Whoops! Number One Yell Leader...

What is the definition of coercion of a public official? Much of politics is coercing other to do what you want, depending on your defintion.
 
A significant part of this legal action is defining the funds as government property. So, misuse of property. Something like that.

A problem with all of it is other than a mild comment by Wendy and one state democratic official, no one in Texas or the country wants to go out on a limb and say it's a good move. Why risk looking like a fool months from now for a few contemporary licks.

On the other hand, some top Democrats have called it foolish. David Axelrod. Which I think also is to ask why sue the CEO of the US?

Regardless, I think Perry comes out of this looking good by standing strong and making fools of the idiots who dreamed this up.
 
I am not qualified to opine on whether what Perry did was illegal. But even if it was, I don't like the idea of prosecuting him. To an outsider like me, this comes across as a petty turf battle.

That said, I do think what Perry did crosses the line. Our country has a long tradition of trading one issue against another. Immigration reform and support for Israel are unrelated, but politicians who care more about one can trade off with other politicians who care more about the other. I have no problem with the way the system works in this regard.

What Perry did is significantly different. He didn't barter one policy decision against another. Instead, he used his power over the public purse to influence someone else's decision about a personal matter. Giving a politician the power to tell another politician "resign or else" is dangerous.
 
How about running this lady on the Democratic Ticket for Vice-President in 2016?

Run Perry off the Republican ticket. Put her on the Democratic ticket. Just flip it. Take the case and shove Perry down. Make him the goat, her the hero. Go for it!
 
Democrats set a new low for integrity every chance they get.................nation/State be damned.
 
Isn't the rest of the story though that the Public Investigation Unit was investigating significant Perry donor(s)?

The Link

I am not very fond of this indictment, but I understood that this was what sort of tied it all together.

It seems to me that Perry should not have the power to veto funding for this particular unit of state government.
 
Was the CPRIT person who is under investigation truly a Perry donor or appointee?

Maybe I am mixing things but I heard that Perry appointed several people to CPRIT but that none of those people are under investigation by the public integrity office. I know that but I don't know about Perry donors. Is there a Perry donor under investigation that Perry didn't appoint?
 
Deez,

Was the Grand Jury for this regular Travis County residents or legal professionals? Are grand juries ever comprised of legal professionals? Is their voir dire?
 
Texex2000, not only did I not practice criminal law, I never took the relevant coursework in law school, so I'm probably the least qualified lawyer on the board to answer your questions on this. In addition, there isn't a close equivalent of the grand jury in civil cases. We file the lawsuit, and upon the defendant's motion, the trial judge decides if the evidence is sufficient to go to trial. However, I'll do my best.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Deez,

Thanks. I just know that Article 32 hearings (UCMJ grand jury) in the military are just the judge.

The voir dire just seems to ensure they're eligible to serve. Hell, in that case any Travis County grand jury would indite Perry for the Kennedy Assasination.
 
biggrin.gif


BvrAWMgCEAAVN-z_zps3188dd6c.jpg
 
I have read some spin that the piu has prosecuted democrats and something to do with welfare corruption. Is that just for political cover when in reality they are only after pubs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top