I will take your word for her demeanor and behavior; most drunks are not pretty to watch, especially post-arrest.
Mr. Perry had every right to ask her to resign. She chose not to; he has no legal right to force her to do so. Instead, he vetoed the entire budget of her department. He has no right to do that, either. Whether the rest of the department has any respect for the woman who runs it or not, they deserve to get paid for what they do, and they had nothing to do with her arrest.
Mr. Perry announced before the vote that he would veto the department’s budget if it was passed. His advisers had plenty of time to tell him why that would be a very bad idea. This means either that his advisors were too stupid to recognize a clearly illegal maneuver, or that Mr. Perry was unwilling to listen to them.
Neither alternative is attractive. Consider this if he truly does become a candidate for President.
This wasn’t about her DUI. It was a way of trying to get rid of an investigation that was getting too close to the governor’s office. The governor’s cronies were taking millions of dollars from state agencies that was not intended for them.
The problem is that while the indictment is so flawed that both liberal and conservative legal scholars find it outrageous, the problem with it is legal and not factual. -I’m sure that the grand jurors were told “the law says that Rick Perry violated the law if he vetoed or threatened to veto funding for this state program.” There was ample evidence that Perry did veto the program, so it would not be too hard for a grand jury (who are notoriously deferential to the DA’s case) to pass the indictment.-The main problems with the indictment are that the governor of Texas is lawfully entitled to veto any line item of funding and that the criminal statute does not actually apply to the governor’s situation. Which makes the attempt to prosecute Governor Perry on these charges an outrageous abuse of legal process and a point of shame to everyone associated with it.
Take a look at the article I linked – it addresses the law under which Governor Perry was charged and explains why the the law does not apply to Governor Perry’s conduct. If the law does not support the charge then the charge is improper.
braindead Premium Member over 9 years ago
Nah. It’s always OKAY if a Republican does it.
sw10mm over 9 years ago
just another indication of lib ignorance.
Odon Premium Member over 9 years ago
Austin ~ We have a problem…
I Play One On TV over 9 years ago
I will take your word for her demeanor and behavior; most drunks are not pretty to watch, especially post-arrest.
Mr. Perry had every right to ask her to resign. She chose not to; he has no legal right to force her to do so. Instead, he vetoed the entire budget of her department. He has no right to do that, either. Whether the rest of the department has any respect for the woman who runs it or not, they deserve to get paid for what they do, and they had nothing to do with her arrest.
Mr. Perry announced before the vote that he would veto the department’s budget if it was passed. His advisers had plenty of time to tell him why that would be a very bad idea. This means either that his advisors were too stupid to recognize a clearly illegal maneuver, or that Mr. Perry was unwilling to listen to them.
Neither alternative is attractive. Consider this if he truly does become a candidate for President.
stevenjohns over 9 years ago
This wasn’t about her DUI. It was a way of trying to get rid of an investigation that was getting too close to the governor’s office. The governor’s cronies were taking millions of dollars from state agencies that was not intended for them.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
The real problem is the emperor has no brain, clothes aren’t the problem.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
The problem is that while the indictment is so flawed that both liberal and conservative legal scholars find it outrageous, the problem with it is legal and not factual. -I’m sure that the grand jurors were told “the law says that Rick Perry violated the law if he vetoed or threatened to veto funding for this state program.” There was ample evidence that Perry did veto the program, so it would not be too hard for a grand jury (who are notoriously deferential to the DA’s case) to pass the indictment.-The main problems with the indictment are that the governor of Texas is lawfully entitled to veto any line item of funding and that the criminal statute does not actually apply to the governor’s situation. Which makes the attempt to prosecute Governor Perry on these charges an outrageous abuse of legal process and a point of shame to everyone associated with it.
louieglutz over 9 years ago
you mean malfeasance like driving drunk and being disorderly?
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
Take a look at the article I linked – it addresses the law under which Governor Perry was charged and explains why the the law does not apply to Governor Perry’s conduct. If the law does not support the charge then the charge is improper.