...I am actually surprised to see you jump to the conclusion that marikod is an attorney.
Indicted Governor Perry says the Travis County DA should have resigned following her DUI conviction.
He felt so strongly about this that he threatened to veto the funding for the Public Integrity Unit, the agency this elected Democratic official headed that investigates things like awarding contracts to friends and cronies. She just happened to be investigating an award of government contracts to some Perry cronies when this mess happened. H’mm.
When she refused to resign, Perry did veto the funding and them allegedly told her “resign now and I’ll restore funding.” There are allegations that Perry friends offered her a new job as well. H’mm.
The grand jury indicted Gov Perry for misusing government property and for coercion of a public servant.
It’s all a political witchhunt, Gov Perry says, and several clueless members of this Board apparently agree. The only problem with this theory is the Democrats had nothing to do with the indictment - a special prosecutor presented this case to the grand jury and Gov Perry was not in the jury room so he obviously does not actually know if politics played any part. Members of the grand jury have now come forward and denied any political motivation.
Isn’t Gov Perry right from a moral standpoint? How can we allow a DA to stay in office after a DUI conviction?
But the best looking P & R Board posters live in Texas and they know that
drinking, driving, and prosecuting is a kind of a Texas tradition. Two other Republican DAs were convicted of DUI – one for the second time – and Governor Perry said….nothing. A Republican state employee also was convicted of DUI and he got a promotion. H’mm. But maybe it is different if a Democrat drinks and drives.
Governor Perry is going down on this one and deservedly so
I am actually surprised to see you jump to conclusions on a story that is, what Mari, 4-5 days old? And you are an attorney right? Are you sure about that? lol
And you may not be surprised to learn that the Wall Street Journal's editorial page has sided with Perry on this matter but are you aware the NY Times AND Washington Post EP's have joined the WSJ in defense of Perry as well?
Hmmmm....
As for me, you might ask?
I don't know. Gonna wait till I see all the facts and hear out his full legal defense. Crazy huh?
But with those three papers all in agreement, two of them liberal, I kinda like Perry's chances. 
...I am actually surprised to see you jump to the conclusion that marikod is an attorney.
and he certainly has that "attorney like skill" of stating opinions as if they are indisputable "facts"
Not to mention, he loves to come down on the "crazy side" of many arguments. Maybe he is using this place as practice, trying to defend the indefensible?
As to the OP, I take it I am one of the people he is talking about. Mari, rather than spend countless hours debating what may or may not happen in regards to Perry (who I completely detest I might add) lets make a "Real" wager on the outcome.
I bet this will not be Perry's "Waterloo, or Watergate" and that politically he will survive this, you obviously think differently. Well, put your money where your mouth is, and lets bet. I will take any action you care to risk, but no stupid terms like you always attempt to do with ST C, I propose a straight bet, even odds. I say he survives this, you say he doesn't. I'll take any action up to say Ten Grand. Make it easy on yourself. any successful ambulance chaser would go for the full ten grand. an unemployed male porn star OTOH, would most likely want to make a bet along the lines of what Pripussy could afford.
IOW put up, or Shut up. I eagerly await your response.
and BTW, I still have that bottle of Krug. I will be more than happy to drink it with you while collect my winnings from you once this case is resolved and Perry emerges relatively unscathed, and if you opt to wager the whole ten grand, I'll even spring for another bottle with which for you to wash down your sorrows. lmao
high speed rail unless Congressman Darrell Issa resigned? Suppose Mr. Obama said He did not think someone twice indicted for grand larceny should be a Congressman? Suppose Mr. Obama said that Issa’s investigation of the IRS had nothing to do with this veto? You and Fox News would have a meltdown if that happened.
That is what Perry did. The facts needed to convict are basically undisputed. Whether the other allegations will be proved really does not matter. Now I expect Perry’s attys to move to dismiss the indictment on grounds that, although Perry clearly abused his power, this is not a crime. A court may or may not agree with that.
The Times, WSJ and Axelrod don’t really understand the indictment, so you can’t rely on them.
But at the very least, Jack, you should look forward to hearing Perry explain on the campaign trial why he didn’t complain when the Republican DAs were convicted of DUI. I can see it now- “There are three reason why I am not a crook. One, I did the right thing. Two, I’ll do it again, And three, uhh three….. damn I can’t remember.” LOL.
Finally, I don’t know where you keep getting this attorney business. I’ve never said that. Remember, I’m only an Unemployed Porn Star. But even unemployed porn stars understand that you can’t veto public funding to force an elected official to resign.
You should too
Hey Mari,
As an unemployed Porn Star, you COULD run for Governor of California.
(shades of Mary Carey!)
It is now the Boston Globe, WaPo, NY Times, David Axelrod and Alan Dershowitz all rushing to Perry's aid.
In fact, Dershowitz was so outraged by it, he said, "this is what happens in totalitarian societies." Is it your contention now that Dershowitz doesn't "really understand the indictment", too? lol
It's already over Mari, before it even started.
-- Modified on 8/21/2014 11:00:12 AM
He did NOT say that what Perry did was not a crime under Texas law. He said it should not be. He railed against the two statutes under which Perry was indicted. He said they reminded him of the Soviet Union.
Well, fine, but they are still Texas law. In Texas, you commit a crime if you attempt to "coerce" public officials.
Now, Jack, I know you would prefer to take a poll about whether Perry is guilty, LOL, or read media accounts by writers who likewise have not looked at the statute, but let’s break “Jack tradition” and actually look at one of the statutes:
(a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a
specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his
official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to
violate the public servant's known legal duty; or
Coercion in turn is defined as “to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.”
Isn’t that exactly what Perry did? Now you see why a Republican judge felt the allegations met the standard for consideration by a prosecutor; why the prosecutor felt the evidence was sufficient to take to a grand jury; and why the grand jury, instructed on this statute, returned the indictment.
But I’m interested in your viewpoint. Tell me why this criminal statute has not been violated by Perry. I’m listening….
And it is just starting. How much money do you think Perry will be able raise for his presidential bid while under indictment
It should be a slam dunk, easy money on your part. PLUS you would get to suck down a bottle of great champagne while getting the chance to tell me in person just how smart you are/were.
What a great deal for you. Should I count you in on the whole ten grand? Or do you have reservations about your position?
He said the indictment in this specific case was politically motivated only and reminds of the Soviet Union style tactic. You're comfortable with that assessment?
You know the prosecutor has a wide latitude whether or not to indict here so stop playing games. He should have NEVER even brought this to a grand jury.
Seems like you WANT him brought up on trumped up and political charges. YOU think that's good for the country?
Mari, it's BI-PARTISAN support for a right wing Governor. When do you EVER see that happen in politics today? Now Douglass Schoen, Democrat consultant that worked in the Clinton White House has said the indictment is "outrageous."
Lefty Mark Halperin called the indictment "ridiculous" and one of the stupidest things he has seen in his ENTIRE career:
"It's not just kind of funny and ridiculous. But it's an infringement on individual liberty. He's got a first amendment right -- just because he's the governor of Texas. And I think, like I said, it's easy to joke about this, but this is a serious thing. It is ridiculous that he was indicted for this."
There is WIDE and growing support by die hard liberals who HATE Perry and think that that prosecution is absurd.
Gee, why do you think that is??????????????????????????
according to the Huffpo link. Perry picked the judge who chose a Republican judge to handle the grand jury investigation. That judge picked the special prosecutor and decided to pick a special prosecutor for the very purpose of avoiding partisanship claims. Was this all a sham, Jack?
Sure some members of the grand jury are Democrats but the ones who have gone public have denied any political motivation. The special prosecutor has also denied it.
So what facts support your claim that the indictment was political? Can you give me just one? Is this guy wrong? Dershowitz has no facts to the contrary and he agrees with me on the substantive point– Perry violated the statutes. He just thinks the statutes are bad and that Perry’s conduct should not be criminalized. But it is, as I think you know recognize since you can offer no explanation as to how Perry’s conduct did not violate the statute I gave you.
What happened Jack? I thought you were the “let’s get the facts” guy
Boy you really can twist an argument cant you? EVERY one of those liberals have looked at the facts as you supposedly have done and ALL have come to the conclusion that not only shouldn't he be found guilty but it is a travesty of justice to even bring the charges!
Look, you dug yourself a HUGE whole here but you need to stop digging. When BP comes to MY defense, you know you are in trouble.
I honestly don't know the facts. People who are of a mind to NOT give Perry the benefit of the doubt, are not only giving him that benefit but are SIDING with him.
Now liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley has weighed in:
"This indictment is short on the law and even shorter on the facts. It looks like what they call people in Texas who dress up to look like cowboys but have never gotten closer to a steer than a T-bone at an overprized Dallas steakhouse. To put it simply, the Perry indictment is “all hat, no cattle.”
What do all those liberals see that you don't?
Or maybe he is just chicken???
AAR, I am on a plane about to head south to Costa Rica, so if he accepts my gracious offer, it will be a few hours before I respond, BUT if he truly believes his own bullshit, he should step up to the plate and take this "easy money" I am offering. Or as I said earlier, maybe he is just chicken??? lmao
He was too busy disagreeing with EVERY person in this thread, numerous famous liberals, the 3 most prestigious newspapers in the country, constitutional scholars, etc etc etc. Well you get the idea. lol.
I think this is his way of saying he has no interest in taking your bet. Just a hunch.
I'd bet that you are right.
I guess it's one thing to flap your gums on a fuck board, firmly avowing that you are right and the entire rest of the world is wrong, but it's quite another to back up your assertions with cold hard cash.
I guess by his silence, Mari is simply admitting he isn't quite as sure as he claims to be.
Well, fine, but they are still Texas law. In Texas, you commit a crime if you attempt to "coerce" public officials.
Now, Jack, I know you would prefer to take a poll about whether Perry is guilty, LOL, or read media accounts by writers who likewise have not looked at the statute, but let’s break “Jack tradition” and actually look at one of the statutes:
(a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a
specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his
official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to
violate the public servant's known legal duty; or
Coercion in turn is defined as “to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.”
Isn’t that exactly what Perry did? Now you see why a Republican judge felt the allegations met the standard for consideration by a prosecutor; why the prosecutor felt the evidence was sufficient to take to a grand jury; and why the grand jury, instructed on this statute, returned the indictment.
But I’m interested in your viewpoint. Tell me why this criminal statute has not been violated by Perry. I’m listening….
And it is just starting. How much money do you think Perry will be able raise for his presidential bid while under indictment?
Reason: he did not attempt to influence a public servant in the excersise of his or her official power. Only to resign.
That was too much heavy lifting for Jack LOL.
But you parsed the statute incorrectly and you did not read the indictment, did you?
Here is exactly what it says in pertinent part:
“that Perry attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg…in the performance of her official duty: to-wit; the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis….”
So, as you see, inducing the DA to resign is the same as inducing her not to continue to carry out her duties as the DA. That is how the special prosecutor instructed the grand jury- and since the facts are undisputed that Perry did exactly this, the grand jury really had no alternative but to indict.
Conversely, there at present at least are no facts that the investigation and indictment was politically motivated.
Now the statute may be unconstitutional but that is not something either the special prosecutor or grand jury deals with. But you get credit for trying to understand what is going on
"to-wit; the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis….”
LOL - Reach much?
But you parsed the statute incorrectly and you did not read the indictment, did you?
Here is exactly what it says in pertinent part:
“that Perry attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg…in the performance of her official duty: to-wit; the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis….”
So, as you see, inducing the DA to resign is the same as inducing her not to continue to carry out her duties as the DA. That is how the special prosecutor instructed the grand jury- and since the facts are undisputed that Perry did exactly this, the grand jury really had no alternative but to indict.
Conversely, there at present at least are no facts that the investigation and indictment was politically motivated.
Now the statute may be unconstitutional but that is not something either the special prosecutor or grand jury deals with. But you get credit for trying to understand what is going on.
The president has legal authority to veto anything for any reason. No one has made any attempt to incriminate Obama for any of his vetos or veto threats. It has never happened. Obama's violations of the law have nothing to do with vetos.
Fail, sir.
That is what Perry did. The facts needed to convict are basically undisputed. Whether the other allegations will be proved really does not matter. Now I expect Perry’s attys to move to dismiss the indictment on grounds that, although Perry clearly abused his power, this is not a crime. A court may or may not agree with that.
The Times, WSJ and Axelrod don’t really understand the indictment, so you can’t rely on them.
But at the very least, Jack, you should look forward to hearing Perry explain on the campaign trial why he didn’t complain when the Republican DAs were convicted of DUI. I can see it now- “There are three reason why I am not a crook. One, I did the right thing. Two, I’ll do it again, And three, uhh three….. damn I can’t remember.” LOL.
Finally, I don’t know where you keep getting this attorney business. I’ve never said that. Remember, I’m only an Unemployed Porn Star. But even unemployed porn stars understand that you can’t veto public funding to force an elected official to resign.
You should too.
on it tomorrow !
Watch the arrest and processing video of that ugly bitch .
At least to those in the "inner circle". The idea is to get the zombie army all a flutter and attach indictment to his name in the mind of the Low Info Voter. There will be "evidence" that we will never see of Perry's corruption and this will drag on while they explain to us Perry's evil plot. Meanwhile the presidential primary season will come and go. Then they will quietly drop this and accuse some other Republican of something. Then repeat.
Watch the arrest and processing video of that ugly bitch .
He has the legal authority to veto. End of story. This was perpetrated 100% by the Left and the best it will accomplish is to prevent Perry's run for president.
He felt so strongly about this that he threatened to veto the funding for the Public Integrity Unit, the agency this elected Democratic official headed that investigates things like awarding contracts to friends and cronies. She just happened to be investigating an award of government contracts to some Perry cronies when this mess happened. H’mm.
When she refused to resign, Perry did veto the funding and them allegedly told her “resign now and I’ll restore funding.” There are allegations that Perry friends offered her a new job as well. H’mm.
The grand jury indicted Gov Perry for misusing government property and for coercion of a public servant.
It’s all a political witchhunt, Gov Perry says, and several clueless members of this Board apparently agree. The only problem with this theory is the Democrats had nothing to do with the indictment - a special prosecutor presented this case to the grand jury and Gov Perry was not in the jury room so he obviously does not actually know if politics played any part. Members of the grand jury have now come forward and denied any political motivation.
Isn’t Gov Perry right from a moral standpoint? How can we allow a DA to stay in office after a DUI conviction?
But the best looking P & R Board posters live in Texas and they know that
drinking, driving, and prosecuting is a kind of a Texas tradition. Two other Republican DAs were convicted of DUI – one for the second time – and Governor Perry said….nothing. A Republican state employee also was convicted of DUI and he got a promotion. H’mm. But maybe it is different if a Democrat drinks and drives.
Governor Perry is going down on this one and deservedly so.
But then again, he IS photogenic and has that Texan manly-man look about him and can invoke Reagan during photo-ops. And he wasn't the one who named the property Niggerhead.
Seriously, if Perry is the best the GOP has to offer in 2016 then its already over.
This is not going to be what brings him down.
Fortunately, the ooze simply pours out of Perry at a rate that all but the most rabid of righties can see with the naked eye, so I am not too worried about him ever being POTUS. I write off Mari's OP as "wishful thinking" but if he is serious in his delusions that this is really going to bring down Rick Perry, and end his political career. I would be more than happy to profit from it.
Rick Perry will eventually make a blunder that will either end his political career, put him in jail, or both, but this isn't the one.
End of story right? He just is exercising his constitutional right to veto.
His intent does indeed matter – if he commits an independent crime in the process of exercising his constitutional power, he can be prosecuted. That is what the special prosecutor believes he did and what the grand jury concluded. The special prosecutor says he commited crimes.
If he is unable to get the indictment dismissed on grounds that his abuse of power and coercion of a public official are not crimes, he is in trouble
In the legal world imagination land rarely becomes reality. Yes you can make serious accusations, but ther isn't a single fact on your side.
for his presidential bid while under indictment. I predict he will be the first candidate out.
So the indictment is a big deal.
If convicted, I suspect he would get a suspended sentence - don't do it again.
Of course. That's the whole purpose of the indictment.
Austin, TX is among the bluest of cities, no matter what state you're looking at. It's the same DA's office and grand jury system that indicted Tom DeLay in 2005. Same Travis County that later convicted him, except it was all eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.
I doubt it, but if this goes to trial it will end no worse off than DeLay.
For you to suggest this is not pure politics is simply Texas Longhorn excrement.
ou said:
The only problem with this theory is the Democrats had nothing to do with the indictment - a special prosecutor presented this case to the grand jury and Gov Perry was not in the jury room so he obviously does not actually know if politics played any part. Members of the grand jury have now come forward and denied any political motivation.
Didn't Goebbells deny any wrongdoing as well?
At Least One Partisan Dem Sat On Rick Perry Grand Jury