Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (803086)	8/20/2014 8:40:07 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583777

You may know that. I don't.

To: combjelly who wrote (803086)	8/20/2014 10:48:33 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1583777

>> You do know that she had nothing to do with either the prosecutor or the grand jury? As the famous quote goes, "You can indict a ham sandwich, if that's what you want." The entire theory of this prosecution is utterly bogus. Now, I can't honestly say the special prosecutor was politically motivated because by all accounts he is a "straight shooter." But it is possible to get so wrapped up in one's own investigation that it is difficult to see things clearly. Even for an experienced professional. But no one who is informed about the law seems to believe the case is credible. Here are some quotes from people with experience on the subject: Here’s a snapshot of what professors and other legal observers have said about the indictment: Picking apart the relevant statutes of the Texas penal code, Eugene Volokh questions the legal underpinnings of the charges against Mr. Perry. One statute, he says, is “unconstitutionally overbroad,” as interpreted by the grand jury. And he doubts the other one could apply to Mr. Perry’s conduct. Tulane University law professor Stephen M. Griffin, who specializes in constitutional theory and history, is also skeptical: Governor Perry tried to remove a prosecutor he probably didn’t like very much after she violated the law and perhaps brought her office into disrepute. And that’s a crime? That doesn’t seem very plausible to me and I wonder if the prosecutor has really thought through the broader constitutional implications of what he and the grand jury are doing. Houston attorney Edward A. Mallett, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said it’s hard see how the governor could be prosecuted for exercising his veto authority. “Under this scenario, Perry’s mistake was going public with his reason for the veto,” he told the Houston Chronicle. Retired Harvard law school professor Alan Dershowitz, in an interview with Newsmax, called the indictment “another example of the criminalization of party differences.” Cato Institute’s Walter Olson, who blogs at Overlawyered, notes that Mr. Perry’s defenders come from across the political spectrum: “When you’ve lost not just David Axelrod and Matt Yglesias but even Jonathan Chait and Scott Lemieux for a legal complaint against a conservative, you’re not just aboard a sinking ship, it’s more like you’re grasping a piece of random driftwood.” San Antonio lawyer Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor who convened the grand jury, rejected Mr. Perry’s assertion that the charges were politically motivated. “It’s always been about the facts and the law,” Mr. McCrum said, the San Antonio Express-News reported. University of California-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen reminds readers to keep an open mind: “We don’t know yet whether Rick Perry violated the law and whether the law he is accused of violating is constitutional. But don’t be too quick to equate an indictment with actual wrongdoing by the governor, regardless of your political orientation.” blogs.wsj.com Which nonpartisan legal experts (someone like Dershowitz will do) do you know of who are SUPPORTING the indictment? Because I haven't seen any, other than the HuffPo and DailyKOS types.