Texas Gov Rick Perry Indicted

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Vetoes and veto threats are always to coerce other politicians.

How many times did you run over your wife?

You can coerce them to do something within the framework of their job, for example vote a certain way. But you can not coerce an ELECTED official to resign. The people have the right to determine their elected officials, not the Governor.

At least, that's the idea behind this charge. Personally, I see both sides and doubt the case is strong enough to gain a conviction.
 
And none of them were even really crimes because your enemies (the relatives of your wives) checked the laws to find your crime, proving how biased they were.

Finally! Someone who understands. I'm not a criminal, I'm being persecuted! What kind of a country have we become if you aren't allowed to run over your imaginary ex-wife?

barfo
 
The prosecutors of each city are its true government and have too much power. Now that a Republican is the victim, maybe conservatives will see the light.
 
You can coerce them to do something within the framework of their job, for example vote a certain way. But you can not coerce an ELECTED official to resign. The people have the right to determine their elected officials, not the Governor.

At least, that's the idea behind this charge. Personally, I see both sides and doubt the case is strong enough to gain a conviction.

She had a choice to remain and she did. He didn't coerce her to do anything now, did he.
 
She had a choice. There are democrats calling for him to resign, too. Coercion!

I think this is a good example to use to decide if what Perry did is fair game or crossed the line.

If Obama said: Perry needs to resign or I will veto any bill that favor Texas.

Fair for Obama to do or abusing his power as president?
 
I think this is a good example to use to decide if what Perry did is fair game or crossed the line.

If Obama said: Perry needs to resign or I will veto any bill that favor Texas.

Fair for Obama to do or abusing his power as president?

He has the right to use his veto pen. I'd hope congress would override it. That's democratic.
 
He has the right to use his veto pen. I'd hope congress would override it. That's democratic.

Fair enough. If you think it is OK for him to take that public stance, I understand why you think Perry has done nothing wrong.

I feel the other way. If Obama said something like that I would be pissed and hope they come after him any way they can.
 
Fair enough. If you think it is OK for him to take that public stance, I understand why you think Perry has done nothing wrong.

I feel the other way. If Obama said something like that I would be pissed and hope they come after him any way they can.

Actually, upon only a little bit of reflection, I'm pretty sure that your proposal would be unconstitutional.

Parts of the 1965 voting rights act were overturned because of what Chief Justice Roberts wrote as "equal sovereignty." That is, the states have to be treated equal by the feds. So Obama would have to veto legislation favorable to each and every state or no state at all. And targeting Perry would be unfavorable to a state.

FWIW
 
Actually, upon only a little bit of reflection, I'm pretty sure that your proposal would be unconstitutional.

Parts of the 1965 voting rights act were overturned because of what Chief Justice Roberts wrote as "equal sovereignty." That is, the states have to be treated equal by the feds. So Obama would have to veto legislation favorable to each and every state or no state at all. And targeting Perry would be unfavorable to a state.

FWIW

Whatever the laws (like it's possibly coercion in Tx) . . . it's just not proper presidential conduct.

I think what Perry did was bullying and improper and would think the same if Obama did it.
 
What if Perry said : I won't veto the funding bill or demand your resignation, IF you agree to drop pending corruption charges against some of my friends. Would you still consider that proper/legal political coercion? Just how far are you willing to let a governor go?
 
What if Perry said, unless you sleep with me, I will veto this spending bill?

What if Perry said, unless you murder someone on the street and bring me their heart to devour, I will veto this spending bill?

Denny: Vetoing is a thing he's allowed to do. He cannot be accused of any crimes related to vetoing because vetoing is legal.
 
Not improper for a governor to veto a spending bill. Improper for a governor to threaten someone.

I figure you are someone who votes along party lines. I get that. Do you want Rick Perry as the republican nominee? I think you might like paul Ryan who is a serious candidate for the nominee. Chris Christie jumps out to me . . . but I haven't really looked at it much.

It was not a threat, it was a solid information. It became a fact.

Like I said, Rick Perry in not my first choice. There is probably at least a half dozen Republicans that would fill the need. But Christie isn't my first choice either. I think the guy is sort of entertaining but also a bit like a democrat, perhaps some hidden progressive lurking.
 
enough with the cock tease, who IS your first choice?
 
What if Perry said : I won't veto the funding bill or demand your resignation, IF you agree to drop pending corruption charges against some of my friends. Would you still consider that proper/legal political coercion? Just how far are you willing to let a governor go?

That's criminal. He benefits. A quid pro quo. There is none in saying the people will be better served by someone else.
 
:lol: If you are ever charged with blackmail/extortion, I strongly advise you not to try that as a defense.

Extortion and blackmail aren't done publicly announced at a press conference.
 
What if Perry said, unless you sleep with me, I will veto this spending bill?

What if Perry said, unless you murder someone on the street and bring me their heart to devour, I will veto this spending bill?

Denny: Vetoing is a thing he's allowed to do. He cannot be accused of any crimes related to vetoing because vetoing is legal.

Minstrel: make up something and pretend Denny said it.
 
Extortion and blackmail aren't done publicly announced at a press conference.

There's the rub. Right now we only know what was said publicly. What was said in the proverbial smoke-filled back-room is also relevant.

You MAY be right, and this may just be posturing. OTOH, it seems dangerous for the prosecutor to try this unless they have some kind of smoking gun.
 
It will be interesting to see what the Perry defense team does.

If they really believe this is just politics, they will demand a preliminary hearing. Force the prosecution to come out from behind the secrecy of the grand jury and expose their evidence to public scrutiny.
 
There's the rub. Right now we only know what was said publicly. What was said in the proverbial smoke-filled back-room is also relevant.

You MAY be right, and this may just be posturing. OTOH, it seems dangerous for the prosecutor to try this unless they have some kind of smoking gun.

What does he have to lose? The guy is a criminal lawyer, not a career govt lawyer .
 
BTW, since nobody else has come right out and said it, I will.

This case involves a politico meddling with the agency that investigates ethics complaints against politicos and their financial supporters. Perry could have vetoed almost any other item in the state budget without raising such a red flag.

IF it can be shown that he used the power of the Governor's office to interfere with the investigation and prosecution of a political supporter/ally, the charges are justified. None of us know whether the prosecution has evidence of that or not.
 
BTW, since nobody else has come right out and said it, I will.

This case involves a politico meddling with the agency that investigates ethics complaints against politicos and their financial supporters. Perry could have vetoed almost any other item in the state budget without raising such a red flag.

IF it can be shown that he used the power of the Governor's office to interfere with the investigation and prosecution of a political supporter/ally, the charges are justified. None of us know whether the prosecution has evidence of that or not.

[TWEET]500634429367533568[/TWEET]

I would question the source, but it is directly quoting Dershowitz here:

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/dershowitz-perry-indictment-outraged/2014/08/16/id/589179/

"This is another example of the criminalization of party differences," said Dershowitz, a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law who writes the "Legally Speaking" column for Newsmax. "This idea of an indictment is an extremely dangerous trend in America, whether directed at [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay or [former President] Bill Clinton."

Further, Dershowitz said, such indictments are something that's done in totalitarian countries and should not be done in the United States.

In such countries, "if you don't like them, you indict," Dershowitz said. "In America, you vote against them...this should be up to the voters. There is no room in America for abuse of office charges, and this has to stop once and for all. This is a serious problem."

And indicting a politician, rather than fighting back through a ballot box, "is so un-American."

Dershowitz also told Newsmax Perry was well within his rights when he vetoed the money for Lehmberg's office, as he "saw a drunk serving as DA" who "shouldn't be enforcing criminal law."

Dershowitz believes Perry will be acquitted, and the indictment will become an embarrassment to those involved.

Perry is often named as a potential candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016, and has opted not to seek a fourth term as governor of Texas. Dershowitz said he hopes the legal charges are resolved long before the presidential election campaign cycle begins.

"It's just ridiculous the extremes some prosecutors will go to," when they seek criminal charges in retribution for actions that they don't agree with politically," Dershowitz said.
 
What I find ironic is Dershowitz is saying this should be settled by voters. But Perry tried to do the exact same thing by forcing the District Attorney to resign when that should be left up to the voters.

Perry actions against the DA was unprofessional and bullying in nature. If his conduct rises to the level of a crime or should be resolved by voters is an interesting question, but no matter what, I hope it is held against him if he decides to run for the republican nomination.
 
What I find ironic is Dershowitz is saying this should be settled by voters. But Perry tried to do the exact same thing by forcing the District Attorney to resign when that should be left up to the voters.

Perry actions against the DA was unprofessional and bullying in nature. If his conduct rises to the level of a crime or should be resolved by voters is an interesting question, but no matter what, I hope it is held against him if he decides to run for the republican nomination.

Baloney! Perry did exactly what a Governor should do, veto moneys being squandered on a useless function.
 
What I find ironic is Dershowitz is saying this should be settled by voters. But Perry tried to do the exact same thing by forcing the District Attorney to resign when that should be left up to the voters.

Perry actions against the DA was unprofessional and bullying in nature. If his conduct rises to the level of a crime or should be resolved by voters is an interesting question, but no matter what, I hope it is held against him if he decides to run for the republican nomination.

Perry's actions were professional and in the interest of the people and he was doing his job.

He didn't force the District Attorney to resign. She's still DA. There's no law that says he should agree to fund them 100% of what they ask or infinite amount or $1.

In Bob Filner's case here in SD, the city council voted on quite a few things to reduce the mayor's powers to the point he resigned. Nobody complained about them being unprofessional and bullying in nature.
 
Baloney! Perry did exactly what a Governor should do, veto moneys being squandered on a useless function.

So, does that apply to all law enforcement, or only laws governing political coruption?
 
Perry's actions were professional and in the interest of the people and he was doing his job.

He didn't force the District Attorney to resign. She's still DA. There's no law that says he should agree to fund them 100% of what they ask or infinite amount or $1.

In Bob Filner's case here in SD, the city council voted on quite a few things to reduce the mayor's powers to the point he resigned. Nobody complained about them being unprofessional and bullying in nature.

I disagree. Perry is a bully and punk at best and maybe he is a criminal.

I don't think you get the idea of coercion . . . just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean it's not coercion.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top