29 replies to this topic

[Tricia]

Um...does Rick Perry not even know what the charges against him are?

http://blog.chron.co...ent/#26203101=0

Quote

As Gov. Rick Perry addressed business leaders in New Hampshire last Friday, he was asked about the two-count felony indictment  he’s facing back home.
His answer, according to ABC News: “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.”
Bribery? Really?
The two-page indictment handed up Aug. 15 alleged that Perry violated two state laws — abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official — for the way he vetoed state funding for the Travis County Public Integrity Unit, an ethics watchdog office, back in June 2013.

Trying to tell us something, Ricky? Or just another OOPS moment?  

[DarthMarley]

http://www.kens5.com...arges/14570287/

Quote

Attorneys for Gov. Rick Perry have filed a 60-page writ of habeas corpus to dismiss the charges filed against the governor.
The writ claims the charges of abuse of power and coercion filed against Perry are unconstitutional and that Perry was simply exercising his constitutional veto powers when he vetoed funding for the Public Integrity Unit last summer.
“By seeking to criminalize not merely the veto itself, but the Governor’s explanation for it as well, this prosecution also violates the Governor’s rights under Free Speech Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitution…” the writ says in part.
The writ also says the indictment violates the constitutional separation of powers and the speech or debate clause in the Texas Constitution.

I can get partisans cheering for the demise of a hated enemy. I can get mocking an apparently dull witted politician making another idiotic statement.
But can someone cheering for this indictment explain why they think this is a good and legal move on grounds other than it attacks their political enemy?

[Omega]

^Because abuse of power should be punished to uphold the rule of law?

Same reason I've advocated for Obama's impeachment. Strange, that...

I mean, that explanation you quoted is ridiculous. It effectively says that any admission of guilt can't be considered in a criminal case, because it's just an exercise of free speech rights. He's not being punished for what he said. He's being punished for what he did and why he did it. The fact that he happened to confess to the why is his own stupid fault.

Edited by Omega, 28 August 2014 - 07:14 AM.

[Nonny]

DarthMarley, on 27 August 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

http://www.kens5.com...arges/14570287/

Quote

Attorneys for Gov. Rick Perry have filed a 60-page writ of habeas corpus to dismiss the charges filed against the governor.
The writ claims the charges of abuse of power and coercion filed against Perry are unconstitutional and that Perry was simply exercising his constitutional veto powers when he vetoed funding for the Public Integrity Unit last summer.
“By seeking to criminalize not merely the veto itself, but the Governor’s explanation for it as well, this prosecution also violates the Governor’s rights under Free Speech Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitution…” the writ says in part.
The writ also says the indictment violates the constitutional separation of powers and the speech or debate clause in the Texas Constitution.

I can get partisans cheering for the demise of a hated enemy. I can get mocking an apparently dull witted politician making another idiotic statement.
But can someone cheering for this indictment explain why they think this is a good and legal move on grounds other than it attacks their political enemy?

Because we're going by the grounds in the indictment, not the ones stated in the defense?

Oh please tell me that cheering over the demise of a hated enemy is not as close to a political universal as makes no nevermind!  As it happens, my side tends to be shorter on the dull witted making idiotic statements these days.  A lot shorter.  As for "demise" I think it's a bit early for that, unless the demise is of his presidential aspirations.  Which makes me wonder.  Since it wasn't Democrats who brought this indictment, is it possible that his actual political enemies are the GOP who want to clear the field of one horrible candidate ?  Hmmmmm....

[DarthMarley]

Omega, on 28 August 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

^Because abuse of power should be punished to uphold the rule of law?

Same reason I've advocated for Obama's impeachment. Strange, that...

I mean, that explanation you quoted is ridiculous. It effectively says that any admission of guilt can't be considered in a criminal case, because it's just an exercise of free speech rights. He's not being punished for what he said. He's being punished for what he did and why he did it. The fact that he happened to confess to the why is his own stupid fault.

No, it doens't say that at all.
It is not an abuse of power for a gov to veto a line item.
It is certainly not an abuse of power to defund a public intergrity unit that is lead by an embarassment.

http://www.exisle.ne...p/#entry1496654

The quoted part in that post deals with what the defense is saying by a free speech claim, and what your interpretation of such speech as an admission of guilt whould mean.

[DarthMarley]

Nonny, on 28 August 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

DarthMarley, on 27 August 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

http://www.kens5.com...arges/14570287/

Quote

Attorneys for Gov. Rick Perry have filed a 60-page writ of habeas corpus to dismiss the charges filed against the governor.
The writ claims the charges of abuse of power and coercion filed against Perry are unconstitutional and that Perry was simply exercising his constitutional veto powers when he vetoed funding for the Public Integrity Unit last summer.
“By seeking to criminalize not merely the veto itself, but the Governor’s explanation for it as well, this prosecution also violates the Governor’s rights under Free Speech Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitution…” the writ says in part.
The writ also says the indictment violates the constitutional separation of powers and the speech or debate clause in the Texas Constitution.

I can get partisans cheering for the demise of a hated enemy. I can get mocking an apparently dull witted politician making another idiotic statement.
But can someone cheering for this indictment explain why they think this is a good and legal move on grounds other than it attacks their political enemy?

Because we're going by the grounds in the indictment, not the ones stated in the defense?

Oh please tell me that cheering over the demise of a hated enemy is not as close to a political universal as makes no nevermind!  As it happens, my side tends to be shorter on the dull witted making idiotic statements these days.  A lot shorter.  As for "demise" I think it's a bit early for that, unless the demise is of his presidential aspirations.  Which makes me wonder.  Since it wasn't Democrats who brought this indictment, is it possible that his actual political enemies are the GOP who want to clear the field of one horrible candidate ?  Hmmmmm....

So, you accept the idea that a legal role of an executive can be challenged in an arbitrary manner?

Dull witted comments happen every day. Videos on the youtubes have many idiotic comments from civil rights advocates, and DNC spokeswomen. The left has plenty of mockables.

If there is no clear principle involved in this indictment, then this is just a case of justice, while using the same standard against the "other side" is "lynching."

[Nonny]

DarthMarley, on 10 September 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

So, you accept the idea that a legal role of an executive can be challenged in an arbitrary manner?

You accept the idea that it's arbitrary?

[DarthMarley]

Nonny, on 10 September 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

DarthMarley, on 10 September 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

So, you accept the idea that a legal role of an executive can be challenged in an arbitrary manner?

You accept the idea that it's arbitrary?

I assert that the prosecution is arbitrary. If you are thinking that the veto is arbitrary, so what? It is a constitutional role of office. Some people not liking a veto, or not liking its motive does not make it illegal.

[Nonny]

DarthMarley, on 10 September 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

I assert that the prosecution is arbitrary.

So?

[DarthMarley]

Nonny, on 10 September 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

DarthMarley, on 10 September 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

I assert that the prosecution is arbitrary.

So?

It isn't rocket science. Either you accept that this is an illegal prosecution, or shut your mouth when the same standard is applied to idiotic Democrats.