Reply With Quote
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 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.
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.
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 cons utional 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.
At least they now have automated most legal do ents for boilerplate, editing, and printout. I don't even think you are capable of writing out a reasonable argument.
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.
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.
Is that the service you use? And the law you practice is likely someone else's directives as you seem to have neither the a en 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 ing
Like I said...you wanna indict him for corruption then indict him for corruption, not this mickey mouse perfectly legal bull .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.
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.
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.
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
sorry to disappoint cc
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.
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.
axelrod has been on my blacklist for years
I'm sure Axelrod is crushed. Even devastated. He's on Boo's blacklist. Boo ing hoo...
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?
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 mother er 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions