Texas Gov. Perry indicted ...

a reply to: NavyDoc

No, I was referring to gov. Perry being indicted by a grand jury for what he did and now people are complaining about that. Apparently, the grand jury found the evidence in question against Mr. Perry sufficient enough to find that the case should be further heard in court. Now whether he was right or wrong, I'm not touching that lol, because I know how fervent people can be about their politics. But I will say that yes, for what she did, she should've resigned her post immediately.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

He has the right to veto anything he wants that's his constitutional authority, just like Obama can veto any bill. This just appears to be politically motivated.

The progressive Marxists are trying too hard. I think this may backfire because he would most likely found not guilty.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Due process should be allowed to reach a decision. Something that should be done in other situations as well (IRS, Fast and Furious ect). You can't be for due process for only the people on the other side of the political fence, you have to do it for all. I challenge those of the other side to call from full disclosure of info on those cases as well, so due process can work the way it's supposed to do.

Who can have respect for the Travis county DA office now. There should be rules that after a DA acts in this manner, the person must leave office. But we know this is just typical politics with people above the ethics.

He's right, but he went about it the wrong way. You can't break the law in pursuit of Justice...

a reply to: FarleyWayne

How can you indict a sitting Governor for threatening to use his constitutional veto rights?

David Axelrod: Perry indictment looks pretty sketchy

The video of the DA in question is also on the above link. Pretty disgraceful.

And yet, Democats in Texas supported her after the fact. Equally disgraceful. And this was about an Ethics Unit. How is it ethical to support this woman after her DUI and behavior afterwards?

This is nothing more than Democrats out for revenge.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
He's right, but he went about it the wrong way. You can't break the law in pursuit of Justice...

Threatening the use of Veto is hardly breaking the law.

originally posted by: guohua
So,,, when Obama threatens to Veto any bill that he doesn't agree with or doesn't carry forth his agenda, we can
indicted him too?
What's Good for the Goose should be Good for the Gander don't you think?
Or do Democrats get to live by a different set of Rules and Laws than Republicans?

www.wicasta.com...

Link

Obama Threatens Tax Cut Veto as Unemployment Extension Languishes

Tax Cuts

Obama: I’ll Veto Any Effort To End Triggered Spending Cuts After Super Committee Fail

spending cuts

Obama: I'll veto any legislation that would void Defense cuts

Defence cuts
Gee, Obama threatens to use his Pen!

Yeah!

They are crying about Perry, but 'blackmail' hasn't bothered them too much for the past 6 years.

a reply to: bbracken677

Well, it was enough to indict. He can argue his point on court.

The indictment seems like a waste of resources and a political move to me though.

a reply to: DexteramLucifer

The Grand Jury was composed of democrats who indicted him for threatening to exercise his constitutional right. Not to mention this woman, if Democrats in Texas were for ethics, should have been removed from office instead of being supported by her fellow cronies.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Daughter2

They already do that. Why do you think the drinking age in every state is 21? Because the Feds refused highway funds until they got their way. Same with the 55 speed limit. Same with Obama withholding Medicaid funds, etc, etc, etc

Perry has the right of veto.

It is wrong to fund a public organization run by a convicted criminal. What he did was both legal and right and this "indictment" is the drunks office (remember, this comes from HER office) firing back at being pressed to do the right thing.

Your right to veto isn't absolute. Just like a Governor here in Illinois learned the hard way his right to appoint a Senator wasn't absolute either.

He probably wouldn't be in trouble if he planned to introduce a bill that refused to fund agencies unless they established criminal background standards. That way there's in your words, "no drunks" heading agencies. This would have taken care of this problem and future problems too.

Wonder why, if he felt so strongly about DUIs he didn't take this route? Because, I'm just guessing here, there might be some right wing good ol boys who would need to leave office too. He didn't want some nice Christian guy who might have had a few too many one day to leave office - he just wanted an annoying lefty to leave.

I don't know the exact law in Texas but here in Illinois you can only fire specific State employees for political reasons. So the accounting clerk is safe whether or not their party got elected. This law gets broken all the time but they are really starting to crack down on it.

In Illinois there is a State Senator named Madigan. He gets his buddies great jobs by handing out their resume while he discusses State funding for that agencies. What's the difference between him and Perry?

a reply to: kosmicjack

Yes, it is a waste. There are those in the Obama camp who feel likewise and fear a blowback for this BS.

I am all for taking down corrupt politicians regardless of flavor.... they wont go after those who are on the take, but they will do some politically driven crap like this? Really?

Why don't they outlaw lobbying and lobbyists if they are truly concerned about ethics?

Heck...I cannot believe I am in support of Perry! I do not exactly have a high regard for the man, but this is just BS of the stinky order.

a reply to: Daughter2
lol the difference was your Gov was taking money in exchange for an appointment.

That isn't even in the same ballpark.

If Perry was caught taking money or had a personal stake in shutting down the ethics division, then I would be all for hanging his butt. Not the case....not even close to the case.

He did not veto, he threatened to veto... that just pushes this indictment even further into the kangaroo realm.

Lehmberg had recently been convicted of drunken driving.

A video recording made at the jail showed Lehmberg shouting at staffers to call the sheriff, kicking the door of her cell and sticking her tongue out.

Her blood-alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit for driving

The state's Public Integrity Unit operates out of her office.

I guess forget the fact she could have killed someone.

I guess forget about HER JOB 'Public Integrity'.

'Perry' gets indicted for trying to get rid of someone who should have had the CHARACTER to quit.

I'm guessing he is going to get in trouble under this section:

Sec. 556.004.

(c) A state officer or employee may not use official authority or influence or permit the use of a program administered by the state agency of which the person is an officer or employee to interfere with or affect the result of an election or nomination of a candidate or to achieve any other political purpose.


This is why withholding funding based on the drinking age is ok but not withholding funding in order to remove someone from office.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Daughter2
lol the difference was your Gov was taking money in exchange for an appointment.

Nope, there was no direct exchange of money it was the exchange of jobs.

You don't think Perry would get a personal benefit from this person stepping down? She was annoying the right. His life would have been much easier with one of his buddies in office.

a reply to: Daughter2

Gotcha. But depending on how that is interpreted, then virtually any veto by the governor could be prosecuted.

The DA was a POS who was trying desperately to use her position to get out of the DUI charge, and was calling on the Sheriff to help her out, not to mention just acting in a disgusting manner for a public employee. What about her democrat cohorts who supported her remaining in office after that fiasco?

One has to draw a line somewhere. Either you are for ethics and integrity regarding public officials, or you are not.

Democrats, with this case, have pretty much cut their own throats in this state for upcoming elections. Specially the Governors race.

Well when Ben White and David Axelrod are defending Perry you can count on this being an overreach. Just seems like smear 2.0 ahead of a Perry run for the Whitehouse against Hillary.

Politics as usual.

Nothing but a witch hunt if you ask me.
Perry made Obama look pretty bad by sending the National Guard to the border, and now it's pay back time.

Perry may be an ass on real life but daggummit, he is one tough mutha.
He is also the other guy who inherited a Bush economy, and Texas has prospered economically in the process.

Considering all the abuse of power we have in the White House now, Rick Perry now appears to be the most qualified candidate to become the next President.

a reply to: Daughter2

Huge difference between giving out favors for favors and trying to remove a convicted criminal from a post.