- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Charges against Perry should wait until he is out of office - agree/disagree?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:24 am to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:24 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
So now Lehmberg was threatening to rape people?
no but you said that drinking excuses the actions.
1
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:26 am to 3nOut
quote:
no but you said that drinking excuses the actions.
Untrue.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:26 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Rex - the DWI is just a cover for the real reason. The real reason Perry wanted her to step down is the Public Integrity Unit is one of the only political bodies with statewide power in Texas with a Democrat in charge. They were investigating Perry's pet project - CPRIT - for making grants to Perry's buddies without following protocol - and Perry wanted that to stop.
I'm sure he DID want it to stop, but that doesn't change anything I posted. It's too bad the DA gave him a valid reason for stopping her. I, too, question the leadership qualifications of a DA who would drive while very intoxicated.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:26 am to 3nOut
quote:
what investigation was against him before this dumb broad decided to drive drunk, threaten police officers, and not step down?
The investigation into grants issued by CPRIT to Perry's buddies. The DWI was just a gift of fortune for Perry - if he had tried to frame it up himself he couldn't have done a better job - it was a perfect opportunity for him to kill the last bit of statewide Democratic power left in Texas and to end an investigation that might lead to him.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:28 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
However, the courts deemed it reasonable and prudent to proceed, so the die is cast.
A grand jury did so.
The PIU, under former DA Ronnie Earle, has played games before in order to get the indictment they wanted.
It took THREE grand juries before Earle could finally get an indictment against Delay and the third one was empaneled specifically for that set of charges.
That's not even going into the Ex Post Facto questions regarding the case, as the law in question wasn't altered until after the activity in question. Under the US Constitution, someone cannot be tried for something which was legal at the time it occurred.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:29 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
great link:
quote:
In 2005, the work of the Public Integrity Unit led to the indictment of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Fails to mention he was acquitted. Incompetence for a while it seems.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:32 am to NikolaiJakov
quote:
Charges against Perry should be dropped. He used veto power to defund an office that is apparently incompetent, and therefore a waste of taxpayer money.
This. I don't see any legitimacy in the charges.
I see a potential 2016 presidential candidate being attacked with questionable charges. I'm not sure why. He'd have almost certainly said something foolish on his own.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:33 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:32 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The investigation into grants issued by CPRIT to Perry's buddies. The DWI was just a gift of fortune for Perry - if he had tried to frame it up himself he couldn't have done a better job - it was a perfect opportunity for him to kill the last bit of statewide Democratic power left in Texas and to end an investigation that might lead to him.
Yes, because a Perry-appointed DA would immediately kill such an investigation in a clearly quid-pro-quo way :eyeroll:.
He'd be replacing the DA, not all the people under them, and the DA would be replaced in another election in a cycle or two.
You think that killing an investigation like this outright would go through considering how the Dems in the PIU love to leak info to the press? Christ, they were leaking Grand Jury info to everyone on the DeLay matter before he finally got indicted on the third time around.
Killing an investigation in this manner would pretty much guarantee that it gets a lot of attention because of all the leaks that would come out of that office.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:32 am to Rex
quote:
. I, too, question the leadership qualifications of a DA who would drive while very intoxicated.
Its not even relevant. He abused the power of his office to end an investigation against HIM. I know you can see what is wrong with that.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:33 am to C
quote:
quote:
In 2005, the work of the Public Integrity Unit led to the indictment of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Fails to mention he was acquitted.
Also fails to mention he was initially convicted or even tried. What's your point?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:34 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Untrue
quote:
She didn't follow through on a single one of her threats and was over 3 times the legal limit. It would be extremely hard to convince a jury she made the threats with a clear mind
correction. you said it would be hard to convince a jury. so again. i can drunkenly go around threatening things to people and expect a jury to let me off of it.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:34 am to Rex
quote:
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership
I agree and unless it is shown that he was attempting to squash an investigation then we have political BS here of the highest magnitude. I would like to think that most reasonable people would feel this woman shouldve stepped down.. Perry choose to use his granted powers to force her out, all the while being open about the why.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:35 am to C
quote:quote:
In 2005, the work of the Public Integrity Unit led to the indictment of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Fails to mention he was acquitted. Incompetence for a while it seems.
That case was a fricking farce from start to finish.
Shopping the charges to multiple grand juries, bringing charges based on laws which did not exist at the time of the actions, etc.
The PIU is still trying to appeal DeLay's overturned conviction. I doubt that the Texas Judiciary is willing to give them much slack on it considering how half-assed Earle did it the first time around.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:35 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Where is the line? Is it legal for Perry to sell his veto power to the highest bidder if he likes?
Is it legal for Obama to sell guns to drug dealers? You have no credibility to reproach Perry if you are going to support immoral and criminal activity at a much higher office that governor, since you aren't protesting Holder-Obomao it's easy to see that you are a political hack.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:38 am to teke184
quote:
Yes, because a Perry-appointed DA would immediately kill such an investigation in a clearly quid-pro-quo way
Yes. He would have. That's the entire point.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:39 am to Jagd Tiger
quote:
Is it legal for Obama to sell guns to drug dealers?
Its legal for folks at gun shows to sell guns to drug dealers.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:40 am to 3nOut
quote:
correction. you said it would be hard to convince a jury. so again. i can drunkenly go around threatening things to people and expect a jury to let me off of it.
OK. Then go for it.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:41 am to SpidermanTUba
That ethics unit is a state funded program to investigate state wide issues. Perry is responsible for ensuring state programs are effectively and properly run. Its Travis County's problem that they have resisted attempts to pull the program up to a state org level.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:42 am to SpidermanTUba
*facepalm*
Just because you think that is what would happen in your insane troll logic way does not mean that is what WOULD happen.
A new Travis County DA killing the investigation would have to justify doing so. A Perry appointee doing so would be EXTREMELY careful about crossing Ts and dotting Is because of what will inevitably be said about the investigation being killed.
Depending on how long this investigation has been going on and what has been turned up, it could be a silver bullet to kill Perry or it could be a horseshite fishing expedition which hadn't been killed only because of who they hoped to snare either directly or indirectly.
If it were a silver bullet, it would be extremely hard for a Perry appointee to kill it without ending up charged himself.
If it were a fishing expedition, there's no fricking reason to keep it open if they haven't turned anything up.
Just because you think that is what would happen in your insane troll logic way does not mean that is what WOULD happen.
A new Travis County DA killing the investigation would have to justify doing so. A Perry appointee doing so would be EXTREMELY careful about crossing Ts and dotting Is because of what will inevitably be said about the investigation being killed.
Depending on how long this investigation has been going on and what has been turned up, it could be a silver bullet to kill Perry or it could be a horseshite fishing expedition which hadn't been killed only because of who they hoped to snare either directly or indirectly.
If it were a silver bullet, it would be extremely hard for a Perry appointee to kill it without ending up charged himself.
If it were a fishing expedition, there's no fricking reason to keep it open if they haven't turned anything up.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:43 am to TROLA
quote:
I agree and unless it is shown that he was attempting to squash an investigation then we have political BS here of the highest magnitude. I
Well, he probably WAS trying to squash an investigation, but, like I said, it's too bad the DA gave him a legitimate way to do it. The statute in question prevents the governor from saying something to the DA such as "you're only going to get funding if you drop the investigation"; it doesn't prevent something such as "your agency will only be funded if you resign". It's up to Texas's voters to punish that latter posture if they so choose.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News