# Rick Perry......Indicted for Abuse of Power !



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

............Mr. Law and Order , Rick Perry was indicted with 2 felony counts by a Grand Jury ! The last Tx Guv to be indicted was 'Pa' Ferguson back in 1917 . The St. of Tx is paying for his defense atty. at $450 an hour . I don't wish anything bad on Mr. Perry , but I would like to see his 'Mug' shot after he is booked into the Slammer . , fordy :huh:


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

fordy said:


> ............Mr. Law and Order , Rick Perry was indicted with 2 felony counts by a Grand Jury ! The last Tx Guv to be indicted was 'Pa' Ferguson back in 1917 . The St. of Tx is paying for his defense atty. at $450 an hour . I don't wish anything bad on Mr. Perry , but I would like to see his 'Mug' shot after he is booked into the Slammer . , fordy :huh:


Indicted by a Democrat Travis County DA department that is notorious for indicting Republicans on baseless charges. All this does is show the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the Democrat party.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

What do you have against Perry so bad Fordy? 
I am just wondering because from the little that I know of him I'd vote for him just because he had the balls to put the National Guard on the border! 
He seems to be the only one with a plan at all. 
Don't really know what that plan is, but there are only two things he can get out of doing what he did with the troops. 
That is either #1;; To try to actually close the border to the best of his abilities, 
#2;; To try this into the White House in 2016. 

And if he can some how start getting something done at the border and seal this country up as it should be, I'll vote for him and campaign for him too! 

But, considering that you are from Texas, I'd like to hear first hand why you don't like him,,,, and my reason for that is because you usually seem to have a good reason for whatever your view of whatever is, and I pretty much respect your take on most things. 

Godspeed

Ranger


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

Or maybe a link showing what the charges are?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Wait, he wanted someone on an integrity committee to step down after doing something showing a lack of integrity... and refused to fund the committee unless they did...

I don't see the issue here. He did what was right. If the head of an integrity committee has no integrity, you get rid of them. 

The lawsuit seems to me to be a junk lawsuit in retaliation for him doing his job when the committee would not do its and remove this person.

Link to the story

There are a lot of things I don't like about Perry, however he has the man parts to stand up to DC. For that I will give him the benefit of doubt.


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

Rick said:


> Or maybe a link showing what the charges are?



http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges

...accused of abusing his powers by promising to veto $7.5 million for the state public integrity unit at the Travis County D. A's office, then indicted by an Austin grand jury Friday....

Perry had said he'd veto the funding if the D.A. Rosemary Lehmberg, who had recently been convicted of drunken driving didn't resign. 

The state's Public Integrity Unit operates out of her office.

Lehmberg refused, and Perry carried out his veto, drawing an ethics complaint.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Glade Runner said:


> Indicted by a Democrat Travis County DA department that is notorious for indicting Republicans on baseless charges. All this does is show the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the Democrat party.


 .............Yes , it is definitely a political indictment ! , fordy


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

BadFordRanger said:


> What do you have against Perry so bad Fordy?
> I am just wondering because from the little that I know of him I'd vote for him just because he had the balls to put the National Guard on the border!
> He seems to be the only one with a plan at all.
> Don't really know what that plan is, but there are only two things he can get out of doing what he did with the troops.
> ...


 .............I have mixed emotions about R.Perry ! He has been in office for almost 16 years , 4 consecutive terms . My personal point of view is that he is a RINO.....republican in name only . And , I don't think he would make a very good chief executive...........although he would be a thousand times better than what we have currently . , fordy


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

fordy said:


> ............Mr. Law and Order , Rick Perry was indicted with 2 felony counts by a Grand Jury ! The last Tx Guv to be indicted was 'Pa' Ferguson back in 1917 . The St. of Tx is paying for his defense atty. at $450 an hour . I don't wish anything bad on Mr. Perry , but I would like to see his 'Mug' shot after he is booked into the Slammer . , fordy :huh:


You do remember Tom Delay. Same Democrat playbook.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MJsLady said:


> I don't see the issue here. He did what was right.


This is precisely what's wrong with the 'holier than thou' attitude. It's not ok for Perry to break the law just because he passing judgment over someone else who broke the law.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

From the info I can find, he didn't break the law.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

The question is.......when will the round up the ret of the gov. Crooks?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> I don't see the issue here. He did what was right.


 Yes he did. Now how many here can see this is the same liberal activity ass what happened in WI. in Madison with the left with our Governor Walker. THEY the left are not satisfied till they dreamt up charges against some Republican. So Austin is like Madison WI liberals galore, Liberals gone wild.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This is precisely what's wrong with the 'holier than thou' attitude. It's not ok for Perry to break the law just because he passing judgment over someone else who broke the law.


But your ok with Obama and Holder breaking the law?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> This is precisely what's wrong with the 'holier than thou' attitude. It's not ok for Perry to break the law just because he passing judgment over someone else who broke the law.


You'll have to show me where it is written in the Texas constitution that there are ANY restrictions on a governor's right to veto a bill. If you can't, your point is moot.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

No AK I don't believe he did. He had the authority to veto, he vetoed. 

Everyone is saying he needs to resign after just being indicted. Not even convicted, not even tried yet. 
She was jailed, only served 1/2 of her term, cussed and threw a hissy fit in jail and they won't force her to resign?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

To me, this woman is a typical liberal fanatic! And typical of their behavior.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Perry was getting way to much positive notoriety for his use of the National Guard on the border. Just like every other Republican Presidential potential candidate who shows any sign of generating some impetus with the voters, the dems have to find a way to smear him. Christy in NJ, Walker in WI, now Perry in TX all got the bullseye on their backs right after they became the apparent front runner.

Can't wait to see what they try when Dr. Carson announces.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Even if he is not gulity here, how many other crimes has he committed, just like most other politicians out there, no matter which crooked party they belong to


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

haley1 said:


> Even if he is not gulity here, how many other crimes has he committed, just like most other politicians out there, no matter which crooked party they belong to


Just like you or me. How many times did we speed before we got a ticket? It doesn't matter. We all break laws, AKA committing crimes, all the time but seldom get caught. To say Perry committed 2, 5, 10, 100, or 1000 crimes would be pure speculation on anyone's part. I didn't support him for president, but I think he is a pretty decent guy. At least he wasn't caught on video being a drunk jerk like she was. She should resign out of shame if nothing else. I know, democrats have no shame. BTW, I think more of Perry now than I did before.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

I think he was right in asking her to step down. How do you prosecute people for drunk driving and then go out and get drunk and get behind the wheel? Then after you get caught your going to prosecute people for the same offense again? We all make mistakes and yes maybe we all break a law here and there but few of us break a law and then have to go back to work to prosecute people for breaking the same law.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> This is precisely what's wrong with the 'holier than thou' attitude.
> It's not ok for Perry to break the law just because he passing
> judgment over someone else who broke the law.


++++++++++++++++++++
that he has broken ANY law in Texas. I've told you in the other 
related thread in the political forum, that an indictment is NOT a conviction. 
And so far we still have the presumption of innocence in this country UNTIL
there's been a trial in a legal court of law and a subsequent verdict rendered 
either by a judge or a jury of his peers and been found guilty or not.

Then and only then can you state emphatically, whether he broke the law.

I'd be willing to bet that you haven't even read thru the Texas statutes regarding 
the various charges that he's been accused of breaking and then comparing them 
to the known 'facts' of the case.....only an idiot continues to maintain someone broke 
the law when they haven't bothered to examine the facts in the case.....either that or they have a political axe to grind.

I'm leaning towards the latter in your case.:nono::nono::nono:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

This was purely a political move, and I predict it is going to backfire on the Ds. Perry has the moral high ground here. Even if he committed a "technicality", what he was attempting to do was for the good of the public, the state, etc. He had nothing to gain, so guess who looks petty in this little standoff? Ms. Drunken DA should have resigned. I'm guessing hers is an elected position and the voters didn't recall her?

I'm not familiar enough with the law to have an opinion on whether Perry was 100% legal and solidly within his powers or not. But even if he wasn't, he did the wrong thing for the right reasons and that is going to resonate with the public a lot better than this "revenge" indictment. 

Now with that being said, I don't want to see him as a presidential candidate again. VP maybe, but he's not sharp enough to be Prez.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> He had nothing to gain, so guess who looks petty in this little standoff?.


He may have had something to gain...the unit he vetoed the funding for was investigating some things related to him already. But I think you're right that he will win the perception side of this, and rightly so. Even if he had something to gain, he was at least more in the right than her, and from reading the indictment and the statutes, I highly doubt he even violated the law on even a technicality.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

I think that everyone should go back to MJsLady's post #5 and watch the links and "ALL" the video's before making another statement. 

Now think about this. They are not going after Perry because he vetoed the 7.5 M, but because he told her that he would if she didn't resign, and he did. 
I guess they are looking at it as if he threatened her by doing that. 
I don't see it as that. I think he simply gave her an option and carried out what he said he'd do. 
I don't see where the indictment has any grounds whatsoever. 
It seems to me that the jerks that took the indictment out on him needs one their selves for spending public money for this stupid BS.

It isn't nothing but politics and I am praying that it will fly back into the democrats faces shortly. 

Godspeed

Ranger


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> This is precisely what's wrong with the 'holier than thou' attitude. It's not ok for Perry to break the law just because he passing judgment over someone else who broke the law.


But you don't mind Obama breaking the law and being a dirtbag?
This is just the same thing the democrats do to all opposition, they make the accusations, fool the stupid people and never have to prove a thing.
Democrats are nasty


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> But you don't mind Obama breaking the law and being a dirtbag?
> This is just the same thing the democrats do to all opposition, they make the accusations, fool the stupid people and never have to prove a thing.
> Democrats are nasty


People are nasty. Which is why, I can't wait to see Rick's mugshot in the paper as he prepares to serve if he doesn't win his appeal.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> But you don't mind Obama breaking the law and being a dirtbag?
> This is just the same thing the democrats do to all opposition, they make the accusations, fool the stupid people and never have to prove a thing.
> Democrats are nasty


Ah yes but what really would drake most happy in this country if Obama was not only impeached but a nice jail sent ice to go alone with all the illegal things HE has done. Perry is not going to see this very far at all. there is nothing here but a witch hunt because the left is seeing him move up the ladder for POTUS and they HATE THAT. LOL


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

supernovae said:


> People are nasty. Which is why, I can't wait to see Rick's mugshot in the paper as he prepares to serve if he doesn't win his appeal.


That's an odd thing to say. What makes you think he will need an appeal? Kind of putting the cart before the horse there.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.............I believe that the indictment will , ultimately , be thrown out ! , fordy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

fordy said:


> .............I believe that the indictment will , ultimately , be thrown out ! , fordy


Perry may be found not guilty, but I don't think the case will be dismissed as a frivolous indictment. Perry's best defense at this point is to claim that he didn't understand the law so there was no criminal intent.

I don't think that a defense that contends his coercing the DA to resign was the right thing to do is going to fly. That seems to be his strategy right now, but that defense shows an obvious attitude that it's OK for the governor to break the law. I also don't think Perry harping on the suggestion that the DA had it coming is a good strategy either. Perry might be able to rally his supporters with that kind of talk, but I don't think those strategies will do well in court.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Perry may be found not guilty, but I don't think the case will be dismissed as a frivolous indictment. Perry's best defense at this point is to claim that he didn't understand the law so there was no criminal intent.
> 
> I don't think that a defense that contends his coercing the DA to resign was the right thing to do is going to fly. That seems to be his strategy right now, but that defense shows an obvious attitude that it's OK for the governor to break the law. I also don't think Perry harping on the suggestion that the DA had it coming is a good strategy either. Perry might be able to rally his supporters with that kind of talk, but I don't think those strategies will do well in court.


You've been shown the statute, the part you conveniently chose to ignore, and yet you say this? Why should he say there was no criminal intent when no crime was committed? He was well within the law and by vetoing the bill, he saved 9 million dollars which was being wasted on any department charged with enforcing public ethics but run by a hateful alcoholic like that woman. Yes, she is an alcoholic because no occasional drinker would be walking with a blood alcohol level over 3 times the legal limit. She has built up a tolerance to alcohol over time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> You've been shown the statute, the part you conveniently chose to ignore, and yet you say this? Why should he say there was no criminal intent when no crime was committed? He was well within the law and by vetoing the bill, he saved 9 million dollars which was being wasted on any department charged with enforcing public ethics but run by a hateful alcoholic like that woman. Yes, she is an alcoholic because no occasional drinker would be walking with a blood alcohol level over 3 times the legal limit. She has built up a tolerance to alcohol over time.


Why does the DA's behavior excuse Perry using coercion? Because she deserved it and had it coming? Does the statute make an exception for using coercion on people who deserve it?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Why does the DA's behavior excuse Perry using coercion? Because she deserved it and had it coming? Does the statute make an exception for using coercion on people who deserve it?


********************************************
if ALL public officials across the country, were under a sacred obligation
and oath, that if convicted of any malfeasance while in office, that they
be required to resign their position forthwith. Unfortunately, this would 
put most of Chicago, New York and other strongholds of the democratic
party into an immediate shut-down from whence there would be no ability 
to get the machine going again. In case you've forgotten the definition of 
what we're discussing: *Malfeasance* in office, or official misconduct, is the 
commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the
performance of official duties. The D.A. should have done the decent thing and resigned. 
Unfortunately, she and the party don't understand the concept of what is or is not 'decent'.
She really had no further business being apart of the state Public Integrity Unit, 
where the possibly of her unduly influencing other members of the committee 
were likely to happen. If she truly cared for the people of Texas, she should 
have resigned, right then and there.....but alas; morals and ethics seem to be 
a foreign concept to those corrupt individuals who have betrayed the people 
they have sworn a trust to and shamed their own names in the process.

Of course when they are the kind of raging alcoholic as the videos clearly show, 
there is little more to be shamed and just made Perry's job all the more difficult in trying 
to get her do the right thing. And as we've seen, the threat of a veto didn't budge her either.

May the eyes of *TEXAS* be upon her now, more than ever.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Why does the DA's behavior excuse Perry using coercion? Because she deserved it and had it coming? Does the statute make an exception for using coercion on people who deserve it?


I didn't say it excused anything. I said he did the right thing, had the legal right to do it, and needed no excuse to do it.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I, honestly, don't see as though Perry did anything wrong.
He flat out told her he would veto funding for her office that oversees the ETHICS committee due to her UNETHICcal actions if she didn't resign.
That said, I am about 90% positive this was also somewhat a political move. Not that i think it is right, but I highly doubt there is any higher ranking politician in the country that hasnt based decision making choices on facts AND political lines.
Like I said, I think he was within his rights and did the right thing, but, if it were a republican, chances are he wouldn't have made the same choices. Although, if he has his sights set on DC, he might very well have made the same choices, regardless of political party, this close to campaign season.


----------



## Boo8meR (Aug 10, 2014)

And on the other hand, if Perry were a democrat, we wouldn't even be hearing about it because Austin would have done nothing.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> You've been shown the statute, the part you conveniently chose to ignore, and yet you say this? Why should he say there was no criminal intent when no crime was committed? He was well within the law and by vetoing the bill, he saved 9 million dollars which was being wasted on any department charged with enforcing public ethics but run by a hateful alcoholic like that woman. Yes, she is an alcoholic because no occasional drinker would be walking with a blood alcohol level over 3 times the legal limit. She has built up a tolerance to alcohol over time.


He says it for the same reason he says Obama bowed to Rs to form obummerUncare. He will not see truth in ANY fact if it's not D leaning.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Why does the DA's behavior excuse Perry using coercion? Because she deserved it and had it coming? Does the statute make an exception for using coercion on people who deserve it?


If we jailed all politicians who used threats to get things done, Obama would be serving 12 life sentences, Holder would have to be executed and most of Obama's czars would be wanted fugitives.
Perry didn't break the law unless Obamaco did.
(You people can't have it both ways.)


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Boo8meR said:


> And on the other hand, if Perry were a democrat, we wouldn't even be hearing about it because Austin would have done nothing.


It pays to own the corrupt attorney general.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I didn't say it excused anything. I said he did the right thing, had the legal right to do it, and needed no excuse to do it.


That's a good point; Perry didn't need an excuse to do it. If Perry would have said nothing and vetoed the funding this wouldn't be an issue. The only reason it might have been illegal is because he made a threat.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> If we jailed all politicians who used threats to get things done, Obama would be serving 12 life sentences, Holder would have to be executed and most of Obama's czars would be wanted fugitives.
> Perry didn't break the law unless Obamaco did.
> (You people can't have it both ways.)


Can you give me an example of Obama doing the same thing?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Can you give me an example of Obama doing the same thing?


It's well known (by people who don't get their news from MSNBC) Obamaco bribed, coerced and blackmailed votes and support for his insurance scam.
Can you imagine if a Republican had sold guns to Mexican drug cartels or had the IRS destroy emails?
Obama may not have asked someone to step down because they are drunken fools, but he's not the innocent golden child you seem to think he is.
You know as well as I do that this is just another of the left's baseless character assassination attempts that became the staple of the Obama campaigns.
Just dimmerkratts being nasty little politicians.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> It's well known (by people who don't get their news from MSNBC) Obamaco bribed, coerced and blackmailed votes and support for his insurance scam.


Which public official did Obama coerce?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> If we jailed all politicians who used threats to get things done, Obama would be serving 12 life sentences, Holder would have to be executed and most of Obama's czars would be wanted fugitives.
> Perry didn't break the law unless Obamaco did.
> (You people can't have it both ways.)


Nothing like Obama intimidated the Supreme Court to PASS that horrible ACA thingy. Nice of Obama to say YOU PASS OR ELSE. Now if that doesn't make Obama doing not only the same thing but even worse as it effects the entire NATION.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Which public official did Obama coerce?


How about threatening cutting off funds to states that didn't goose step into Obamacare?
How about sending Rahm Emanuel to intimidate?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276969
Your Obama is a Chicago thug, he's for sale, and he's ruthless.
Of course when your thugs run the DOJ, you can do what you want.
Again, this thing against Perry is nothing more than the nasty little dems being nasty little dems.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> How about threatening cutting off funds to states that didn't goose step into Obamacare?
> How about sending Rahm Emanuel to intimidate?
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276969
> Your Obama is a Chicago thug, he's for sale, and he's ruthless.
> ...


We're not talking about political horse trading, we're talking about coercion.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> We're not talking about political horse trading, we're talking about coercion.


:rotfl:


----------



## Boo8meR (Aug 10, 2014)

Nevada said:


> We're not talking about political horse trading, we're talking about coercion.




A rose by any other name...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Perry doesn't even need a defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the statutes don't apply to what he did. The first count of the indictment is a complete joke, while the second will take approximately 30 seconds for a jury to understand it does not apply.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

OK, Nevada...

Perry has an official duty to see that state funds are spent effectively and to further the public interest. As you have repeatedly said, there was nothing wrong with his veto because it is his constitutionally authorized power. So those that indicted him for supposedly abusing his power are in fact interfering with "a public servant's known legal duty"? Aren't those that indict guilty of the crime they are attempting to prosecute?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> Perry doesn't even need a defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the statutes don't apply to what he did. The first count of the indictment is a complete joke, while the second will take approximately 30 seconds for a jury to understand it does not apply.


 .............What may happen will be the 'OJ Jury' in reverse ! Austin is saturated with Dems , IF a Jury is picked from the Austin area the Prosecutor will have a much easier time in getting a conviction . 
..............That FOB(fat ole.....) DA caught and charged with a DWI got off lightly and still has her job . How is that possible when she was charged with a felony?........Answer.........She was going to prosecute herself , she was in charge of deciding what charges would apply , or her assistant was . fordy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> OK, Nevada...
> 
> Perry has an official duty to see that state funds are spent effectively and to further the public interest. As you have repeatedly said, there was nothing wrong with his veto because it is his constitutionally authorized power. So those that indicted him for supposedly abusing his power are in fact interfering with "a public servant's known legal duty"? Aren't those that indict guilty of the crime they are attempting to prosecute?


No, the indictment doesn't charge him with vetoing an item without authority. That's not the issue. The issue is the threat he made to coerce the DA into resigning.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

fordy said:


> .............What may happen will be the 'OJ Jury' in reverse ! Austin is saturated with Dems , IF a Jury is picked from the Austin area the Prosecutor will have a much easier time in getting a conviction .


Perry could be fighting an uphill battle in that courtroom.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> We're not talking about political horse trading, we're talking about coercion.


So when your idiot of a "president" does it it's ok, and we call it political horse trading?
Baloney, just another excuse from the party of excuses.
You are backing the bad guys and won't admit it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Perry could be fighting an uphill battle in that courtroom.


Because of the corrupt lefties
Jim Jones's cult members were certainly no stupider than Obama's fan club.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> So when your idiot of a "president" does it it's ok, and we call it political horse trading?
> Baloney, just another excuse from the party of excuses.
> You are backing the bad guys and won't admit it.


They put Rod Blagojevich in prison for playing political hardball.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> No, the indictment doesn't charge him with vetoing an item without authority. That's not the issue. The issue is the threat he made to coerce the DA into resigning.


And you did not address my comment. The prosecutor of Perry is interfering with the legal duties of the gov. That prosecutor is guilty of that which he has charged Perry.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> They put Rod Blagojevich in prison for playing political hardball.


And even lefty MSNBC hosts disagree with you. Even Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Alan-Dershowitz-Rick-Perry-indictment/2014/08/18/id/589413/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_The indictment of Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry over abuse of powers is reminiscent of the way that political dissent was handled in the Soviet Union, legal scholar and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV's "America's Forum." Dershowitz, who make clear he would never vote for Rick Perry, said the governor's indictment was driven by politics and is representative of "what happens in totalitarian societies." He said disagreement with Perry's actions is "not the basis of what a criminal charge should be," adding that Americans have the ability to "vote against him" if they don't like his actions. _


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> And you did not address my comment. The prosecutor of Perry is interfering with the legal duties of the gov. That prosecutor is guilty of that which he has charged Perry.


Nobody is preventing Perry from vetoing items.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Nobody is preventing Perry from vetoing items.


But they are interfering with his official duties by mixing a criminal process with a political process.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Perry could be fighting an uphill battle in that courtroom.


And Perry could be a space alien.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

fordy said:


> .............What may happen will be the 'OJ Jury' in reverse ! Austin is saturated with Dems , IF a Jury is picked from the Austin area the Prosecutor will have a much easier time in getting a conviction .
> ..............That FOB(fat ole.....) DA caught and charged with a DWI got off lightly and still has her job . How is that possible when she was charged with a felony?........Answer.........She was going to prosecute herself , she was in charge of deciding what charges would apply , or her assistant was . fordy


I didn't think of the jury pool...that could be a problem. But if a jury convicts him of this nonsensical charge, I highly doubt it will be upheld on appeal. It is clear to just about everyone who isn't involved in the political games that it is just that, political games.

I think the DA's offense was a misdemeanor. Otherwise, she could be disbarred.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I didn't think of the jury pool...that could be a problem.


If they can indict a ham sandwich then they can convict a ham sandwich. I suggest that Perry take this seriously.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> I didn't think of the jury pool...that could be a problem. But if a jury convicts him of this nonsensical charge, I highly doubt it will be upheld on appeal. It is clear to just about everyone who isn't involved in the political games that it is just that, political games.
> 
> I think the DA's offense was a misdemeanor. Otherwise, she could be disbarred.


In some states even a misdemeanor DUI can be grounds for disbarment. Maybe someone from TX has info on if it applies and what the process is.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> If they can indict a ham sandwich then they can convict a ham sandwich. I suggest that Perry take this seriously.


Someone please please please notify the Texas Governor's office immediately! Nevada, who refuses to read the entire law in question, is offering legal advice. Alert the media!

Nevada, would you care to explain why the part of the law that exempts gov't officials is not in play? Or would you care to explain why Alan Dershowitz, of Harvard law no less, is so inept as to not agree with your keen legal opinion?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Someone please please please notify the Texas Governor's office immediately! Nevada, who refuses to read the entire law in question, is offering legal advice. Alert the media!
> 
> Nevada, would you care to explain why the part of the law that exempts gov't officials is not in play? Or would you care to explain why Alan Dershowitz, of Harvard law no less, is so inept as to not agree with your keen legal opinion?


That portion of the law allows for political horsetrading while negotiating bills. The intent is clear. It does not provide for pressuring public servants to resign.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That portion of the law allows for political horsetrading while negotiating bills. The intent is clear. It does not provide for pressuring public servants to resign.


and can you show me the words that lead you to this conclusion, Barister Nevada? Or is it something you made up to support your insupportable position?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> If they can indict a ham sandwich then they can convict a ham sandwich. I suggest that Perry take this seriously.


If they can convict a ham sandwich, then a conviction is meaningless.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> and can you show me the words that lead you to this conclusion, Barister Nevada? Or is it something you made up to support your insupportable position?


This is clearly personal on the part of the prosecution, and I suspect it is also personal for Nevada...he just hates Rick Perry for some odd reason. I can't imagine being so incredibly biased against someone I don't even know.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> and can you show me the words that lead you to this conclusion, Barister Nevada? Or is it something you made up to support your insupportable position?


Sure. The last sentence in the statute section spells that out.

_For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity._
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.5AEOgw56.dpuf

While I don't have access to the annotated statutes of Texas, the intent in nevertheless clear.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Sure. The last sentence in the statute section spells that out.
> 
> _For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity._
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.5AEOgw56.dpuf
> ...


So you think Dershowitz and Turley (both liberal highly educated legal experts) are wrong? They're saying the law was used contrary to its clear intent.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> This is clearly personal on the part of the prosecution, and I suspect it is also personal for Nevada...he just hates Rick Perry for some odd reason. I can't imagine being so incredibly biased against someone I don't even know.


I don't hate Rick Perry. But he does give me the creeps.

At any rate, he should have known better than to make a public threat and back it up with public funds. His moral gyroscope should have told him there was something not right about that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> So you think Dershowitz and Turley (both liberal highly educated legal experts) are wrong? They're saying the law was used contrary to its clear intent.


As I said, I don't have access to the annotated statutes so I can't say for sure.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Sure. The last sentence in the statute section spells that out.
> 
> _For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity._
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.5AEOgw56.dpuf
> ...


(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

(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.

(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body.* For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.
*

You note the last sentence is bolded and is irrelevant to Perry. It does not say the statute is limited to, it says includes, which means other items also are included. 

You do agree that the gov is a member of a governing body? You do agree that using his office to veto is an official duty? You do agree that he can ask an official to resign? So according to your previous comments, you simply think he can't talk about it prior and combine asking for a resignation and a veto? 

I agree juries can be unpredictable, but would you care to place a wager on a conviction surviving appeal?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> And Perry could be a space alien.


As a Texan myself,that would explain a lot. :runforhills:

Seriously though I like Rick Perry, I think he's one of the good guy's. He hasn't done a lot, but then that's the best kind of government isn't it? A government that does not legislate every aspect of your life.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> It does not say the statute is limited to, it says includes, which means other items also are included.


Well then, we can just exclude everyone from the law.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, the indictment doesn't charge him with vetoing an item without authority. That's not the issue. The issue is the threat he made to coerce the DA into resigning.


Which, based on the code you use, doesn't matter. All that matters with those is if he was trying to use his power to influence how she did her official duties. He didn't tell her to either drop or bring a case or he'd veto her budget. 

He merely told her he felt she was not responsible enough to be trusted with public funds and he would not release them if she was still in office to control them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They put Rod Blagojevich in prison for playing political hardball.


No they put him away because he was demanding payment for a governmental action. 

Telling a government employee you no longer trust them to handle government funds and that you will not put funds into their hands is a different critter all together.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I didn't think of the jury pool...that could be a problem. But if a jury convicts him of this nonsensical charge, I highly doubt it will be upheld on appeal. It is clear to just about everyone who isn't involved in the political games that it is just that, political games.
> 
> I think the DA's offense was a misdemeanor. Otherwise, she could be disbarred.


I don't know about TX but in a lot of states you don't need to be a member of the bar to be a DA nor even a judge. Or at least it used to be that way.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If they can indict a ham sandwich then they can convict a ham sandwich. I suggest that Perry take this seriously.


True but not usually. A good many cases like this are tossed as soon as they go before a judge.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't hate Rick Perry. But he does give me the creeps.
> 
> At any rate, he should have known better than to make a public threat and back it up with public funds. His moral gyroscope should have told him there was something not right about that.


You'd feel better about him if he did it behind closed doors? THAT would bother me much more.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You'd feel better about him if he did it behind closed doors? THAT would bother me much more.


Yes. Making his threat public was where he crossed the line.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Yes. Making his threat public was where he crossed the line.


Wow, and now I have lost even more respect for you.
I would much rather openly know what a person is about, have them be open and honest, not sneaking around in the shadows.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Wow, and now I have lost even more respect for you.
> I would much rather openly know what a person is about, have them be open and honest, not sneaking around in the shadows.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. How do we enforce coercion if we don't know about it?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. How do we enforce coercion if we don't know about it?


Why aren't you complaining about Obama and his "pen"? Ah yes, because Perry is a conservative! It makes sense! You love Obama so he gets a pass, you hate conservatives, so Perry is guilty, even though liberal law professors say this is purely political!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Well then, we can just exclude everyone from the law.


or we can exclude public officials doing the job the are supposed to do...you know...like the law says.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Sure. The last sentence in the statute section spells that out.
> 
> _For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity._
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.5AEOgw56.dpuf
> ...


Wait a sec....I think I finally figured out where you are going wrong. You think the last sentence of the law applies to the whole law and not the subsection c. Subsection c says who is *EX*cluded from the law, public officials doing their job. For you to be right, the jury has to think that it is not a part of the gov job to root out corrupt or ethically compromised officials. Is that your position?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> No they put him away because he was demanding payment for a governmental action.
> 
> Telling a government employee you no longer trust them to handle government funds and that you will not put funds into their hands is a different critter all together.


Bingo. Of course you are right, but Nevada prefers his superficial comparison. Even on MSNBC I have not heard anyone make the same comparison as Nevada, because it is so far from reality and inaccurate.


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Yes. Making his threat public was where he crossed the line.


Not a threat, Call it a promise.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> This is clearly personal on the part of the prosecution, and I suspect it is also personal for Nevada...he just hates Rick Perry for some odd reason. I can't imagine being so incredibly biased against someone I don't even know.


He hates all who oppose Obamaco


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wally said:


> Not a threat, Call it a promise.


Either way, he was using coercion to get her to resign.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Either way, he was using coercion to get her to resign.


do you think coercion is necessarily a crime? Yes, he used political force to get her to do something she did not otherwise want to do. That is indeed coercion. But as you have repeatedly said, he acted within his official powers. Threatening to use your official powers is not a crime.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't hate Rick Perry. But he does give me the creeps.


I'll take your word that you don't hate him, but I can't figure out why you're so gung ho in favor of his prosecution...it seems irrational.



Nevada said:


> Yes. Making his threat public was where he crossed the line.


Well that's just crazy. Making it public is what makes it obvious that he had no criminal intent. If he had tried to do it privately, that would actually be a better case against him, though still not much of a case. Blago did what he did in secret because he believed it was wrong. Perry did what he did in public because he believed it was right.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

The more I read and think about this case, the more I think if there is anything at all to the charges, it's based on private conversations and not the public threat. The public threat may just be the focus because it's what everyone knows about. I still doubt that the statutes would apply, but it makes no sense whatsoever if the offense was the public threat.

The special prosecutor is supposedly non-political, but was a republican at one time. He is said to be very thorough and fair. And he was appointed by a republican judge. Of course none of that means anything solid...heck, Perry was a democrat before. I am just not so sure that it's entirely politically motivated, although what started the process to the special prosecutor being appointed in the first place certainly was.

Anyway, I couldn't care less about Perry, but I think his public threat which he followed through on was absolutely the right thing to do. His political career is ruined (maybe...the indictment is actually helping him at the moment) but it was almost over anyway. He isn't running for another term and he wasn't going to be president, so what else is there. I don't expect his legal problems to ruin his retirement.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> As a Texan myself,that would explain a lot. :runforhills:
> 
> Seriously though I like Rick Perry, I think he's one of the good guy's. He hasn't done a lot, but then that's the best kind of government isn't it? A government that does not legislate every aspect of your life.


There's the key, right there...he hasn't done a lot. Don't ya think he may have learned something after the vaccinations for venereal wart fiasco?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Threatening to use your official powers is not a crime.


Are you sure? What does the annotated Texas statutes say about that?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Are you sure? What does the annotated Texas statutes say about that?


I should not answer your Q because you almost always dodge or ignore mine, but regardless...

I can't find the annotated laws online, just giving a reasoned response. Think about it. By your interpretation, in each of the following cases, the gov't official would be committing a crime. In each case a gov't official is using a threat of the use of the powers of his office to coerce a citizen into doing something not in his self interests:

a cop says I'm going to write you a ticket unless you pick up your litter

a school board member says we are going to cut the football program unless you voters approve a school bond

Obama threatens to close Nat Parks unless the Repubs approve his budget

an IRS agent says the IRS will issue a fine if you take a certain deduction...heck, an IRS agent simply reading the tax code out loud would be guilty of a crime

Recall that guy in WI (maybe) who created a pond in his back yard with state approval but some fed agency threatened to fine him $75K / day if he did not remove the dam.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> There's the key, right there...he hasn't done a lot. Don't ya think he may have learned something after the vaccinations for venereal wart fiasco?


Thanks for that reminder; I had forgotten about that. That showed his deeply held belief in using gov't force to achieve a social goal and is the reason I wasn't a fan of Perry for Pres in 2012. In my defense of Perry on the OP issue, it is not because I'm a fan of repubs or of Perry.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> I should not answer your Q because you almost always dodge or ignore mine, but regardless...


Believe it or not I have things to do. I kill a little time here at HT but HT is not the reason I'm online all day. Don't take my coming & going personally.



DEKE01 said:


> I can't find the annotated laws online, just giving a reasoned response.


I'm not aware of any state's annotated statutes being online. Typically CD versions are around $2000 and bound editions are more like $5000, just for one state. They're not going to give that away.



DEKE01 said:


> Think about it. By your interpretation, in each of the following cases, the gov't official would be committing a crime. In each case a gov't official is using a threat of the use of the powers of his office to coerce a citizen into doing something not in his self interests:
> 
> a cop says I'm going to write you a ticket unless you pick up your litter
> 
> ...


Trying to force a public servant to resign is different. I think you'll see that in court.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I think we'll find out trying to force her out isn't why he was indicted. It probably has something to do with offering her another job in exchange for her resignation. I still don't see it ruining Perry's retirement, though.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I think we'll find out trying to force her out isn't why he was indicted. It probably has something to do with offering her another job in exchange for her resignation.


I haven't heard anything about that. Do you have more?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I haven't heard anything about that. Do you have more?


Just rumors and a gut feeling there's something to it...it would make more sense than the public threat being the issue. The indictment is too vague to really know. It cites a threat to veto, but doesn't say it's the public threat. No mention of a job offer, though. But there is obviously a lot more than is included in the indictment.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Rumors from who though? Folks who know or folks who wish it is so and will do all they can to pin jello to a wall


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Found a source...still no names: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/politics/article/Perry-aides-offered-Lehmberg-a-job-for-resignation-5427558.php

I still don't think it would be illegal if it's true he offered her a job, but it makes a lot more sense than the idea that the public threat was what got him indicted under the statutes they used.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Well if he offered her a job, that would show he was trying to give her a second chance. 
He is correct that she is unfit to serve in her current capacity. 
He has done the right and above board thing on this all along. 
If he offered her another job, that to me does not ring in as having threatened her. When you threaten some one you generally do not do so graciously agreeing to fill their place with a person of their choosing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Found a source...still no names: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ed-Lehmberg-a-job-for-resignation-5427558.php
> 
> I still don't think it would be illegal if it's true he offered her a job, but it makes a lot more sense than the idea that the public threat was what got him indicted under the statutes they used.


According to the article the offer was made by a judge, and he did not directly communicate with Perry during negotiations.

_Biscoe added that he had never directly communicated with either Perry or his staff during the talks._

This sounds like the judge was fishing for what she might accept, as opposed to a firm offer from the governor's office. In any case, it doesn't look like we can connect that offer directly to Perry. In all fairness I have to give Perry a pass on this one.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I suspect the job offered by the judge did not fit her needs. He should have offered her a job as a beer taster at a local brewery.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> According to the article the offer was made by a judge, and he did not directly communicate with Perry during negotiations.
> 
> _Biscoe added that he had never directly communicated with either Perry or his staff during the talks._
> 
> This sounds like the judge was fishing for what she might accept, as opposed to a firm offer from the governor's office. In any case, it doesn't look like we can connect that offer directly to Perry. In all fairness I have to give Perry a pass on this one.


You misread that. The judge was a source...he was told that the offer was made. It doesn't say he was the one who made the offer.



> Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe confirmed that Perry's office had said that Lehmberg would be replaced with another Democrat who was currently working in the District Attorney's office.
> 
> &#8220;*Then the offer was made, I was told, that the Governor would appoint a Democrat*, and preferably one already working in the DA's office,&#8221; he said.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

poppy said:


> I suspect the job offered by the judge did not fit her needs. He should have offered her a job as a beer taster at a local brewery.


Seems vodka is more her style.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

poppy said:


> I suspect the job offered by the judge did not fit her needs. He should have offered her a job as a beer taster at a local brewery.


 ...............She prefers Vodka !,fordy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

It seem that republicans are trying very hard to turn the story around to the DA's misdeeds. The fact that she might have deserved to lose her job is not relevant to the question of whether Perry's coercion might have been illegal.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I can help with that....
It wasn't.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..............Her job is an elected position I believe , so the voters will have the final sayso ! , fordy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Perry is supposed to surrender today to be booked (fingerprint, mug shot, and what not). His first court appearance is scheduled for Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/politics/perry-indictment-booked/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Perry is supposed to surrender today to be booked (fingerprint, mug shot, and what not). His first court appearance is scheduled for Friday.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/politics/perry-indictment-booked/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


 
..............The Lehmberg(er) Cheese DA has a big image problem because even though she plead guilty and served 45 days in the slammer , most other folks charged with a DWI\DUI would be facing a Felony , and possible prision time ! Had she been charged with a felony her license to practice law would probably have been revoked and by definition she couldn't serve as a DA . , fordy


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Believe it or not I have things to do. I kill a little time here at HT but HT is not the reason I'm online all day. Don't take my coming & going personally.


I don't take it personally and your response would be more believable if you didn't respond at all. You frequently respond without addressing the Qs put to you.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It seem that republicans are trying very hard to turn the story around to the DA's misdeeds. The fact that she might have deserved to lose her job is not relevant to the question of whether Perry's coercion might have been illegal.


Of course they want the story to be that. It's a political case, and politically he did absolutely the right thing, even if there may have been a technical violation of the law...which I doubt. BTW, they don't have to try hard to turn the story around...she's a lunatic and it's easy to sell the fact that she's the "bad guy" and Perry's the good guy in this situation. He's winning big time in the public perception department.



Nevada said:


> Perry is supposed to surrender today to be booked (fingerprint, mug shot, and what not). His first court appearance is scheduled for Friday.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/politics/perry-indictment-booked/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


It seems unnecessary to do the normal booking procedure for someone so well known. Not that I think he deserves special treatment, but the whole purpose of fingerprinting and mug shots is supposed to be about identifying the defendant. He's the governor...they know what he looks like and where to find him if he fails to appear in court. At least they forewent the arrest warrant so he didn't have to be frog-marched into the jail.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

fordy said:


> ..............Her job is an elected position I believe , so the voters will have the final sayso ! , fordy


She has said she won't run again once her term is up...we'll see if she follows through on that.



fordy said:


> ..............The Lehmberg(er) Cheese DA has a big image problem because even though she plead guilty and served 45 days in the slammer , most other folks charged with a DWI\DUI would be facing a Felony , and possible prision time ! Had she been charged with a felony her license to practice law would probably have been revoked and by definition she couldn't serve as a DA . , fordy


Are you sure about that? I've never heard of a first offense DUI being a felony. But I think she should be disbarred just for the way she acted in those videos.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Deleted, sorry


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> She has said she won't run again once her term is up...we'll see if she follows through on that.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? I've never heard of a first offense DUI being a felony. But I think she should be disbarred just for the way she acted in those videos.


 .............They changed the law in TX and I was told(maybe incorrectly) that a DUI was a 3rd. degree felony , but , the DA also has discretionary authority to decide how each case will be handled . I'll bet she runs for re election ! , fordy


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Either way, he was using coercion to get her to resign.


Actually he was keeping government funds out of her control. She had the choice of how that happened. She could either resign or she could stay in office and he'd refuse to give it to her. Simple as that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It seem that republicans are trying very hard to turn the story around to the DA's misdeeds. The fact that she might have deserved to lose her job is not relevant to the question of whether Perry's coercion might have been illegal.


Again she was not pressured to do anything in connection with her official job. If she was told to file or not file a case or face veto there would be a legal problem. Saying that he no longer had faith in her judgement and lost his trust her ability to handle state funds therefore he could not in good faith release funds as long as she was in charge of the office is not.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...........He just entered the Court house , so he'll get finger printed and have his Mugly Shot taken ! It wouldn't surprise me IF His Mugly Shot ends up becoming a part of a Presidential Campaign ad ! , fordy


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It seem that republicans are trying very hard to turn the story around to the DA's misdeeds.
> The fact that she might have deserved to lose her job is not relevant to the question of whether Perry's coercion might have been illegal.


***********************
the ONLY ones concerned with the so-called coercion angle......
and I'm not entirely certain that that is _*THEIR*_ main concern in the matter.

But apparently *BOTH *of you don't want to address whether she 
should step down for the good of the state and the integrity of 
the position that she's tarnished and continues to sully with her presence.

Now why is that?!!!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

fordy said:


> .............They changed the law in TX and I was told(maybe incorrectly)
> that a DUI was a 3rd. degree felony , but , the DA also has discretionary authority to decide how
> each case will be handled . I'll bet she runs for re election ! , fordy


********************

*Texas First Offense DWI*

A Texas first offense DWI conviction is a Class B Misdemeanor offense and carries the following penalties:


 *Jail time:* A first offense conviction will result in a jail sentence of 72 hours, or if there
was an open container in the vehicle at the time of the arrest, the jail sentence will be 6 days.
 *Fines:* The fine amount for a first offense will be up to $2,000 plus associated court costs.
Texas imposes a surcharge on top of the fine amount listed above for DWI offenders in the amount of $1,000.
 You will will have to pay this additional surcharge for 3 consecutive years. If your BAC level was .16% or greater,
the surcharge amount will be $2,000 per year for 3 years.
*DWI school:* You will be required to attend a state approved 12-hour DWI school as a first time offender.
You must complete the program within 180 days of your probation otherwise your license may be revoked by the Texas DPS.
*Probation:* The terms of your probation will be determined by the court.
 *Community service:* You will be required to perform from 24 hours up to 100 hours community service.
 *Test refusal:* A first offense chemical test refusal will result in a 180 day license suspension.
 *Ignition interlock:* First offenders who had a BAC of .15% or greater will be required to install an interlock on their vehicle(s).
 *License suspension:* Your license will be suspended for 90 - 180 days on a first offense. You will be able to get a conditional license
during your suspension period. Before the Texas DPS will reinstate your license following your suspension period or issue you a occupational license
 you will be required to show proof of financial responsibility in the form of a Texas SR22 insurance policy that meets the states minimum auto insurance
liability coverage limits. You will also have to pay a license reinstatement fee to the DPS.
 

*Texas Second Offense DWI*

A Texas second offense DWI conviction is a Class A Misdemeanor offense and carries the following penalties:


*Jail time:* A second offense conviction will result in a jail sentence of 72-hours up to 1-year.
 *Fines:* The fine amount for a second offense will be up to $4,000 plus associated court costs.
Texas imposes a surcharge on top of the fine amount listed above for DWI offenders in the amount of $1,500.
You will will have to pay this additional surcharge for 3 consecutive years. If your BAC level was .16% or greater,
the surcharge amount will be $2,000 per year for 3 years.
*DWI school:* You will be required to attend a state approved 32-hour DWI school as a second time offender.
 You must complete the program within 180 days of your probation otherwise your license may be revoked by the Texas DPS.
*Probation:* The terms of your probation will be determined by the court.
 *Community service:* You will be required to perform a minimum of 80 hours of community service up to a maximum of 200 hours.
 *Test refusal:* A second offense chemical test refusal will result in a 2 year license suspension.
 *Ignition interlock:* An ignition interlock will be required for 1 year beyond the suspension period end date.
 *License suspension:* Your license will be suspended for between 180 days and 2 years for a second offense violation.
Second time offenders may be eligible for a occupational license if they meet the requirements for one. Before the Texas DPS
will reinstate your license following your suspension period or issue you a occupational license you will be required to show proof
of financial responsibility in the form of a Texas SR22 insurance policy that meets the states minimum auto insurance liability coverage limits.
You will also have to pay a license reinstatement fee to the DPS.
 

*Texas Third Offense DWI*

A Texas third offense DWI conviction is a 3rd degree Felony offense and carries the following penalties:


 *Jail time:* A third offense conviction will result in a jail sentence of 2 years up to 10 years.
*Fines:* The fine amount for a third offense will be up to $10,000 plus associated court costs.
Texas imposes a surcharge on top of the fine amount listed above for DWI offenders in the amount of $1,500.
You will will have to pay this additional surcharge for 3 consecutive years. If your BAC level was .16% or greater,
the surcharge amount will be $2,000 per year for 3-years.
*DWI school:* You will be required to attend a state approved 32-hour DWI school as a third time offender.
You must complete the program within 180 days of your probation otherwise your license may be revoked by the Texas DPS.
*Probation:* The terms of your probation will be determined by the court.
 *Community service:* You will be required to perform a minimum of 80 hours of community service up to a maximum of 200 hours.
 *Test refusal:* A third offense chemical test refusal will result in a 2 year license suspension.
 *Ignition interlock:* An ignition interlock will be required for 1 year beyond the suspension period end date.
 *License suspension:* Your license will be revoked for 2 years for a third offense violation.
 Third time offenders may be eligible for a occupational license if they meet the requirements for one.
Before the Texas DPS will reinstate your license following your suspension period or issue you a occupational license
you will be required to show proof of financial responsibility in the form of a Texas SR22 policy that meets the states
 minimum auto insurance liability coverage limits. You will also have to pay a license reinstatement fee to the DPS.
http://www.duiprocess.com/state/TX/dwilaws.php


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ha! Found this:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

copperkid3 said:


> ********************
> *Jail time:* A first offense conviction will result in a jail sentence of 72 hours, or if there
> [*]was an open container in the vehicle at the time of the arrest, the jail sentence will be 6 days.


Since the judge gave her 45 days, this was either not her first conviction or the judge added time for some of her actions once she was in custody.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

In her 'normal' drunken state, it's doubtful that she would have enough sober brain cells 
to figure out the strategy necessary to file an indictment against him.
Much more likely several of her progressive toadies did the dirty work.....
over cocktails at Austin's local icehouses, Beerjoints, Bars and/or Honky Tonks.....

Lawyers seem to function best when inebriated....or so they think.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Since the judge gave her 45 days, this was either not her first conviction or the judge added time for some of her actions once she was in custody.


***********************
law, but it would appear from the penalty assessed, that this 
is likely a 2nd conviction, which would make it a Class A Misdemeanor. 

Third times the charm!!!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> Since the judge gave her 45 days, this was either not her first conviction or the judge added time for some of her actions once she was in custody.


I saw somewhere that the sentence is increased for higher BAC. The 6 days might be a minimum.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Perry smiled for his mug shot.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Good.
He also didn't stick his tongue out, threaten or try to scratch anyone. 
Much classier act than the one trying to hurt him.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..............I have to say I have never been a 'Perry' believer , but , his PR adviser(s) have really done an excellent job of extracting the greatest political value out of a potential career ending scenario !
..............He is receiving way more positive press coverage from his 'Booking' by being very honest and forthright with his arrival and mugly shot . , fordy


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

copperkid3 said:


> ***********************
> law, but it would appear from the penalty assessed, that this
> is likely a 2nd conviction, which would make it a Class A Misdemeanor.
> 
> Third times the charm!!!


 .............I read somewhere she was released after 23 days served out of a 45 day sentence . , fordy


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Perry smiled for his mug shot.


Can't expect him to look unhappy...that could be taken as remorse, or defeated. He did nothing wrong and has nothing to frown about.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fordy said:


> ...........He just entered the Court house , so he'll get finger printed and have his Mugly Shot taken ! It wouldn't surprise me IF His Mugly Shot ends up becoming a part of a Presidential Campaign ad ! , fordy


I can see the ads now. His mug shot and/or video of his booking inter cut with the video of the DA's. Teaser line "He was arrested for protecting YOU from her."

Heck it could be a general repub ad. Teaser line "Republicans are arrested for trying to protect you from democrats like her. "


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Perry smiled for his mug shot.


Why not? As has been pointed out we are likely to see it in all kinds of political ads. Both repub and dem. 

I can see many ways to work it. You put both mug shots and ask "Who would you trust to control your tax dollars?"


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Looking good...I wonder if they made him take the glasses off....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> I suspect the job offered by the judge did not fit her needs. He should have offered her a job as a beer taster at a local brewery.


Or as a vodka strainer.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Ha! Found this:


I got a minute of wifi time...

Post of the Day Award!


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

MJsLady said:


> Good.
> He also didn't stick his tongue out, threaten or try to scratch anyone.
> Much classier act than the one trying to hurt him.


The drunk driving lady has her own problems, but as far as i know it, the real issue isn't just that he played his cards to try and force her to retire, but that there was some institute that Perry was involved in starting that behaved like a political funding shelter that was used to give a friend(S) millions of dollars and when this was discovered, Perry had threatened to veto the funding of the group who was researching the validity of this issue or replace this lady with someone "on his side" so they could squash the research into this act.

I'm amazed at how many people aren't talking about the facts but instead are choosing who they like or who they hate.

GWB had a DUI back in 1976 and that didn't stop him from becoming governor and POTUS. Why the double standard?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

supernovae said:


> The drunk driving lady has her own problems, but as far as i know it, the real issue isn't just that he played his cards to try and force her to retire, but that there was some institute that Perry was involved in starting that behaved like a political funding shelter that was used to give a friend(S) millions of dollars and when this was discovered, Perry had threatened to veto the funding of the group who was researching the validity of this issue or replace this lady with someone "on his side" so they could squash the research into this act.
> 
> I'm amazed at how many people aren't talking about the facts but instead are choosing who they like or who they hate.
> 
> GWB had a DUI back in 1976 and that didn't stop him from becoming governor and POTUS.


Kinda like Cuomo and his panel! :goodjob:


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> Kinda like Cuomo and his panel! :goodjob:


Politicians being politicians. Tit for tat doesn't change what we face on a daily basis. When anyone breaks the law, they should be held accountable.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

supernovae said:


> The drunk driving lady has her own problems, but as far as i know it, the real issue isn't just that he played his cards to try and force her to retire, but that there was some institute that Perry was involved in starting that behaved like a political funding shelter that was used to give a friend(S) millions of dollars and when this was discovered, Perry had threatened to veto the funding of the group who was researching the validity of this issue or replace this lady with someone "on his side" so they could squash the research into this act.


It's been reported that Perry had offered to appoint her right hand man to her position...that wouldn't interfere with the investigations relating to him and his friends.



> I'm amazed at how many people aren't talking about the facts but instead are choosing who they like or who they hate.


For the record, I'm not a fan of Rick Perry. I wouldn't vote for him if given the opportunity. I do like him more now than I did in 2012, though.



> GWB had a DUI back in 1976 and that didn't stop him from becoming governor and POTUS. Why the double standard?


I'm also no fan of GWB, but he didn't get a DUI while in office and he wasn't responsible for prosecuting people for that very offense, nor was he in control of a public integrity unit while no-so-subtly hinting at wanting special treatment like Ms. Lehmberg. There's also no video of him acting like a maniac during his arrest. On top of all this, Bush's BAC was right at the legal limit, not triple the limit.

ETA: I was bored, so I looked into this a little further. The cop who arrested Bush said about him, "The man was, and I say this without being facetious, a picture of integrity. He gave no resistance. He was very cooperative." I wonder if any of the police who dealt with Lehmberg would say anything like that....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

supernovae said:


> The drunk driving lady has her own problems, but as far as i know it, the real issue isn't just that he played his cards to try and force her to retire, but that there was some institute that Perry was involved in starting that behaved like a political funding shelter that was used to give a friend(S) millions of dollars and when this was discovered, Perry had threatened to veto the funding of the group who was researching the validity of this issue or replace this lady with someone "on his side" so they could squash the research into this act.
> 
> I'm amazed at how many people aren't talking about the facts but instead are choosing who they like or who they hate.
> 
> GWB had a DUI back in 1976 and that didn't stop him from becoming governor and POTUS. Why the double standard?


I don't recall but was Bush the head of a state department and in control of spending government funds at the time?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

supernovae said:


> The drunk driving lady has her own problems, but as far as i know it, the real issue isn't just that he played his cards to try and force her to retire, but that there was some institute that Perry was involved in starting that behaved like a political funding shelter that was used to give a friend(S) millions of dollars and when this was discovered, Perry had threatened to veto the funding of the group who was researching the validity of this issue or replace this lady with someone "on his side" so they could squash the research into this act.
> 
> I'm amazed at how many people aren't talking about the facts but instead are choosing who they like or who they hate.
> 
> GWB had a DUI back in 1976 and that didn't stop him from becoming governor and POTUS. Why the double standard?


There is no double standard. He wasn't gov or prez at that time, for one. And neither the gov nor the prez would be prosecuting OTHER drunk drivers like Ms Drunk DA would have to, so there's another big difference. 

Color me jaded, but coercion in politics is business as usual, isn't it? They are all trying to coerce each other into voting for this, against that, sponsor my bill and I'll sponsor yours, etc.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

watcher said:


> I don't recall but was Bush the head of a state department and in control of spending government funds at the time?


And obviously a DUI didn't kill his character so much that it ruined his chances to be POTUS.

The DUI in this story still doesn't change the facts of what Perry has done.

Personally, i think drunk drivers should be shot since they're basically out to kill themselves and others when they make a stupid decision like that, but that's just me


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> Color me jaded, but coercion in politics is business as usual, isn't it? They are all trying to coerce each other into voting for this, against that, sponsor my bill and I'll sponsor yours, etc.



Yes coercion is absolutely part of politics in America. The claims against Perry aren't coercion though.

He's using coercion to try and force someone out but that forcing someone out is covering up the potential illegal activity that he doesn't want to have come to light.

And again, we're talking about characters of people rather than the bad decision to start an apparent "cancer" institute that was really a cover up for campaign funds/buddies and a way to move money around.

I'm holding out to see what happens before further judgment.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

supernovae said:


> Yes coercion is absolutely part of politics in America. The claims against Perry aren't coercion though.
> 
> *He's using coercion to try and force someone out but that forcing someone out is covering up the potential illegal activity that he doesn't want to have come to light.
> *
> ...


You missed that Perry offered to appoint Lehmberg's right hand man to her position if she resigned. How would her being forced out cover anything up if her right hand man was still there to continue the investigation?


----------



## Calico Katie (Sep 12, 2003)

What I do know is that the more the libs bring out the big guns to try to knock Perry down, the better I like him. Clearly, if the Democratic party is this frightened by him, Perry must have more to him than I originally thought. Hope they keep it up, they'll get him elected POTUS if they do and that's alright by me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Calico Katie said:


> What I do know is that the more the libs bring out the big guns to try to knock Perry down, the better I like him. Clearly, if the Democratic party is this frightened by him, Perry must have more to him than I originally thought. Hope they keep it up, they'll get him elected POTUS if they do and that's alright by me.


Realistically, I don't think Perry ever had much of a chance on the national stage. He has a tendency to self-destruct.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Realistically, I don't think Perry ever had much of a chance on the national stage. He has a tendency to self-destruct.


Kinda like Hillary?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

supernovae said:


> The drunk driving lady has her own problems, but as far as i know it,
> the real issue isn't just that he played his cards to try and force her to retire,
> *but that there was some institute that Perry was involved in starting
> that behaved like a political funding shelter that was used to give a friend(S)
> ...


**************************************

but I don't seem to recall reading about that charge in the listed indictment.

Do you happen to have the source to that 'fact'.

Yes, it is indeed amazing at how some people aren't talking about the "facts", 
but are rushing to establish 'damage control' around the internet, by planting
suppositions and innuendos in multiple chat rooms and forums:kung:.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> Looking good...I wonder if they made him take the glasses off....


http://anirishmanabroad.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/sarah-palin.jpg

"You betcha!!!"


PERRY & PALIN? Makes no difference to me.:bouncy::bouncy::bouncy:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

copperkid3 said:


> PERRY & PALIN? Makes no difference to me.:bouncy::bouncy::bouncy:


 They both would be great POTUS and a whole lot better then what is in there now that is for sure and also a fact.:bouncy:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

supernovae said:


> The DUI in this story still doesn't change the facts of what Perry has done.


Sure it does. The DUI is a result of her actions and decisions. It shows at this time she has, at a minimum, major decision making problems. Those actions and decisions lead the gov his own decision, i.e. that she was unfit be in control of government, i.e. public, funds.




supernovae said:


> Personally, i think drunk drivers should be shot since they're basically out to kill themselves and others when they make a stupid decision like that, but that's just me


I have always said any drunk involved in an accident should be charged with a minimum of assault with a deadly weapon.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

I get so sick and tired of the same old ridiculous arguments on this website that simply boils down to republican vs democrat and "stand by your man," no matter what.

It's disgusting and never fosters any kind of real discussion among people who I find, for the most part, to be fairly intelligent about most other things.

That said, I hate Rick Perry.
HATE.
He's a narcissistic jackass that I've met multiple times. MULTIPLE.
I've watched him treat my coworkers in law enforcement like absolute trash and have first hand knowledge of several unethical things he's done in my county. But no one cares because it isn't headline grabbing big deal news.
I also watched him absolutely dismiss and behave rudely towards my grandfather (a WWII veteran who lived and breathed and voted Republican no matter who was on the ticket, much like many here I suspect) then turn around and fawn disgustingly all over him when he thought they were on camera. Pops never said anything about it but I could tell how much it hurt him.

Now...all of that said, Rosemary Lehmberg broke the law. She should have stepped down at that point. In what world is she still fit material to head up an ethics committee?

I don't know what law Perry broke or if he broke one. If they believe he did, fine, he will have his day in court.
But I honestly don't know if I would have acted any differently faced with the same situation.
Is he a jerk? Yeah. Was he likely being a bully and trying to force out someone he didn't like so that he could replace her with someone he does like? Um...isn't that politics?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Jade, thank you for the insight. You have good reason not to like him and you spelled it out, not just repeating the talking points from the other party.

I have never thought he was presidential material, but I do think he's the victim of a politically motivated witch hunt on this deal. We'll see how it shakes out. Probably very detailed and boring and will be hard to get to the pertinent facts without following every minute of the trial.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

> I have never thought he was presidential material, but I do think he's the victim of a politically motivated witch hunt on this deal. We'll see how it shakes out. Probably very detailed and boring and will be hard to get to the pertinent facts without following every minute of the trial.


I won't vote for him and have never voted for him.
And I do think that this is a calculated attempt to harm any presidential chance he may have.
Do I care? Honestly? It's not going to change my day to day life.
I still won't have enough funding for my law enforcement job, my FIL will still be working a his crappy job (his company closed, he briefly had to go on unemployment and after a few months of looking, finally found a job. A job where he was bringing home $90 less per paycheck than what he was earning on unemployment), I'm still bankrupt due to medical bills from a car accident where I wasn't even severely injured (even though I had both health and car insurance...yeah, I'm bitter. Real ---- bitter.), and a good friend's 5 yr old child is very likely going to be dead by November from leukemia, even though there is experimental treatment (being used in European medicine regularly bc it is past the experimental phase by several years) available that the US and their insurance company won't approve.


Yeah, I'd like to see him be charged for any number of things I KNOW he did that I KNOW are illegal, but really? Whatever.
Just another day in politics. I honestly think that they did him a solid by doing this one publicly instead of the usual back alley cloak and dagger slit throat politics that usually occurs.




> Probably very detailed and boring and will be hard to get to the pertinent facts without following every minute of the trial.


 And by the time it gets to trial, if (and that's a big IF) it even gets there, nobody is going to care enough to follow it. There is going to be some other scandal, some other plane crash, some other place that is getting bombed, some other thing that the press has been instructed to report so that it keeps our eyes off what is really going on. And if any of you think that it is one party keeping our eyes off the real things we need to be concerned about, you are bigger fools than I ever thought possible.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Jade, lots of politicians are jerks. in person, Bill and Hillary have been for decades. 
It looks like a stand by your guy situation, like it is political? Well, time to smell the coffee, it is all political. ALL.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Calico Katie said:


> What I do know is that the more the libs bring out the big guns to try to knock Perry down, the better I like him. Clearly, if the Democratic party is this frightened by him, Perry must have more to him than I originally thought. Hope they keep it up, they'll get him elected POTUS if they do and that's alright by me.


 Yes for sure. The left sure is getting their undies in a bundle over him. They sure fear him as much as they did with Palin, and others that the liberal left have ruined lives like Herman Cain, and others, they even tried to get our Governor out of office by doing a recall, but Governor Walker got even more votes in the recall election then the general one. One must make not only this country physical responsible but also the States which these Governors serve as well. budget cuts are never nice but sometimes you must pay the piper and buckle down and get to work. And Governor Walker did just that will show the left just what he is and others like him. They fear others as well now its Perry time to come under fire. But he will bunch back out of this stronger then ever, with his head held high and Proud.
Still doesn't make him POTUS material, I am hoping that Dr. Ben Carson will get into the race for POTUS. But Perry can do well in some office.
Run- Ben- Run.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

He's not my man and I'm not standing by him...I just don't see any merit to the prosecution at this point. Not surprised to hear that someone (probably lots of people) thinks he's a "narcissistic jackass" though. I could have guessed that from how nice his hair looks.

If he has committed other crimes, I would love to see him go to prison. I'm always happy to see corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and other public officials taken down a peg or two. But not for this unless there's significantly more to it than we know.


----------



## Calico Katie (Sep 12, 2003)

Perry has always been beatable in his governor's races. He just hasn't had anyone run against him that came across as a heavy hitter. There are numerous things about him I don't care for but there are many things I like as well. Primarily, the economic condition of Texas compared to most other states. I think Perry's gift is the ability to choose capable people to serve around him. I doubt that he'd be elected POTUS right now but if the Dems keep this up - like I said, they're making him look like a real contender.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

supernovae said:


> The drunk driving lady has her own problems, but as far as i know it, the real issue isn't just that he played his cards to try and force her to retire, but that there was some institute that Perry was involved in starting that behaved like a political funding shelter that was used to give a friend(S) millions of dollars and when this was discovered, Perry had threatened to veto the funding of the group who was researching the validity of this issue or replace this lady with someone "on his side" so they could squash the research into this act.
> 
> I'm amazed at how many people aren't talking about the facts but instead are choosing who they like or who they hate.
> 
> GWB had a DUI back in 1976 and that didn't stop him from becoming governor and POTUS. Why the double standard?


Omg, I did not realize Bush was PA back then when he got that DWI!! I didn't know he was in charge of an ethics committee then! & never saw the vid of his drunken belligerence & threatening behavior towards arresting cops! Gosh, you'd think that woulda come out...


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

Jade1096 said:


> I get so sick and tired of the same old ridiculous arguments on this website that simply boils down to republican vs democrat and "stand by your man," no matter what.
> 
> It's disgusting and never fosters any kind of real discussion among people who I find, for the most part, to be fairly intelligent about most other things.
> 
> ...


Jade, you sound so much like me it isn't funny, except you sound nicer than I do...... 

I too, am so  sick and tired of this  BS that I don't know what to do.

My father raised me up learning to work for a living and knowing that what ever I did, regardless of how small or large, had consequences and I best pray that what I choose to do would bring good consequences because I had to live them, one way or another. 

I'll not lie and say I learned that lesson well, at least not early on in life because I didn't, and that is for sure. But I did finally learn it and I have learned it well.

Now about your post here. 
As I can see, you have personal reasons to hate Perry and I don't fault you a bit, but think about this for a bit. 
I just deleted a pretty long post because I said a few things about a certain man that I know to be a fact, but still are not something that I can prove, and I like to be free. 
With that said, I'll bet there are many, many, many more people here on this one forum, that can tell you things about the politicians around their areas that they should at the very minimum, be despised and/or, as we do hated by all their constituents, and more than likely, the majority of them should probably go to prison for things they have, and/or are still doing.
But until things change and the government actually starts doing things that the majority of people will finally see as, "Hey, they have declared war against us!" there isn't anything we can do except to choose the best of the worst people in this world to office. 

I'd probably hate Perry too, if I knew of a tenth of what he has done, but he, for whatever reason, send the National Guard to the Border to assist the Federal Government in securing it. 
Whether they are doing any good or not, I haven't a clue, and that in its self might be a ploy of his, and it probably is, but we at least have to look at it like he """MIGHT BE""" trying to close the border for real!
Who do we have to look forward to that is any better than this  will be? 

In my book, we need to look at anyone that is trying to stand up to Washington, Direct Command. 

Godspeed

Ranger


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Omg, I did not realize Bush was PA back then when he got that DWI!! I didn't know he was in charge of an ethics committee then! & never saw the vid of his drunken belligerence & threatening behavior towards arresting cops! Gosh, you'd think that woulda come out...


I love how you stil ignore the facts of the matter and go for character assassinations.

This lady having a DUI still doesn't change the fact that Perry did something illegal. This isn't about him forcing out someone for DUI, its about him trying to cover up his cancer foundation which he used to apparently launder campaign contributions to friends with.

BTW, the people who indicted Perry were republicans.

So please, spare me the spin. I've said it before, people who DUI should never drive again. They have no regard for other peoples lives and they made a mistake that puts society at jeopardy.

But at the same time, politicians shouldn't be crooks and able to move campaign contributions around and then threaten to veto groups and parties who are looking into these.

Why are people here so ideological defensive? Perry is a lose of a politician. I live in Texas.. we have big problems and his ways of fixing it are toll roads to nowhere and explosive growth at all costs and then when his plans backfire he goes crying to the feds when convenient. He's all hat no cattle and got busted red handed by a non partisan group.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

> Jade, lots of politicians are jerks. in person, Bill and Hillary have been for decades.


Did I give the impression that I thought otherwise?
Most of them are at best bullies, and at worst, thugs in a nice suit.

Clinton is nice. Like, super nice. Scary charismatic sit down and listen to you and talk about how your day is going nice. I've seen die hard Republican cops that vowed to give him a piece of their mind if they saw him while working a detail fall under his spell, hook, line and sinker. And more than just one. I don't believe in the anti-Christ, but if I did, no one would convince me it was anyone other than Clinton. He is THAT engaging with people. Do I like him or trust him? Nope.

His wife....I would spare her about the same amount of regard I would give Perry. I.detest.that.woman.

I don't like or trust ANY politician. I think that every single politician, yes all of them, got there by lying, cheating, doing unethical things, stabbing people in the back, and those at the highest level (state and national levels) are probably guilty of murder, treason, etc.
I think that 95% of them don't give a ---- about the American public, other than at election time, and pander to corporations and big money.
Yes, unfortunately it does come down to people deciding what is most important to them, what affects them the most, and who is the least evil of those that want the job.




> I'd probably hate Perry too, if I knew of a tenth of what he has done, but he, for whatever reason, send the National Guard to the Border to assist the Federal Government in securing it.
> Whether they are doing any good or not, I haven't a clue, and that in its self might be a ploy of his, and it probably is, but we at least have to look at it like he """MIGHT BE""" trying to close the border for real!


Don't get me started on this.
I'm so angry about it I can't see straight.
I lost one of my coworkers to this deployment and he won't be back until February at the soonest (remember that agency I work for that is already underfunded and understaffed...yeah).
They are carrying guns without bullets, don't have adequate training, most of them don't speak spanish, etc.
I won't get further into what they are doing and not doing but it's absolutely ridiculous and is obviously not working.
No state official coordinated with border patrol or any other law enforcement down there to get their input on what they needed or how to implement anything.
He just sent them down there, on the Texas taxpayers dime.
It was grandstanding at it's finest. If he really gave a ---- about sealing the borders he would have implemented it differently.
Grrr...ok, I'm done fuming for now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jade1096 said:


> They are carrying guns without bullets, don't have adequate training, most of them don't speak spanish, etc.
> I won't get further into what they are doing and not doing but it's absolutely ridiculous and is obviously not working.


The deployment was a pretty obvious political statement. He gave the impression that the Guard would be enforcing the border, but that's not the case.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

supernovae said:


> I love how you stil ignore the facts of the matter and go for character assassinations.
> 
> This lady having a DUI still doesn't change the fact that Perry did something illegal. This isn't about him forcing out someone for DUI, its about him trying to cover up his cancer foundation which he used to apparently launder campaign contributions to friends with.
> 
> ...


You seem to frequently have a problem distinguishing between facts and your personal opinion. It remains to be seen if Perry did something illegal so it is not yet a fact. If the indictment is about the cancer deal and it is proven true, I hope they fry Perry because I'm no fan of his version of big gov't nor am I a fan of pols who use gov't funds to fund themselves or their cronies. But none of the info outside of dailykos and you have said anything about this being about the cancer angle. 

You accuse others of spin and ideological defensiveness when that's exactly what you are doing. I'm not saying you are wrong, there just isn't enough info that I have seen to justify your spin. If you have more facts that are real facts, vs your opinion, I would love to hear them.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Jade1096 said:


> I still won't have enough funding for my law enforcement job, my FIL will still be working a his crappy job (his company closed, he briefly had to go on unemployment and after a few months of looking, finally found a job. A job where he was bringing home $90 less per paycheck than what he was earning on unemployment), I'm still bankrupt due to medical bills from a car accident where I wasn't even severely injured (even though I had both health and car insurance...yeah, I'm bitter. Real ---- bitter.), and a good friend's 5 yr old child is very likely going to be dead by November from leukemia, even though there is experimental treatment (being used in European medicine regularly bc it is past the experimental phase by several years) available that the US and their insurance company won't approve.


And Gov Perry is responsible for all of that? :smack


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> You seem to frequently have a problem distinguishing between facts and your personal opinion. It remains to be seen if Perry did something illegal so it is not yet a fact. If the indictment is about the cancer deal and it is proven true, I hope they fry Perry because I'm no fan of his version of big gov't nor am I a fan of pols who use gov't funds to fund themselves or their cronies. But none of the info outside of dailykos and you have said anything about this being about the cancer angle.
> 
> You accuse others of spin and ideological defensiveness when that's exactly what you are doing. I'm not saying you are wrong, there just isn't enough info that I have seen to justify your spin. If you have more facts that are real facts, vs your opinion, I would love to hear them.


Oh come on Mr assume you know it all .. really, I don't read dailykos, i don't vote democratic or republican straight tickets. I'm just someone smart enough to see when people are being ignorant. If all we're doing is choosing which persons character to assassinate, why not get rid of all the alcoholics in office?

As of today, there are 4 other republican figures who have DUI's who are not being asked to retire... including 2 republican district attorneys, one of the DA's having 2 DUI's and both actually driving down the road the wrong way.

I'm aggravated alright, the fact this discussion seems so ideologically driven and excuse driven vs actually looking at and talking about the facts.

he's being investigated for CORRUPTION and the issue of trying to force someone to resign appears to be as part of COVER UP for the corruption.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

supernovae said:


> As of today, there are 4 other republican figures who have DUI's who are not being asked to retire... including 2 republican district attorneys.


It's interesting that Perry is talking about how he deserves a second chance in his bid for president. He's not much for giving other people a second chance.

And let's not forget that George W. Bush had a DUI before he became president, and obviously got a second chance.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> And Gov Perry is responsible for all of that? :smack


I'm mostly disappointed with his selling out of our roads to commercial interests on the backs of taxpayers while all the meanwhile saying he's not. And the fact these roads punish the non wealthy and provide express routes for the elite by which 200+ a month in fees is just the cost of getting to work quicker (while a 2400/year tax for the poor who just end up suffering in road traffic) than everyone else sitting in traffic. It's just his ethos to do silly stuff like this. Oh, and he's got a big mouth and says the dumbest things to, but i just write that off as appeasing his base.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

supernovae said:


> Oh come on Mr assume you know it all .. really, I don't read dailykos, i don't vote democratic or republican straight tickets. I'm just someone smart enough to see when people are being ignorant. If all we're doing is choosing which persons character to assassinate, why not get rid of all the alcoholics in office?
> 
> *As of today, there are 4 other republican figures who have DUI's who are not being asked to retire... including 2 republican district attorneys, one of the DA's having 2 DUI's and both actually driving down the road the wrong way.*
> 
> ...


Where is this?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

supernovae said:


> Oh come on Mr assume you know it all .. really, I don't read dailykos, i don't vote democratic or republican straight tickets. I'm just someone smart enough to see when people are being ignorant. If all we're doing is choosing which persons character to assassinate, why not get rid of all the alcoholics in office?
> 
> As of today, there are 4 other republican figures who have DUI's who are not being asked to retire... including 2 republican district attorneys, one of the DA's having 2 DUI's and both actually driving down the road the wrong way.
> 
> ...


OK, so what of my words indicated to you that I know it all. You claim to be smart but are confused as to the meaning of phrases like, "It remains to be seen if..."and, "If the indictment is about the cancer deal and it is proven true..." that clearly mean I do not know one way or the other.

I don't know who you vote for and have not brought that topic up. I cited dailykos only because that is what Google showed making the Perry/cancer fund claim. Prior to you bringing it up, I had not heard the claim on Fox or MSNBC, so it seems to me to be a marginal story at this time. But I've been offline a lot the last two weeks, so maybe I've just missed it. That is why I asked you if you had more info on it and as is typical, you went off on some other tangent. 

As to you trying to throw up another red herring, if there are other politicians who need to be run out of office, let's do it. Don't write it off business as usual and ignore this DA because there are other bad actors we haven't gotten to yet. Also, the DA is in charge of a gov't ethics group, we should hold her to a higher standard, don't you think?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

supernovae said:


> I love how you stil ignore the facts of the matter and go for character assassinations.
> 
> This lady having a DUI still doesn't change the fact that Perry did something illegal. This isn't about him forcing out someone for DUI, its about him trying to cover up his cancer foundation which he used to apparently launder campaign contributions to friends with.


Kind of ironic to mention ignoring the facts of the matter and then repeating your line about Perry trying to cover something up, and of course throwing in a completely irrelevant jab at GWB. You're ignoring the facts of the matter. At least three sources have confirmed that he offered to appoint Lehmberg's assistant to her position. One of those sources was a democrat judge. According to them, Perry went out of his way to avoid even the appearance of a cover up, yet you keep repeating that he was trying to cover up something as if it's fact.



> BTW, the people who indicted Perry were republicans.


Interesting...where did you learn the political affiliation of the members of the grand jury?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Kind of ironic to mention ignoring the facts of the matter and then repeating your line about Perry trying to cover something up, and of course throwing in a completely irrelevant jab at GWB.


Well sure, a DUI is irrelevant if it's a republican.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It's interesting that Perry is talking about how he deserves a second chance in his bid for president. He's not much for giving other people a second chance.
> 
> And let's not forget that George W. Bush had a DUI before he became president, and obviously got a second chance.


I personally don't think he deserves a second chance at the presidential nomination, but only because I don't like him. But there are several reports that he did offer Lehmberg a chance to work in the DA's office, just that she shouldn't be in charge of it, and the public integrity unit, since she demonstrated a lack of integrity. A job offer sounds like a second chance to me.

And yes, GWB got a DUI *before* he was president, not while he was responsible for enforcing the drunk driving laws. Not that it matters, but his BAC was right at the legal limit and not triple the limit, and the arresting officer said he was a picture of integrity and was very cooperative...do you think the officers who dealt with Lehmberg would say that about her?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Well sure, a DUI is irrelevant if it's a republican.


No, it's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Perry. If Perry got a DUI, that would be relevant...GWB's DUI would still be irrelevant, though. You're sinking to cheap shots now. That's weak. You can do better.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

supernovae said:


> I love how you stil ignore the facts of the matter and go for character assassinations.
> 
> This lady having a DUI still doesn't change the fact that Perry did something illegal. This isn't about him forcing out someone for DUI, its about him trying to cover up his cancer foundation which he used to apparently launder campaign contributions to friends with.
> 
> ...


Character assassinations? On whom? Did I bring Bush & try to compare a DWI to this filthy scum of a hussy PA?
Libs have no sense of how to make a comparison, for sure.
As far as your comment: "Perry is a lose of a politician", let me remind you if it were not for TX increase in jobs, the COUNtRY would be at a MINUS!


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

jtbrandt said:


> And yes, GWB got a DUI *before* he was president, not while he was responsible for enforcing the drunk driving laws. Not that it matters, but his BAC was right at the legal limit and not triple the limit, and the arresting officer said he was a picture of integrity and was very cooperative...do you think the officers who dealt with Lehmberg would say that about her?


From what i remember DUI laws have gotten stricter over the years, i wouldn't be surprised if it was .08 for a DUI in 1977 where today it is .06 in most states but that doesn't really matter. We have imperfect people in an imperfect system and were more focused on the imperfections of people rather than the very thing that got Perry indicted.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Well sure, a DUI is irrelevant if it's a republican.


No, it's that a DUI from 1976, committed by someone who was not in a comparable position to the DA in this instance, is totally irrelevant to this discussion. You and SuperN just indulged yourselves with a little jab at GW. Did it feel good?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

supernovae said:


> From what i remember DUI laws have gotten stricter over the years, i wouldn't be surprised if it was .08 for a DUI in 1977 where today it is .06 in most states but that doesn't really matter. We have imperfect people in an imperfect system and were more focused on the imperfections of people rather than the very thing that got Perry indicted.


They've been concentrating on the DA since the indictment was issued. I think the logic is that it was OK for Perry to coerce her because she deserved it. But, of course, the coercion statute doesn't make an exception for coercing people who deserve it.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

supernovae said:


> From what i remember DUI laws have gotten stricter over the years, i wouldn't be surprised if it was .08 for a DUI in 1977 where today it is .06 in most states but that doesn't really matter. We have imperfect people in an imperfect system and were more focused on the imperfections of people rather than the very thing that got Perry indicted.


Bush's BAC was .10, which was the limit in Maine at the time. Lehmberg's was .239, while the limit is .08.

The thing is, the very thing that got Perry indicted has a lot to do with Lehmberg's "imperfections." Yeah, it was a mistake. People make mistakes. But mistakes have consequences, and for people in positions of public trust, they sometimes have greater consequences.

Perry was absolutely right to try to force her out, though force shouldn't have been necessary. She should have done the right thing without any "coercion." Whether he crossed a legal line, I don't know. Going by what we know about it, I don't think it should be illegal. But either way, he's innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> They've been concentrating on the DA since the indictment was issued. I think the logic is that it was OK for Perry to coerce her because she deserved it. But, of course, the coercion statute doesn't make an exception for coercing people who deserve it.


That's debatable, but since we aren't lawyers, judges, or jurors, debating the statute is kind of pointless. But if there isn't an exception for people who deserve it, there should be.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

> I still won't have enough funding for my law enforcement job, my FIL will still be working a his crappy job (his company closed, he briefly had to go on unemployment and after a few months of looking, finally found a job. A job where he was bringing home $90 less per paycheck than what he was earning on unemployment), I'm still bankrupt due to medical bills from a car accident where I wasn't even severely injured (even though I had both health and car insurance...yeah, I'm bitter. Real ---- bitter.), and a good friend's 5 yr old child is very likely going to be dead by November from leukemia, even though there is experimental treatment (being used in European medicine regularly bc it is past the experimental phase by several years) available that the US and their insurance company won't approve.





mnn2501 said:


> And Gov Perry is responsible for all of that? :smack


No, Gov Perry is not responsible for all that.

My point was, I've got bigger things that hit me more directly that I worry more about in my day to day life than whether or not one more politician did something he shouldn't have done.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> And Gov Perry is responsible for all of that? :smack


 When you have such a hatred that some are displayer here the slanted views always come out without any thoughts of what the real issue is here. And that is common practice among some that can't stick to the OP. We have seen it way too often in the past years with GWB and others trying for the job including Palin and such vial comments made by some about her and even Romney. Slanted one sided views always shows up when things like what is happening to Perry at this moment.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

She broke the law-she should be Out. Just as Lois Learner should be out for takeing the 5th-out, WE the people asked a question-she won't awnser -out. No pension,no insurance ect.Obama posted a fake felony fraud Birth Cert and is useing someone elses SS#-OUT.
What is being done to Perry, is part of the Obama way. Make people have to defend themselves-that costs $ and O will play that game to the hilt.


----------



## Calico Katie (Sep 12, 2003)

Here are two articles concerning Bush's DUI. His BAC was .10, right at the legal limit at that time. He was polite and cooperative to the police officer. He was not in office when this happened. The information was made public before he was elected as POTUS. Compare this information to what's her face. A sitting DA who was abusive and violent when arrested. So, please, stop trying to whitewash this woman by talking about Bush's DUI.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,59579,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001103/aponline112738_000.htm

I don't care about the dumb things any of these guys did while in college. I don't care if Bush got into a fight at a football game and I don't care whether Clinton did or did not inhale when he was in college. I did care that when he was POTUS, during office hours with dignitaries waiting in the Rose Garden for some ceremony or other, he was in the Oval Office bathroom getting a hummer from a 21 year old intern. That wasn't his personal life, he was "on the clock". Try that in any other work environment in the country and you'd probably be fired.

So, the real question here is whether Perry was out of line to try to get what's her face to resign. I believe he was entitled to do that while many others don't think he had that right. He did offer to replace her with someone who would shared her opinions and outlook. He wasn't planning to replace her with one of his own people. He's definitely sharp enough to know that would have been a bad move.

Do I personally like Perry? Not really but at this point, I'm just going to sit back and see who floats to the top in the presidential campaign for 2016. If anyone is offended by my bluntness, I apologize as I did not mean to offend. It is what it is.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> They've been concentrating on the DA since the indictment was issued. I think the logic is that it was OK for Perry to coerce her because she deserved it. But, of course, the coercion statute doesn't make an exception for coercing people who deserve it.


but the statute does make an exception for gov't officials doing their job. A fact which you conveniently keep ignoring.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

............I'd like to throw a wild Card back into this fracas...........Do you'll remember back when Perry was pushing the BIG ROAD project ? A company out of Spain or Portugal was going to receive a Right of Way , half a mile wide and several hundred miles long and they held hearings in several locations and the voters finally figured out just how much land 'they' were going to loose ! The term on this deal was like a hundred years , and they were going to have exclusive rights and decide WHO could build what kinds of businesses on either side of the highway . It was a PR disaster for Perry.........and IF the voters had not raised so much cain it probably would have been built . 
..............THIS........is......one of the reasons I never likeD Perry.......He is a Corporate Cheerleader when it comes to choosing individual Rights vs Corporate Largess ! , fordy


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

supernovae said:


> From what i remember DUI laws have gotten stricter over the years,
> i wouldn't be surprised if it was .08 for a DUI in 1977 where today it is .06 in most states but that
> doesn't really matter. We have imperfect people in an imperfect system and were more focused on
> the imperfections of people rather than the very thing that got Perry indicted.


++++++++++++++++
Because your response of _*"I wouldn't be surprised if it was .08 for a DUI 
in 1977, where today it is .06 in most states" *_seems to indicate just such a conclusion, 
when by simply doing a quick & easy google search, one would have easily dispelled such thoughts, by revealing the following:

*BAC Definition and State Legal Laws 

Blood alcohol content (BAC), also called Blood Alcohol Concentration, is  most commonly used 
as a metric of alcohol intoxication for legal or medical purposes. Blood alcohol content is usually 
expressed as a percentage of alcohol (generally in the sense of ethanol) in the blood. For instance, 
a BAC of 0.10 means that 0.10% (one tenth of one percent) of a person's blood, by volume, is alcohol.  
All 50 states have now set .08% BAC as 
the legal limit for Driving Under the Influence. For commercial drivers, a BAC of .04% 
can result in a DUI conviction nationwide. For those under 21, there is a zero tolerance limit&#8213;any amount of alcohol is grounds for a DUI arrest.* 
http://alcoholcontrols.com/lebaclibyst.html#.U_ZqfmN0yXA

*BAC of 0.08% or higher*. 


*BAC of 0.08% or higher*. *In all states it is also a crime to drive 
*
*with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher*,
 regardless of whether one's driving was actually impaired or affected.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dui-dwi-overview-30316.html


The 'thing' that got Perry indicted were those same 'imperfect' people doing a very 'imperfect' and not quite well planned, political hatchet job.....:teehee:


It's going to come back to bite them badly.

BTW: It does "really matter", which is why the state legislature in *EVERY* state sets 
the standards by which those who decide to abuse the privilege of driving while drinking,
can be arrested and charged. TEXAS has had a number of drunks on the legislature for 
years and consequently, they maintained the DUI/DWI limit at .10% BAC far longer than 
many of the other states. Now they simply use political witch hunts to get them out of a jam.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They've been concentrating on the DA since the indictment was issued. I think the logic is that it was OK for Perry to coerce her because she deserved it. But, of course, the coercion statute doesn't make an exception for coercing people who deserve it.


Again if Bush had been in public office when he got his DUI I'd have no problem with his boss demanding his resignation. 

IMO, any government employee who is caught DUI should be asked, forcefully in necessary, to find another job.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I have to admit that Perry has done a pretty good job this week of highlighting the political points of his actions. He doesn't mention the legal issues, just a lot of talk about his constitutional right to veto and that removing someone with low moral character from office is "the right thing to do."

I'm not sure precisely who Perry is appealing to with this strategy, but his presidential campaign is more on track that I imagined it might be when he was first indicted.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...............Besides GW's DUI , he also went AWOL from his monthly Air Nat'l Guard meetings as he was campaigning for his father ! Neither the ANG nor Bush ever gave an explanation for his absence(s) . , fordy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

fordy said:


> ...............Besides GW's DUI , he also went AWOL from his monthly Air Nat'l Guard meetings as he was campaigning for his father ! Neither the ANG nor Bush ever gave an explanation for his absence(s) . , fordy


Speaking of other DUIs, I read in the news that two other Texas DAs were arrested for DUI yet Perry took no action. They were both republicans.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...n-driving-arrest-riled-perry-others-didnt.ece

That makes Perry's threat & veto look pretty bad.


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Speaking of other DUIs, I read in the news that two other Texas DAs were arrested for DUI yet Perry took no action. They were both republicans.
> 
> http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...n-driving-arrest-riled-perry-others-didnt.ece
> 
> That makes Perry's threat & veto look pretty bad.


People won't question the integrity of people they accept, just the integrity of others they want to despise. It's political spinning at its finest.

People who study this call it a multitude of things.

"Framing the debate" "framing the issues" and of course all of this is built on actually knowing and understanding the cognitive biases of people and how to actually take advantage thereof.

It's the reason we never face our problems. We're not taught to look at them as a "systems problem" but yet we blame THEIR system as if our own is perfectly valid. All the meanwhile not even bothering to look at ourselves and say "is this even right?"..

So Perry may whitewash his crimes and get away with it just because he's opportunistic and found a way to frame the issue to make it about someone else. Just because he knows the public is gullible enough to buy it. Not just buy it, but sell it too.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The more I read past Perry's political musings the more it seems there is something to the charges. The special prosecutor was appointed by Bush 1 to be a federal prosecutor, and the judge is a GWB appointee. If they have political leanings they would seem to be to the right. This just isn't shaping up to be the democratic political vendetta Perry would like for us to believe.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Speaking of other DUIs, I read in the news that two other Texas DAs were arrested for DUI yet Perry took no action. They were both republicans.
> 
> http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...n-driving-arrest-riled-perry-others-didnt.ece
> 
> That makes Perry's threat & veto look pretty bad.


There are major differences besides the fact they were republicans. Neither of those other DA's was in control of a public integrity unit that had jurisdiction across the whole state. Perry also had no veto power over funding their offices.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The special prosecutor was appointed by Bush 1 to be a federal prosecutor, and the judge is a GWB appointee. If they have political leanings they would seem to be to the right. This just isn't shaping up to be the democratic political vendetta Perry would like for us to believe.


I tend to agree with you on that after reading up on the special prosecutor. It was initiated by cheap politics, but from all accounts the special prosecutor is a stand up guy. Either way, Perry has won the public perception side of this. I don't think that will change even if he's convicted.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Perry is already feeling the effects of this charge, or at least he should be. First, this charge is serious enough (a felony that carries a potential sentence of a year or more) that he is now barred from purchasing a gun, or even receiving a gun as a gift. His concealed carry permit is also required to be revoked. I don't know if he can maintain possession of any guns he already owns.

I understand that Perry's gun rights are important to him. I remember something about him shooting a coyote while he was jogging.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Either way, Perry has won the public perception side of this. I don't think that will change even if he's convicted.


Public perception isn't going to have any impact on his prosecution. They case will be judged on its legal merits.

From reading this thread and watching news, popular public opinion says two things.

1. Perry had a constitutional right to veto the item.
2. The DA deserved to lose her job.

Both of those ideas may be true, yet have little to do with the facts of the case. Perry is not charged with vetoing something he didn't have the authority to veto. The abuse of power charge doesn't question his authority to veto, it questions the legality of making his veto in conjunction with a threat.

As for the coercion charge, the law doesn't make an exception for people who might deserve to be coerced. The question here is whether it's legal to withhold public funds if a public official refuses to resign. The question of whether she deserved to lose her job is not legally relevant. It may be politically relevant, but not legally.

Of the two charges I think the coercion charge is the strongest. They need to prove intent with the abuse of power charge, so it might be a hard case to make. I haven't seen the evidence though. But I don't know what defense Perry could make for the coercion charge, since the coercion was so public.

If Perry wouldn't have gone public on that threat then none of this would have happened.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Public perception isn't going to have any impact on his prosecution. They case will be judged on its legal merits.


Not necessarily true. Juries are wild. The jury pool will come from the public. If they come from Austin, they might not like Perry, but they might also think he did the right thing and choose to disregard the law even if they think he broke it, which is not very clear cut. Proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be tough, especially with such vague laws.

But anyway, that wasn't my point. Even if Perry is convicted and goes to prison, I think his legacy is already kind of locked in. He will be widely remembered as the governor who got sent to prison for having the cajones to do the right thing.



> If Perry wouldn't have gone public on that threat then none of this would have happened.


Probably not true. Plenty of people knew of and were involved in the "negotiations" with Lehmberg trying to get her to step down. The special prosecutor called 40 or so witnesses before the grand jury...those witnesses still would have known what happened even if he hadn't made the public threat.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Speaking of other DUIs, I read in the news that two other Texas DAs were arrested for DUI yet Perry took no action. They were both republicans.
> 
> http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...n-driving-arrest-riled-perry-others-didnt.ece
> 
> That makes Perry's threat & veto look pretty bad.


The video of her actions changed things. We'll never know but if she had been arrested, booked and tried quietly I'm willing to bet the same thing would have happened.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Public perception isn't going to have any impact on his prosecution. They case will be judged on its legal merits.


Come on now even you aren't that naive. A case this big public and political pressure is going to be major factors.




Nevada said:


> As for the coercion charge, the law doesn't make an exception for people who might deserve to be coerced. The question here is whether it's legal to withhold public funds if a public official refuses to resign. The question of whether she deserved to lose her job is not legally relevant. It may be politically relevant, but not legally.


IIRC, they are going to have problems with the coercion charge. If I read the code that was posted the state will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Perry was trying to pressure her to do something directly linked to her official job. Your boss coming in and telling you he wants you to change your report to show the refinery is running at higher efficiency then it is; is different than him coming and demanding you quit because your personal actions have made him no longer trust you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Your boss coming in and telling you he wants you to change your report to show the refinery is running at higher efficiency then it is; is different than him coming and demanding you quit because your personal actions have made him no longer trust you.


He can ask for her resignation, he just can't use public funds as leverage.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> He can ask for her resignation, he just can't use public funds as leverage.


Why not? Can't your boss says you can either quit or he can stop paying you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Evidently Perry is unaware of precisely what the charges are.

_(CNN) â Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he's not familiar with the legal language of the indictment handed up against him by a grand jury in Travis County last week. "I've been indicted by that same body now for, *I think, two counts: One of bribery, which I'm not a lawyer so I don't really understand the details here*," he said in a lengthy explanation of the case before a New Hampshire audience._
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...understand-the-details-of-indictment-charges/

And some want this guy to be president. Oh brother!


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

I have requested the Admin to move this to the Political Forum


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

rambotex said:


> I have requested the Admin to move this to the Political Forum


..........I don't know WHY ! It has politics , it has law , it has voters opinions on the legality or lack of , it has history , it has a lot more facets than just politics ! Why don't you just ask them to close the thread , it'll have the same effect . , fordy


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently Perry is unaware of precisely what the charges are.
> 
> _(CNN) â Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he's not familiar with the legal language of the indictment handed up against him by a grand jury in Travis County last week. "I've been indicted by that same body now for, *I think, two counts: One of bribery, which I'm not a lawyer so I don't really understand the details here*," he said in a lengthy explanation of the case before a New Hampshire audience._
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...understand-the-details-of-indictment-charges/
> ...


Still WAAAAAAAAY better than putt putt Obama, whose golf game is way more important than national security issues!!!!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Evidently Perry is unaware of precisely what the charges are.
> 
> _(CNN) &#8211; Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he's not familiar with the legal language of the indictment handed up against him by a grand jury in Travis County last week. "I've been indicted by that same body now for, *I think, two counts: One of bribery, which I'm not a lawyer so I don't really understand the details here*," he said in a lengthy explanation of the case before a New Hampshire audience._
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...understand-the-details-of-indictment-charges/
> ...


That's just part of his schtick...people don't like lawyers, so he's casting himself as the everyday guy, non-lawyer protagonist. It's him against the lawyers. The special prosecutor (lawyer) is the antagonist and Lehmberg (lawyer) is the foil. Brilliant, really. He's really shaping up to be a halfway decent politician.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> That's just part of his schtick...people don't like lawyers, so he's casting himself as the everyday guy, non-lawyer protagonist. It's him against the lawyers. The special prosecutor (lawyer) is the antagonist and Lehmberg (lawyer) is the foil. Brilliant, really. He's really shaping up to be a halfway decent politician.


Maybe so, but I don't see how that will help him in court.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Perry is already feeling the effects of this charge, or at least he should be.
> First, this charge is serious enough (a felony that carries a potential sentence of a year or more) that
> *he is now barred from purchasing a gun, or even receiving a gun as a gift.
> His concealed carry permit is also required to be revoked. *
> ...


**********************************
with a milk toast attitude.....*YOU GO FOR THE GUSTO!!!* Where do you conjure up these wild ideas? 
Is there actually a regressive's handbook that they hand out at the political conventions, that gives 
you the play-of-the-day smear attack, to copy and paste and use on websites for the liberal's patsy of the moment? eep:

*Simply unbelievable.* Except you pull it all the time.....so it really isn't.
What I find even more mystifying, is that hardly anyone calls you on it.
Must have them either buffaloed or baffled with all that BS that comes out of your typing finger.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind citing the exact statute (either State or Federal law; makes no difference to me) 
that *YOU* are able to make such a largesse claim, that Perry will now be stripped of his right to possess any 
firearm or lose even his right to CCW, simply because he's under a felony indictment? 

Now if you had clarified that a bit, to if he were to be convicted of a felony and then sentenced to over 1 year in a prison, 
then you'd never have heard a peep from me. But Mr. (so-called & might I add, self proclaimed) Voice of Reason, you didn't......
so *NOW* you've got some 'splaining to do!!!

I'll even give you a little help here.....albeit very little. 
The closest thing to trying to make your case will be Heller-vs-The D.C. and that doesn't address those who are under indictments. 
It also doesn't say that an individual can't possess a firearm within their own domiciles for self-protection. Finally, the coup-de-grace..... 
the courts have seen fit to argue that only potentially dangerous individuals (convicted felons or the mentally ill) may be denied such rights.
However....some lower courts have disagreed with this notion....so it remains to be seen. Perhaps if what you claim for Perry is true, 
he can then take this all the way to the Supreme Court on appeal and see what that gets him. If nothing else, it would make him the darling of
*EVERY REDBLOODED GUN-LOVING and owning, BOY & GIRL *in this vast country and he would be swept into whatever office he so desires!!! 
You're going to be hard pressed to come up with anything remotely resembling what you've already announced with as 'fact'. 
Perhaps an apology and a retraction of that earlier statement would be in order. And then a promise to double-check the next time 
you plan on making such a claim instead of inserting foot-in-mouth. :hammer: 
http://www.volokh.com/2011/05/11/the-second-amendment-and-people-who-have-been-indicted/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> **********************************
> with a milk toast attitude.....*YOU GO FOR THE GUSTO!!!* Where do you conjure up these wild ideas?
> Is there actually a regressive's handbook that they hand out at the political conventions, that gives
> you the play-of-the-day smear attack, to copy and paste and use on websites for the liberal's patsy of the moment? eep:
> ...


I like that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^ good job!:goodjob:


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

GWB got the DUI 25 years before he became president. IIRC...You have to ask yourself what did I do 25 years ago that was stupid.


----------



## Calico Katie (Sep 12, 2003)

wally said:


> GWB got the DUI 25 years before he became president. IIRC...You have to ask yourself what did I do 25 years ago that was stupid.


I'm a conservative but there were many things Bush did that I didn't agree with - the creation of the Department of Homeland Security being near the top of the list. Unfortunately, the foaming at the mouth liberals have put me in a position of defending him whether I really want to or not. Six years after they put a community activist - shorthand for "I don't want to get a real job" - into the White House, they're still blaming Bush for every ingrown toenail in DC. They truly believed that if they put one of their own into power, there would be rainbows and pots of gold on every street corner. Sorry, that only happens in a Lucky Charms commercial. 

That same blindness and rabid dog mentality is going to work against them. I've been saying since the story first broke that the Democrats are making Perry look like the one in the lead for 2016.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/rick...lp-more-than-hurt-his-2016-chances-1408749774

Perry wouldn't be my first or even second choice for President but compared to the nightmare we've been living for the past six years, I'd take him in a heartbeat. He doesn't have to be smart, he does have to have smart people around him and so far that's what he's done. 

Why bother moving this thread to Politics? This is what life is in the USA now.


----------



## Calico Katie (Sep 12, 2003)

When I clicked on the link I posted, it took me to the Wall Street Journal page but didn't show the whole story. Sorry if that happens to you. If you google for it, you can get the whole page instead of just the headline and an ad. 

Here are a couple of paragraphs ...

_As Mr. Perry lays the foundation for a possible second White House bid, strategists in early primary election states such as Iowa and South Carolina say the indictment would strengthen his standing among voters there._
_"Republicans in South Carolina are going to eat up what Perry did," said Chad Connelly, that state's former Republican Party chairman. _
_Mark Lundberg, chairman of the Sioux County GOP in Iowa, said the indictment appears to be "political gamesmanship," and potential Iowa caucus-goers probably won't hold it against him._


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> **********************************
> with a milk toast attitude.....*YOU GO FOR THE GUSTO!!!* Where do you conjure up these wild ideas?
> Is there actually a regressive's handbook that they hand out at the political conventions, that gives
> you the play-of-the-day smear attack, to copy and paste and use on websites for the liberal's patsy of the moment? eep:
> ...


As for concealed carry (Texas law):

_Â§ 411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person: 
(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;_
http://law.onecle.com/texas/government/411.172.00.html

As for purchasing a gun (federal law):

_18 U.S.C.A. Â§ 922 It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce._
http://www.nraila.org/legal/issues/fact-sheets/18-usc-922%28n%29.aspx


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but I don't see how that will help him in court.


:smack 

it is a political strategy, not a legal strategy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I like that! ^^^^^^^^^^^^ good job!:goodjob:


Too bad he's mistaken.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> There are major differences besides the fact they were republicans. Neither of those other DA's was in control of a public integrity unit that had jurisdiction across the whole state. Perry also had no veto power over funding their offices.


Ah, jt, there ya go, showing them how to do a comparison, again...won't help. They'll still compare a rattler to a duck.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but I don't see how that will help him in court.


When he's in court he'll probably let the lawyers handle it. He's not in court now...he's in New Hampshire...so he's doing what he does...politics.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently Perry is unaware of precisely what the charges are.
> 
> _(CNN) â Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he's not familiar with the legal language of the indictment handed up against him by a grand jury in Travis County last week. "I've been indicted by that same body now for, *I think, two counts: One of bribery, which I'm not a lawyer so I don't really understand the details here*," he said in a lengthy explanation of the case before a New Hampshire audience._
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...understand-the-details-of-indictment-charges/
> ...


You really don't want to go there when the current President has stated there are 57 states and many other things.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but I don't see how that will help him in court.


Battles like this are fought in the court of public opinion LONG before, and if, they make it into a court of law. If the dems see this helping him and/or damaging them in the PR arena they will very quickly at least try to have the charges dropped.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, jt, there ya go, showing them how to do a comparison, again...won't help. They'll still compare a rattler to a duck.


 How about this. Maybe just maybe the Democrat D.A. was drunk herself when she indicted Perry.. Wouldn't that be a hoot. LOL

[YOUTUBE]?v=x-bj-BLTRRo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> How about this. Maybe just maybe the Democrat D.A. was drunk herself when she indicted Perry.. Wouldn't that be a hoot. LOL


Perry was indicted by a grand jury, but the case was presented by a special prosecutor who happened to be a republican appointee.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

http://americanprosperity.com/was-this-democrat-d-a-drunk-when-she-indicted-gov-rick-perry/ 


> However, Lehmberg would have none of it, and is now on a mission to see that Perry is sentenced to prison time for using his authority to remove her from the position she was obviously unfit to serve.
> 
> Typical liberal Democrat, huh?
> 
> ...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> http://americanprosperity.com/was-this-democrat-d-a-drunk-when-she-indicted-gov-rick-perry/


Hint: Don't take everything Sarah Palin says as true.

Maybe you'll find this to be more factual.

_AUSTIN, TexasâSan Antonio lawyer Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor behind the indictment of Republican Gov. Rick Perry, is described by colleagues as a steadfastly apolitical straight shooter._
http://online.wsj.com/articles/texa...ts-spotlight-on-special-prosecutor-1408491138


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Too bad he's mistaken.


I believe YOU are the one that's wrong!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I believe YOU are the one that's wrong!


I quoted the statutes in post #220. What more do you need?


----------



## Calico Katie (Sep 12, 2003)

Under Texas law, someone who has been indicted for a criminal charge will have their license to carry suspended during the term of indictment. So, they can't carry their weapons publicly. They get to keep all the guns they already have and can carry them on their own property and in their home.

Under the Castle law in Texas, that means that if someone decided to use this as an opportunity to break into Perry's house and rob him, Perry could shoot them dead and would not be charged with a criminal offense even though he's under indictment on another charge.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Calico Katie said:


> Under Texas law, someone who has been indicted for a criminal charge will have their license to carry suspended during the term of indictment. So, they can't carry their weapons publicly. They get to keep all the guns they already have and can carry them on their own property and in their home.
> 
> Under the Castle law in Texas, that means that if someone decided to use this as an opportunity to break into Perry's house and rob him, Perry could shoot them dead and would not be charged with a criminal offense even though he's under indictment on another charge.


That sounds correct. We should add that under federal law he's also not allowed to purchase a handgun, and it would be unlawful for him to even accept one as a gift.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Hint: Don't take everything Sarah Palin says as true.
> 
> Maybe you'll find this to be more factual.
> 
> ...


A straight shooter? In your opinion?

Well by jingies, That's good enough for me!

This is bad politics.

and I do not mean bad as in evil. I mean bad as in unsophisticated, sophmoric, slapstick, bush league politics. 
If this is the best the great Democratic machine can come up with they have entered a stage of political dementia.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/politics/522516-gov-rick-perry-indicted.html

Is the Rick Perry Indicted thread in Political section where this should have been. 

The Political forum was made so this type of thread would not block up General Chat for the "everything else".

Please use Political forum for this type of thread.

If you cannot get into political forum, send me a PM and we can fix that problem for you.

Thanks


----------

