Texas Governor Rick Perry indicted by grand jury

http://kxan.com/2014/08/15/texas-gov...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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

http://kxan.com/2014/08/15/texas-gov...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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

She's not being indicted, RickyBobby is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!!!

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!!!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

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 $

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Lol @ any Dems bitching about abuse of executive power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

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.

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.

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.

"guise of a noble act"

:lol

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

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.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/...iticus+USA+%29

civil ≠ criminal

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

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 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 a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to handle the prosecution.

McCrum, 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 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 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 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 in the criminal statute, which exempts “an official action” taken by “a member of the governing body of a governmental entity.”

Democrats suggest 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 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 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/...ry-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

Tug of War Between Republicans Seeking Same Base Support

http://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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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/polit...fund-grant.ece

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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

---

Not because of this. Don't be disingenuous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

[its the democrats]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons article

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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

---

sorry to disappoint cc :(

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

What is a neckbeard?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

axelrod has been on my blacklist for years

---

:lol your blacklist :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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...s_perspective/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/rick...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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.