Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted for alleged abuse of power in veto dispute

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jasper76**

This one was the worst bar I've seen in my life. Thank God it was on TV and not in person.

When I searched for it, I noticed it has closed down since the TV show aired.

(sorry for going OT, back to lurker mode)

**reds8n**

.. Query :

Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ?

I assume that until/unless he's found guilty there'd be no issue, but if he was found guilty here he would or wouldn't noe be forbidden from legally owning ?

Or does this not apply here, or in this state etc ?

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
.. Query :

Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ?

Yes no CHLing bang sticks until after adjudication. However there are many rights for carrying that supercede CHLing.
EDIT if conveicted of a felony then he's permanently barred from firearm ownership. That aint gonna happen.

I'm not worried. In addition to being hurricane and tornado proof, that perfect coif is laquered so fulsomely, as to be bullet proof.

I do like that meme. He should seriously run with that.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
Also grand jury members just speaking publicly is a crime in Texas.

Isn't being a Democrat in Texas also a crime?

**Jihadin**

reds8n wrote:
.. Query :

Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ?

I assume that until/unless he's found guilty there'd be no issue, but if he was found guilty here he would or wouldn't noe be forbidden from legally owning ?

Or does this not apply here, or in this state etc ?

Dropped a few notch on my "Kool person stick" WTH are you bringing weapon ownership into this Red.....
Bad Red
I shall stamp "No Desserts" on ID card
Bend your driver license 90 degree's
etc etc etc etc

No. Its freaking Texas and e probably brought all the weapons he wants/like already

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Also grand jury members just speaking publicly is a crime in Texas.

Isn't being a Democrat in Texas also a crime?

Just a municipal offense. If you take the insurance class you can get it removed from your record.

"Poor George, born with a silver foot in his mouth."
-Ann Richards, D, Governor of Texas. remember if you call Ghost Ann, it better be important (Alamo Drafthouse joke).

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Also grand jury members just speaking publicly is a crime in Texas.

Regarding only specifics of the case, particularly while the grand jury is in session. These comments were made after the fact, Chalmers wasn't the only one to express such a sentiment, and no specifics were discussed.

**Ouze**

reds8n wrote:.. Query :

Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ??

Frazzled wrote:Yes no CHLing bang sticks until after adjudication. However there are many rights for carrying that supercede CHLing.
EDIT if conveicted of a felony then he's permanently barred from firearm ownership. That aint gonna happen. .

To expand upon what Frazzled said with a piece of amusing minutiae an Englishman might not know about American politics: If he is convicted of a felony, he would no longer be able to vote, along with losing his firearms rights. However, he would not be disqualified from seeking several high level political offices, such as a US Senator or Congressman, and in many states, Governor (not Texas though).

A felon in the US can't vote for a Senator, but he can be one. /Murca

**reds8n**

.... he permanently loses his vote ?!

.. blimey.

Over here a criminal conviction bars one from (elected) political office.

.. at high levels anyway, don't think applies to parish councils and the like.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

reds8n wrote:
.... he permanently loses his vote ?!

.. blimey.

Over here a criminal conviction bars one from (elected) political office.

.. at high levels anyway, don't think applies to parish councils and the like.

Parish councils? I thought the local government act 1998 replaced them with regional councils?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Also grand jury members just speaking publicly is a crime in Texas.

Regarding only specifics of the case, particularly while the grand jury is in session. These comments were made after the fact, Chalmers wasn't the only one to express such a sentiment, and no specifics were discussed.

After the fact as well Dogma. Grand Juries in Texas are different than trial juries.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
reds8n wrote:.. Query :

Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ??

Frazzled wrote:Yes no CHLing bang sticks until after adjudication. However there are many rights for carrying that supercede CHLing.
EDIT if conveicted of a felony then he's permanently barred from firearm ownership. That aint gonna happen. .

To expand upon what Frazzled said with a piece of amusing minutiae an Englishman might not know about American politics: If he is convicted of a felony, he would no longer be able to vote, along with losing his firearms rights. However, he would not be disqualified from seeking several high level political offices, such as a US Senator or Congressman, and in many states, Governor (not Texas though).

A felon in the US can't vote for a Senator, but he can be one. /Murca

On another board it was noted that the state apparently has pulled his CHL license. No more shootin coyoots with your hogleg Govnah!

**whembly**

Good god... is the water in Travis County tainting or something?
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/judge-warns-against-perry-grand-jury-threats/ng6zb/?__federated=1

By Tim Eaton
American-Statesman Staff
A state district judge in Austin said Thursday that she intends to protect members of the grand jury that indicted Gov. Rick Perry from any threats — veiled or direct — from the governor or anyone else.

Judge Julie Kocurek of the 390th District Court, a Democrat, said Perry’s Saturday statement, issued a day after the indictment, could be construed as a threat and possible violation of the law. Kocurek, as the administrative presiding judge of all criminal courts in the county, said that “no one is above the law,” and the public needs to know that grand jurors are legally protected from any threat.

“I have a duty to make sure that our members of the grand jury are protected,” Kocurek said. “I am defending the integrity of our grand jury system.”

The judge said that Perry might have made a veiled threat when he said: “I am confident we will ultimately prevail, that this farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and that those responsible will be held to account.”

The only people that Perry could be referring to as being accountable are the grand jurors, judge and prosecutor, Kocurek said.

The Texas Penal Code that outlaws obstruction and retaliation says that anyone who “intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm” a grand juror faces a second degree felony, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

**Frazzled**

a Cabal of crazy.

**d-usa**

At least you don't need to gerrymander when everybody just chooses to move to the same city!

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
a Cabal of crazy.

Doesn't that describe most State politics though?

**Frazzled**

No no, this is the entire county.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
a Cabal of crazy.

Doesn't that describe most State politics though?

I don't really think it does... at least, not to THIS level of crazy. Sure, you've got granny and grandad sittin' on the porch in their rockin' chairs moanin' about "them darn liberals" and "I heard on Rush today" But I think that, at some point, MOST of the people elected to state legislatures legitimately have their people's interests at heart. Afterall, in some of those districts, they themselves depend on their own decisions.

**Ahtman**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
a Cabal of crazy.

Doesn't that describe most State politics though?

I don't really think it does... at least, not to THIS level of crazy. Sure, you've got granny and grandad sittin' on the porch in their rockin' chairs moanin' about "them darn liberals" and "I heard on Rush today" But I think that, at some point, MOST of the people elected to state legislatures legitimately have their people's interests at heart. Afterall, in some of those districts, they themselves depend on their own decisions.

I have found the opposite true, though often for the same reasons. Less people tend to be engaged at state and local levels, but those that are tend to be much more engaged because they know it has more of an impact which can lead to some goofiness. You also tend to have more contact with the people involved and since they aren't as removed it can become more personal much easier.

National politics is two dogs growling at each other but State and local are rabid squirrels fighting.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ahtman wrote:

I have found the opposite true, though often for the same reasons. Less people tend to be engaged at state and local levels, but those that are tend to be much more engaged because they know it has more of an impact which can lead to some goofiness. You also tend to have more contact with the people involved and since they aren't as removed it can become more personal much easier.

National politics is two dogs growling at each other but State and local are rabid squirrels fighting.

Yeah, I can see that... Maybe I'm from an area where things are a little more "sane" (not really the best word, but ohh well) but yeah. Local fights would be much more personal, as opposed to a senator in DC fighting for "his state" that he hasn't really seen in years, except in campaigning

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

After the fact as well Dogma. Grand Juries in Texas are different than trial juries.

Interesting. In Illinois so long as no specific information, particularly factual information, regarding the case is discussed members of a Grand Jury are free to speak regarding anything they wish once the Grand Jury has concluded.

Of course, the wise thing to do would be to say nothing at all.

**Ouze**

reds8n wrote:
.... he permanently loses his vote ?!

.. blimey.

Over here a criminal conviction bars one from (elected) political office.

.. at high levels anyway, don't think applies to parish councils and the like.

Yes, I would greatly prefer if it were the other way - if a felony conviction barred you from holding public office, but you were still free to vote.

I hate that felons can't vote - it's pure taxation without representation. You can sometimes get your voting rights restored if enough time passes and you jump through some hoops, but I firmly believe once you serve your time, you are free.

**Ahtman**

Ouze wrote:
I hate that felons can't vote - it's pure taxation without representation.

Soft on crime! *points finger at Ouze* SOFT ON CRIME!

**Jihadin**

Depending on the felony. It can be waivered(sp).

**dogma**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Local fights would be much more personal, as opposed to a senator in DC fighting for "his state" that he hasn't really seen in years, except in campaigning

Not just more personal, but frequently more petty as well.

As an example: people in a subdivision in the town I grew up in actively resisted the construction of a superstore called Meijer in an empty, city-owned piece of untended farmland in the middle of an otherwise developed suburb of Chicago. They didn't complain about noise* they launched a campaign called "Trucks Kill Kids" in which they claimed that trucks going to Meijer would necessarily kill more children than the trucks that already used the thoroughfare already didn't.

Of course, this worked, as most people couldn't be bothered to stand up to idiots.

*Wisely, as it abuts a major road, and all the relevant houses have sound buffers.

**whembly**

You know they're going to milk this to thy kingdom come... but, it may just work:

**SlaveToDorkness**

Do WANT!

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
At least you don't need to gerrymander when everybody just chooses to move to the same city!

Nate Silver made the interesting argument that intentional gerrymandering is probably a less powerful force in US politics than the demographic effect of lots of Democratic aligned blocs choosing to move in to the same neighbourhoods.

**whembly**

Perry has filed for a writ of habeas corpus barring his prosecution for use of his veto power.

**Frazzled**

Are you sure? Thats typically done to spring someone from the clink (its literally for "the body of") . Did the Yankees trap him in a basement in NH?

EDIT You're right. Thats interesting.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/rick-perrys-lawyers-file-60-page-motion-to-dismiss/ng8WP/

**dogma**

The motion contends Perry had the constitutional right to veto the money and the charges attempt to violate his right to free speech.

Really? Wow, that's a ballsy argument.