ISIS and Mexican drug cartels are talking, according to former CIA agents. No surprise, considering they spoke with Al Qaeda as well. Rick Perry is moving his own people to cover the(deliberately) porous borders.

Anyone have any questions about what 'fundamentally transforming America means'?

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Judge-seats-grand-jury-to-hear-case-against-Perry-5400998.php

Does this mean this is the only case the grand jury heard? In that case, what are the odds of having a Democratic activist on the jury? One who is seriously involved in the structure of the party?

I'm trying to understand the process. Does anyone know if this was a normal grand jury that heard a number of cases or a special grand jury convened just for this case?

Anonymous wrote:

they haven't gone public. The court handed out their names and the press went straight after them for comment about Perry's accusation that the indictment is political. They spoke only in general terms, which is permissible under the law.

Whatever happened to "no comment"?

What happened to keeping the names of grand jury members secret? Welcome to texas, a place where a county prosecutor is in charge of state ethics, the governor can defund ethics while under investigation, and somehow the citizen is the bad guy.

they haven't gone public. The court handed out their names and the press went straight after them for comment about Perry's accusation that the indictment is political. They spoke only in general terms, which is permissible under the law.

Whatever happened to "no comment"?

Anonymous wrote:

The reaction from the public has been that Perry is a fool. Not that he had any chance to become president anyway.

No. That is wishful thinking on your part. I've never heard of Grand Jury members going public as a couple of these have.

they haven't gone public. The court handed out their names and the press went straight after them for comment about Perry's accusation that the indictment is political. They spoke only in general terms, which is permissible under the law.

As for the composition of the jury, the panel was chosen at random. I know y'all are shocked that a democrat is legally allowed on a grand jury in Texas but it happens. I'm sure in a county that is 60/40 split, enough solid R's were on the case to prevent a politicized outcome. They need nine votes to indict.

Anonymous wrote:

The reaction from the public has been that Perry is a fool. Not that he had any chance to become president anyway.

No. That is wishful thinking on your part. I've never heard of Grand Jury members going public as a couple of these have.

I wish it was wishful thinking... this is Rick perry... a US presidential hopeful...

The reaction from the public has been that Perry is a fool. Not that he had any chance to become president anyway.

No. That is wishful thinking on your part. I've never heard of Grand Jury members going public as a couple of these have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment
It’s much more serious than they think. Take it from us—we filed the complaint.
By CRAIG MCDONALD and ANDREW WHEAT
August 21, 2014

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/ric...rals-110229.html#ixzz3B8jDKMNf

It surprises you that the people who brought the suit are defending what they did? Especially, in light of the reaction of the public. You do know that Soros funded the suit, don't you?

I'm not surprised. What makes you think that it does?

The suit was bolstered by a grand jury indictment. Are grand juries also funded by George Soros?

The reaction from the public has been that Perry is a fool. Not that he had any chance to become president anyway.

Seems like the link isn't working. Try this one:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/rick-perry-indictment-liberals-110229.html#.U_d2kXy9KSM

Anonymous wrote:

Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment
It’s much more serious than they think. Take it from us—we filed the complaint.
By CRAIG MCDONALD and ANDREW WHEAT
August 21, 2014

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/ric...rals-110229.html#ixzz3B8jDKMNf

It surprises you that the people who brought the suit are defending what they did? Especially, in light of the reaction of the public. You do know that Soros funded the suit, don't you?

I'm not surprised. What makes you think that it does?

The suit was bolstered by a grand jury indictment. Are grand juries also funded by George Soros?

The reaction from the public has been that Perry is a fool. Not that he had any chance to become president anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment
It’s much more serious than they think. Take it from us—we filed the complaint.
By CRAIG MCDONALD and ANDREW WHEAT
August 21, 2014

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/rick-perry-indictment-liberals-110229.html#ixzz3B8jDKMNf

Wow, there's a lot in there that I didn't know. But perhaps the most impressive:

Texas’ last indictment of a sitting governor occurred in 1917, when Democrats exercised monolithic political power. A Travis County jury indicted Democratic Governor Jim “Pa” Ferguson for vetoing state funding to the University of Texas after its regents refused to fire gubernatorial critics. That indictment was the prelude to Ferguson’s impeachment and resignation.

Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment
It’s much more serious than they think. Take it from us—we filed the complaint.
By CRAIG MCDONALD and ANDREW WHEAT
August 21, 2014

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/ric...rals-110229.html#ixzz3B8jDKMNf

It surprises you that the people who brought the suit are defending what they did? Especially, in light of the reaction of the public. You do know that Soros funded the suit, don't you?

Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment
It’s much more serious than they think. Take it from us—we filed the complaint.
By CRAIG MCDONALD and ANDREW WHEAT
August 21, 2014

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/rick-perry-indictment-liberals-110229.html#ixzz3B8jDKMNf

she was at an event featuring the witness, which was also attended by many other people, so they couldn't have talked about the case.

How do you know she didn't talk to him?

Anonymous wrote:

She wasn't meeting with the witness, she was at an event featuring the witness, which was also attended by many other people, so they couldn't have talked about the case.

It is inappropriate. Period.