Texas Governor Rick Perry indicted by grand jury

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.