Rick Perry indicted on two felony counts

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

18 Aug 2014, 10:47 am

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that both extreme sides in the media are shouting exact opposites about overreach and abuse of power depending on whether it is Obama or Perry they are talking about?


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,880
Location: Portland, Oregon

18 Aug 2014, 2:25 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
Getting off-topic here for a bit, does anyone think of it as weird that
Perry wears hipster-style glasses?


He's trying to get away from the dumb, sh*tkicker look he used to wear, and thinks the glasses will make him look smart.


That makes sense, but even with the glasses, Perry is still an idiot.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Aug 2014, 10:58 am

Was there any doubt that the left-wing prosecutors would fail to find what they wished to find?

Remember that in a grand jury, the grand jury is relying on the prosecutor pretty much for everything. They see only what the prosecutor wishes them to see.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Aug 2014, 11:11 am

Keep in mind that this is all about the Governor of Texas asking a bureaucrat to step down after being convicted of drunken driving. When she didn't, he threatened to cut her funding.

This was spun by the left as an attempt to stop an investigation into the Governor's appointees to the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. The reality is that there was an investigation of some people at the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, but none of them were appointed to their positions by Rick Perry.

In other words, the entire basis for the indictment is bogus.

From http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/liberal-texas-newspaper-debunks-dems-attack-on-rick-perry.php:

Quote:
Why would Perry want to stop the CPRIT investigation? Because, the theory goes, his appointees were under investigation for helping Peloton Therapeutics obtain a grant without proper review. A Peloton investor had contributed to Perry?s campaigns.

But the Austin American-Statesman, a strongly left-leaning newspaper, undercuts Elleithee?s narrative:

Quote:
Elleithee?s email. . .left out some key details about the CPRIT investigation ? including that two months before Lehmberg?s arrest, she told reporters that none of Perry?s appointees to the CPRIT board were ?under suspicion in the investigation.?


Lehmberg made this statement in January 2013. It meant that her investigation was focusing only on CPRIT staff members, none of whom was appointed or hired by Perry. And Perry knew this when he vetoed the funding months later.

...

In sum: (1) when Perry vetoed funding for the Public Integrity Unit, he knew that it wasn?t investigating his appointees, (2) the veto did not halt the investigation or prevent the PIU from issuing indictments, and (3) the sleazy and dishonest attack on Gov. Perry by the Democratic National Committee is too much for the liberal Austin American-Statesman to stomach.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Aug 2014, 11:34 am

From http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/rick-perry-indictment-is-unbelievably-ridiculous.html:

Quote:


They say a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and this always seemed like hyperbole, until Friday night a Texas grand jury announced an indictment of governor Rick Perry. The ?crime? for which Perry faces a sentence of 5 to 99 years in prison is vetoing funding for a state agency. The conventions of reporting ? which treat the fact of an indictment as the primary news, and its merit as a secondary analytic question ? make it difficult for people reading the news to grasp just how farfetched this indictment is.

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg ? a Democrat who oversees the state?s Public Corruption unit ? was arrested for driving very, very drunk. What followed was a relatively ordinary political dispute. Perry, not unreasonably, urged Lehmberg to resign. Democrats, not unreasonably, resisted out of fear that Perry would replace her with a Republican. Perry, not unreasonably, announced and carried out a threat to veto funding for her agency until Lehmberg resigned.

...

The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost any kind of political conflict could be defined as a ?misuse? of power or ?coercion? of one?s opponents. To describe the indictment as ?frivolous? gives it far more credence than it deserves. Perry may not be much smarter than a ham sandwich, but he is exactly as guilty as one.