Rick Perry lawyers up

IMHO, and I don't support Perry running for any office, but as a general rule, a person is more in need of a lawyer when they are innocent, rather than guilty. Ijs.

Ass Sucker... we can go on.


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Ass sucker? Very creative, Slobbrin!

And more YouTube videos, for those who can't read the little squiggly lines...

IMHO, and I don't support Perry running for any office, but as a general rule, a person is more in need of a lawyer when they are innocent, rather than guilty. Ijs. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wow. Generally speaking, Perry has more lawyers than he knows what to do with. You think, generally speaking, that he's expecting a little tougher case than usual. Generally speaking, of course.

Wow. Generally speaking, Perry has more lawyers than he knows what to do with. You think, generally speaking, that he's expecting a little tougher case than usual. Generally speaking, of course. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That would likely be the case, generally.

Think a little deeper. You missed the other alternative.

Who says he has to drop out? If he is under indictment or even just investigation, he is "dead man walking". No one is going to vote for him in the primaries, except hard-core Texas boosters. The rest of the country won't touch him. He will do even worse than last time. He would be lucky to clear 5% of the primary vote.

So, the rest of the GOP breathes a sigh or relief that a not-to-bright frat boy backed by the usual evangelical clowns and oil company interests bites the dust.

If the objective is to beat the Democrats in 2016 with a competent candidate, taking Rick Perry out early and hard is an unalloyed good for the GOP.

I understood what you posted the first time. You'll have to continue to try to make the case that having a candidate campaigning under the GOP brand to be POTUS at the same time that candidate is under criminal indictment (if that happens) is good for the GOP. There's no universe where that would be true. I realize that you guys have to look hard for silver linings in the clouds when it comes to people like The Donald, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry but the folks who decide elections (the middle of the spectrum voters) don't look at it the same way you do.



The Walker investigation is bullshit that will be dragged out by Democrats for a long as possible to make it SEEM like a scandal. But what is the penalty? A monetary fine? And explain what the "crime" is so that ordinary people can understand it and get outraged about it. Improper coordination? Two PACs talked to one another within a certain time period before and election and were too specific about their objectives?

Walker will disavow any knowledge of any wrongdoing and say that it a smear job by the same unions that lost to him TWICE in the original and recall elections.

And he will be right.

Wow, a scandal that is bullshit and being dragged out as long as possible? Sounds like something right out of the GOP playbook. Also, I don't know where you're getting your information about the investigation "being dragged out by democrats." It's bipartisan. And, while I agree with you that it's not as simple as an elected official getting a blowjob and lying about it, or covering up a burglary of a campaign headquarters, that doesn't mean that the investigation shouldn't be followed to wherever it leads. Here's an article that gives a bit more information about what we're really talking about.

>>>>Newly-unsealed court documents and media leaks add to a growing body of evidence that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's campaign is at the center of a wide-ranging secret probe into campaign finance violations during the state's contentious 2011 and 2012 recall elections.

The John Doe probe began in August of 2012 and is examining possible "illegal campaign coordination between (name redacted), a campaign committee, and certain special interest groups," according to an unsealed filing in the case. Sources told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the redacted committee is the Walker campaign, Friends of Scott Walker. Campaign filings show that Walker spent $86,000 on legal fees in the second half of 2013.

A John Doe is similar to a grand jury investigation, but in front of a judge rather than a jury, and is conducted under strict secrecy orders. Wisconsin's 4th Circuit Court of Appeals unsealed some documents last week as it rejected a challenge to the probe filed by three of the unnamed "special interest groups" that had received subpoenas in the investigation and issued a ruling allowing the investigation to move forward.
The special interest groups under investigation include Wisconsin Club for Growth, which is led by a top Walker advisor and friend, R.J. Johnson, and which spent at least $9.1 million on "issue ads" supporting Walker and legislative Republicans during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections. Another group is Citizens for a Strong America, which was entirely funded by Wisconsin Club for Growth in 2011 and 2012 and acted as a conduit for funding other groups that spent on election issue ads; CSA's president is John Connors, who previously worked for David Koch's Americans for Prosperity and is part of the leadership at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity (publishers of Watchdog.org and Wisconsin Reporter). Other groups reportedly receiving subpoenas include AFP, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Republican Governors Association.

In January, the judge recently appointed to oversee the John Doe probe quashed subpoenas to Wisconsin Club for Growth, Citizens for a Strong America, and the Walker campaign, apparently based on a theory that coordination was not illegal because the groups' ads did not expressly tell viewers to "vote for" Walker or "vote against" his opponent. If upheld, the ruling could have major implications for Wisconsin campaign finance law, as the Center for Media and Democracy identified, and could potentially undermine candidate contribution and disclosure limits. Prosecutors plan to appeal that decision.
Probe Led by Bipartisan Group of Prosecutors

The latest probe grew out of an earlier John Doe investigation into illegal campaigning in Walker's office during his time as Milwaukee County Executive, led by Milwaukee's Democratic District Attorney John Chisholm, and which resulted in six criminal convictions -- including three Walker aides, one political appointee, and one major campaign contributor -- for a variety of crimes including embezzlement, campaign finance violations and political corruption.

Walker unambiguously denied being a target in the first John Doe investigation, but has been mum on whether he or his campaign is implicated in the latest probe.
Prior to the court unsealing documents in "John Doe II," individuals subpoenaed in the investigation and subject to its secrecy order had strategically leaked some information to friendly right-wing media sources. Wisconsin Club for Growth director Eric O'Keefe defied a secrecy order to speak with with members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and unnamed sources spoke with the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity's Wisconsin Reporter. As CMD has documented, Franklin Center was launched by O'Keefe, and its Director of Special Projects, John Connors, is president of Citizens for a Strong America.

Wisconsin Reporter and the Wall Street Journal editorial board have consistently attacked the probe, characterizing the criminal investigation as a "political speech raid" and citing unnamed sources to portray the investigation as a Democrat-led "taxpayer-funded opposition research campaign" with "one party in this state using prosecutorial powers to conduct a one-sided investigation into conservatives."

The new court documents undermine those portrayals. The documents show that while the probe started in Milwaukee, it quickly spread to four other counties and is now led by Republican and Democratic prosecutors.

The five-county effort is the result of Assembly Republicans pushing changes to Wisconsin law in 2007 to require that individuals accused of campaign finance or ethics violations be charged in their county of residence, rather than where the violation actually occurred. The subjects of this John Doe investigation live across the state, the filings show, in Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Iowa, and Milwaukee counties. The 2007 law was widely seen as an effort to help Republicans avoid trial in Madison, Wisconsin's capitol, where campaign finance violations would be most likely to occur but whose District Attorney and judges are perceived as liberal.

"Whatever the reason for the enactment of [the statutes], from the standpoint of judicial administration, the results are chaotic in a John Doe investigation where the subjects live far and wide within the state," wrote Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz in an unsealed filing with the Court. "The only reasonable approach to the handling of this circumstance is to assign one judge to hear all five John Doe proceedings."
The judiciary in each of the five counties appointed a Milwaukee judge to oversee the proceedings. The bipartisan group of District Attorneys then asked the court to appoint a Special Prosecutor to coordinate the investigation, after Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen declined to lead the probe, citing potential conflicts of interest. The nature of this potential conflict was redacted from the unsealed court documents.<<<<<
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/02/...ourt-docs-show


I didn't borrow the phrase from anyone. It has been reported on in the newspapers that the Clintons maintain files on everyone that has helped or hindered them going back to at least the 1992 election. And apparently, no slight is too small. Dems who were neutral in 2008 primaries (Hillary vs. Obama) are just as hated as those who actively supported Obama. Perhpas you have heard the phrase "constant campaign" used with respect to the Clintons? That is a phrase used by Democrats, too.

Good lord, what would be your expectation? The Clintons have been subjected to the most intense smear campaigns in the history of politics. Is it truly your contention that most politicians forgive and forget and live in some la-la land where they don't keep track of who supported them and when? Bullshit. As for constant campaign, why wouldn't it be? Both of them have been actively involved in national politics for almost 30 years now. How do you think successful political candidates establish and maintain that sort of record? By disappearing from the public eye for years at a time? Any astute politician with future aspirations for public office is in constant campaign mode.

And my point is that in every political party, there are people who like a politician who fights and they don't care if he/she fights dirty and breaks the rules. That is a separate issue from whether there is or is not a GJ investigation.

Some people will like Christie more JUST BECAUSE he closed the bridge (allegedly) and won't care about the GJ investigation.

So, unless the GJ can come up with solid evidence against Christie, he won't be hurt by it.

Which is why Democrats will attempt to prolong and delay the GJ investigation for as long as possible so that people are afraid to back Christie just in case he gets indicted. A similar scenario as the problem Perry faces, except that Christie is smarter and has a lot more GOP support outside of Texas. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You seem to know quite a bit more about the particulars of these investigations than the general public. I guess we'll find out if your dismissive attitude is correct in the next year or so.

Youre a fucking moron. In Texas, where this court is located, the Courts are all ELECTED in partisan elections.

It is a REPUBLICAN appeals court because its members are REPUBLICANS, who ran for office as REPUBLICANS. The REPUBLICAN majority of the residents of that judicial district elected them.

What would you call that, IBJunior?

Read the fuck up or shove the fuck off, moron. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Well, I'll be fucked! And how did a Dimocrat like J. Woodfin ("Woodie") Jones sneak onto this REPUBLICAN court, let alone become the Chief Justice of such an exclusively REPUBLICAN body? We can't have that, can we assup? Texas courts need to be either REPUBLICAN or DIMOCRAT, no mixed breeds allowed.

Well, I'll be fucked! And how did a Dimocrat like J. Woodfin ("Woodie") Jones sneak onto this REPUBLICAN court, let alone become the Chief Justice of such an exclusively REPUBLICAN body? We can't have that, can we assup? Texas courts need to be either REPUBLICAN or DIMOCRAT, no mixed breeds allowed. Originally Posted by lustylad

Texas judges are all elected in partisan elections. Chief justices are elected, not based on appointment or tenure, though tenure generally determines where voters go.

Now you let me know if two out of three votes makes a majority. The court is 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

Not only are you ignorant of Texas laws, you're obviously ignorant of mathematics.

So shut the fuck up while grown folk are talking IBJunior!

You got your ass handed to you. Enjoy the smell.

The fucking dirtbag is already rich. Double dips the taxpayers for a retirement check and his full-time governor's check. Yep, that's right. The retard draws a retirement check from the taxpayers when he ain't retired. And, of course we pay millions of dollars for his security detail while he runs around the country pretending he can be POTUS....along with his criminal lawyers fees too. Shitbag. Originally Posted by timpage

Well, you obviously hate the guy but is that all you got? He's double dipping? Just like every retired policeman in Houston, Chicago and New York? Hey, if the giveaway jackasses who make the rules say I can collect a full pension after 20 years, should I not take it? Blame the fucktards who made the rules, not Perry. As for the security detail, it's probably a good idea to protect him from nuts like you. Would you feel better if Perry put his bodyguards to work finding pussy for him like Bubba Clinton's Arkansas state troopers?

Texas judges are all elected in partisan elections. Chief justices are elected, not based on appointment or tenure, though tenure generally determines where voters go.

Now you let me know if two out of three votes makes a majority. The court is 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

Not only are you ignorant of Texas laws, you're obviously ignorant of mathematics.

So shut the fuck up while grown folk are talking IBJunior! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So when you get yourself arrested for sucking tranny dick in the alley next to the Enfield drugstore in Clarksville, your case is automatically dismissed because it goes in front of a Dimocrat judge? Got it, assup.


.

You make less and less sense every time you post IBJunior. Do you even care about this, or are you just jerking off on our time and bandwidth?

Why not limit the stupidity and simply post your support of Rick Perry for President of the United States.

It's obviously you've got a mancrush on him. It's OK. He likes those!

You put your foot in it. Now you own it.

IBJunior+Rick Perry! The future of America. Don't feel bad. We know that Santorum (your frothy Senator) hasn't bunny hopped into the field yet. So you can be Rick Perry's Pissburgh Miss Nancy.

You seem to know quite a bit more about the particulars of these investigations than the general public. I guess we'll find out if your dismissive attitude is correct in the next year or so. Originally Posted by timpage

Thanks for the cut-and-past from the Walker article. It actually confirms my suspicions that it is going nowhere.

It isn't technically a GJ investigation because it is presented to a judge, not a jury. Hence the name John Doe investigation.

The judge is quashing subpoenas against the campaigns because the prosecutors aren't even able to provide evidence that any of the groups ran ads that said "Vote for Walker" or "Vote against Walker Opponent".

That is an essential element of the case. If they don't even have that part covered, they have no case. I can't believe they even tried to present the case to a judge.

PACs can coordinate all they want on stuff like issue awareness and fund raising. They only get into trouble if they are also running ads specifically identifying by name politicians to run for or against.

Even more to the point, a different Walker campaign years ago was the subject of a first investigation (this one is the second) that resulted in 6 convictions of other people.

Walker was not convicted (and apparently not even investigated) the first time. But the scandal STILL didn't stop Walker from getting elected Governor.

You make less and less sense every time you post... Do you even care about this, or are you just jerking off on our time and bandwidth?

Why not limit the stupidity and simply post your support of Rick Perry for President of the United States. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Gee whiz, assup, I don't give a fig about Perry, I'm just trying to help out. I mean, do you really want that fat frumpy old drunk bitch to be in charge of your Public Integrity Unit? Don't yinz have any standards at all down there?

Gee whiz, assup, I don't give a fig about Perry, I'm just trying to help out. I mean, do you really want that fat frumpy old drunk bitch to be in charge of your Public Integrity Unit? Don't yinz have any standards at all down there? Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm not a big fan of hers, but am a big fan of the Public Integrity Unit. DA is the boss, not the person in charge. She has done a very good job as DA and will be re-elected as long as she wants to serve. the DUI was unfortunate. But at least she wasn't caught in bed with her secretary (LIKE PERRY .. Of course his "secretary" was a guy)

You're seriously out of your element, dipshit.

But thanks for the helping hand IBJunior.

Good lord, what would be your expectation? The Clintons have been subjected to the most intense smear campaigns in the history of politics. Is it truly your contention that most politicians forgive and forget and live in some la-la land where they don't keep track of who supported them and when? Bullshit. As for constant campaign, why wouldn't it be? Both of them have been actively involved in national politics for almost 30 years now. How do you think successful political candidates establish and maintain that sort of record? By disappearing from the public eye for years at a time? Any astute politician with future aspirations for public office is in constant campaign mode. Originally Posted by timpage

Rein it in a little, dude. This goes WAY too far.

"Most intense smear campaigns" in history? Hardly.

Despite all the bipartisan hand-wringing about incivility, modern political campaigns are Miss Manners tea parties compared to some of our historical campaigns. Read some of the nasty shit that was said about Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and many (most?) others during the 19th century.

Also, if it is true, is it really a smear? And, by and large, the things said about the Clintons have been borne out as true over time.

And, no, most politicians don't engage in the "constant campaign" as that terms was coined for the Clintons. "Constant campaign" did not simply refer to the fact that they mindful of maintaining a political machine for the next campaign.

The term referred to the way political calculation subsumed EVERYTHING in life. Even their own supporters were dumbfounded that EVERY, SINGLE move they made - no matter how trivial - seemed to be calculated not so much in terms of right or wrong, but in terms of how it could be used to their advantage.

Right down to picking out vacation spots during Bill's terms in the 1990s (Martha's Vineyard vs. The Hamptons vs. Cape Cod vs. etc).

That type of single mindedness is NOT healthy for politics and the nation. It elevates the self above all else.

I really don't think Dubya went to his Crawford ranch and cleared brush over and over because he was calculating how it played in the public's mind. It was just something he had been doing for years. I also don't think Nixon went back to San Clemente or Carter went back to Plains for any reasonn other than that was HOME.

The Clinton's rise to prominence coincided with the rise of CNN and other cable outlets. This was made even worse by the growth of the Internet.

As a result, we got the 24 hour news cycle.

The Clintons were astute in taking advantage of that - but to what end?

Neither one of them has or had any core principles or beliefs - other than getting elected and gaining power. Do you think that is a good thing?

They were all about strategies for getting elected (e.g, triangulation), but were rudderless once elected.

They were perfectly willing to abandon supporters if necessary - just ask any gay supporters what they think about the Clinton pivot on don't-ask, don't tell.

And they were perfectly willing to smear and destroy anyone who might harm them, including innocent people.

They developed a "nuts and sluts" tactic that they used against any poor woman who dared to speak up about what Bill Clinton was really like.

They were about to launch a huge smear campaign with a vengeance against Monica Lewinsky until word got out about DNA on a blue dress. Then their plans crashed and burned and Bill had to apologize for lying on national TV - one of the few times he ever got caught red-handed.

Again, do you really think that kind of single mindedness and will-to-power - no matter the cost - is a good thing in any politician?

Thanks for the cut-and-past from the Walker article. It actually confirms my suspicions that it is going nowhere.

The judge is quashing subpoenas against the campaigns because the prosecutors aren't even able to provide evidence that any of the groups ran ads that said "Vote for Walker" or "Vote against Walker Opponent".

That is an essential element of the case. If they don't even have that part covered, they have no case. I can't believe they even tried to present the case to a judge. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually there IS a big scandal here, just not the one timmytard is thinking of. This is a replay of the IRS scandal. Conservative groups like the Wisconsin Club for Growth are being targeted and harassed to keep them out of politics. Unlike the IRS scandal, the perps (i.e. the prosecutors) in Wisconsin are not even trying to appear non-partisan by investigating a few unions and pro-recall groups as well. Nope. They're only going after Walker supporters - and without any evidence.

This is hackishly partisan prosecutorial abuse and overreach in the extreme. Fortunately the bastards are now getting pushback. The Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director have filed a federal lawsuit against the Milwaukee DA and five others charged with violating the plaintiffs' civil rights by attempting to silence them because of their political speech. As part of the harassment, prosecutors ordered police to conduct dawn raids and ransack the private homes of some of their targets.

Bottom line - yep, there is a big scandal here, and it is being orchestrated and perpetrated by the Dimocrats. It's just like the IRS scandal. The Dims think they are at war with conservative groups and this means they can get away with ANYTHING - from corrupting a federal agency to grossly abusing prosecutorial discretion.

.