|
And it's surely true. I mean even if the guy who brought the indictment is a Pat Fitzgerald type, this all happened because of politics. In this specific case you can't remove any of the context because it's all relevant. Here's a good rundown from before the indictment came down: http://www.texasobserver.org/everything-wanted-know-rick-perrys-new-scandal/ And after: http://www.texasobserver.org/rick-perry-indicted-two-counts/ For Texas stuff, the Observer is usually a good go-to source.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
No, no, I don't disagree - but even within that narrative it's all political. This is the issue. He didn't rob a liquor store, he's playing politics and they're playing politics back. There's no doubt that Rick Perry is old-school corrupt like the day is long and that all of this is entirely about political corruption, but this is about the worst case imaginable to bring against him because there's no way to unwind the actions of either side from one another. He isn't on trial for the UT stuff or the pharma stuff or the cancer stuff or anything else, he's on trial for a political pissing match with a DA's office that's notoriously political as well and the central issue is my corrupt Governor trying to force out of office a corrupt DA. He's leaving office soon as well, so it's not really helping to remove him from power.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
Oh they can do worse than they already are, lest we forget the Dream Team. Wendy Davis is no great shakes, but she's the best thing they've tried in a long time. Bill White would've been an excellent Governor, but in American democracy we don't appoint technocrats, you have to actually go out and win elections. Bill White, for all the positive points about the man, was about as engaging and charismatic publicly as wallpaper paste.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
14 years in power I think the Observer nailed it, you just get comfortable with power. One day you do something that's so completely over the line that it's obvious, but you don't even know it because nothing has ever backfired on you. I'm still not sure the legal case has legs, but he obviously abused his power very publicly for what amounts to no gain. He's not a hugely bright man, though, and he's been in power forever, so I guess it makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Lots of corrupt people aren't accused of crimes against the law. Go watch the videos and read the transcripts of her asking to have the Sheriff come release her and threatening his deputies with jail time and so on. Yeah, she's corrupt.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Allow me to transport you to bizarro D&D, where a Republican DA is arrested for a DUI and stats calling for her buddies in the police department to bail her out and threatening officers with jail time and that's not considered corrupt.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:I don't think the (exceedingly obvious) corruption of the DA has any relevance to the situation with Perry though. The kind of cronyist corruption of trying to weasel your way out of a DUI by name dropping your friends in the PD and throwing around empty threats of jail time is a little more, I don't know, benign? than what Perry is doing which is pretty objectively an abuse of power. In my view it should have nothing to do with political party or consistency of prosecution or whatever, if politicians break the law we need to start nailing these fuckers. GlyphGryph posted:I don't know, if the guy was actually jailed for it, served his sentence, and agreed not to seek re-election? Its not really... corruption unless it actually helps, is it? Attempted corruption, maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What is this weird loving thing where people think consequences, effects and outcomes don't actually matter? GlyphGryph posted:So why does it matter? How, exactly, is it important? If you're going to make an argument, make it, don't just point at the obviously bad person and say "bad person!" and expect that to justify someone else doing something illegal, especially when the first person saw jail time for it! Thank ka!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Well in that case, Rick Perry just vetoed funding for a department he didn't like. Murder isn't murder and not wanting to fund something you don't want to fund is just not wanting to fund something you don't want to fund. Case closed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you aware that you say some really stupid loving poo poo and appear to have difficulty reading other people's posts and figuring out what they are saying and with the entire concept of one point being relevant to another point rather than just related? Anyway, GlyphGryph aside, IANAL but my reading of the charges is that they're linked - as in, if the first count doesn't stick then the second count doesn't either and vice versa. It is an interesting use of the law, is this pretty standard or what? The first count basically says he misused state property, period. That's the entire first count. In order for that to be true, the second count also has to be true. If they don't find that the second count is true then he didn't misuse state property. Sounds like a shaky case. I mean it sounds like it's entirely possible that the just would come back and say yes on count two but no on count one because vetoing funding is a normal part of his job. Obviously, I also know full well that he did this to get back at the people who were investigating him and making his life difficult, but Republicans in Texas going after the Travis County DA is news on par with the Travis County DA going after Republicans. The curious part to me is whether what he did is actually something you can't do. I don't mean among the hyperventilating lefties, but among people who are trying to view this objectively. There's obviously a law about coercing a public official, which is basically the second count of his indictment, but if you're the Governor and you're required to either sign or veto funding for stuff and you say it all very publicly then doesn't that sort of fall under your powers of being the Governor? It seems like the case would be a lot stronger if he had hidden everything and there were deleted emails or voice recordings unearthed from his Niggerhead Lair. The thing that gives me pause is that the investigator they appointed really sounds like there's more going on than he's been able to charge and he seems like a pretty legit guy. I don't know anything about him, but he seems pretty well respected.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
MrBims posted:She had a .23 BAC. You're, uh, kinda not 100% accountable for everything you say while under the influence of mind-altering drugs. My Imaginary GF posted:No, I did watch the video. She has not commited an illegal act of misconduct in the video. You are allowed to imply that you will use your official powers for political purposes. It is illegal to directly use your official powers for political purposes. She did not use her official powers, nor did she say directly that she would use her official powers, for political/personal gain. Meanwhile, Perry used his official power (veto) for a political purpose (force Lehmberg to resign). That was Perry's public statement.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
It is, however, Rick Perry's debate strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Well, I'll leave it at her not being the one up on charges, so it doesn't really matter I guess, but I'm pretty sure that when a DA threatens the job of the law enforcement officers arresting her that's a personal threat just as much as "if you don't blow me, you're fired" is sexual harassment when a manager to whom you're not a direct report says it (even if he's drunk). Elotana makes an interesting point with his last post in that the (c) exception actually does look like it could help exonerate Governor Goodhair. Vetoing funding is basically a normal part of his job. Now if he'd gotten drunk, arrested and indicted and then screamed at her threatening to have her fired, he would obviously be not guilty.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
How about "arguing on the internet"?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree that's going to be their case from what it looks like. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:.23 BAC, how is she not dead?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:This seems like a very pedantic argument, though (not you, just in general). What difference should it make in the order in which things happened in this case? Isn't "I will do x unless you do y" basically the same as "I did x, because she didn't do y"? MisterBadIdea posted:Hey, remember Bridgegate? That looked, and looks, pretty bad, right? Even though Christie's still standing and the investigation is probably dead, it's going to taint his career for a while. Because 1) he made the lives of citizens intentionally worse, 2) he did for his own selfish gain, and 3) he did it hidden well away from the public eye. ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There's a good article up on The Texas Tribune, that discusses many of the points in this thread: http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/five-things-know-about-perry-indictment/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I forgot to point out that .239 indicates that there was 1.239 pints of pure alcohol in her blood, which is fairly normal for native Texans at that time of night.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There's a reason DWI checkpoints never passes the ledg....
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
I'd bet just like there are more white welfare recipients there are more white politicians in jail. Just off the top of my head in the last few years there's been like every living Governor of Illinois, some living Governors or Louisiana, Duke Cunningham, James Traficant, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff and so on. Of black politicians I can only think of Jesse Jackson Jr., Kwame Kilpatrick (are we going to get into mayoral level here?) and William Jefferson. I'd definitely agree that a wealthy, white politician is going to get off with a slap on the wrist more of the time than a black politician, but just by sheer weight of numbers I think my people in politics probably still hold the edge in going to jail for crimes, heh. DON'T TRY TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM US OKAY.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
I agree completely on that, which is why I think this case will go nowhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
It's not a settled issue, that's the thing. This isn't yet at all like the Blagojevich case where he and his staff were convicted of wire fraud for trying to structure transactions and then many other things. It may turn out that way, and maybe this investigator has the goods, but as of right now it's one of those things where everyone gets to have an opinion, it seems, because the law doesn't seem to be 100% clear. Perry hasn't been accused of all this other adjacent criminal behavior, his whole alleged crime happened right out in public and involved his powers. That's obviously murky.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
This is why I wonder if the special investigator has something more. He made comments to the effect that he was pretty unnerved by what he'd discovered during his investigation. Now that's posturing of course, but it doesn't mean there's nothing there. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT WILL SHOCK YOU
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
It's not Governor Perry's fault that there's a crayon shortage.Elotana posted:Why bring these weak-sauce charges, though? He's only had the special grand jury for 11 months now. You can keep a normal grand jury impaneled for 18 months, and I think a special grand jury for 36 months. 1) He's incompetent 2) He's lowballing the initial charge to lure the Governor into something 3) This is all he's got and he thinks it's a good case EDIT: Oops, it's 03:00 here - respect for the office.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
And stupid. Which, you know, is possible given how long he's been in power and how not-brilliant he is to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:I'm in Travis County and most of my friends are convinced -- ecstatic really -- that Perry is going down on this. thrakkorzog posted:Texas really historically hasn't been all that pro-booze, with plenty of dry counties throughout the state. It's easier to spot the county line in some places by the liquor stores on the county line, rather than any sign that you passed through a county.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
Business up front, libel in the back.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Sounds about right, actually. It certainly looks like a flimsy case, but no one knows what the prosecutor has unearthed and he talked a bit like he had something (which he would do either way).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:This is probably not the best way to spend your Sunday evening, Rick.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 01:58
|
|
