The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

On-Topic Tex Gov. Perry Indicted on Felony Counts

I am at a loss to understand why you have such a boner for Perry. He doesn't care about your politics, if the only way to get elected was to be a raging Socialist, he'd be one, if he needed to bend over and take it up the ass from illegal immigrants, he'd be the first one lubing up.

You do nothing but destroy your own credibility by standing up in defense of crooks. Of course, being a tagger and pub, I understand you don't have very many principled people to fantasize about - but really Ben, there has to be at least one or two out there more deserving than this asshole.

What does it say about your party that he abandoned the Dems at the request of Karl Rove? What the hell does that tell you about him?
 
TX-Beau said:
(emphasis mine)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-rick-perry-will-be-co_b_5686664.html

No, that isn't what HuffPo said. Who cares what you "see," you aren't an expert, and you're the most biased person on this forum.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Huffington said in the link in the OP:"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for allegedly abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption"....

I am an expert, legally, which you certainly are not. I am hardly the most biased person here, and I, unlike you can, and habitually do, carry on a conversations without personal insults.
 
Please, I'll believe you're actually a lawyer when the sky falls, and if you actually passed the bar WHERE?

Plus even than quote doesn't say what you claim it does.
 
Forgot, it says quite plainly that he was indicted for abuse of power, not vetoing a budget item.
 
TX-Beau said:
I am at a loss to understand why you have such a boner for Perry. He doesn't care about your politics, if the only way to get elected was to be a raging Socialist, he'd be one, if he needed to bend over and take it up the ass from illegal immigrants, he'd be the first one lubing up.

You do nothing but destroy your own credibility by standing up in defense of crooks. Of course, being a tagger and pub, I understand you don't have very many principled people to fantasize about - but really Ben, there has to be at least one or two out there more deserving than this asshole.

What does it say about your party that he abandoned the Dems at the request of Karl Rove? What the hell does that tell you about him?
Click to expand...

When did I say a single word in favor of Perry? I have not. My comments have been limited to the legal issues and to the politics. Democrats on the forum and generally, hate each and every Republican and Conservative, and attempt to silence them. I appear to be the only one of either who has not been banned. So yes, my instinct is to point out the points in favor of the Republicans being attacked and the holes in the accusations against them.
 
Oh please, that is your projection based in your hyper-partisan bullshit. I personally am quite fond of Colin Powell. The "others" got banned because they violated the forum in some way I suspect, why don't you ask a mod.

Defending crooks isn't to your benefit. Perhaps you might open YOUR mind about some of these guys. I GUARANTEE you some of us here in Texas are far more expert about Texas politicians than you will ever be - lawyer or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Benvolio said:
You simply cannot understand the quote. The abuse was, it says, in vetoing.
Click to expand...

NO, what it says is "abuse of power," and "threat of veto" it's right there, you do read don't you?
 
Curiously enough - if she had resigned and he DIDN'T VETO (which he was offering) the crime would have been the same.

And WHERE was that you allegedly passed the bar?

(see the legal-speak there!)
 
TX-Beau said:
Oh please, that is your projection based in your hyper-partisan bullshit. I personally am quite fond of Colin Powell. The "others" got banned because they violated the forum in some way I suspect, why don't you ask a mod.

Defending crooks isn't to your benefit. Perhaps you might open YOUR mind about some of these guys. I GUARANTEE you some of us here in Texas are far more expert about Texas politicians than you will ever be - lawyer or not.

- - - Updated - - -



NO, what it says is "abuse of power," and "threat of veto" it's right there, you do read don't you?
Click to expand...

You simply cannot understand that "carrying out a threat to veto" means he vetoed.
 
Sure, and if he hadn't used the veto, the crime would have been the same because the VETO WASN'T THE ABUSE OF POWER!!!!

Now let's get back to that question of where you passed the bar, if you expect anyone to think you're a lawyer, surely you can name a state.

Obviously, it's not Texas.
 
Benvolio said:
The Huffington post said he was indicted for carrying out his threat to veto. The indictment itself seems to have been designed to avoid the veto power but I don't think it succeeds. The first count says he misused property, I.e the funds voted for the unit. It is obscure but this appears to be a devious way of saying he vetoed the funds voted. To me it is clear that the prosecutor agrees that he cannot base his claim on the veto and is trying to double talk his way around it. The second count says he coerced by threatening the veto. This dog will not hunt. Threatening the veto is inherent in the veto and is part of its intended purpose to enable the executive to influence legislation.
The Texas observer article also mentions promises, but I do not see that in the indictment.
Click to expand...

There was no intent to influence legislation -- none. That smokescreen is a fail.
 
TX-Beau said:
Sure, and if he hadn't used the veto, the crime would have been the same because the VETO WASN'T THE ABUSE OF POWER!!!!

Now let's get back to that question of where you passed the bar, if you expect anyone to think you're a lawyer, surely you can name a state.

Obviously, it's not Texas.
Click to expand...

Kulindahr said:
So the core is that he attempted to influence an elected official by use of his official powers via threat and bribery.

That just might fly.
Click to expand...

The governor is the chief executive. Influencing public officials is part of the job.
The bribery claim does not appear in the indictment. The governor asked her to resign and promised her a different job. No way that is a crime.
 
Benvolio said:
Wrong. Huffington said in the link in the OP:"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for allegedly abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption"....

I am an expert, legally, which you certainly are not. I am hardly the most biased person here, and I, unlike you can, and habitually do, carry on a conversations without personal insults.
Click to expand...

Where was the "personal insult"? Answer: there was none, but you think you can distract us by claiming it.

If you were a "legal expert" you would have started your comments in this thread by posting the actual indictment for us. And you wouldn't consider the HuffPo anything worth considering. And you wouldn't be so inane as to take the reporting of details to be a legal statement of the charge.
 
Benvolio said:
When did I say a single word in favor of Perry? I have not. My comments have been limited to the legal issues and to the politics. Democrats on the forum and generally, hate each and every Republican and Conservative, and attempt to silence them. I appear to be the only one of either who has not been banned. So yes, my instinct is to point out the points in favor of the Republicans being attacked and the holes in the accusations against them.
Click to expand...

And in your efforts you argue in essence that a constitution is a pact to invite corruption. Well, it's not a suicide pact, and it's not an endorsement of corruption, either.

A legal expert would have gone straight to the core of the matter, namely that he broke his oath of office by attempting to interfere with the actions of a duly elected official, and pointed out that it's an impeachable offense, and scoured Texas law to tell us if it was also a prosecutable offense.
 
Benvolio said:
The governor is the chief executive. Influencing public officials is part of the job.
The bribery claim does not appear in the indictment. The governor asked her to resign and promised her a different job. No way that is a crime.
Click to expand...

Seriously? So you - a lawyer of indeterminate provenance - are asserting that part of the Governor's job is to leverage other elected officials to resign if he can, and punish them when they don't, and reward them if they capitulate? That's just part of his job? IN WHICH STATE? Enlighten us.

Really - I'm going to have to ask again where you passed the bar, because that is just ridiculous.
 
Benvolio said:
The governor is the chief executive. Influencing public officials is part of the job.
The bribery claim does not appear in the indictment. The governor asked her to resign and promised her a different job. No way that is a crime.
Click to expand...

He did NOT "ask her to resign" -- he demanded and made threats.

Use of threats is not "influencing public officials", it's coercion. And when the coercion involves misuse of official authority, it's corruption. And when the threat is made in order to try to cover up other alleged corruption, it's criminal -- whether specifically written into the law that way or not.

I'd say the grand jury acted in the best tradition of the function of a jury: to pursue justice. On the one hand, that means that if they find an act to have been blameless, they acquit regardless of the law, but it also means that they can indict with whatever law will provide justice.


BTW, making this about a veto is equivalent to making Bill Clinton's impeachment issue a matter of a blow job. Both are ploys to avoid the truth.
 
TX-Beau said:
Seriously? So you - a lawyer of indeterminate provenance - are asserting that part of the Governor's job is to leverage other elected officials to resign if he can, and punish them when they don't, and reward them if they capitulate? That's just part of his job? IN WHICH STATE? Enlighten us.

Really - I'm going to have to ask again where you passed the bar, because that is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If he can do that, then he could try to "influence" officials by ordering the National Guard to block the streets they live on -- after all, he commands the Guard.....
 
TX-Beau said:
Curiously enough - if she had resigned and he DIDN'T VETO (which he was offering) the crime would have been the same.
Click to expand...

Yes. The legal complaint against Perry was filed before he actually vetoed the funding for the Public Integrity Unity.

Even if Perry had not vetoed funding for the PIU, the charge of abuse of power would have been the same, and the same investigation would have ensued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top