When is something serious enough to take action? He is guilty and what we should
be concerned about is the fact that he wants to get rid of something that
investigates wrong doing within the government! Republicans are always
complaining about corruption within our oversized government, but nothing
applies to them. He used his power and position to threaten and he followed
through. It most definitely is something we need to be worried about. Who are
people kidding? If it were Obama that did this, republicans would be screaming
as loud as they could to impeach him. They have already talked about
impeachment! If it were a democrat, do you honestly say that it wouldn't be
a big deal? Come on, we all know that it would be, so I think it is hypocritical
to say that it isn't a big deal! The man obviously does not feel that
integrity is important ! Oh yeah. Seriously, I want somebody to tell me that it
wouldn't be an issue if it were the president we were talking about! Give
me a break!
achick47I know a little about Texas law myself, and I am wondering
just where in the Texas constitution it is permitted to coerce an elected
official? Secondly, the lady has a drinking problem, not a theft
problem. She is not the first politician of any stripe to have difficulties
with substance abuse (George II had a little problem too you may remember). She
serves at the behest of the electeds and voters of the County and not the state
(even though the county is actually a creature of the state). The funding was
withdrawn, and the county figured out how to fund the office anyway.Perry is a ham handed, overbearing, bully Governor. That seems to play well
in Texas, but not in most of the country. Hopefully, he will have learned his
lesson in 2012 and not embarrass himself and your home state with another run
for the Presidency. However, his ego probably won't allow that.
Well having studied Texas law this is my personal opinion. Texas law allows the
Gov. to veto any bill as he deems necessary. He informed the "ETHICS'
committee that the Lady in question had attempted to use her position of
authority to get out of her illegal activities and therefore he no longer had
"FAITH" in her ability to control where the resources of the bill would
be applied to benefit the "Citizens" of Texas and ask that she step down
and let another member lead the committee. All of this is "Legal" under
the laws and Constitution of Texas. She chose to refuse to step down as this
would impact her power and wealth her integrity and ethics are very questionable
so Gov. Perry vetoed 7.5 million. Would you give your paycheck to a thief if he
said"But I am honest and Know where your money should go." This case
will be thrown out right after elections in Nov. here in Texas as having no
merit. It is just a political ploy to maybe get more dems elected in a strong
Rep. state and stop Texas from closing the border influx.
Veto power is inherent in the Gov.'s office.No problem
whatsoever.Threatening a public employee.Ham-handed as
usual by...uh...what was his name...er...affectionately known as Gov. Oops?Oh yeah, Texas Republican Gov. Ric Perry.Texas Republican
Gov. Rick Perry has become an accident waiting to happen...daily.
Real MaverickThanks for pointing out to all the law and order types
around this website, that what Perry did is illegal in Texas. Maybe in Utah it
is okay to threaten and intimidate others, but other states (even Texas) have
some laws to prevent corruption and political intimidation.
Helpful. A big part of the story is being omitted. Pressuring a convicted
lawbreaker to leave office probably sounds legitimate. Problem is, that Public
Integrity Unit was investigating a cancer research institute that was one of
Perry's pet projects. (One of its former high-ranking officials now faces a
felony corruption charge.) If the district attorney had stepped down before she
was up for re-election, Perry would have picked her replacement, who could then
presumably have quashed the investigation. There is a very real chance that
Perry was using political pressure and attempted intimidation to help a crony.
If true, Perry needs to be held accountable for his actions.
"Helpful" to whom?Bogus charges against a Republican and/or
conservative front runner are always "helpful" to Democrats who depend
on the politics of personal destruction, but decry them when their candidates
actual criminal activities are questioned.Endlessly repetition of
false allegations "as news" by the liberal news media is always
"helpful" to Democrats.Of course, anything that helps
liberal Democrats is actually harmful to our country, and especially the future
freedom and prosperity of our children. I have 17.5 trillion examples to prove
Remember, this is what Democrats did to Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Scott Walker and Sarah Palin. All of these cases were found to be
fraudulent and the individuals were found innocent or the charges were thrown
out of court.Rick Perry has been almost the only one willing to
stand up for our country's Immigration laws and stand up for the
accompanying protection of our children and grand children.Democrats
who are defending the indictment claim that political revenge isn't a
motive because the charges were brought by a grand jury. But the tactic of using
a special prosecutor to disguise political motives is common. All of the above
cases were designed by political motives in this manner, just to put a cosmetic
touch of respectability on false political charges. When Democrats
cannot defend their failed programs or personal behavior failings, this is what
they do. False charges which cause political opponents to endure enormous
personal expense, degraded reputations and hours upon hours of defending
themselves. That is a common Democratic ploy. Honest and fair
Democrats such as John F. Kennedy are turning over in their graves as they watch
today’s behavior of Ploiticians.
@GaryO:"Aside from the illegality, Perry's actions showed a
marked lack of integrity and ethics on his part."You need to go
into more detail about the illegality and ethics. The veto was legal. From
what I heard about the video the prosecutor was threatening jail stuff with
their jobs if they did not let her out. She was using her position to get a
personal benefit.Although Perry did not have the authority to fire
her, he brought pressure on the office to get rid of an unethical official.
That is leadership and integrity.If I am mistaken, please go into
more detail about why it was illegal and unethical.No, I am not
thrilled about having another Texas governor as president any more than I am
thrilled about a 'community organizer'.I think that the
Democrats in this case have fallen into a trap where they demonize everyone who
disagrees with them and they found a loophole to indict Perry. Unfortunately,
it may end up helping Perry in his nomination. I thought (hoped) he was not
running again and now I know. They gave him free publicity.
We have become a very litigious country. We have the ability to sue. arrest, or
indict any person we don't like with the laws that we have created . While
it is helpful to have other means to convict true criminals, these laws can also
be used in many circumstances including political to swindle anyone we decide we
don't like. I will now stick to the political side. What is going on here
is a virus that will effect both parties. When power switches to Republicans,
just guess what will happen. That's right, Dems will get audited,
prosecuted, and of course... Indicted. I am repulsed by our political system at
this time. It is adjacent to high school politics on a national level. Rick
Perry made a poor decision here, but what about the other politicians? Obama,
Bush, Clinton, and Reagan have all done things more dramatic than this instance.
However at this time we have enough laws in place to indict Perry. These
charges will most likely be dropped. This is just a colossal waste of time and
tax payer $. Shame on our obstreperous gestures towards each party. That is
what lead us to this juncture.
It's simple:Does Texas law prohibit the governor from cutting
funding to a department in order to force the resignation of someone?If it is, then he's guilty.Texas law clearly states that a
governor cannot do this. He's in violation of the law! It doesn't
matter what the other person did. She could have committed murder. He still
cannot use his office to cut funding to her department to force her
resignation.I get the feeling that this is swallow/Shurtleff all
over again. Those 2 clearly violated laws yet some people want to play politics
and smear "the other side" rather than assist in upholding the law. I
thought we were a nation of law and order? Apparently not, if you're
Comments have been made about "the rule of law" by both supports and
detractors of the two "major" parties. The greatest breach of the rule
of law has been made by the POTUS - so many times that single incidents are now
being ignored. For those who wish to castigate my comments, please understand I
am neither Republican or Democrat. I look at the Constitution and how the
framers of that Document would respond to today's calamitous actions by
state and national governments. Just this week, the GAO determined that the
Bergdahl exchange was an illegal use of funds. A crime authorized by the POTUS.
The next day Rick Perry is indicted. The tail wagging the dog? Coincidence?
Probably. We wouldn't want to accuse anyone of political manipulation. Did
Gov. Perry have the right to veto a bill. Perhaps. Was it more egregious than
the actions previously mentioned by Sven by the POTUS? I am sure that some will
think even more so. And other's will ignore the implications of what is
happening to our Constitution and go back to their sports reports or video games
I will tell you how this indictment is helpful to Gov. Perry:The
indictments are clearly spurious. Gov. Perry had every reason to lose faith in
the head of the Ethics group, and every right to express that displeasure. He
had the authority to defund this group which had no clear purpose, and was being
used by some for political gain. He gave her a clear choice, and she chose
selfish self-interest over the welfare of her fellow workers. If
Gov. Perry accepts the nomination for President in 2016, I will vote for him.
If enough folks feel the same way, then it is HELPFUL.
@2bitsBlagojavich trying to get things in return for the Senate seat was
illegal. McDonnell's gifts in exchange for touting the products of a
businessman is likely to be found illegal. However... there's also the
matter of governors/presidents threatening vetoes unless parts of a bill are
changed. I feel like this Perry thing is somewhere in between since it involves
targeting a particular individual. I don't think it's illegal but at
the same time it's sketchy enough that there might be some value in getting
a clear answer from the courts regarding this sort of thing.
Last post, but I want to put a new question out there...Has anybody
else noticed that as soon as the media learns a Republican is Running...
they're immediately attacked by the opposition (and the media)?Is THAT a "Good" or "Helpful"???================It took just days with Governor Christy for the
media to dig up something to discredit him. Not even something HE DID... but
something someone in his administration did! He's destroyed... Check.Now it's Perry's turn.And if it's not the
media... it's Democrats in his State trying to destroy him and his
family...Palin got it too (law suits galore from Democrats at home
as soon as she expressed interest)...Romney too...McCain
too (remember the aircraft carrier incident that only came out when he decided
to run)...Bush too (National Guard Gate)...Is THAT
"Good"? "Helpful"?I guess if you claim you're
just VETTING candidates... it could be spun as a "Good" thing. But IMO
this trend that as soon as somebody expresses interest in running.... the
efforts to destroy them begins... is a BAD thing (and BOTH sides absolutely,
positively, without a doubt, do it)...
Hey 2-bits - " I doubt the rest of the world will see it as
"Helpful"... to helping ANYTHING."The law is the law.
Shouldn't the law be enforced?Aside from the illegality,
Perry's actions showed a marked lack of integrity and ethics on his
part.Perry did not veto the bill on the merits of the bill, as was
his prerogative. He vetoed the bill to EXTORT CONCESSIONS totally unrelated to
merits of the bill.If what Perry did is OK, then what is not OK?He could just as well have fired his secretary because she refused to
have sex with him. Would that be OK too?Or he could have vetoed the
bill because someone didn’t put 100 million dollars in his Cayman Islands
bank account. Would that be OK?I have a hard time understanding
how anyone can see Perry’s actions as anything but an abuse of power.Oh . . . And yes 2-bits, it is helpful when the rule of law is upheld,
and not even lofty politicos are above the law . . . Don't you think?
Still waiting for somebody to tell us how it's a "Helpful"
thing....We have GaryO... who sees it as a "Mixed
blessing"...I guess that's the closest we are going to get.
He thinks if it hurts Republicans... it's a "Blessing"... which
is close to being "Helpful". But that's from a hard core
partisan's point of view. I doubt the rest of the world will see it as
"Helpful"... to helping ANYTHING.============Yesterday we had an article asking if Partisanship was going away (showed John
McCain and Hillary Clinton sitting together and talking). I guess the response
we are getting to this topic shows that the partisanship is NOT going away (at
least with SOME people).This indicting Governors for talking about
vetos, and suing Presidents for circumventing Congress... all has to stop (no...
not just one side).Digging a pit for others, and stoking the fires
of the partisan divide every day is NOT the answer...This is NOT a
"Good" thing, or a "Helpful" thing, or a "Blessing"
(UNLESS you are dominated by partisan thoughts).
Sven, if Rick Perry is your GOP front runner bless you boy.
So let me see if I get this, the media and the Democrats want us to become
animated and outraged about Governor Perry and this bogus incitement (he was
acting within his authority as Governor), but we're supposed to ignore
Obama's true scandals and unconstitutional behavior? * Benghazi
(3 scandals)* NSA scandal* IRS scandal*Fast
and Furious (gun running) scandal* VA scandal* Violating
the separation of powers and creating a Constitutional Crisis with his threat to
provide amnesty to millions of illegals* Obamacare Lies: "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." "If you
like your plan you can keep your plan.""Under ACA families will
save an average of $2,500.""There are no 'death panels"
in Obamacare."This is nothing but an attempt to try and destroy
the GOP Presidential field. Keep it up guys, you may be clearing the field for
Palin. And we all know she lives in Obama and the Democrats heads rent free.
FT –“Watching without Perry in 2016 may be like viewing
American Idol without Simon Cowell.”I know. It’s
sad.But maybe Romney will decide to run again.
Well . . . It’s a mixed blessing.It underscores the FACT that
many Republican Politicians are seriously challenged when it comes to their
critical thinking ability. And since that fact is being demonstrated
again and again by Republican politicos, sooner or later more discerning
Republicans are going to realize that the Republican Party has gone over the
hill and around the bend . . . Waaaaaaaaaaay over somewhere where no rational
person wants to be.That will result in them either leaving the
Republicans to join the party of sanity (the Dems), or forming a third party, or
in voting for Republican candidates possessing an intelligence and outlook more
consistent with the Party of Lincoln than the Party of Perry.So
that’s good.However, Republican “pundits” are
spinning this to look like a victory for Republicans and a defeat for Dems; and
the Republican base is actually buying it. And that’s bad, because it
shows that a significant segment of America does in fact have little ability
to think critically.
Can someone explain how it is "Helpful"?... I'm still waiting for
somebody to try to make THAT case.That should be interesting
spin.How is arresting him "helpful"? (I mean beside the
help it brings by energizing your party base)Especially when you
arrest that person for doing something they have the authority to do!Vetoes are not illegal. Talking about vetoes is not illegal. Warning the
Legislature that if changes aren't made you will veto it... is also not
illegal. It happens ALL THE TIME. Even right here it Utah! The Governor
frequently tells the legislature he will veto their budget if certain priorities
he wants aren't included.What will happen if every time a
Governor tells the legislature that he will veto a bill unless changes are
made.... he is carted off to jail, booked, had his mug-shot shared on every
national TV broadcast, and taken to trial???Is that
"Help-ful"... or "Hurt-ful"? I think it obviously hurts our
political system (can't veto anymore) AND it hurts the individual
involved.Can ANYBODY explain how it is "HELP-ful"??
I think it's harmful. Obviously he's the Governor of the
State. The Governor (by Constitution) has the right to veto any legislation
(even veto funding bills) without being arrested. If he has the right to
veto.... he has the right to SAY that he will veto something if certain changes
aren't made... and that's what he was arrested for.It's not a criminal act. Arresting politicians for for doing things
they have the right to do (because you don't like what they did) is setting
a very bad precedent. Because I can guarantee you the other side will
retaliate and do the same thing or worse to you. It's becoming a
political gang-war mentality among the more rabid politicos out there. The
"You sued our guy so we're going to arrest your guy"... kinda like
the "you send one of ours to the hospital... we'll send one of yours to
the morgue".At some point we don't remember where it
started (with suing Obama, impeaching Bush, impeaching Clinton, or Nixon)....
and we don't even care... it just has to STOP. But neither side will LET
The indictment is harmful if it keeps Govenor Perry from competing for the GOP
nomination. His blunderous, uninformed, off the cuff statements defintely added
to the entertainment value of the debates in 2012. Watching without Perry in
2016 may be like viewing American Idol without Simon Cowell.