The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Even if he somehow gets off, it's another blow to the already dead Republican Party.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2014 07:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:29

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Johnny Cache Hit posted:

The DA (a Democrat) whose office was investigating Rick Perry's corruption got drunk, did a DUI, and might've said a thing to the police that maybe approached corruption.

It basically has approached corruption,

Former chief commercialization officer of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas indicted.

Granted, he hasn't gone to trial but he resigned his position. If it weren't for the Public Integrity Unit this would have never been unearthed the fraud.

Perry attempted to squash the investigation and used the DUI of the Public Integrity Unit employee as cover.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Aug 17, 2014

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 02:35

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Once the Rosemary Lehmberg - the Travis County DA was arrested for DUI and the ensuing drama unfolded. Supposedly Rick Perry or his office went behind closed doors and promised her a job if she resigned voluntarily.

I can't find the source but if this is true and could be proven in court, Perry would be found guilty.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2014 20:22

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Trabisnikof posted:

The Texas Tribune has backed that up and Lehmberg said that part of the reason she didn't agree was because she thought it was illegal.

If they prove it in court, Perry is hosed.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2014 20:58

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Shifty Pony posted:

Going to be hard because the Perry administration is very meticulous about avoiding written communication. But yes if somebody hosed up and wrote that down or the special prosecutor has credible witnesses then Perry is in trouble.

It will still get overturned on appeal.

Yea, it'll become a "he-said but she-said" which never goes anywhere and I don't believe a Grand Jury would indict on that amount of evidence.

Which means they must have something...

# ¿ Aug 18, 2014 22:13

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

A bit off-topic but has anything come out of this?

Texas court overturns Tom DeLay conviction

USA Today posted:

The Texas Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion released Thursday by Justice Melissa Goodwin, said instead that "the evidence shows that the defendants were attempting to comply with the election code limitations on corporate contributions."

"The evidence was legally insufficient to sustain DeLay's convictions," the court said in its 2-1 ruling. The judges said they "reverse the judgments of the trial court" and acquit DeLay, once one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress, of all charges.

The Travis County District Attorney's Office said it would appeal the decision before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Was an appeal ever attempted?

# ¿ Aug 19, 2014 20:39

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Adar posted:

The only way this case could get any dumber is if the DA had not resi...oh, right, she's still there.

No jury will convict, even given the above. If there's no set mechanism for removing the chair of an ethics committee from office for a .239, you can spin that conversation as extraordinary measures. I'm not even sure it's spin. An offer of a lower ranking job to save face is something that would happen in a whole lot of other countries and in a non-politicized situation it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

The Travis County DA is an elected official and responsible to the people of her district. If they wish for her to remain in her position - so be it. We could discuss at length as to if there should be some way to remove her but that's a completely different topic. My own state North Dakota had a judge accused and convicted of sexual harassment yet he still holds his position.

Why he hasn't been voted out is beyond me...

Adar posted:

No jury will convict, even given the above. If there's no set mechanism for removing the chair of an ethics committee from office for a .239, you can spin that conversation as extraordinary measures. I'm not even sure it's spin.

A special independent prosecutor that reviewed the investigation from the Travis County DA and a Grand Jury thinks otherwise.

Adar posted:

An offer of a lower ranking job to save face is something that would happen in a whole lot of other countries and in a non-politicized situation it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

Eh, maybe but it was to squash the investigation - which is illegal under State Law.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2014 14:46

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

The office prosecuting him is the office whose funds he vetoed?

Yes, however the idea that it's just partisan mudslinging is rather misleading.

I don't know the exact terminology or process but when the Travis County DA completed their investigation of Perry they take their findings to a special prosecutor. He's non-partisan (or claims to be) reviews the case and if he feels there's something substantial then he takes it to a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury (non-partisan or at the very least a mix of democrats/republicans) scrutinizes the special prosecutors review and if they feel beyond the benefit of a doubt there's wrong doing and indictment will be issued.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2014 15:22

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Adar posted:

Grand juries hear no exculpatory evidence and will indict a hand sandwich. Indictments are paperwork to go through (unless there's a cop involved lol) before getting to the important part. For a Texas jury to convict on these facts is going to take a minor miracle.

Also, you got your standard of proof significantly wrong ("probable cause")

The defense and prosecutors picked the Grand Jurors. Given their experience, I doubt they picked anyone undesirable. As I said earlier - I'm not an expert but my analogy is essentially the same.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2014 19:37

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Trabisnikof posted:

The defense doesn't have a say in selection of a grand jury (http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/grand-jury-where-community-meets-law) and grand juries are easily led to whatever conclusion prosecutors want (http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/27/the-kaley-forfeiture-decision-what-it-looks-like-when-the-feds-make-their-ham-sandwich/).

However, any Republican-appointed prosecutor that brings such bombshell charges knows what will happen if they can't back them up.

I stand corrected, although that's rather extreme... but the idea that's it's partisan is bullshit.

Two other things I found, the prosecutor Michael McCrum was backed Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin).

Plus, there have been other DA's have been convicted of DUIs and Perry made no such request for resignation.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2014 20:52

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Omi-Polari posted:

RickPAC is really owning it. They're selling these t-shirts:

This is going to be an awesome shirt, if Perry gets convicted.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2014 22:21

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Who's the guy in the middle?

# ¿ Aug 23, 2014 00:02

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Yea, I wish and it should have reported that everything that has happen in the courtroom has been sealed. We won't know any further details until the trial...

Has a date been set?

# ¿ Aug 23, 2014 05:38

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Update,

Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment

quote:

What�s more, Perry continued to pressure Lehmberg to resign even after the veto. Official sources cited in media accounts confirm that Perry�s representatives continued to try to induce Lehmberg to resign by promising her a high-paying junior position in her office. That behavior is a potential bribery felony in Texas.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2014 20:46

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Eh,

The DA's DUI is a huge liability and a enormously stupid mistake but she's an elected official, was convicted, sentenced and served her time. If Austin wants to keep her around so be it. It is rather unclassy to be sharing such a meme, or any meme for that matter. It might sway public opinion slightly but it won't work in court.

Does anyone know what kind of timeline we're looking at until we find out if it's going to get thrown out?

# ¿ Sep 3, 2014 16:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:29

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

More news Judge refuses to toss out Rick Perry indictment

Perry's lawyers tried to get the indictment tossed out by saying they're baseless, unconstitutional but the judge disagreed. Perry will go to trial.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 20:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread