New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Sensible liberals are admitting Perry indictment is nothing but hogwash

Dino

Russian Asset
Pure flapdoodle libs....enjoy your witch hunt...

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry was indicted by a grand jury Friday for using his budget powers to force the removal of a District Attorney arrested last year in a humiliating and very public drunk driving incident.
Saturday morning, however, Perry finds himself with the unlikeliest of defenders. Using his Twitter account, David Axelrod, a senior aide and confidante to President Obama, wrote: "Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy."

Even Ben White of the left-wing Politico came to Perry's defense. The left-wing economics writer tweeted Saturday, "It seems quite perverse to indict a governor for exercising his clearly delineated constitutional authority[.]"

Axelrod is almost certainly signalling to fellow Democrats and his allies in the media (like Politico) that this indictment is a political loser for the left. It could also blowback on Obama, whose actual constitutional abuses have earned criticism even from some Democrats.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/16/david-axelrod-perry-indictment-looks-sketchy
 

Arkady

President
Pure flapdoodle libs....enjoy your witch hunt...

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry was indicted by a grand jury Friday for using his budget powers to force the removal of a District Attorney arrested last year in a humiliating and very public drunk driving incident.
Saturday morning, however, Perry finds himself with the unlikeliest of defenders. Using his Twitter account, David Axelrod, a senior aide and confidante to President Obama, wrote: "Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy."

Even Ben White of the left-wing Politico came to Perry's defense. The left-wing economics writer tweeted Saturday, "It seems quite perverse to indict a governor for exercising his clearly delineated constitutional authority[.]"

Axelrod is almost certainly signalling to fellow Democrats and his allies in the media (like Politico) that this indictment is a political loser for the left. It could also blowback on Obama, whose actual constitutional abuses have earned criticism even from some Democrats.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/16/david-axelrod-perry-indictment-looks-sketchy
There's a bipartisan consensus among elite politicians that they should all be immune to criminal repercussions for their acts. This is hardly the first example. Remember when Obama corruptly announced that there would be no prosecutions of Bush administration officials for their criminal misconduct? So much for prosecutorial independence. Libby's sentence got commuted. All the Iran/Contra conspirators got pardoned before the investigation could even determine how far up things went. Nixon even got a pardon. If you're a member of that top tier of political players, in this country, you can do almost anything and not wind up behind bars.

It reminds me a bit of medieval history. In medieval times, countries could war with each other in the most brutal ways. Yet, if a member of the nobility were captured in battle, he'd be kept in style and comfort until he could be ransomed back to his family. The brutality was all well and good for the little people, but in the end the nobility knew they had far more in common with nobles from other countries than they did with their own countrymen, so they often cooperated to protect each other from serious consequences. Our elites are similar. They may dress up as Democrats or Republicans, but in the end they have far more in common with each other than with fellow members of their parties, and they'll make sure the rough and tumble of politics doesn't get too rough for anyone who matters.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
There's a bipartisan consensus among elite politicians that they should all be immune to criminal repercussions for their acts. This is hardly the first example. Remember when Obama corruptly announced that there would be no prosecutions of Bush administration officials for their criminal misconduct? So much for prosecutorial independence. Libby's sentence got commuted. All the Iran/Contra conspirators got pardoned before the investigation could even determine how far up things went. Nixon even got a pardon. If you're a member of that top tier of political players, in this country, you can do almost anything and not wind up behind bars.

It reminds me a bit of medieval history. In medieval times, countries could war with each other in the most brutal ways. Yet, if a member of the nobility were captured in battle, he'd be kept in style and comfort until he could be ransomed back to his family. The brutality was all well and good for the little people, but in the end the nobility knew they had far more in common with nobles from other countries than they did with their own countrymen, so they often cooperated to protect each other from serious consequences. Our elites are similar. They may dress up as Democrats or Republicans, but in the end they have far more in common with each other than with fellow members of their parties, and they'll make sure the rough and tumble of politics doesn't get too rough for anyone who matters.
Do the common folk have access to the line-item veto or the budget of their respective states?

How can you even begin to pretend to miss the point here?
 
There's a bipartisan consensus among elite politicians that they should all be immune to criminal repercussions for their acts. This is hardly the first example. Remember when Obama corruptly announced that there would be no prosecutions of Bush administration officials for their criminal misconduct? So much for prosecutorial independence. Libby's sentence got commuted. All the Iran/Contra conspirators got pardoned before the investigation could even determine how far up things went. Nixon even got a pardon. If you're a member of that top tier of political players, in this country, you can do almost anything and not wind up behind bars.

It reminds me a bit of medieval history. In medieval times, countries could war with each other in the most brutal ways. Yet, if a member of the nobility were captured in battle, he'd be kept in style and comfort until he could be ransomed back to his family. The brutality was all well and good for the little people, but in the end the nobility knew they had far more in common with nobles from other countries than they did with their own countrymen, so they often cooperated to protect each other from serious consequences. Our elites are similar. They may dress up as Democrats or Republicans, but in the end they have far more in common with each other than with fellow members of their parties, and they'll make sure the rough and tumble of politics doesn't get too rough for anyone who matters.
Below are the Cliff notes to the post:

Buncha Baloney
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Wow, an actually valid response. I'm proud of ya.

You countered an opinion piece with a salient, cogent opinion piece. Not so bad, was it?

That being said, I think the entire episode is a witch hunt and your opinion piece doesn't have evidence of any crime, but a lot of likely inadmissible presumptions that will fall flat when the charge is brought forward.
 

Arkady

President
Do the common folk have access to the line-item veto or the budget of their respective states?

How can you even begin to pretend to miss the point here?
Having access to a power doesn't mean you have the right to use it in any way you want. For example, the "common folk" have access to the vote, but they aren't allowed to sell their vote. A hiring manager can have the power to hire or fire people, but that doesn't mean he can hire or fire someone based on the person's religion. Perry has access to a line-item veto, but the question is whether he's allowed to use that veto to block funding in order to try to force the resignation of an elected official he doesn't like. A grand jury saw cause to indict him on multiple felony counts, with the possibility of many years in jail, based on that behavior. Not surprisingly, many members of the political elite, on both sides of the aisle, disagree with the "common folk" on that jury. We'll see how it comes out in the trial.
 

bdtex

Administrator
Staff member
Wow, an actually valid response. I'm proud of ya.

You countered an opinion piece with a salient, cogent opinion piece. Not so bad, was it?

That being said, I think the entire episode is a witch hunt and your opinion piece doesn't have evidence of any crime, but a lot of likely inadmissible presumptions that will fall flat when the charge is brought forward.
I went on record on day one in this forum that I thought the charge was shaky. Don't need Breitbart/HuffPo/whatever to come to that conclusion.
 

EliteMind

Council Member
Most likely an Obama PAC that started all this nonsense to derail Perry's attempt at the Whitehouse. Anything to help Hillary win...
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
Scroll up. Reading comprehension issues?
nope. apparently you do, though.

I said...
Marcus Aurelius said:
I thought you didn't like sites that lie? I see by your link I was mistaken in that belief.

bdtex said:
You were in fact mistaken in that belief,et.al.
You said I was mistaken in the belief that you did not like sites that lie. Therefore, logically, the opposite is true, meaning you DO like sites that lie.

Even YOU should be able to comprehend something that simple.
 
Having access to a power doesn't mean you have the right to use it in any way you want. For example, the "common folk" have access to the vote, but they aren't allowed to sell their vote. A hiring manager can have the power to hire or fire people, but that doesn't mean he can hire or fire someone based on the person's religion. Perry has access to a line-item veto, but the question is whether he's allowed to use that veto to block funding in order to try to force the resignation of an elected official he doesn't like. A grand jury saw cause to indict him on multiple felony counts, with the possibility of many years in jail, based on that behavior. Not surprisingly, many members of the political elite, on both sides of the aisle, disagree with the "common folk" on that jury. We'll see how it comes out in the trial.
So vetoing a bill not to increase funding for an ethics committee run by this drunkard is a crime . That is very interesting
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/08/16/travis-county-da-rosemary-lehmbergs-drinking-problem-and-abuse-of-power-by-the-staggering-numbers/
 
Top