoritism that hangs around any high elected official, making it harder to sniff out how much to make of various allegations.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well had he not openly threatened the veto the way he did, he probably wouldn't have been indicted. He's pretty stupid that way.

I still don't see how it was stupid.

He can line item veto anything he wants for whatever reason he wants and the legislature can overturn the veto if they want to. That's constitutional democracy at work.

The fact that a disgraced district attorney was in charge of the "integrity task force" he witheld the funds from WAS relevant.

[ChumpDumper]

I still don't see how it was stupid.

He can line item veto anything he wants for whatever reason he wants and the legislature can overturn the veto if they want to. That's constitutional democracy at work.

The fact that a disgraced district attorney was in charge of the "integrity task force" he witheld the funds from WAS relevant.Can't threaten or coerce a public servant.

He was incredibly stupid.

And no, her disgrace wasn't relevant.

Should have kept his stupid mouth shut.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's cute.

At least they now have automated most legal documents for boilerplate, editing, and printout. I don't even think you are capable of writing out a reasonable argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still don't see how it was stupid.

He can line item veto anything he wants for whatever reason he wants and the legislature can overturn the veto if they want to. That's constitutional democracy at work.

The fact that a disgraced district attorney was in charge of the "integrity task force" he witheld the funds from WAS relevant.

He did more than that. He demanded actions that he had no authority to demand. What you are doing is like saying that it's legal to own and fire a gun. Therefor it's okay that he shot someone. It's illegal to coerce a public official whether or not the action you threaten is legal or not.

[vy65]

At least they now have automated most legal documents for boilerplate, editing, and printout. I don't even think you are capable of writing out a reasonable argument.

Lol thinking legalzoom.com has anything to do with the law I practice.
Lol legalzoom.com

[boutons_deux]

CC thinks RickyBobby is deeply concerned about integrity (of TX Repug politicians), so he doesn't want any (Dem) unit investigating Repug quid-pro-quo, etc deals. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol thinking legalzoom.com has anything to do with the law I practice.
Lol legalzoom.com

Is that the service you use? And the law you practice is likely someone else's directives as you seem to have neither the acumen nor wherewithal to run your own successful firm, legalzoom.

[vy65]

Is that the service you use? And the law you practice is likely someone else's directives as you seem to have neither the acumen nor wherewithal to run your own successful firm, legalzoom.

Shhhhhh girl. You don't wanna say anymore else you offer up that ass for a nice fucking

[CosmicCowboy]

CC thinks RickyBobby is deeply concerned about integrity (of TX Repug politicians), so he doesn't want any (Dem) unit investigating Repug quid-pro-quo, etc deals. :lol

Like I said...you wanna indict him for corruption then indict him for corruption, not this mickey mouse perfectly legal bullshit.

[boutons_deux]

conveniently for his, eg cancer fund buddies, defunding/destroying the integrity unit BECAUSE the lady won't resign is corruption, extortion, not mickey mouse at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

conveniently for his, eg cancer fund buddies, defunding/destroying the integrity unit BECAUSE the lady won't resign is corruption, extortion, not mickey mouse at all.

Betcha $100 the courts eventually say different and he is acquitted of all charges.

I can wait till the first and you get your next welfare check.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Shhhhhh girl. You don't wanna say anymore else you offer up that ass for a nice fucking

Yeah i didn't think so either. Appeal to the base element does have it's audience around here but i think even they see that as the weak bluster it is.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah i didn't think so either. Appeal to the base element does have it's audience around here but i think even they see that as the weak bluster it is.

Actually, he's just smart enough to ignore the class clown/troll.

[vy65]

Yeah i didn't think so either. Appeal to the base element does have it's audience around here but i think even they see that as the weak bluster it is.

Hey girl, why don't you talk like a normal human being. And while you're at it, I'd love to hear how there are no credible civil litigators.

lol legalzoom

[vy65]

Actually, he's just smart enough to ignore the class clown/troll.

sorry to disappoint cc :(

[vy65]

Ooops, I forgot Fuzzy doesn't know what a litigator is

[CosmicCowboy]

Ooops, I forgot Fuzzy doesn't know what a litigator is

Fuzzy is an adversarial dumbass without the horsepower to play in the big leagues. Sad to be Fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey girl, why don't you talk like a normal human being. And while you're at it, I'd love to hear how there are no credible civil litigators.

lol legalzoom

Ahh you are asshurt because I said something about an industry that you identify with. you interpreting that into me saying 'no credible civil litigators' is an example of poor logic. Me saying that it is fair to ask litigators especially ones seeking or in political office of their involvement in campaign finance for judges does not mean that I don't think that there are 'no credible lawyers.'

I said 'along those lines.' I guess you missed that bit of critical thinking as you got upset. I don't generalize like that. I taunt people that do.

[boutons_deux]

God you are stupid.

The governor of Texas has a LINE ITEM VETO.

The President doesn't.

Get over it, bitch. Even hard core national democrats are running from this one.

axelrod has been on my blacklist for years

[CosmicCowboy]

axelrod has been on my blacklist for years

I'm sure Axelrod is crushed. Even devastated. He's on Boo's blacklist. Boo fucking hoo...:lmao:lmao:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy is an adversarial dumbass without the horsepower to play in the big leagues. Sad to be Fuzzy.

What do you think of Obama's use of executive power and the lawsuit being brought on behalf of the house?

I like to argue and you aren't very good at it so you do this big timing routine instead but that still speaks to your ability, 'big leaguer.' More bluster?

[vy65]

Ahh you are asshurt because I said something about an industry that you identify with. you interpreting that into me saying 'no credible civil litigators' is an example of poor logic. Me saying that it is fair to ask litigators especially ones seeking or in political office of their involvement in campaign finance for judges does not mean that I don't think that there are 'no credible lawyers.'

I said 'along those lines.' I guess you missed that bit of critical thinking as you got upset. I don't generalize like that. I taunt people that do.

I'm not asshurt over the meanie-weanie things neckbeards like you say.

That being said, you're either too stupid to understand what the words you use mean -- or are backtracking like a motherfucker because you know you made a stupid, over-generalized claim.

Here's what you said:


Civil litigation in Texas is a mire of corruption. I won't dispute that. Anyone who succeeds in it should have their credibility questioned along those lines.

First off, I'd love to hear how and why civil litigation in Texas is a mire of corruption. More to the point, you said *literally* that every single successful civil litigator should have their credibility questioned. Do you know what the word "anyone" means? You do realize that civil litigators aren't the people running for office, right? And most lawyers don't contribute to judge's campaigns -- that's typically the law firm. And please gimme the numbers contributed by the smaller litigation boutiques -- I'd love to see how much they're forking over.

[pgardn]

What is a neckbeard?

As a person, not as an actual neckbeard...

[pgardn]

What is a neckbeard?

As a person, not as an actual neckbeard...

Slovenly nerdy people.
I looked it up.

So people with more hair on their face than neck are well kept GQ types.

[vy65]

Also, please tell me why trial attorneys with primarily federal practices should have their credibility questioned too

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not asshurt over the meanie-weanie things neckbeards like you say.

That being said, you're either too stupid to understand what the words you use mean -- or are backtracking like a motherfucker because you know you made a stupid, over-generalized claim.

Here's what you said:



First off, I'd love to hear how and why civil litigation in Texas is a mire of corruption. More to the point, you said *literally* that every single successful civil litigator should have their credibility questioned. Do you know what the word "anyone" means? You do realize that civil litigators aren't the people running for office, right? And most lawyers don't contribute to judge's campaigns -- that's typically the law firm. And please gimme the numbers contributed by the smaller litigation boutiques -- I'd love to see how much they're forking over.

Because I think that campaign contributions to jurists is de facto corruption. I don't really care what political entity they use on the accounting or how they decide to organize. If anything that just broadens the scope and furthers my point.

You're not doing a good job convincing me its not a clear and obvious conflict of interest that is sop in Texas.

[vy65]

So lemme get this straight. You have no evidence whatsoever of a) succesful litigators' (whatever that means) amount of campaign contributions -- if any -- to specific judges or b) the amount of favorable decisions they've received from said judges that c) can be directly attributed to the amount contributed to the judge. You're just butthurt that judges are elected but have nothing to say about a lawyers credibility. And that's saying nothing of the fact that juries -- who receive no money from lawyers -- typically are the triers of fact. Or the fact that a judge may have received the same amount of cash from the plaintiffs and defendants attorneys.

So there's no evidence of all civil litigators' lack of credibility -- just the say so of a mouth breather hiding behind a computer screen.

Ladies and gentlemen, the boognish strikes again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also, please tell me why trial attorneys with primarily federal practices should have their credibility questioned too

If you sit in on meetings where the budget for contributions is decided and have a vote then it is what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So lemme get this straight. You have no evidence whatsoever of a) succesful litigators' (whatever that means) amount of campaign contributions -- if any -- to specific judges or b) the amount of favorable decisions they've received from said judges that c) can be directly attributed to the amount contributed to the judge. You're just butthurt that judges are elected but have nothing to say about a lawyers credibility. And that's saying nothing of the fact that juries -- who receive no money from lawyers -- typically are the triers of fact. Or the fact that a judge may have received the same amount of cash from the plaintiffs and defendants attorneys.

So there's no evidence of all civil litigators' lack of credibility -- just the say so of a mouth breather hiding behind a computer screen.

Ladies and gentlemen, the boognish strikes again.

You again with the generalities. In logic identities don't go both ways when you are talking about collective things. The English language is particularly bad about it. For example, Michael Jordan being a basketball player does not mean basketball players are Michael Jordan.

Because of this amateurish mistake your original premise is still flawed for the same reason it was the first time I pointed it out. You do seem emotional though.

[vy65]

If you sit in on meetings where the budget for contributions is decided and have a vote then it is what it is.

wtf are you talking about. You do realize that not only does this have nothing to do with my question, but not all succesful trial attorneys are involved with, or even make, donations to judges' campaigns

[vy65]

You again with the generalities. In logic identities don't go both ways when you are talking about collective things. The English language is particularly bad about it. For example, Michael Jordan being a basketball player does not mean basketball players are Michael Jordan.

Because of this amateurish mistake your original premise is still flawed for the same reason it was the first time I pointed it out. You do seem emotional though.

This has got nothing to do with what I posted. If you're what passes for "smart" these days, this country is fucked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wtf are you talking about. You do realize that not only does this have nothing to do with my question, but not all succesful trial attorneys are involved with, or even make, donations to judges' campaigns

I dumbed it down and you still don't get it. I never said all were; keep arguing it though. I think it's a fair question to ask any litigator offering services or running for political office. I am not interested into prying into the private lives of others for as much as you are determined to make this about you.

[vy65]

I dumbed it down and you still don't get it. I never said all were; keep arguing it though. I think it's a fair question to ask any litigator offering services or running for political office. I am not interested into prying into the private lives of others for as much as you are determined to make this about you.

Clearly you don't know what the word anyone means. You made a gross generalization and are backtrackingn from it now. But please, make more irrelevant references to logic, they're really helping your cause.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Clearly you don't know what the word anyone means. You made a gross generalization and are backtrackingn from it now. But please, make more irrelevant references to logic, they're really helping your cause.

Sorry but 'anyone who succeeds should be questioned' does not follow that everyone who succeeds should answer in the affirmative.

You are not disputing that the practice exists or even that it is pervasive. I'm not backtracking; you just are not very logical.

[vy65]

Sorry but 'anyone who succeeds should be questioned' does not follow that everyone who succeeds should answer in the affirmative.

You are not disputing that the practice exists or even that it is pervasive. I'm not backtracking; you just are not very logical.

What aren't you getting? Just because someone is succesful doesn't automatically trigger questions about their credibility. Some don't engage at all in the activity you question.

[vy65]

Just because a lawyer doesn't work for the ACLU doesn't mean they are subject to questions about their credibility. You've clearly never interacted with a couple, let alone, some members of the bar. Fuck, I doubt you've even interacted with a trial lawyer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What aren't you getting? Just because someone is succesful doesn't automatically trigger questions about their credibility. Some don't engage at all in the activity you question.

Now you are making a new argument.

I am more than comfortable moving the scope to all lawyers who file in courts where the judge receives campaign contributions.

As I said, it's de facto corruption.

[vy65]

Lol no I'm not. I've said that a lot of attorneys are not subject to questions of their credibility because they don't contribute to judges. You're just now getting it dunbass

So now you've expanded the lack of cred argument to public defenders? You know they file pleadings in courts too. They're such horrible people.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just because a lawyer doesn't work for the ACLU doesn't mean they are subject to questions about their credibility. You've clearly never interacted with a couple, let alone, some members of the bar. Fuck, I doubt you've even interacted with a trial lawyer.

I have hired lawyers twice. I have a couple that are friends. I have had discussions with them all on this issue.

If you plan on taking on your own clients and want to be this fucking naive when asked about it then go ahead.

[vy65]

Your concession is noted. I'm so happy to be a part of your fan club.

[SnakeBoy]

axelrod has been on my blacklist for years

:lol your blacklist :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your concession is noted. I'm so happy to be a part of your fan club.

I haven't argued your strawmen if that is what you mean. You picking another word? You tried the "I don't know anything about lawyers' when it seems to me you are pretty ignorant of things outside the federal courthouse but before that you were failing hard at picking words to take issue with. We have gone over the words 'should' as to how it relates to a verb and 'anyone.' What else?

[vy65]

There is no concept more abused or casually thrown around on here than straw man. I honestly question whether you know what it means.

You made a gross over generalization -- that all succesful civil litigators have questions surrounding their credibility.

There were specific facts that directly exposed why this generalization was not only stupid, but also showed how ignorant and out of touch with reality you are (i.e., law firms not lawyers make most contributions, not all successful lawyers donate, federal practitioners, etc.). We've gone over this, and you doubled down on your stupidity by saying all lawyers are questionable. I haven't seen a response, just your usual drivel about logic and fallacies and straw men. There's a reason why you're of no significance in the real world -- you're fucking idiotic. You're just too convinced of your own (absent) intelligence to see it, much less articulate a response when someone picks apart the tired bile you spew.

[Winehole23]

It is bad for democracy when parties that have lost elections try to overturn the results in the courts. That’s what the Republicans have done, by impeaching Bill Clinton, by installing the loser of the 2000 election as president with the help of Republican Supreme Court justices, and by suing and threatening to impeach Barack Obama. Are Democrats now going to try to use corruption charges, including far-fetched ones, to depose Republican governors they don’t like?http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/rick_perrys_indictment_is_bad_for_democrats_a_texa s_perspective/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/rick_perrys_indictment_is_bad_for_democrats_a_texa s_perspective/

why not? Give Repugs a good dose of their own toxic medicine. But extorting an elected official out of office by threatening to defund completely the official's function seems to have good basis in TX law. CC hiding behind "line item veto" bullshit as the ONLY point to consider :lol

[Winehole23]

more balls than brains. a prosecutor who brings charges that can't be sustained in court risks undermining his/her own office. if Perry had simply kept his mouth shut and vetoed PIU's budget, this thread wouldn't exist.

[SnakeBoy]

more balls than brains. a prosecutor who brings charges that can't be sustained in court risks undermining his/her own office. if Perry had simply kept his mouth shut and vetoed PIU's budget, this thread wouldn't exist.

Pretty sad to be at a point where it's okay to do something that is perfectly legal and moral...as long as you don't tell anyone about it.

[Winehole23]

it's possible the indictment isn't over the veto, but what allegedly happened afterwards:



Even after Gov. Rick Perry (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/rick-perry/) stripped funding for the agency that prosecutes state public corruption cases, his emissaries worked to swap the resignation of embattled Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg for restoration of the money, several sources told The Texas Tribune this week.


The Tribune learned of the proposal as a grand jury considers whether Perry overstepped his authority last year when he threatened to veto the public integrity unit’s state funding if Lehmberg did not step down after she was arrested for drunken driving. The sources said the offer was made to Lehmberg through several back channels: If Lehmberg — a Democrat whose office was in charge of investigating state officeholders — would resign, Perry would restore the two years in state funds, about $7.5 million, that he had vetoed following her April 12, 2013, arrest and subsequent guilty plea.


“It was communicated to me if she stepped out, [Perry] would restore the funding,” said Travis County Judge Samuel T. Biscoe, a Democrat who said he was one of several people made aware of the proposal from Perry’s office. “I was told his office made the representations.”

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/22/perry-offered-restore-vetoed-funding-if-da-would-r/

[pgardn]

From the above:

“Neither the governor nor any member of staff met with or spoke with Ms. Lehmberg,” Parsons said.

Asked if anyone from the governor’s staff told others to convey any offer, he declined to comment, citing the pending grand jury investigation.

I will tell you this, but I won't tell you that.

God I love this State, it's so full of fun.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is no concept more abused or casually thrown around on here than straw man. I honestly question whether you know what it means.

You made a gross over generalization -- that all succesful civil litigators have questions surrounding their credibility.

There were specific facts that directly exposed why this generalization was not only stupid, but also showed how ignorant and out of touch with reality you are (i.e., law firms not lawyers make most contributions, not all successful lawyers donate, federal practitioners, etc.). We've gone over this, and you doubled down on your stupidity by saying all lawyers are questionable. I haven't seen a response, just your usual drivel about logic and fallacies and straw men. There's a reason why you're of no significance in the real world -- you're fucking idiotic. You're just too convinced of your own (absent) intelligence to see it, much less articulate a response when someone picks apart the tired bile you spew.

You made a statement that you claim to be my argument which its not. That is a strawman. Your accusation of not knowing what a strawman is baseless flailing.

I pointed out that the Texas legal system had de facto corruption with campaign contributions from various constituents and as such i think it is a fair question to ask along those lines. You invented all this other nonsense and are desperately trying to win a point. Most of this post other than your strawman was ad hominem characterizations.

You haven't picked apart shit. Picking apart would actually mean going into the sentence structure and words I actually said. Instead what you do is translate it into something else and then argue that. I don't think you are capable of having a semantic arguments. It seems outside your scope.

[boutons_deux]

All 4 GOP Governors Running For President Targets Of Corruption Probes


http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/all-4-gop-governors-running-president-targets-corruption-probes?akid=12143.187590.WdJm1W&rd=1&src=newsletter1016111&t=12

[DarrinS]

Even the NYT editorial board thinks this is stupid




Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.




http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/opinion/is-gov-perrys-bad-judgment-really-a-crime.html?ref=opinion&_r=2

[boutons_deux]

"not necessarily a felony"

In TX, the allegation is a state felony.

[Aztecfan03]

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/rick_perrys_indictment_is_bad_for_democrats_a_texa s_perspective/

Wasn't it the Dems that tried to overturn the 2000 eelection result? The others you mentioned are based on the actions of the individual and not losing an election.

[boutons_deux]

Wasn't it the Dems that tried to overturn the 2000 eelection result? The others you mentioned are based on the actions of the individual and not losing an election.

the Dems wanted a recount, which 2000 Repug lawyers and thugs descended on FL to obstruct.

The Repug SCOTUS, esp the nasty little troll Scalia, said Jan 20 swear in date was more important than swearing in the right guy, giving the US dubya/dickhnead, botched Afganistan, the Iraq war-for-oil, 9/11, privatization of Medicare (part D), loss of O/T pay for 1000s, loss of bankruptcy exit for student loans, severe tax cuts for the wealthy, ignoring of the housing/credit bubble, and general assorted incompetence, misgovernance ad nauseam.

[boutons_deux]

Prosecutors have wide, almost unlimited, latitude to decide which cases to bring. The reason is obvious: there is simply no way that the government could prosecute every violation of law it sees. Think about tax evasion, marijuana use, speeding, jay-walking—we’d live in a police state if the government went after every one of these cases.

(Indeed, virtually all plea bargaining, which is an ubiquitous practice, amounts to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.) As a result, courts give prosecutors virtual carte blanche to bring some cases and ignore others. But, once they do bring them, courts respond to the argument that “everyone does it” more or less the same way that your mother did. It’s no excuse. So if Perry’s behavior fits within the technical definition of the two statutes under which he’s charged, which it well might, he’s probably out of luck.

Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited. The executive branch can refrain from prosecuting certain individuals, but it cannot, in theory, offer immunity to entire classes of law-breakers.

Nor can a prosecutor only charge people of a certain race, or, for that matter, political party. But it’s hard to know who would have standing to challenge a failure to bring a criminal case or a deportation. The rules of standing are usually limited to individuals who have suffered a specific harm, and there’s no harm in not being prosecuted. (The New Republic has a useful primer on the subject. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119080/obama-cannot-use-prosecutorial-discretion-change-immigration-laws) )

That sort of limitation on prosecutorial discretion is unlikely to help Rick Perry. His complaint is that the prosecutor is bringing one case too many, not too few. That claim, almost invariably, is a loser. So, it turns out, may be the soon-to-be-former governor.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/rick-perry-may-luck (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/rick-perry-may-luck)

[TeyshaBlue]

This "case" goes nowhere in spite of how badly moonbats want it to.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol Always shows up to stalk The Great Boutons

Your boy RickyBobby is a fucking loser, fashion glasses can't save him, a typical corrupt TX Repug, won't do shit in the Repug Pres primaries.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not stalking, you dickless RSS fellator.
Perry has never been my boy, moron. I voted Dem the last two times I voted in Gubernatorial elections.
God Damn boy....you're a fucking loon.

[Winehole23]

Wasn't it the Dems that tried to overturn the 2000 eelection result? Nope. The case was styled Bush v. Gore. Bush sued Gore, after stopping a recount, and after suing Palm Beach County.

[Blake]

http://m.eonline.com/news/570951/rick-perry-s-mug-shot-released-texas-governor-smirks-looks-not-at-all-concerned-about-being-booked-on-felony-charges

Ice cream!

[boutons_deux]

Repugs are pissed off that they IMAGINE that their boy RickyBobby might be the target of smash-mouth, bad faith politicking, smearing?

ah, what a pity. sniff sniff

Typical dickless bullies dish it out non-stop for years, but can't stand having the tables turned, at least in their paranoid imaginations.

[boutons_deux]

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs13/013505-rick-perry-mugshot-082014.jpg

[boutons_deux]

The potential constitutional problem with the indictment arises from the way the state’s constitution allocates power between the governor and the legislature. The Texas Constitution gives the governor broad discretion to decide which bills he wishes to veto and why he chooses to veto them (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.4.htm#4.14). Moreover, that constitution contains an explicit protection against one branch of government attempting to encroach upon the powers of the others (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.2.htm#2.1). “The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments,” the state constitution proclaims, “and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.”

Though we are unaware of a case decided by a Texas state court which lays out if and when the state legislature can regulate the governor’s veto power, there is a United States Supreme Court case that is likely to inform the judges who consider Perry’s case. In 1996, Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act, which purported to give the president the power to cancel individual line items in a much larger appropriations bill. Two years later, in a case calledClinton v. City of New York (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4447838344519582856&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional. Quoting President George Washington, the Court explained that the president’s veto power allows him to “approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4447838344519582856&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr).” An ordinary Act of Congress could not upset this balance of power between the Executive and the Legislative branches. Only a constitutional amendment may change the president’s veto power so that he may veto only part of a bill.

The Perry indictment presents a mirror image of the issue in Clinton, but a similar constitutional principle is likely to apply. Unlike the federal constitution, the Texas Constitution explicitly gives Perry a line-item veto power (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.4.htm#4.14). This is the power he used to cancel funding for the Travis County District Attorney’s Office’s Public Integrity Unit. Yet, if an ordinary act of the legislature cannot reallocate power away from the legislative branch and towards the executive, than it is unlikely that a similar act could take power away from the executive and give it to the legislature. In both cases, the law would seek to reallocate a balance of power set by a constitution, and that requires a constitutional amendment.

Texas courts are not bound by Supreme Court precedents when they interpret their state’s own constitution, so it is possible that the Texas courts will diverge from Clinton. But Clintonis a highly persuasive precedent, and Texas’ courts are dominated by members of Perry’s own party (http://judgepedia.org/Texas_Court_of_Criminal_Appeals). It is unlikely that they will reject the separation of powers principles established by the Supreme Court. And, if they do not, then it is equally unlikely that they will allow a state statute to be used to criminalize the governor’s use of his own veto power.

So it is fairly likely that Perry will escape conviction due to a constitutional flaw in the indictment. Yet, even though Perry’s actions may be legal, that does not mean that they are defensible on moral or ethical ground. At best, it is likely that Perry used his power in an attempt to place his own party in charge of a key prosecutor’s office (http://www.texasobserver.org/everything-wanted-know-rick-perrys-new-scandal/). At worst, he may have done so to shut down a specific investigation.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/20/3473501/texas-problem-probably-isnt-a-criminal-governor-it-is-a-terrible-constitution/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/rick-perry-indictment-liberals-110229.html?ml=m_t3_2h

Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment

[boutons_deux]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/93800/large/BsMeEZ2CMAAeAcC.jpg?1405013298

Rick Perry once said:


"Guns require a finger to pull the trigger."

That's true. Sadly, Ricky's fingers are gonna have to itch themselves for at least another year—maybe more. Turns out there's federal law (and Texas law) that does not allow someone under indictment to carry arms. As the Austin American-Statesman points out (http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/herman-indicted-gov-rick-perry-cant-carry-conceale/ng5h2/?icid=statesman_internallink_mystatesmaninvitation box_feb2014_99cdaypass_post-purchase#e6b37a65.3838710.735465), the law–18 USC 922(n) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922) says:


It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

But, it gets so much better:


As an indictee, Perry’s state-issued Concealed Handgun License, assuming he still has one — his office didn’t know as of Tuesday afternoon — will be suspended until the case against him is decided [...]And, he noted, Perry can no longer carry a handgun while jogging on public property, as he was doing when he famously gunned down a menacing coyote in 2010.


Teehee.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/21/1323537/-Not-so-fast-gov-nur-you-ll-have-to-leave-those-with-me?detail=email

[Spurminator]

http://i.imgur.com/OKjZsiw.png?2

[Nbadan]

Travis DA’s Drunken-Driving Arrest Riled Perry; Others’ Didn’t
By CHRISTY HOPPE
Austin Bureau
[email protected]
Published: 19 August 2014 11:42 PM

Updated: 19 August 2014 11:55 PM
Related

Perry vows to fight ‘with every fiber’


AUSTIN — Rick Perry was outraged at the spectacle of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s drunken-driving arrest last year. But he didn’t feel that strongly when two other district attorneys faced the same charges under similar circumstances.

In those cases, he said and did nothing.

There were differences, chiefly that Perry had leverage over Lehmberg, whose office contains the state-funded Public Integrity Unit. As the governor builds his defense against felony coercion and abuse of power charges partly around concerns about Lehmberg’s behavior, Democrats are pointing to the two previous cases as a sign that the governor had other motives.

“The key difference was that one of the DAs was investigating his administration for corruption and the other two DAs weren’t,” said Democratic strategist Jason Stanford.

more...

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140819-travis-das-drunken-driving-arrest-riled-perry-others-didnt.ece

[Nbadan]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/M/x/N/6/Rick-Perry-Mugshot.jpg

[pgardn]

Democratic consultant Stanford, who called for Lehmberg to step down after her arrest, said Perry stepped over a line when he continued to negotiate ways to remove her from office even after vetoing the funds.


The above could be big if they really have evidence on just how this was being negotiated.

[RandomGuy]

Democratic consultant Stanford, who called for Lehmberg to step down after her arrest, said Perry stepped over a line when he continued to negotiate ways to remove her from office even after vetoing the funds.


The above could be big if they really have evidence on just how this was being negotiated.


Interesting. I heard some talking head allude to the possibility that there is something there that the public hasn't seen yet.

I dunno. Seems on its face overblown, but the grand jury seemed to see enough to move it along.

I will wait until I see more to have any kind of firm opinion either way.

[CosmicCowboy]

I expect it to end like Tom DeLays. A conviction in the Travis County monkey court and an overturn on appeal.

[boutons_deux]

Speaker Boehner’s Lawyer Is Charging The American Taxpayer $500 An Hour To Sue Obama (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/25/3475566/speaker-boehners-lawyer-is-charging-the-american-taxpayer-500-an-hour-to-sue-obama/)

Last January, a Washington attorney named David Rivkin co-authored an article inPolitico Magazine that laid out a legal theory that Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) now plans to use to sue President Obama because the president is not implementing Obamacare fast enough (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/10/3459057/house-republicans-will-sue-obama-because-hes-not-implementing-obamacare-fast-enough/). Yet, as ThinkProgress laid out shortly after Boehner announced that he would file the lawsuit, Rivkin’s legal theory rests upon “a glaring misrepresentation of a recent Supreme Court decision that undermines much of the basis for this lawsuit. (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/14/3459627/the-false-statement-of-fact-that-forms-the-backbone-of-john-boehners-anti-obama-lawsuit/)”
Nevertheless, Boehner decided to hire Rivkin to represent the GOP-led House in its suit against the president. Rivkin’s price? $500 an hour, all charged to the American taxpayer (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/house-hires-lawyer-for-obama-lawsuit-20140825).

The contract caps Rivkin’s fees at a total of $350,000, although, if past is prologue, this cap will rise quickly. During the litigation challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, Boehner hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend anti-gay discrimination at a fee of $520 per hour (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/19/159671/clement-520-per-hour/). Although an early iteration of Clement’s contract capped his total fees at $500,000, the total cost of Boehner’s legal services rose to $2.3 million (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/26/2219971/house-republicans-charged-the-american-taxpayer-23-million-to-lose-doma-case/). Clement’s legal fees were also charged to the American taxpayer.

However much money Rivkin ultimately collects from the American people, he is unlikely to win his lawsuit if the judges who consider it follow existing law. As a general rule, a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit must have actually been injured in some way by the person they are suing (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/14/3459627/the-false-statement-of-fact-that-forms-the-backbone-of-john-boehners-anti-obama-lawsuit/). Neither Boehner nor any other member of Congress, however, has been injured by President Obama’s decision to delay implementation of the provision of the Affordable Care Act at issue in this case.

Additionally, in a 1997 case called Raines v. Byrd (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3363577568877703610&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), the Supreme Court explained that suits brought by members of Congress alleging that their institutional rights as lawmakers have been injured are highly discouraged.

Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the Roberts Court has shown a willingness to abandon (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/30/3454501/hobby-lobby-bait-and-switch/) established law (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/news/2012/03/07/11260/not-even-close/) when Obamacare is involved, so there is no guarantee that Rivkin will lose.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/25/3475566/speaker-boehners-lawyer-is-charging-the-american-taxpayer-500-an-hour-to-sue-obama/#

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry’s Clown Show

Trial lawyers will tell you that any good prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

The day before his courthouse circus opened, Ringmaster Rick brought in the clowns — a whole troupe of $450-an-hour, hotshot lawyers wearing red power ties, came blustering onstage with Perry from out of a back room, as though tumbling out of a tiny clown car. Introduced as the indictee’s legal dream team, each tried to outdo the other in a slapstick show of résumés, puffing themselves up as junkyard-tough lawyers who would shred this prosecutor and his flimsy case.

Meant to show how strong Perry is, the pack of lawyers only raised another question for Perry in the public mind: If the charges against you are nothing, as you keep saying, why do you need so many heavyweight, extremely pricey lawyers?

Well, meet that ham sandwich! Here in my burg of Austin, Texas, a grand jury has just indicted Gov. Rick “Rooti-Toot-Toot” Perry, a real ham — only not as smart.

Perry has hornswoggled the pundits, but don’t let them fool you — Perry clearly abused his power as governor. Again, the issue is not Perry’s veto, but his linking of a veto threat to his effort to oust an elected public official. As for his hamming it up about being a poor victim of Democrats, the judge who appointed the prosecutor is a Republican, and the prosecutor himself was nominated to federal office by President Bush I, and endorsed by Texas’ Republican senators. This indictment is not a show.

It’s way more serious than Perry is, and the real explaining he’ll have to do will be in a somber courthouse — under oath. To keep up with Perry’s circus, go to Texans for Public Justice at www.tpj.org (http://www.tpj.org/).

http://www.nationalmemo.com/rick-perrys-clown-show/

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry deletes tweet calling district attorney the ‘most drunk Democrat in Texas’


Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Sunday deleted an image posted by his official Twitter account that labeled Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg “the most drunk Democrat in Texas.”

The image, imitating Dos Equis’ “Most Interesting Man in the World” beer advertisements, stated: “I don’t always drive drunk at 3x the legal blood alcohol limit… …but when I do, I indict Gov. Perry for calling me out about it. I am the most drunk Democrat in Texas.”

The tweet was quickly deleted, but can still be viewed (http://politwoops.sunlightfoundation.com/tweet/506235017379729408) thanks to the Sunlight Foundation’s Politwhoops tool.

“A tweet just went out from my account that was unauthorized. I do not condone the tweet and I have taken it down,” Perry tweeted.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/01/rick-perry-deletes-tweet-calling-district-attorney-the-most-drunk-democrat-in-texas/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

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

At least in 2012, Rick Perry realized he’d forgotten the name of the federal department he wanted to abolish. But when it comes to the charges he’s just been indicted for, he’s certain of what they are. “Bribery,” he said (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/08/rick-perry-doesnt-really-understand-the-details-of-indictment/) in New Hampshire recently — but he’s wrong. It’s not exactly a strong position to start from if you’re going to loudly proclaim your innocence. At least he’s got one thing right: “I don’t really understand the details,” he added.

In that, Perry is far from alone. Few, if any, of his high-profile defenders, either left or right, seem to understand much more than he does. Still, you don’t have to be a lawyer to at least have some idea of what’s being charged. The indictment is online (http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/08/15/perry.pdf) for anyone to read, and it’s not that hard to understand — one count for abuse of official capacity, the other for coercion of a public official. Yet few in the national media seem to have figured that out.

“It was very clear to me that some of the pundits-at-a-distance based their initial opinions on two false assumptions,” Smith said, via email, “1) That the Perry indictments were the product of a nest of angry but unsophisticated Austin liberals; 2) That it was a governor’s constitutional power of the veto that was being challenged.”

faced with the facts that not one but two Republican judges failed to dismiss the criminal complaint against Perry and that an accomplished, conservative special prosecutor had overseen the grand jury indictment, a street-level reporter would think, “There must be more to the game that’s afoot than the Perry narrative wants me to believe.”

“Many reporters in Texas know Perry and are much more familiar with the details in this case, the fact that these are Republicans investigating this and that Perry has a history of hardball politics in forcing people out,” Slater said. “This is a much more nuanced story than some in the Beltway understand.”


1) The indictment was not brought by the Tavis County DA. Nor were any other Democrats involved. It’s worth quoting at length from Smith at the Texas Tribune (http://tribtalk.org/2014/08/18/why-the-indictment-matters/):

Not a single Democratic official was involved at any point in the process, except to recuse him or herself.

That’s what the victim of Perry’s “offers,” Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, did. So did District Judge Julie Kocurek (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/judge-recuses-herself-in-lehmberg-criminal-case/nYS9H/).

Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee.

Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican.

He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor.

Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended (http://97.74.206.199/mainjusticedemo/tag/michael-mccrum/) McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas.

McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury.


2) The indictment is not an attack on the governor’s right to veto, any more than a bribery charge would be, if Perry were accused of having vetoed a bill in return for a bribe.

As Rachel Maddow put it, covering the story the day it broke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izt99UVD5MY), “You may have the constitutional right to vote, for example; you don’t have the constitutional right to sell your vote.”

3) Perry’s purported motivation — outrage over Lehmberg’s DWI violation and conviction — was not matched in two other cases where GOP district attorneys were convicted (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140819-travis-das-drunken-driving-arrest-riled-perry-others-didnt.ece). Nor has he offered any rational explanation why a DWI violation — particularly after rehab — should be seen as so uniquely heinous.

Another key Perry talking point has been that “In Texas we settle things with elections.” Why not this time, then?

4) Perry did have a prima facie political motivation to go after Lehmberg: Her office was investigating corruption involving Perry cronies at the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas at the time he sought to force her out, and replace her with his own appointee.

5) The indictment of Perry is not about the “criminalization of politics” — a rhetorical framework that dates back to at least Richard Nixon. As Smith told Salon:

The very term is profoundly disturbing because its real meaning is, “We are the law so it is logically impossible for us to violate it.” Political insiders — from politicians to those who work or used to work for them — know full well that politics now is little more than institutionalized bribery. How do even well-meaning players cope with that psychologically? They have to set their/our political practices outside the reach of the law.

A good parallel is seen in popular culture presentations of Mob life, in which the wives, sons, daughters of mobsters are willfully blind to the source of their wealth. Anyone who wants to turn on the lights becomes a snitch who wants to “criminalize” their everyday lives.

But it does tell us that Perry’s media defense has no relation to known facts, so why should he get the benefit of the doubt in matters where the facts remain unclear?

MADDOW: I will say — as people look at Rick Perry as a potential 2016 contender. You know, he’s taking this New Hampshire trip tomorrow, people talk about this indictment. If you’re thinking about looking at whether or not Rick Perry is a viable 2016 contender and thinking about looking at these indictments as part of that, get behind the pay wall, right? Pay for subscriptions to the Texas publication of your choice. Start reading Texas papers on this. The coverage is like reading it from Mars when you compare stuff that`s being written in Washington.

Lind links this with a much less impressive point — that it will only embolden Republicans to bring trumped-up charges against Democratic governors. This would be an excellent point, if Republican operatives had time machines.

How else to explain their successful 2006 conviction of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_1125.html), which a bipartisan group of over 100 former attorney generals (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/03/more_than_100_former_state_att.html) argued against in a recent Supreme Court amicus brief?

since one of Lind’s greatest concerns is how Republicans can co-opt anti-corruption prosecution strategies, he must also acknowledge how thoroughly right-wing co-optations of populism have already succeeded, both in Texas, and all across America.

Which is why it really is best to keep focused on the facts. Let’s hear them first; only then can we have informed opinions.


http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/rick_perry_might_go_away_for_a_long_long_time_what _even_the_liberal_media_isnt_reporting_about_his_i ndictment/

[pgardn]

Start reading Texas papers on this. The coverage is like reading it from Mars when you compare stuff that`s being written in Washington.

Oh BS

Read the Gov. McDonnell stuff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/how-the-federal-corruption-case-against-the-mcdonnells-came-together/2014/09/06/16e15b92-3559-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html

In Virginia.
Maddow going too far again in her statements while crap like the above is happening in DCs backyard.

[boutons_deux]

Start reading Texas papers on this. The coverage is like reading it from Mars when you compare stuff that`s being written in Washington.

Oh BS

Read the Gov. McDonnell stuff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/how-the-federal-corruption-case-against-the-mcdonnells-came-together/2014/09/06/16e15b92-3559-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html

In Virginia.
Maddow going too far again in her statements while crap like the above is happening in DCs backyard.

what?

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[pgardn]

what?

Do you read your own stuff?

Jesus, you bolded it as well...

[boutons_deux]

Do you read your own stuff?

Jesus, you bolded it as well...

what?

[pgardn]

what?

Exactly.

[boutons_deux]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/106998/large/10678780_688808844541645_2063663393087947179_n-1.jpg?1411331713


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/22/1331400/-Is-This-Photo-With-Rick-Perry-Real-If-It-s-Not-It-Should-Be?detail=email6#

RickyBobby as popular as ever with Texans ( a majority DON'T want him as Pres )

[boutons_deux]

Apart from RickyBobby extorting drunk Austin lady, the audit of the Repug political slush fund, aka Texas Enterprise Fund, is looking like real trouble for both RickyBobby and Abbutt.

money handed out with to bids, no contracts, no followups, and lots of the TEF stuff, aka taxpayer $100Ms, remains secret.

[boutons_deux]

http://act.txdemocrats.org/page/-/14_09_30_TEF_01.gif
http://act.txdemocrats.org/page/-/14_09_30_TEF_02.gif
http://act.txdemocrats.org/page/-/cash-3.gif
http://act.txdemocrats.org/page/-/14_09_30_TEF_04_GA.gif

[boutons_deux]

Prosecutor Claims Perry Threatening Grand Jury After Indictment

"I am confident we will ultimately prevail, that this farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and that those responsible will be held to account," Perry said following the indictment.

Some have interpreted that statement as intimidation (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/julie-kocurek-perry-grand-jury-threat).

"This comment struck many listeners as a threat against the members of the grand jury and all of those associated with the grand jury process,"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/perry-threatening-grand-jury-indictment?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[Winehole23]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Perry-veto-killed-investigation-into-no-bid-6021479.php

[Winehole23]

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/17/report-prosecutors-dropped-probe-after-perry-veto/

[DMX7]

How many people are really wearing suits in their mug shots?

[Winehole23]

a step closer to the case being laid out in public. CT21 and TEF contracting shenanigans have been bubbling along in the background.


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.




District Judge Bert Richardson, who like Perry is a Republican, rejected calls from Perry's defense team to toss the case because its client was acting within his rights as chief executive of America's second-most populous state when he publicly threatened, then carried out, a 2013 veto of state funding for public corruption prosecutors.


Richardson wrote that, "Texas law clearly precludes a trial court from making a pretrial determination regarding the constitutionality of a state penal or criminal procedural statute as the statue applies to a particular defendant."

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-refuses-toss-perry-case-constitutional-grounds-213341554.html

[Spurminator]

560213872041525249

[boutons_deux]

560213872041525249

krazy kruz' opinion is gold, his judgement irreproachable

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey Boo.

betcha $100 before it's over he doesn't get convicted.

[Nbadan]

Hey Boo.

betcha $100 before it's over he doesn't get convicted.

I think he will be convicted, maybe on a lesser charge, but not much more than a fine will come from it....

[boutons_deux]

Hey Boo.

betcha $100 before it's over he doesn't get convicted.

nah, TX is too corrupt to expect a conviction. Somebody will get to the juror(s), prosecutor(s) who have to think about their careers in Repug-poisoned TX

I'll will be you $100 that JimmyRicky will never be US President, not even the Repug candidate.

[CosmicCowboy]

nah, TX is too corrupt to expect a conviction. Somebody will get to the juror(s), prosecutor(s) who have to think about their careers in Repug-poisoned TX

I'll will be you $100 that JimmyRicky will never be US President, not even the Repug candidate.

Corruption? :lol Boos scared to put his money where his big mouth is.

:lmao

Chickenshit, much? That's no bet at all. Of course Perry will never be President.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think he will be convicted, maybe on a lesser charge, but not much more than a fine will come from it....

Maybe in Austin but it won't withstand an appeal. He clearly didn't exceed his authorized power as Governor even if he did it for the wrong reasons.

[boutons_deux]

Corruption? :lol Boos scared to put his money where his big mouth is.

:lmao

Chickenshit, much? That's no bet at all. Of course Perry will never be President.

I don't need to bet $100 to know that your buddy JimmyRicky is one corrupt sonofabitch and he's guilty of extorting the resignation of a Dem official. He already charged TX taxpayers $132K for his legal costs.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think he will be convicted, maybe on a lesser charge, but not much more than a fine will come from it....

Thats kinda where Im heading too.

[boutons_deux]

9 Completely Bonkers Things The Newest GOP Presidential Candidate Believes About The Constitution (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/04/3665988/9-completely-bonkers-things-newest-gop-presidental-candidate-believes-constitution/)

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is expected to announce his bid to seek the GOP presidential nomination on Thursday (http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Former-Texas-Gov-Rick-Perry-Expected-to-Announce-White-House-Bid-Thursday-in-Addison-306065561.html). It will be Perry’s second attempt to secure a home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and Perry showed commendable candor in the lead-up to his 2012 bid regarding his unorthodox views about the Constitution. Most politicians who hope to win a national election, for example, would not openly admit that they believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/12/294753/rick-perry-says-social-security-and-medicare-are-unconstitutional/).

Yet Perry was remarkably honest about his belief that federal programs that millions of American depend upon for their health and livelihood somehow violate America’s founding principles. In 2010, he published a book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington (http://www.amazon.com/Fed-Up-Fight-America-Washington/dp/0316132950/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=), laying out his narrow understanding of the Constitution in considerable detail. He also gave numerous speeches and made multiple television appearances touting his belief that much of the last century of American history was a constitutional error.

Here are some of Perry’s more surprising beliefs:

1) Social Security And Medicare Are Unconstitutional

The Constitution permits the federal government to “lay and collect taxes” and to use the funds raised by these taxes to “pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei).” This provision lays out the constitutional basis for federal spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare and numerous other such programs that seek to advance the general welfare.

Perry, however, believes these programs are unconstitutional (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/12/rick-perry-newsweek-interview-transcript.html). “I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term ‘general welfare’ in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care,” Perry told the Daily Beast’s Andrew Romano in 2011.

He offered similar views in a 2010 address to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) National Policy Summit. Proclaiming that “the nearly unlimited scope of the federal government contradicts the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us,” Perry claimed that an assault on this principles “continued into the Roosevelt New Deal.” He then named “a bankrupt Social Security system (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/13/317543/video-rick-perry-calls-medicare-and-social-security-unconstitutional/)” as an example of a New Deal program he opposed.

Later, in the same speech, he claimed that President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society “further eroded our founding fathers’ boundaries that they had put upon the federal government.” He also specifically named Medicare as an example of Johnson’s supposed sins against the Constitution.

2) All Other Federal Health Programs Are Also Unconstitutional

Perry also listed Medicaid in his ALEC speech as an example of a Great Society program that, he believes, violates the Constitution. Similarly, his statement that Congress’s constitutional authority to spend money does not permit “a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care” sweeps broadly, implicating all federal health care programs. So that means that programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program (https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/childrens-health-insurance-program/) or much of the Affordable Care Act would also cease to exist under Perry’s vision.

Perry has also made statements suggesting that any federal laws regulating the health care industry are unconstitutional (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/03/333983/rick-perry-federal-health-care-unconstitutional/). “There is nothing in that Constitution that says Washington D.C. is supposed to be telling us how to deliver health care,” the former Texas governor told a crowd of New Hampshire voters in 2011, reiterating a view he’dexpressed on Glenn Beck’s now-defunct Fox News show (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/28/255572/perry-hates-the-constitution-again/) a few months earlier. Taken to its extreme, this view would not only prevent federal regulation of health insurers and hospitals, but it would also eliminate the Food and Drug Administration’s power to keep dangerous drugs and quack remedies out of pharmacies.

3) Federal Clean Air Laws Are Unconstitutional “Nonsense”

Perry also claimed that the notion that the federal government is “telling us how to . . . clean our air is really nonsense.” It’s likely, moreover, that Perry’s objections to environmental regulations extend far beyond the Clean Air Act. A section of Fed Up!argues that the Supreme Court has read Congress’s power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states” too broadly. Although Perry does not explain in detail how he would interpret this provision of the Constitution, he does suggest that Congress has overreached its constitutional authority in a long list of policy areas, including “the environment,” “guns,” and “civil rights.”

4) Federal Education Programs Are Unconstitutional

In his Beck interview, Perry denounced federal laws which “tell[] us how to educate our children.” Similarly, in Fed Up!, Perry criticized members of his own party for supporting federal education legislation. Their decision to do so, Perry claims, is a “perfect example of Republicans losing sight of the fact that perfectly laudable policy choices at the local level are not appropriate (much less constitutional) at the federal level.”

5) Nearly All Federal Laws Protecting Workers Are Unconstitutional

Fed Up! labels the the New Deal “the second big step in the march of socialism,” and blames the Supreme Court for allowing New Deal laws to take effect “by abdicating its role as the protector of constitutional federalism.” One decision that Perry singles out for criticism is NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10553454701062806540&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), a 1937 decision upholding the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 — a federal law that still provides much of the backbone of the nation’s law governing unions. It should be noted that Jones & Laughlin‘s reasoning also provides the basis for other federal regulation of the employment relationship, such as minimum wage laws or the ban on child labor. So it is likely that those laws would cease to exist under Perry’s reading of the Constitution as well.

Later in Fed Up!, Perry argues in favor of a kind of special rule permitting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans various forms of employment discrimination, to exist. It’s not entirely clear whether Perry believes that all of the Civil Rights Act is consistent with his idiosyncratic view of the Constitution, or merely its prohibitions on race discrimination. Nevertheless, while Perry would strip away most nationwide protections for workers, he would apparently leave at least some civil rights protections in place.

6) Federal Financial Reform Is Unconstitutional

Citing an announcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking public comment on regulations being considered to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, Perry’s book claims that “there is a better way to ensure that local communities are represented in government. If the Constitution were shown the appropriate respect, Washington regulation writers wouldn’t have to worry about underrepresented views, because they wouldn’t have control over them in the first place.” It’s unclear just how far Perry would go in rolling back Wall Street regulation, although this passage suggests that he would go quite far.

7) Voters Should Not Be Able To Choose Their Own Senators

Perry also claims that “[t]he American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment).“ The Seventeenth Amendment provides for direct election of senators, rather than having senators be selected by state legislatures — a process that was abandoned, at least in part, because it led to considerable corruption (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2010/11/15/176968/seventeenth-hate/).

8) Taxing Investment Income Should Be Unconstitutional

The Sixteenth Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi) provides that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It was ratified to overrule an 1895 Supreme Court decision (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/157/429) which effectively declared taxation of income from capital unconstitutional, though it permitted taxation of income from wages or salaries. The upshot of this decision is that a wealthy heir who lives entirely off of inherited investments would pay no taxes, while the heir’s pool cleaner would be taxed on their wage.

Perry’s claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was a mistake suggests that he would go back to this regime.

9) But Activist Judges Are A Serious Problem

Having laid out a long list of laws he thinks should be declared unconstitutional, Fed Up!pivots to a rant against Supreme Court justices who act as “‘Grand Ayatollahs’ of the Constitution.” He objects to Supreme Court decisions supposedly dictating “where we may and may not pray to God, when life begins, whether contraception must be allowed to be sold, whether and how we can celebrate religious holidays, what level of pornography and vulgarity must be allowed, whether those other than man and woman must be allowed to marry, what level of discrimination may or even must be carried out . . . whether a state must allow women to attend an all-male military academy, who may be executed and whether we may execute criminals at all.”

Perry, in other words, believes there should be strict limits on the Supreme Court’s power to hand down decisions he disagrees with, even as he insists upon using the Constitution as a weapon to erase whole swaths of American law.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/04/3665988/9-completely-bonkers-things-newest-gop-presidental-candidate-believes-constitution/

JimmyRicky, another POS pol from TX.

Krazy Kruz just told a joke ridiculing Joe Biden a couple days after Biden's son died.

[djohn2oo8]

Perry running again is good comedy.

[Drachen]

Perry running again is good comedy.

Those bodyguards look incredibly happy to be there

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/18053097218_6d3c63e937_z.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry Knows 3 Things About Global Warming: It's a Hoax, He's Not a Scientist, and…We Forget the Third
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/rick-perry-climate-change-skeptic-oops

[Blake]

https://liberalrickperry.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/liberal-rick-perry-transcript-2.jpg

[Blake]

Not exactly a rocket surgeon

[boutons_deux]

Not exactly a rocket surgeon

Rick Perry: Running for president ‘is not an IQ test’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/11/rick-perry-running-for-president-is-not-an-iq-test/

I admire his self-awareness that he's one dumb, corrupt sonofabitch.

[boutons_deux]

Can JimmyRicky outdumb this guy?

In unanimous decision, Marco Rubio wins 'GOP Dumbass of the Day'
award (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/04/1390607/-In-unanimous-decision-Marco-Rubio-wins-GOP-Dumbass-of-the-Day-award)

"It's not nation-building. We are assisting them in building their nation," Rubio said of his vision for Iraq.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/04/1390607/-In-unanimous-decision-Marco-Rubio-wins-GOP-Dumbass-of-the-Day-award?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Repugs sniff down at nation building, their skill is nation destroying.

[boutons_deux]

Paul Krugman: Texas is a failed experiment in “reverse Robin-Hood” economic policy

Following the news that former Texas Governor Rick Perry is throwing his hat into the Republican primary (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/governor_oops_is_back_rick_perry_returns_for_anoth er_wild_goose_chase/), New York Times columnist Paul Krugman decided to look back at the so-called “Texas miracle” that Perry used to establish his economic credentials in his failed 2012 bid for the GOP nomination.

Conservatives, Krugman argues, “have long held up Texas as a supposed demonstration that low taxes on the rich and harsh treatment of the poor are the keys to prosperity.” But the real engine of Texas’ economy isn’t its fiscal policy — it’s oil.

Even though Texas’ economy has diversified in recent years, Krugman writes, one-third is still dependent on the hydrocarbon industry, and the sustained dip in oil prices has crippled the state.

Its “reverse Robin-Hood” fiscal policies were supposed to insulate the state against market vagaries, but they simply haven’t.

The belief, Krugman concludes, “that tax cuts are a universal elixir that cures all economic ills is the ultimate zombie idea — one that should have died long ago in the face of the facts, but just keeps shambling along.”

The states, Louis Brandeis famously declared, are the laboratories of democracy. In fact, Mr. Brownback himself described his plan as an “experiment” that would demonstrate the truth of his economic doctrine. What it actually did, however, was demonstrate the opposite — and much the same message is coming from other laboratories, from the stumble in Texas to the comeback in California…

Nothing that has happened in the past quartercentury has supported tax-cut mania, yet the doctrine’s hold on the Republican Party is stronger than ever. It would be foolish to expect recent events to make much difference.

Still, the spectacle of the Texas economy coming back to earth, and Kansas sliding over the edge should at the very least make right-wing bombast ring hollow, in the general election if not in the primary. And someday, maybe, even conservatives will once again become willing to look at the facts.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/05/paul_krugman_texas_is_a_failed_experiment_in_rever se_robin_hood_economic_policy/

[boutons_deux]

Perry: Hillary Doesn't Grasp Voter ID Because She Doesn't Fly Commercial
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-perry-hillary-clinton-voter-id?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

:lol He still a dumb, ignorant fuckoff, with an ego much bigger than his brain.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/[email protected]

[boutons_deux]

Texas’ Rick Perry to fight indictment, casting shadow on possible 2016 run

http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Rick-Perry-Screenshot-800x430.jpg

Texas Governor Rick Perry will vigorously fight a two-count felony indictment returned by a state grand jury last week charging him with abuse of power, his lawyers said on Monday, calling the prosecution “outrageous.”

The indictment has cast a shadow over Perry’s possible bid for the Republican presidential nomination, with experts predicting that legal wrangling in the case is likely to stretch into the 2016 election cycle.

A state district court judge set Perry’s arraignment for Aug. 29, but the hearing date was shifted to Friday, Aug. 22, due to a scheduling conflict, according to the Austin American-Statesman and other media.

Perry was indicted on Friday by a grand jury in Travis County, a Democratic stronghold in the heavily Republican state, over his veto of funding for a state ethics watchdog that has investigated prominent Texas Republicans.

“Governor Perry will fight this indictment 100 percent,” defense lawyer Tony Buzbee told a news conference, adding the veto was lawful.

“This is nothing more than banana republic politics,” ( aka red-state, Bible-humping, petro-state TEXAS! ) Buzbee said, calling the charges an “outrageous assault on the rule of law.”

Perry became the target of an ethics probe last year after he vetoed $7.5 million in funding for the state public integrity unit run out of the Travis County district attorney’s office.

The veto was widely viewed as intended to force the resignation of county District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, after she pleaded guilty to drunken driving but remained in office.

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/texas-rick-perry-to-fight-indictment-casting-shadow-on-possible-2016-run/ (http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/texas-rick-perry-to-fight-indictment-casting-shadow-on-possible-2016-run/)

[Winehole23]

you're posting a ten month old update, why?

[boutons_deux]

you're posting a ten month old update, why?

bump

[boutons_deux]

JimmyRicky has more chance of being convicted than elected :lol

[Winehole23]

A state appeals court on Friday ruled against one of two counts in the indictment against former Gov. Rick Perry (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/rick-perry/).


The 3rd Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin specifically found a problem with the second count, which alleges Perry coerced a public servant. The court upheld the first count, which accuses Perry of abusing his power.


The appeals court was ruling on Perry's challenge to a district court's decision earlier this year not to dismiss the case.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/24/appeals-court-rejects-one-count-perry-indictment/

[Blake]

Poor Perry

[boutons_deux]

State court!! LOL

[RickPerry]

Ooops

[Blake]

Ooops

Mouse/Joe Chalupa/big zax going ham with the sock puppet army

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry Suspends Presidential Campaign
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/11/rick-perry-drops-out-presidential-race/?mc_cid=2c1c18397f&mc_eid=d070f58998