TAHAWK 1420 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Tom Delay had a better smile. Many more teeth. This is the kind of piddly charge that many people can't understand, so they'll tune it out. He didn't stand a chance to be the president, so its not like it takes him out of the running. He'll pay a settlement in the end, or have a suspended sentence, and end up working at a K-street lobbiest, or on some corporate board, or yet another pointless think-tank. Maybe be an ambassador or cabinet appointment is some future administration. But this is boring enough to blow over (and yes, threatening to veto a bill to force an official to step down is an abuse of power). That is a question of Texas law. I don't know anything relevant about Texas law. Any citations of Texas statutory or case law to bring to our attention ? Link to post Share on other sites
Peregrinator 85 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I found this interesting: https://theweek.com/article/index/266857/innocent-before-proven-guilty-the-bizarre-bipartisan-rush-to-clear-rick-perry Link to post Share on other sites
Fehler 118 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 That is a question of Texas law. I don't know anything relevant about Texas law. Any citations of Texas statutory or case law to bring to our attention ? Did I say Rick Perry's actions fit the charges as outlined in the indictment? No, I made a general statement, that any official who threatens to use their constitutional power as a personal cudgel, rather then in the betterment of public policy, is abusing their power. Nixon had the power to order Bork to fire Cox. Christie can order a traffic study on any damn bridge he pleases. Doesn't make it right. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 As if that article contains surprises. Yes, this may lead to a conviction. All that stuff may be completely true. It doesn't detract from the idea that if the people don't want that kind of governance, they should elect a different person. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Christie can order a traffic study on any damn bridge he pleases. Doesn't make it right. There's that name again. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't. But nobody, including Christie and his critics, say that was what happened. He says he didn't know the lanes were being closed, for any reason, and so far there is no publicly known evidence to the contrary. If it is shown that he did, he would probably have to resign, because he would have been lying steadily to the public for many months. The actual reason for the closure is really secondary at this point, at least as it relates to the governor himself. The other impact is that we still have an acting state attorney general, because Christie's selection is the guy who was the direct boss of the person who wrote the "time for some traffic problems" email. A lot of people, including me, don't believe a deputy chief of staff did that without approval from anybody. Sorry for the interruption, you may return to your regularly scheduled Texas scandal now. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Wait, his real first name is James, not Richard? The scandal deepens. Link to post Share on other sites
Peregrinator 85 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Packsaddle, that is very true. However (and I'm not saying this is true in Perry's case), the extent of corruption often isn't widely known until things like this are brought to light. And if a state doesn't allow recall elections then a felony conviction might be the only way to remove a public official from office. Before I read the article I cited, I thought this was a pretty cut and dry case of witch-hunting, and I don't even like Rick Perry. (Of course, I'm not a Texan so what I know about Perry comes from the national media.) Now I am less certain that it is a witch hunt. Link to post Share on other sites
King Ding Dong 540 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 This opinion piece covers many of the same points but also has some other assertions. Two other DAs in TX received DUIs and Perry didn't raise an eyebrow. Why Rick Perry Will Be Convicted http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-rick-perry-will-be-co_b_5686664.html Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 HuffPo as a reliable source? Tuck in your short-tail; your bias is showing. Link to post Share on other sites
King Ding Dong 540 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 HuffPo as a reliable source? Tuck in your short-tail; your bias is showing. I clearly stated it was an opinion piece. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 I clearly stated it was an opinion piece. That you did. But does declaring "Mud!" mean that it's not mud-slinging? ;^) Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 In this Huff and Puff is typical of today's media - left and right: Get past the bloodthirsty headline and the operative word in the arrticle is "might," as in Perry might be convicted. Many things might come to pass. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Well, that Huffington Post article is partly an opinion piece, but it has a lot of facts in it as well. JoeBob, I am curious as to which specific facts you believe are incorrect, and why. Link to post Share on other sites
King Ding Dong 540 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Her is some more "Mud" from the guys who filled the complaint. They claim they filed it before the veto occurred as it is the threat that is illegal under Texas law. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/rick-perry-indictment-liberals-110229.html#.U_uaV2K9KK0 Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 I'm not going to bother researching the way the law is worded. It's not that important to me. But let's face it: these charges are an attempt to criminalize political disagreement. "abuse of official capacity, coercion of a public servant, official oppression and bribery" Pretty vague. If you want to argue that what Perry did was morally wrong, I'll partake of that discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now