Rick Perry indicted for "Abuse of power"

Brian?

So "2016 presidential hopeful" Gov. Rick Perry (R) has been indicted for abuse of power. He threatened to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption:

He was indicted by an Austin grand jury on felony counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. Maximum punishment on the first charge is five to 99 years in prison. The second is two to 10 years.

Perry's lawyer is outraged, OUTRAGED and APPALLED!!

Perry's lawyer, David L. Botsford, said he was "outraged and appalled" by the indictment.

"This clearly represents political abuse of the court system and there is no legal basis in this decision," Botsford said in a statement.

There are more intriguing ins and outs as one of the prosecutors did time for a DUI and is a Dem.

What say ye? Is that the end of Perry 2016 or just a bump in the road.


Full ariticle: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-gov-rick-perry-indicted-for-abuse-of-power/

Manach

Interesting to see how it develops. However it does seem that using the judicial probes to raise issues about an incumbent who is potentially seeking higher office seems to be a trend in the US, given the recent actions against NY's Cumeo that was aired a while back on the Daly show.

AbusesToilets

I'm definitely interested to see the details of the accusation against Perry. Lots of potential for political warfare here, given the demographics of Democratic support in Austin versus the rest of the state.

Black Swan

Although Austin is the state capitol, the culture of the city is very different from the surrounding State of Texas. The University of Texas at Austin and nearby Hyde Park are in sharp contrast to the conservative Perry political platform. Austin is probably the only city that could hold a grand jury that would indict Governor Perry in Texas. As a side note reflective of their unique culture, Hyde Park has probably some of the best coffeehouses across the pond, including the Spider House, Flightpath Cafe, and the Tin City on Guadalupe Street.

**Swannie consults crystal ball**

Will they get a conviction? No. My prediction is that this legal issue will blow itself out just like the many dust devils that twist through Texas this time of year.

Will this affect his 2016 Republican presidential candidacy? Regardless of this indictment, he will not win the primary. He will run along with a host of others, and may have subtle designs of becoming the VP running mate (if he can make a good showing during the primaries). Doubtful that whomever wins will pick him for VP, especially if the GOP plans on an Hispanic VP candidate hoping for Democratic party cross-overs of that large, fast growing ethnicity voter segment.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

Although Austin is the state capitol, the culture of the city is very different from the surrounding State of Texas. The University of Texas at Austin and nearby Hyde Park are in sharp contrast to the conservative Perry political platform. Austin is probably the only city that could hold a grand jury that would indict Governor Perry in Texas. As a side note reflective of their unique culture, Hyde Park has probably some of the best coffeehouses across the pond, including the Spider House, Flightpath Cafe, and the Tin City on Guadalupe Street.

**Swannie consults crystal ball**

Will they get a conviction? No. My prediction is that this legal issue will blow itself out just like the many dust devils that twist through Texas this time of year.

Will this affect his 2016 Republican presidential candidacy? Regardless of this indictment, he will not win the primary. He will run along with a host of others, and may have subtle designs of becoming the VP running mate (if he can make a good showing during the primaries). Doubtful that whomever wins will pick him for VP, especially if the GOP plans on an Hispanic VP candidate hoping for Democratic party cross-overs of that large, fast growing ethnicity voter segment.

I'm not convinced this will blow out. A grand jury indictment necessitate a trail, no?

The sight of Perry on trial should be a killer.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not convinced this will blow out. A grand jury indictment necessitate a trail, no?

Yes and no. I believe, yes, (Can't find anything to verify) but the Prosecutor still has the ability for the first words out of his keyboard in the written pre-trial motions to the Judge to be "We withdraw the case." Similarly the judge may go with defense's request for summary dismissal, ending the process before Perry is ever inside the courtroom.

And if it does get to a trial, and Perry wins, that could backfire anyway, as evidence of the depths to which the opposition will slide in the attempt to discredit him. Americans tend not to like that sort of thing.

Amerika

So now they can indite a governor, or perhaps even a president for that matter, because they threaten to use their power of veto, before actually doing so, in order to exercise some influence on a matter. Sounds like our court systems and police departments are going to be very busy going forward with some high profile politicians.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

So now they can indite a governor, or perhaps even a president for that matter

Although the issue here is the suspected abuse of executive powers, indictments of governors and vice presidents is not new. Spiro Agnew (Republican) had been investigated and indicted by federal prosecutors for "extortion, bribery, and income-tax violations" for receiving illegal payments from contractors while Governor of Maryland and later as US Vice President. Agnew had argued that he could not be indicted, only impeached, but that defense fell through. He later plea-bargained with federal prosecutors resulting in conviction, probation, and resignation from Vice President of the US (10 October 1973).

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Although the issue here is the suspected abuse of executive powers, indictments of governors and vice presidents is not new. Spiro Agnew (Republican) had been investigated and indicted by federal prosecutors for "extortion, bribery, and income-tax violations" for receiving illegal payments from contractors while Governor of Maryland and later as US Vice President. Agnew had argued that he could not be indicted, only impeached, but that defense fell through. He later plea-bargained with federal prosecutors resulting in conviction, probation, and resignation from Vice President of the US (10 October 1973).

You cut my sentence short, causing it to lose context, in order to make an off topic point. Excellent use of misdirection. .

All you state is true, but a bit off topic. The grand jury indictment against Perry is for threatening to use his power of veto before actually doing so. Presidents threaten to use their power of veto all the time. Do you think if the case would hold up against Perry, then we then indite presidents for the same?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

You cut my sentence short, causing it to loose context, in order to make an off topic point. Excellent use of misdirection. .

All you state is true, but a bit off topic. The grand jury indictment against Perry is for threatening to use his power of veto before actually doing so. Presidents threaten to use their power of veto all the time. Do you think if the case would hold up against Perry, then we then indite presidents for the same?

You don't think there's something wrong with threatening to use your veto power to defund a prosecutor investigating corruption? That's very different than most veto threats. It could easily be seen as intimidation.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You don't think there's something wrong with threatening to use your veto power to defund a prosecutor investigating corruption? That's very different than most veto threats. It could easily be seen as intimidation.

Intimidation? Would any governor think a person unfit to head up a Public Integrity Unit, who was found guilty of a DUI at almost three times the legal, an reportedly with an open bottle of vodka the car... Who after being arrested was belligerent, blamed police for destroying a political career, yelling and insulting the police, and demanded that they call County Sheriff on her behalf... And at the end of the video shown giving the pointing gun symbol with her fingers at an officer doing their job? Wouldn’t just about any governor use whatever their limited legal powers were to remove such a person from heading up a Public Integrity Unit?

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

Intimidation? Would any governor think a person unfit to head up a Public Integrity Unit, who was found guilty of a DUI at almost three times the legal, an reportedly with an open bottle of vodka the car... Who after being arrested was belligerent, blamed police for destroying a political career, yelling and insulting the police, and demanded that they call County Sheriff on her behalf... And at the end of the video shown giving the pointing gun symbol with her fingers at an officer doing their job? Wouldn’t just about any governor use whatever their limited legal powers were to remove such a person from heading up a Public Integrity Unit?

If thats what she did then you are right in that she isn't fit to hold democratic office. However intimidating her is not the democratic way to get her out. Thats the issue here. Surely there are proper channels for dealing with this kind of behaviour but the method Perry chose was the wrong one.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

If thats what she did then you are right in that she isn't fit to hold democratic office. However intimidating her is not the democratic way to get her out. Thats the issue here. Surely there are proper channels for dealing with this kind of behaviour but the method Perry chose was the wrong one.

Perhaps it was the proper channel. Would it really be any different than if the House (Congress) threatened not to fund the actions taken by a president’s for something considered by them to be an abuse of power through executive order? It is the only method they have to enact influence on a matter.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Intimidation? Would any governor think a person unfit to head up a Public Integrity Unit, who was found guilty of a DUI at almost three times the legal, an reportedly with an open bottle of vodka the car... Who after being arrested was belligerent, blamed police for destroying a political career, yelling and insulting the police, and demanded that they call County Sheriff on her behalf... And at the end of the video shown giving the pointing gun symbol with her fingers at an officer doing their job? Wouldn’t just about any governor use whatever their limited legal powers were to remove such a person from heading up a Public Integrity Unit?

The point is that Perry's actions may not have been legal.

Could she not have been recalled or impeached somehow? Even the POTUS can be impeached so I am sure there were legal avenues Perry could take.

Instead he threatened to defund an investigation.

I haven't made my mind up about the rights and wrongs here. The investigation seems to have been politically motivated, but then Rick Perry is easy to dislike .

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The point is that Perry's actions may not have been legal.

Could she not have been recalled or impeached somehow? Even the POTUS can be impeached so I am sure there were legal avenues Perry could take.

Instead he threatened to defund an investigation.

I haven't made my mind up about the rights and wrongs here. The investigation seems to have been politically motivated, but then Rick Perry is easy to dislike .

When the NY Times editorial board slams Democrats for a prevision of the criminal justice system against a Republican, you know the Democrats had finally jumped the shark. The NY Times editorial board has a history of applauding Democrats for doing the same things it denounces Republicans for, and you can tell in the excerpt below, they consider Perry kin to Beelzebub, so abuse on the part of the D's is pretty clear IMO.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution. …

Governors and presidents threaten vetoes and engage in horse-trading all the time to get what they want, but for that kind of political activity to become criminal requires far more evidence than has been revealed in the Perry case so far. Perhaps Mr. McCrum will have some solid proof to show once the case heads to trial. But, for now, Texas voters should be more furious at Mr. Perry for refusing to expand Medicaid, and for all the favors he has done for big donors, than for a budget veto.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/opinion/is-gov-perrys-bad-judgment-really-a-crime.html?_r=0


Sadly, even though Texas is a Red state, and everyone and their uncle might think this is an abuse of the court system by democratic operatives for pure political purposes in trying to derail Perry’s possible run for the White House, most of the judges there are democrats I believe, and a potential game changer in judicial prudence. IMO.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

Will they get a conviction? No. My prediction is that this legal issue will blow itself out just like the many dust devils that twist through Texas this time of year.

I still stand by this above prediction. Furthermore, the US voter historically has a very short memory, so this will pretty much be forgotten by the 2016 primaries.

Amerika

Watching the news last night on TV, it was noted that if you take out the 1.1 million jobs created in Texas under Rick Perry, the US would be at a loss of 350,000 jobs. I guess it makes sense for the Democrats to take Perry and his successes out by hook or by crook, as they can't have something good for the people trump blind politics I figure.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Watching the news last night on TV, it was noted that if you take out the 1.1 million jobs created in Texas under Rick Perry, the US would be at a loss of 350,000 jobs. I guess it makes sense for the Democrats to take Perry and his successes out by hook or by crook, as they can't have something good for the people trump blind politics I figure.

If these were not government jobs, or jobs related to Texas government spending, then most of such jobs were not created by Gov Perry ("under" or otherwise), rather by businesses and corporations. The same holds for other governors, be they Republicans or Democrats, as well as whomever is president regardless of party.

"Texas is the country’s largest producer of oil and gas. Though production of both peaked in 1972, the state still accounts for 20 percent of oil and 33 percent of natural gas extraction in the United States." Did Gov Perry pump more gas and oil? He had little or nothing to do with it; rather gas and oil corporations seeking the best ROI for their stockholders did it, along with the global supply and demand prices and futures for these commodities.

If we are going to talk how Texas employment improved "under" Gov Perry, we should also talk about how Texas employment improved "under" President Xi Jinping of the Peoples Republic of China with their increasing demands on the world's energy markets.

I remember something from reading about the King Fish of Louisiana and how he used to take credit for something he had little to do with. He said he would watch a parade, find where it was going, and then place himself in front of it, so the people on the sidelines would think he was leading it. Most jobs are not created by government, rather by business and corporations (the parade), so Gov Perry steps out front of the parade and waves, just like Obama waves while the US recovers from the Great Recession.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

If these were not government jobs, or jobs related to Texas government spending, then most of such jobs were not created by Gov Perry ("under" or otherwise), rather by businesses and corporations. The same holds for other governors, be they Republicans or Democrats, as well as whomever is president regardless of party.

"Texas is the country’s largest producer of oil and gas. Though production of both peaked in 1972, the state still accounts for 20 percent of oil and 33 percent of natural gas extraction in the United States." Did Gov Perry pump more gas and oil? He had little or nothing to do with it; rather gas and oil corporations seeking the best ROI for their stockholders did it, along with the global supply and demand prices and futures for these commodities.

If we are going to talk how Texas employment improved "under" Gov Perry, we should also talk about how Texas employment improved "under" President Xi Jinping of the Peoples Republic of China with their increasing demands on the world's energy markets.

I remember something from reading about the King Fish of Louisiana and how he used to take credit for something he had little to do with. He said he would watch a parade, find where it was going, and then place himself in front of it, so the people on the sidelines would think he was leading it. Most jobs are not created by government, rather by business and corporations (the parade), so Gov Perry steps out front of the parade and waves, just like Obama waves while the US recovers from the Great Recession.

Bull! At Gov. Perry's urging, the Texas Legislature established and funded two tools to attract and create Texas jobs: The Texas Enterprise Fund and Emerging Technology Fund. Perry has also worked hard to keep taxes low, worked on keeping reasonable regulatory structures, and fought for a fair court system for businesses, all which leads to a stable base that attracts companies and jobs.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Bull! At Gov. Perry's urging, the Texas Legislature established and funded two tools to attract and create Texas jobs: The Texas Enterprise Fund and Emerging Technology Fund. Perry has also worked hard to keep taxes low, worked on keeping reasonable regulatory structures, and fought for a fair court system for businesses, all which leads to a stable base that attracts companies and jobs.

This is what I love. If the economy is doing poorly it's the Presidents fault, if the economy is doing well it's the governers who've turned it around.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

This is what I love. If the economy is doing poorly it's the Presidents fault, if the economy is doing well it's the governers who've turned it around.

Not quite, I’d say one works to cultivate a business climate that entices businesses to expand and create jobs, the other promotes unpredictable regulatory structures that causes businesses to hoard money, impede expansion, nor create jobs.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Bull! At Gov. Perry's urging, the Texas Legislature established and funded two tools to attract and create Texas jobs: The Texas Enterprise Fund and Emerging Technology Fund. Perry has also worked hard to keep taxes low, worked on keeping reasonable regulatory structures, and fought for a fair court system for businesses, all which leads to a stable base that attracts companies and jobs.

You should really try knowing what you're talking about before actually talking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/opinion/paul-krugman-wrong-way-nation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=1

Black Swan

Of course Gov Perry will claim that "under" him the real estate market (pricing) remained relatively low when compared to New York and California, consequently there was a Texas migratory population (jobs) net gain from high real estate cost states to low ones when Great Recessionary cash was tight. Furthermore, if you did not bother to check when Texas decided not to have personal or corporate income taxes, you might also credit Texas as not having such "under" Gov Perry, who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

A Darrell Huff caution should be used when reviewing claims by politicians in terms of the time period they use to measure job gains, regardless if they are Democrats or Republicans. For example if they start tracking job gains beginning at the bottom of the Great Recession (2007-2008), and then pick a date 5 or so years out, a state like Texas could claim 1-million job gains. But if you picked a year before 2007 to start, or 2 or more years after 2008, the job gains would not be as substantial.

Claims could be made that "under" GW Bush, the Dow 30 crashed, dropping from 14,000 to below 7,000 in 2008, losing half its stock equity value, being one of the greatest losses in US history. In like manner Obama could claim to be one of the greatest presidential financial wizards in US history. If we use the Dow 30 as an index to track stock equity growth, and begin our tracking at the bottom of the market in 2008 (below 7,000), and then pick today in 2014 (over 17,000, for a gain of 10,000), the Dow went up 143% "under" Obama. But just like claims of Texas being "under" Gov Perry, and the United States being "under" Obama, such claims can be problematic, misleading, and sometimes spurious.

Furthermore, why would the nation want to pick another conservative Republican governor from Texas to improve the nation's prosperity when former Texas Governor GW Bush ended his presidential administration at the bottom of the 2008 Great Recession, along with having 911, and started the 2 longest wars in US history "under" him? Of course, this observation suffers from being anecdotal, as Texas Gov Perry is not former Texas Gov GW Bush. It's all spin in Darrell Huff fashion, and there's money to be made for the political spin masters in the forthcoming 2016 general/presidential elections.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Furthermore, why would the nation want to pick another conservative Republican governor from Texas to improve the nation's prosperity when former Texas Governor GW Bush ended his presidential administration at the bottom of the 2008 Great Recession, along with having 911, and started the 2 longest wars in US history "under" him?

Perhaps because since GW Bush left, we’ll have more than doubled the national debt with very little to show for it, a third of the nation will be living in a household with someone receiving welfare, international policy is in the toilet, regulations have caused food and energy prices to skyrocket, unemployment remains extremely high when you factor in people that have given up and stopped looking for work - and those who would like to be employed full-time but can only find part-time work, annnnnnnnnnnnnd we’ll probably back at war. That’s just for starters.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps because since GW Bush left, we’ll have more than doubled the national debt with very little to show for it

It would appear that all past congresses and their respective administrations (since 1974), regardless if they were Democrat or Republican added significantly to the US federal deficit, often doubling it. All were guilty (especially beginning with Ronald Reagan forward), and none should be forgiven regardless if Democrat or Republican. To say that any were fiscally conservative is party bias political spin.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

It would appear that all past congresses and their respective administrations (since 1974), regardless if they were Democrat or Republican added significantly to the US federal deficit, often doubling it. All were guilty (especially beginning with Ronald Reagan forward), and none should be forgiven regardless if Democrat or Republican. To say that any were fiscally conservative is party bias political spin.

National debt is currently over $17 Trillion at the moment. And this president is on course to adding more debt than all presidents before him combined.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

National debt is currently over $17 Trillion at the moment. And this president is on course to adding more debt than all presidents before him combined.

He (and Congress) is adding debt to existing debt, since none of the congresses or administrations, regardless of Democrats or Republicans (beginning with Reagan) never paid it off, but just added to it.

I laugh when Republicans proclaim that Reagan was a fiscal conservative, when he too doubled the debt of his predecessor. Looking at the above chart, Reagan was a trend setter as to the federal deficit, with congresses and presidents that followed him doing the same, regardless of being Democrats or Republicans.

Of course we were talking about what was "under" Gov Perry (and "under" Obama for comparison purposes), with his claims for credit? Governors and presidents don't make the laws, they only sign them. They may propose a budget to their respective legislators or congress, but it's the legislators and congress that passes the bills. What party currently controls the US House that must pass bills that allow for the increase of the current federal deficit? The Republicans.

I do not like the two-party system of the US, both parties point scoring like immature children in a sandbox, rather than working for the ultimate benefit of those that elected them. Consequently, I agree with one of America's founding fathers John Adams, when he cautioned Americans about their two-party system (today's Democrats and Republicans):

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

20Cent

Bob McConnel convicted, Perry, Christie, Scott Walker either indicted or under investigation. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman under investigation for federal crimes. The republican party dalling apart due to corruption. So much for their traditional family values.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

Bob McConnel convicted, Perry, Christie, Scott Walker either indicted or under investigation. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman under investigation for federal crimes. The republican party dalling apart due to corruption. So much for their traditional family values.

I don't think you understand, it's Liberal media bias.

Black Swan

Odds are that Rick Perry will be running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, based upon comments he recently made: "I know to be prepared this time."

Manach

Admittible my source is the Daily show, but there similar amount of Democratic politicians (presumable well known regional) that were earlier in the year indited or investigated for corruption. To cast aspersion on one side whilst ignoring the beams in the other is hardly likely to improve the fight against corruption which is, paraphrasing Lawerence Lessig, endemic where ever there is power and money.

Manic Moran

It's had quite the effect in California. Democrats have lost their supermajority in the State legislature because at least three of their number have fallen afoul of criminal procedure. Personal favorite, Leland Yee, strongly anti-gun politician charged with arms trafficking.

Black Swan

Governor Rick Perry (Republican) makes Texas history: "He ended up in a police booking room, getting his mug shot and fingerprints taken -- making Rick Perry the first Texas governor in nearly 100 years to face criminal charges." And this occurred in a predominantly Republican state. It's strongly rumoured too that he will be running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016. Will they list this as part of his qualifications?