I'll ignore the rest since I've been reminded that there's no point in engaging you other then occasional mockery. That being said, it is worth highlighting the above not just because its wrong but because of the incredible dose of irony involved. Once again Ikes is accusing other people of what the consensus on the forum has been saying about him for years.

You are the living embodiment of projection.

Kurto you can point to all you want about what 'the consensus on the forum' is, but in this case, it's you in the wrong.

I don't doubt this. Again - my concern is that what I get out of this is that some are arguing that what he did is politics as usual and so they question why the case. My argument is that I believe that politics as usual is essentially corrupt and the proper question is not "why are we attacking Perry on something that is business as usual?" rather "why aren't we going after everyone like Perry."

If the argument is that the wording of the laws will allow this to go nowhere, then if there is some legitimate argument that this is a coercive use of authority (but legal), then I would argue that maybe the laws need to be changed.

In the very least, there should be some separation of powers that would prevent the Governor from cutting funding to a unit charged with investigating corruption of the governor. This is a clear conflict of interest.

I'm sure by some inane ikesian parsing I'm wrong. But certainly in no way that you have made up. You were wrong in your assertion that I was unaware one could lose their position seperate from the DUI charges. (as usual, you say something wrong and just ignore where its pointed out how wrong you are.)

And no matter how much you think I'm wrong, nothing listed has shown anything partisan contrary to the evidence produced consistantly by you over many, many years. There's really only one consistant joke about knee jerk partisanship (who always pretends he's not... I'm a moderate... no, I'm a libertarian?!?!) and I'll give you a hint - you're the only one suggesting its me while scores of people consistently for years have been saying it about you.

We all know that you always assert that you're right and everyone is wrong but its not really all that compelling. One can choose to go with Ikes who disagrees just to disagree and has shown no real special knowledge in law, politics... or I can look at the actual facts and note that a grand jury reviewed her case and concluded you and your buddy Perry are wrong. And I can see that a consensus of 175 lawyers who disagree with you.

I hate to blow your bubble but your arbitrary and partisan disagreement (really with nearly everyone in every thread you participate in) isn't really meaningful.

Kurto, you're posting is bad right now. You've drifted into the realm of attack Ikes and not the argument lol.

It's a bad indictment if the DA filed it knowing that it would never go anywhere except to the media.

No that was the only logical conclusion based on your argument. You pointed to the hearings that were had with relation to her job in the courts and derped out that it's done with. The point is that it's not done with. She still has to face extra-judicial consequences.

This is completely irrelevant. In this case, the entire legal profession thinks this indictment is bull****. You are on the other side. You can call me partisan all you want in other arguments, but in this case nearly every serious person is on my side. You're the one who is being laughably partisan itt.

Kurto, feel free to find one serious defense of the perry indictment. Meanwhile, here's some clear work for you done by actual lawyers. Feel free to keep posting to drop your reputation further.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...n-in-the-news/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...ry-indictment/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...oercion-count/

And there's more.

itt kurto defends an indictment he think will go nowhere because of the law.

lololol

I respectfully disagree that its both. For starters, Ikes does things like state you're saying something that you're not. So attacking what Ikes does is justified. And what usually happens is that Ikes strawmans you. Meaning I don't have to attack his strawman arguments.

For instance- he is accusing me of being partisan when I stated from the beginning that my concern was that Perry's behaviour (which I agree has the appearance of coercion and abuse of power) is standard to all politicians. And this is a problem with all politicians. But when this goes through the Ikes filter - I'm being partisan. I'm being partisan by wanting more scrutiny and higher standard to ALL politicians. How is it not perfectly appropriate to attack Ikes here because he's doing his usual thing?

He claimed that I wasn't aware that someone could lose their job regardless of the criminal trial though everyone has been aware this was a consideration that had been considered by the courts and a judgement had been made to that effect. So how is it not perfectly appropriate to attack Ikes when he's literally making up stuff about you as a counter?

Finally- most of Ikes argument is really just "you're wrong." When pointed out that the Grand Jury considered the evidence and decided to go forward with the indictment, Ikes response is literally nothing more then "they're wrong."

When he counters that Perry shouldn't be indicted by posting a video of the woman being drunk... how is that an argument? I don't really understand what other correct reponse is other then mock Ikes.

Yo Kurto when you term 'attempting removing a person who tried to use their public corruption post to avoid a DUI charge' as an abuse of power you're being partisan. Hope that helps.

No. Its not extra-judicial. The question of should she be forced down was tested judicially.

Clearly the entire legal profession doesn't think its BS since a special prosecutor (who its noted is a Repblican) decided to move forward. According to a 170 lawyers who wrote in support of Ms. Lehmberg being one of the best DAs in the country - and she supports the indictment... so again, you're simply wrong.

I assume you use your own dictionary on what partisan means since my argument has consitantly been that I think the issue is that all politicians abuse their power and that scrutiny should be increased to all as opposed to dismissing Perry. If I was partisan I wouldn't be arguing for indiscriminate scrutiny against all of them.

I'm not really concerned about the defense because I'm acknowledging from the top that I think the issue is that people are dismissing this because they think this is 'just politics' and business as usual. Its not even a legal argument - the implication of what I'm saying is that I think the system is set as corrupt. So I don't expect many who defend the system to be arguing my perspective.

I'm arguing that the principles are wrong and the indictment addresses what the principles should be, whether or not it succeeds.

I'm arguing that when a governor doesn't get his way, then using veto powers to shut down a department when the justice system rules against you... mind you, a department that is investigating corruption in his department, has every appearance of abuse and corruption. The fact that you find this laughable and indefensible says more to me about your idea of what is scrupulous and how you would like the government to act then anything else.

It's an obvious abuse of power. I'm really not surprised that dumb partisans would see it otherwise.

Whether it rises to the level of criminal/felonious behavior is another matter. But it's a pretty clear abuse.

I mean, I guess technically Chris Christie can order cones arbitrarily placed into NJ bridge lanes and that's probably not illegal in and of itself either, but doing it as revenge to punish someone for not supporting him would also be an abuse.

Sigh kurto we get that a judge ruled she didn't have to go due to her criminal acts. That doesn't mean perry has to give them money. This really isn't hard.

First off - You keep saying that she used her post to try to avoid a DUI charge. No one is having this conversation but you. The story I've read has repeatedly pointed out that she didn't contest the charges and served her sentence.

Second - What you seem to miss is that the judicial system has already ruled on it. The system evaluated on whether her conduct required her to be removed from office and ruled that she did not. The fact that Perry disagrees with the judicial system's rulings and was wielding his powers to coerce her out of office is the issue. No matter how many times you want to make it look like she is the problem, the judicial system has already ruled on the matter. You are wrong.

Third- I'm pretty sure you're using the word partisan differently then the rest of the world.

Ha. Listen... I don't expect you to see a problem with a system where a governor can defund a group tasked with investigating corruption in his department. And I get that you don't have a problem with a governor using the powers granted by him to carry out his duties to try to defund an entire department as retaliation for him not successfully forcing someone from office after attempts to do it judicially failed.

Its a matter of scruples and integrity. We obviously differ and things like this don't concern you. I get it so you can go ikes someone else.

Those volokh blog posts are hilariously awful

Is there a better read for those without any legal training Vaya?

I have no clue and don't particularly care. The indictments are going to be thrown out (regardless of their merits) so who gives a rip about any serious legal analysis of them.

Amongst law bloggers who might have a worthwhile take, maybe try profsblawg (mostly law professors, left leaning) or popehat (main guy is a practicing attorney and conservative iirc).

Thanks!

let me see if i have this about right - some drunk shouting "do you know who i am?" is "someone who used their position to attempt to get out of a DUI. "

Then you never watched the police video of her arrest or the reports surrounding it.

Seems to be the standard line for drunk douchebags

I'll take the opinion of a random forum guy over a grand jury who only hears the DA's side of the story any day.

The problem is, people don't understand this. They don't understand that the Grand Jury process has been so completely perverted that its now essentially nothing more than a bureaucratic CYA for prosecutors. Its not some grand paragon of systemic integrity as naive people think. It's a total sham proceeding.

Just to reiterate, most self-styled "conservatives" are people I could stand against a wall with a blindfold, shoot in the chest and not lose a moments sleep. If Rick Perry had died in a fiery car accident, I would've totally laughed.

This indictment is 100% BS.

The way Grand Juries work, I could have David Sklalsky indicted for being single-handedly responsible for the cancellation of 'Arrested Development'. Anyone who supports this case because Rick Perry is a moron and you're a 'liberal' and neener-neener, look in the mirror; what you see is the cancer of this country. Mindless partisanship. Dumber than monkeys.

Grand Juries were supposed to be a wall against exactly what we see happening here - politically motivated prosecution actions- but the rules of procedure have been so perverted over the years that its now nothing more than a rubber stamp to justify the most repugnant prosecutorial discretion.

And with that you prove you haven't been following this at all.

Well said. Perry is a terrible person and would make an awful president, but this indictment is still a joke.