There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
You realize how easily this could be done, right?
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
It won't matter I'll flee the country and then beat up the Rock and get pardons
It's going to be pretty hard to find a grand jury full of people in Texas that meet that standard of objectivity toward a long serving governor with Presidential ambitions.
It's an absurd claim. You might as well say that no christian is allowed to serve on a grand jury if the defendant is christian.
That would be a mighty empty jury pool in parts of the country. Though it probably wouldn't matter what with the court house being burned to the ground by an angry mob.
There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
I hear people at the grocery store saying that and they aren't even on grand juries.
I know I promised to stop but damnit Austin you're making this far too easy!
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
I hear people at the grocery store saying that and they aren't even on grand juries.
I know I promised to stop but damnit Austin you're making this far too easy!
Were any of these people on the jury that indicted him?
There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
I hear people at the grocery store saying that and they aren't even on grand juries.
I know I promised to stop but damnit Austin you're making this far too easy!
Were any of these people on the jury that indicted him?
Why is it a problem for a democrat to sit on a grand jury against a republican, but not for a republican governor to attempt to force a democrat out of office? I mean if we accept both cases the players are doing it for political reasons? What's the difference?
In this case you'd have to find people in Texas who are literally unaware of the guy who's been Governor for almost 14 years for "neutrality."
Just take a damn sample of the population and you get what you get. Perry's lawyers will have the ability to object to jurors in the criminal trial. The end.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Why is it a problem for a democrat to sit on a grand jury against a republican, but not for a republican governor to attempt to force a democrat out of office? I mean if we accept both cases the players are doing it for political reasons? What's the difference?
If the state government of Texas didn't want Austinites interfering in their affairs, maybe they shouldn't have planted their goddamn capital there.
We tried moving it to Houston but this lady fired a cannon at us and it all went wrong.
This actually happened... Sam Houston tried to have all the government records (at the time National records, as Texas was a Republic and he was President of it) taken by stagecoach in the dead of night and moved to Houston under the theory that if the records were there, the government would have to move. A lady named Angelina Eberly owned a nearby hotel and noticed it happening. She fired a cannon into the Land Office building, waking the locals and alerting them to the "theft" in progress. It was the opening shot (also probably the only shot) of the Archive War, which was won by Austinites.
We don't have the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury to speculate on due to the gag order. But, with the members of the Grand Jury saying that there is a lot more than 'nothing' there, I'm not going to make any absolute statements either way about Perry's guilt. However, I'm not aware of anywhere in Texas's statutes where the governor is specifically allowed to use his official powers to coerce the resignation of his political opponents in this manner.
Can you cite this specific law?
If the prevailing interpretation of the law is correct (a point not necessarily conceded), it seems that as long as both actions are legal in a vacuum, than it's legal. Perry's use of a line item veto to cut the funding for the PIU is his legal right. It is Lehmberg's legal right to resign. So that makes Perry's coercion legal. It's a special exemption written for political office holders. The action (veto) is legal so the only way for it's use to be illegal is by using the threat of it to attempt to force someone to do something illegal. It is treated no differently that an Perry threatening "You pass funding for my pet project, or I'll veto funding for your's."
"Legal action to force legal action is legal" is laughably stupid. Giving someone money is legal, not publishing pictures is legal, but that does not make blackmail legal.
It is laughably stupid, but your analogy is flawed because there are specific laws that make blackmailing someone over the threat of publishing incriminating/embarrassing photos illegal. If the law was amended to specifically state that an otherwise legal action by a public office holder cannot be used to attempt to force another elected public office holder to resign their position, none of this would be an issue. But apparently putting that kind of language into law would make every legislative negotiation illegal. Somehow. Because reasons.
I have a feeling that we'll see legislation clarifying this further, if Perry wins his case. There's another session in 2015 and it'll get brought up at least.
I have a feeling that we'll see legislation clarifying this further, if Perry wins his case. There's another session in 2015 and it'll get brought up at least.
Which is the best justification for filing this suit in the first place. Either what he did was illegal or it should be illegal. Either way the indictment is the best way to get to one outcome or the other.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
The attempt is specifically exempted in the law. We have been over this a bunch of times. The last two pages are 100% rehashing the same conversation as the ones before it, including this exact argument.
Agents of government bodies are allowed to try and coerce each other, with their government powers, into doing official things as agents of the government.
"Resign or I'll cut your department's funding" is no more blackmail than "support my idea x or I'll veto your bill y" ,or even "tell the truth to the committee or you're fired". You might not like it morally, but legally it looks almost certain to break Perry's way.
We seriously have talked about this over and over - if you want to make this argument from the "it's illegal" side you've got to do the heavy lifting here and tackle reason why in the statutes.
That wasn't my point. My point was that whatever Perry did that might have been illegal, it does not immediately become legal just because he did a shitty and ineffectual job of it. If it is illegal to threaten to cut someone's funding if they don't step down, it's illegal even they tell you to go fuck yourself. In an analogous manner as the way that blackmail is still illegal even if you suck at it. Or the way that election fraud is still illegal even if you fail to get your candidate to win.
"Well, she called his bluff" is a shitty non-argument, is what I'm saying.
I agree with that, and mostly I don't remember where I was going with that originally. I think I planned to bring it back around to the, "He was obviously doing this to forestall her investigation into him that was totally about to be announced" from the HuffPo article, and how if this was part of his master plan to avoid such an investigation it was a pretty ineffective and blindingly stupid way to go about it, so that smells somewhat unlikely, given that he's being investigated for being crooked, not for being completely incompetent.
But, that's just speculation, and not super important.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
The attempt is specifically exempted in the law. We have been over this a bunch of times. The last two pages are 100% rehashing the same conversation as the ones before it, including this exact argument.
Agents of government bodies are allowed to try and coerce each other, with their government powers, into doing official things as agents of the government.
"Resign or I'll cut your department's funding" is no more blackmail than "support my idea x or I'll veto your bill y" ,or even "tell the truth to the committee or you're fired". You might not like it morally, but legally it looks almost certain to break Perry's way.
We seriously have talked about this over and over - if you want to make this argument from the "it's illegal" side you've got to do the heavy lifting here and tackle reason why in the statutes.
That wasn't my point. My point was that whatever Perry did that might have been illegal, it does not immediately become legal just because he did a shitty and ineffectual job of it. If it is illegal to threaten to cut someone's funding if they don't step down, it's illegal even they tell you to go fuck yourself. In an analogous manner as the way that blackmail is still illegal even if you suck at it. Or the way that election fraud is still illegal even if you fail to get your candidate to win.
"Well, she called his bluff" is a shitty non-argument, is what I'm saying.
I agree with that, and mostly I don't remember where I was going with that originally. I think I planned to bring it back around to the, "He was obviously doing this to forestall her investigation into him that was totally about to be announced" from the HuffPo article, and how if this was part of his master plan to avoid such an investigation it was a pretty ineffective and blindingly stupid way to go about it, so that smells somewhat unlikely, given that he's being investigated for being crooked, not for being completely incompetent.
But, that's just speculation, and not super important.
Rick Perry isn't exactly the smartest man, he's basically the definition of never ascribe to malice what simple incompetence will cover. But our laws don't have a "Oh you didn't mean this illegally you're just an idiot."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
You're right, you can't speak for all Texans. This has nothing to do with her getting drunk, it has everything to do with how Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon illegally.
All of the attempts to compare this to another situation are ridiculous.
It's not like any of that.
Know what it is like?
It's like the governor of the state decided to threaten an entire department of the state government if the elected official he could not fire didn't resign.
Just so we are clear you are agreeing with me that this isn't about the drunk driving?
I like how you confirm how I cannot speak for all Texans, which is something I clearly admitted, but then proceed to claim "it has everything to do with Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon". Who exactly are you speaking for?
Myself. The only person I should be speaking for. My objection is to you stating "I can't speak for all Texans, but I'm going to speak for 'a lot' of them anyways"
I have a feeling that we'll see legislation clarifying this further, if Perry wins his case. There's another session in 2015 and it'll get brought up at least.
Which is the best justification for filing this suit in the first place. Either what he did was illegal or it should be illegal. Either way the indictment is the best way to get to one outcome or the other.
I'm going to make the bold statement that you shouldn't indict somebody based on what you want to be illegal, but instead based on the actual law.
I have a feeling that we'll see legislation clarifying this further, if Perry wins his case. There's another session in 2015 and it'll get brought up at least.
Which is the best justification for filing this suit in the first place. Either what he did was illegal or it should be illegal. Either way the indictment is the best way to get to one outcome or the other.
I'm going to make the bold statement that you shouldn't indict somebody based on what you want to be illegal, but instead based on the actual law.
The reason we have courts is to decide things like this.
There are readings of the law where it is and isn't illegal. It's a quantum felony.
If there's a question, it's supposed to be the courts that decide it. They're not just there to rubberstamp slam dunk convictions.
I have a feeling that we'll see legislation clarifying this further, if Perry wins his case. There's another session in 2015 and it'll get brought up at least.
Which is the best justification for filing this suit in the first place. Either what he did was illegal or it should be illegal. Either way the indictment is the best way to get to one outcome or the other.
I'm going to make the bold statement that you shouldn't indict somebody based on what you want to be illegal, but instead based on the actual law.
If there was zero question as to the legality of what was done, you're bold statement might not be so silly.
The charge of "criminalizing politics" has been the last refuge of scoundrels for going on at least four decades now. It first came to my attention in its embryonic form during the lengthy pursuit of history's yard waste, the traitor Richard Nixon. Back then, it was couched as It Didn't Start With Watergate, which was actually a book popular among the traitor's diehard supporters as the law closed in on him. But the phrase really got a workout during the Iran-Contra scandal. Orrin Hatch accused special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh of "criminalizing policy differences." Oliver North, the crook, called Walsh a "vindictive wretch," and Elliott Abrams, another crook, compared Walsh unfavorably to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. Bob Dole wouldn't shut up about it. All of this was dust thrown in the air to obscure the fact that the president and vice-president had been up to their eyeballs in impeachable offenses. Indeed, in pardoning everyone except Shoeless Joe Jackson on his way out of town, George H.W. Bush made the "criminalizing politics" dodge the basis for why he was using his constitutional powers to save his own withered ass.
"The proper forum is the voting booth, not the courtroom," Bush explained, "In recent years, the uses of criminal processes in policy disputes has become all too common. It is my hope that the action I am taking today will begin to restore these disputes to the battleground where they properly belong." In a press conference he called to discuss the pardons, Walsh made what should have been the unremarkable point that, "a lie to Congress is not a matter of political controversy. It is a crime."
After all, in the strict historical sense, every attempt to reform American politics has been an effort to "criminalize politics." This was the subliminal philosophical basis for the fight against open primaries and the direct election of senators. Bribery and influence-peddling were once business as usual, and rarely prosecuted. Now they are -- theoretically, at least -- criminal acts. The contempt shown by the machine politicians in the cities toward "goo-goo" progressive reformers was always couched in assertions that the reformers didn't understand how politics "worked." Given enough political power, even nominally "progressive" leaders like Huey Long in Louisiana and James Michael Curley in Boston argued that they were only practicing politics when their crimes and abuses of that power seemed to threaten their survival in office. Anyone who makes the "criminalizing politics" argument should take the care to realize that they are involving themselves in a sorry historical tradition.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
You're right, you can't speak for all Texans. This has nothing to do with her getting drunk, it has everything to do with how Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon illegally.
All of the attempts to compare this to another situation are ridiculous.
It's not like any of that.
Know what it is like?
It's like the governor of the state decided to threaten an entire department of the state government if the elected official he could not fire didn't resign.
Just so we are clear you are agreeing with me that this isn't about the drunk driving?
I like how you confirm how I cannot speak for all Texans, which is something I clearly admitted, but then proceed to claim "it has everything to do with Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon". Who exactly are you speaking for?
Myself. The only person I should be speaking for. My objection is to you stating "I can't speak for all Texans, but I'm going to speak for 'a lot' of them anyways"
I have lived and traveled all over Texas, and talked politics with a lot of Texans. I am comfortable with my assertion.
I mean, as long as we're getting all anecdotal, please don't speak for me either. Or any of the fairly large number of Texans I know who would take issue with your opinions.
There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
I hear people at the grocery store saying that and they aren't even on grand juries.
I know I promised to stop but damnit Austin you're making this far too easy!
To be fair, I totally understand. If I had a dollar for every joke about Austin I heard growing up, I could probably buy me a new graphics card. Needless to say, I have met plenty of Texans who don't trust anything that comes out of Austin. Which is one of the reasons I suspect that the indictment alone won't really hurt Perry.
There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
I hear people at the grocery store saying that and they aren't even on grand juries.
I know I promised to stop but damnit Austin you're making this far too easy!
To be fair, I totally understand. If I had a dollar for every joke about Austin I heard growing up, I could probably buy me a new graphics card. Needless to say, I have met plenty of Texans who don't trust anything that comes out of Austin. Which is one of the reasons I suspect that the indictment alone won't really hurt Perry.
How Texans, outside the jurors I guess, feel about Perry is functionally immaterial at this point. He's not going to be running for re-election, and he's not going to seek lower office, so Texans are pretty much done determining the arc of his career. Unless he does something so terrible as to lose them in the General Election that he won't be running for President.
There's a difference between being on a grand jury to charge famed Hollywood director Justin Lin with a crime and you've only seen his F&F movies, it's another to be on the grand jury while also an active member of the Tokyo Drift fan club where at the same time of the investigation you freely go to see his top stunt driver for the movie speak after he came to testify to you about where Lin was on a given night, and you constantly talk about how great Tokyo Drift was on facebook.
I am highly skeptical that the latter would be as objective as others here seem to think they would be.
And yeah I brought the original Fast & Furious into a politics debate so what indict me.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
I hear people at the grocery store saying that and they aren't even on grand juries.
I know I promised to stop but damnit Austin you're making this far too easy!
To be fair, I totally understand. If I had a dollar for every joke about Austin I heard growing up, I could probably buy me a new graphics card. Needless to say, I have met plenty of Texans who don't trust anything that comes out of Austin. Which is one of the reasons I suspect that the indictment alone won't really hurt Perry.
How Texans, outside the jurors I guess, feel about Perry is functionally immaterial at this point. He's not going to be running for re-election, and he's not going to seek lower office, so Texans are pretty much done determining the arc of his career. Unless he does something so terrible as to lose them in the General Election that he won't be running for President.
I agree, but I am trying to explain why a lot of Texans I know.
A. Do not trust the results of this particular grand jury.
B. Do not trust Travis county to remove the DA from power(and thus remove her from the head of the PIU)
C. See this whole thing as a politics as usual
I don't see Perry losing Texas in a general presidential election, but there is some question about how this would hurt him in the Texas Presidential Primary. Some of us do still remember a lot of the shady crap he has pulled in the past.
PS: I was also trying to give others some context on why Spool32 is having a hard time not cracking jokes about it.
Though the more salient fact appears to be that neither were investigating Perry for possible misconduct.
Not a salient fact, as demonstrated back on page 14. It turns out to be not a fact at all, or even close to a fact!
Also not important: the party of the people involved, given that Perry has 1) let his own party members get wrecked by the PIU in the past, and 2) offered to put a Democrat from her office in charge if she would just do the right thing.
Here is my thing. Would you like Perry to a) not do this, or b) do it more, or c) do it only in egregious cases where the person in question was leading a statewide investigative unit specifically tasked with prosecuting cases of Public Integrity.
Though the more salient fact appears to be that neither were investigating Perry for possible misconduct.
Not a salient fact, as demonstrated back on page 14. It turns out to be not a fact at all, or even close to a fact!
Also not important: the party of the people involved, given that Perry has 1) let his own party members get wrecked by the PIU in the past, and 2) offered to put a Democrat from her office in charge if she would just do the right thing.
Here is my thing. Would you like Perry to a) not do this, or b) do it more, or c) do it only in egregious cases where the person in question was leading a statewide investigative unit specifically tasked with prosecuting cases of Public Integrity.
Yes, Perry allowed the PID to take down a member of his party who
A) Was becoming more of a liability than an asset; and Would have been a potential obstacle for his own political career.
As for his "offer", you continue to ignore that a large part of all of this is that there was a lack of trust in Perry, for quite a few reasons. So no, it doesn't matter that he made the offer, without any show that it would be honored.
And I would like Perry to not do this, because it creates some actual issues of governance, no matter how "political" the matter may seem.
Has it been mentioned that two other DAs got DWIs under Perry's administration with zero push back?
When arrested, did they threaten to use their status as a DA to send the arresting, booking, and processing officers to jail?
Why are we holding a drunk person to their words but not their actions?
Or that we're supposed to focus on her conduct, but not look at all the shit that Perry has pulled with his appointments (quashing the Willingham inquiry is a particularly notable case there.)
Posts
You realize how easily this could be done, right?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That would be a mighty empty jury pool in parts of the country. Though it probably wouldn't matter what with the court house being burned to the ground by an angry mob.
While this is a very good example of the problems with juries, it's not really enough to null out this particular jury, I think.
Unless she said "I'm gonna indict that bitch so hard, I don't even care."
At least, if we're laying the same standard here that we're laying at Perry's feet when he gets off.
I hear people at the grocery store saying that and they aren't even on grand juries.
I know I promised to stop but damnit Austin you're making this far too easy!
Were any of these people on the jury that indicted him?
I don't know! They can't all have been...
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Just take a damn sample of the population and you get what you get. Perry's lawyers will have the ability to object to jurors in the criminal trial. The end.
Well one is a Republican.
Whatever ended up happening with Christie's investigations anyway?
We tried moving it to Houston but this lady fired a cannon at us and it all went wrong.
It is laughably stupid, but your analogy is flawed because there are specific laws that make blackmailing someone over the threat of publishing incriminating/embarrassing photos illegal. If the law was amended to specifically state that an otherwise legal action by a public office holder cannot be used to attempt to force another elected public office holder to resign their position, none of this would be an issue. But apparently putting that kind of language into law would make every legislative negotiation illegal. Somehow. Because reasons.
Which is the best justification for filing this suit in the first place. Either what he did was illegal or it should be illegal. Either way the indictment is the best way to get to one outcome or the other.
I agree with that, and mostly I don't remember where I was going with that originally. I think I planned to bring it back around to the, "He was obviously doing this to forestall her investigation into him that was totally about to be announced" from the HuffPo article, and how if this was part of his master plan to avoid such an investigation it was a pretty ineffective and blindingly stupid way to go about it, so that smells somewhat unlikely, given that he's being investigated for being crooked, not for being completely incompetent.
But, that's just speculation, and not super important.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Rick Perry isn't exactly the smartest man, he's basically the definition of never ascribe to malice what simple incompetence will cover. But our laws don't have a "Oh you didn't mean this illegally you're just an idiot."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Myself. The only person I should be speaking for. My objection is to you stating "I can't speak for all Texans, but I'm going to speak for 'a lot' of them anyways"
I'm going to make the bold statement that you shouldn't indict somebody based on what you want to be illegal, but instead based on the actual law.
There are readings of the law where it is and isn't illegal. It's a quantum felony.
If there's a question, it's supposed to be the courts that decide it. They're not just there to rubberstamp slam dunk convictions.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If there was zero question as to the legality of what was done, you're bold statement might not be so silly.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Dare I ask what their party affiliation was?
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140819-travis-das-drunken-driving-arrest-riled-perry-others-didnt.ece
One Republican and the other not stated.
Though the more salient fact appears to be that neither were investigating Perry for possible misconduct.
To be fair, I totally understand. If I had a dollar for every joke about Austin I heard growing up, I could probably buy me a new graphics card. Needless to say, I have met plenty of Texans who don't trust anything that comes out of Austin. Which is one of the reasons I suspect that the indictment alone won't really hurt Perry.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
A. Do not trust the results of this particular grand jury.
B. Do not trust Travis county to remove the DA from power(and thus remove her from the head of the PIU)
C. See this whole thing as a politics as usual
I don't see Perry losing Texas in a general presidential election, but there is some question about how this would hurt him in the Texas Presidential Primary. Some of us do still remember a lot of the shady crap he has pulled in the past.
PS: I was also trying to give others some context on why Spool32 is having a hard time not cracking jokes about it.
Not a salient fact, as demonstrated back on page 14. It turns out to be not a fact at all, or even close to a fact!
Also not important: the party of the people involved, given that Perry has 1) let his own party members get wrecked by the PIU in the past, and 2) offered to put a Democrat from her office in charge if she would just do the right thing.
Here is my thing. Would you like Perry to a) not do this, or b) do it more, or c) do it only in egregious cases where the person in question was leading a statewide investigative unit specifically tasked with prosecuting cases of Public Integrity.
When arrested, did they threaten to use their status as a DA to send the arresting, booking, and processing officers to jail?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Yes, Perry allowed the PID to take down a member of his party who
A) Was becoming more of a liability than an asset; and
As for his "offer", you continue to ignore that a large part of all of this is that there was a lack of trust in Perry, for quite a few reasons. So no, it doesn't matter that he made the offer, without any show that it would be honored.
And I would like Perry to not do this, because it creates some actual issues of governance, no matter how "political" the matter may seem.
Why are we holding a drunk person to their words but not their actions?
Or that we're supposed to focus on her conduct, but not look at all the shit that Perry has pulled with his appointments (quashing the Willingham inquiry is a particularly notable case there.)