Texas Gov. Perry indicted ...

a reply to: guohua

Very unusual. If I had time I would look into that further.

a reply to: ketsuko

Add Dershowitz to the list:

Dershowitz 'Outraged' by Perry Indictment

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz calls himself a "liberal Democrat who would never vote for Rick Perry," but he's still "outraged" over the Texas governor's indictment Friday on charges of abuse of power and coercion.

The charges are politically motivated and an example of a "dangerous" trend of courts being used to affect the ballot box and politics, he told Newsmax on Saturday.

"Everybody, liberal or conservative, should stand against this indictment," Dershowitz said. "If you don't like how Rick Perry uses his office, don't vote for him."

a reply to: FarleyWayne

Somewhere, looking from afar, the spirit of Ann Richards is smiling, commenting "Hot Damn, now if he can just take Dubya with him Texas might just be all right."

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: DexteramLucifer

The DA convenes the grand jury in their jurisdiction. As she is the DA for Travis County and the indictment was from the Travis County grand jury, her office would have convened the jury, selected the jurors, and created and presented the charges and "evidence."

Obvious conflict of interest and agenda is obvious.

oh yeah, i've been in front of a grand jury as a victim.

7 felony counts, including kidnapping and assault with deadly weapon.

the jury hears one side.

if i didn't look like john merrick after the beating, i don't know how the jury would have went.

so this is all BS. the dept she runs, that perry cut off, is nothing. a feel good money pit.
7 mil? plaheeeeze.

she is an elected DA?
whether he can fire her from the DA's office, i don't think so.

but he sure as hell can force her out of that integrity dept. lol!!
that's why she is fighting it.
she would not like that on her record when the next elections come round.

she is toast. either way, career wise.
like the drunk DA on Law and Order; SVU.

a reply to: tsingtao

It's tough to be an upstanding citizen in charge of the ethics and integrity when you don't have any, I think this is why she has to fight it. But some people insist on digging themselves a hole with the nearest shovel, her alcohol abuse has required Ms. Lehmberg to use a backhoe in going after Perry. It would have been better to leave it alone be happy she kept her law license and not get disbarred. Like so many people with addictions they are their own worst enemy, and until recovery they just don't see it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

But she is a convicted criminal !!!!

And a District Attorney !!!!

did you watch the video of her lies ??

do you realize this decision to indict Perry was reached, by the evidence provided to a grand jury?.....so is the grand jury a convicted criminal too?.....

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: ketsuko

If this was a solid or even partially solid accusation, would these people be coming forward to say this is crap so quickly?

Yes, because the left does it just as much. Basically, what ever party hold the current power, tends to abuse the power of their office. In Illinois, it's how corrupt politicians keep getting elected year after year.

I know most of you are focused on whether or not she should hold office but you are missing the point. The issue is the way you get to kick someone out of office. You keep showing her video and it's deflecting from the real issue.

It's a shame this has turned into a left/right thing (and yes, I was guilty of it too). It's a way to take power away from the local level and consolidate it into a few powerful positions.

What power is being taken away from the local level and consolidated into a few powerful positions as a result of the DA's resignation?

I am afraid I do not understand the comment in it's context.

a reply to: jimmyx

DA chooses to bring charges. Same DA selects Jury. Same DA presents evidence to a jury of like thinking. Same DA calls witnesses to paint the picture she wishes to paint.

I believe I read somewhere here that it has been said that a properly manipulated GJ will indict a ham sandwich.

Is it legal? Yep...the question is will the charge survived a proper trial? Will it even make it to court or is the main strategy to grab headlines about a likely presidential candidate being indicted? One that carries a grudge against a drunk, a drunken DA who attempts to use her office and friends to avoid an arrest for DUI and prosecutions.
A DA who is head of an ethics group charged with investigating improper behavior by public officials in Texas. Do you not see a conflict here?

a reply to: bbracken677

the DA is an elected position, but if she resigns, Perry gets to appoint a new one, and he will not appoint someone to look critically at the republican controlled government of Texas...if fact the republicans have been trying to get rid of the office all-together, after that same office a few years ago, got Tom Delay(R) thrown out of office for corruption.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: jimmyx

DA chooses to bring charges. Same DA selects Jury. Same DA presents evidence to a jury of like thinking. Same DA calls witnesses to paint the picture she wishes to paint.

I believe I read somewhere here that it has been said that a properly manipulated GJ will indict a ham sandwich.

Is it legal? Yep...the question is will the charge survived a proper trial? Will it even make it to court or is the main strategy to grab headlines about a likely presidential candidate being indicted? One that carries a grudge against a drunk, a drunken DA who attempts to use her office and friends to avoid an arrest for DUI and prosecutions.
A DA who is head of an ethics group charged with investigating improper behavior by public officials in Texas. Do you not see a conflict here?

grand juries are allowed to go wherever the evidence leads them, they are not controlled by any DA...I was on one years ago, and everyone was made aware of government officials and/or business people trying to influence them, or at least get information out of them....I pissed off a few friends, when I told them I couldn't discuss any cases we were working on, but they later came around to understanding why. grand juries have a lot of power, and tend to attract people that are not easily fooled or threatened, by those that are in powerful positions of government, or ones that gain financially from government.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: LDragonFire
I just love red state political drama!!

Don't you mean blue state political drama?

This BS indictment comes from one of the only Democrat-run counties in Texas.

The despicable part is that the Austin Dems know it won't go anywhere. It's just a petty attempt at harming Perry's 2016 campaign.

Not just his campaign, but as payback for Perry taking control of his own border with Mexico. We all know Obama doesn't like it when a state takes matters into their own hands.

Gosh! Just read the max penalty on the two charges if convicted..10 years on one an 99 years on the other.WTF? Is that possibly true? He could conceivably do more time than the lady he was opposing.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: ketsuko

Add Dershowitz to the list:

Dershowitz 'Outraged' by Perry Indictment

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz calls himself a "liberal Democrat who would never vote for Rick Perry," but he's still "outraged" over the Texas governor's indictment Friday on charges of abuse of power and coercion.

The charges are politically motivated and an example of a "dangerous" trend of courts being used to affect the ballot box and politics, he told Newsmax on Saturday.

"Everybody, liberal or conservative, should stand against this indictment," Dershowitz said. "If you don't like how Rick Perry uses his office, don't vote for him."

I agree, it's a slippery slope just like the whole IRS scandal. Regardless of which side you are on, you have to be concerned about it. If the parties were reversed, MSNBC would be foaming at the mouth, yet not a peep.

a reply to: pavil

Don't know if it's been mentioned, still trying to catch up with this thread ..but..

Democratic Demi- God David Axelrod tweeted that the indictment seemed sketchy /politically motivated.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: jimmyx

DA chooses to bring charges. Same DA selects Jury. Same DA presents evidence to a jury of like thinking. Same DA calls witnesses to paint the picture she wishes to paint.

I believe I read somewhere here that it has been said that a properly manipulated GJ will indict a ham sandwich.

Is it legal? Yep...the question is will the charge survived a proper trial? Will it even make it to court or is the main strategy to grab headlines about a likely presidential candidate being indicted? One that carries a grudge against a drunk, a drunken DA who attempts to use her office and friends to avoid an arrest for DUI and prosecutions.
A DA who is head of an ethics group charged with investigating improper behavior by public officials in Texas. Do you not see a conflict here?

grand juries are allowed to go wherever the evidence leads them, they are not controlled by any DA...I was on one years ago, and everyone was made aware of government officials and/or business people trying to influence them, or at least get information out of them....I pissed off a few friends, when I told them I couldn't discuss any cases we were working on, but they later came around to understanding why. grand juries have a lot of power, and tend to attract people that are not easily fooled or threatened, by those that are in powerful positions of government, or ones that gain financially from government.

When the DA hand picks the jury of his or her choice, and when the DA controls the evidence given to the jury, and when there is no defense team to refute that evidence, then yes, the DA controls that jury.

a reply to: kosmicjack

It absolutely is politically motivated. And as a guess, the motivation comes not just from this DA, but from a certain district in the continental US, though not a state.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: pavil

Don't know if it's been mentioned, still trying to catch up with this thread ..but..

Democratic Demi- God David Axelrod tweeted that the indictment seemed sketchy /politically motivated.

Yeah, I mentioned it, but only in passing. PJ Media caught that tweet from Axelrod.

Texas politics is a mess at its best, but those who decry the one-party rule in Texas should look at California. It has the same problem - one party rule from the Democrat side. I'd ask which state is better off at the moment although on party rule isn't ideal for anyone and the Democrats have more representation in Texas than the Republicans have a prayer of having in California which is why the state secession movement is gaining so much traction.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

But she is a convicted criminal !!!!

And a District Attorney !!!!

did you watch the video of her lies ??

do you realize this decision to indict Perry was reached, by the evidence provided to a grand jury?.....so is the grand jury a convicted criminal too?.....

Could be.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: jimmyx

DA chooses to bring charges. Same DA selects Jury. Same DA presents evidence to a jury of like thinking. Same DA calls witnesses to paint the picture she wishes to paint.

I believe I read somewhere here that it has been said that a properly manipulated GJ will indict a ham sandwich.

Is it legal? Yep...the question is will the charge survived a proper trial? Will it even make it to court or is the main strategy to grab headlines about a likely presidential candidate being indicted? One that carries a grudge against a drunk, a drunken DA who attempts to use her office and friends to avoid an arrest for DUI and prosecutions.
A DA who is head of an ethics group charged with investigating improper behavior by public officials in Texas. Do you not see a conflict here?

grand juries are allowed to go wherever the evidence leads them, they are not controlled by any DA...I was on one years ago, and everyone was made aware of government officials and/or business people trying to influence them, or at least get information out of them....I pissed off a few friends, when I told them I couldn't discuss any cases we were working on, but they later came around to understanding why. grand juries have a lot of power, and tend to attract people that are not easily fooled or threatened, by those that are in powerful positions of government, or ones that gain financially from government.

So what you are saying is that despite the Grand Jury being composed of Democrats, in a Democrat county, being convened by a Democrat DA and evidence and witnesses being selected by a Democrat DA, that this Grand Jury is wholly and completely objective in it's conclusion?

Yep! I believe that.

grand juries are allowed to go wherever the evidence leads them, they are not controlled by any DA...I was on one years ago, and everyone was made aware of government officials and/or business people trying to influence them, or at least get information out of them....I pissed off a few friends, when I told them I couldn't discuss any cases we were working on, but they later came around to understanding why. grand juries have a lot of power, and tend to attract people that are not easily fooled or threatened, by those that are in powerful positions of government, or ones that gain financially from government.

I noticed you used the word "lead" was that intentional or a slip on your part?