When I wrote "Ill bet" i assumed you would be smart enough to know that was my opinion. If you read the original post, it's almost all straight from the newspaper. Why didn't they wait until he committed the crime? I assume that the Special Prosecuter believes Perry did already commit the crime, or else he would not have been indicted.
I'm sure he wove a nice story for the grand jury. I bet he left out the drunk DA portion.
Oh I think everyone in Texas, if they read the newspaper, knows about the drunk DA portion of it. I rather imagine the grand jury heard it all. I can't imagine they did not. It's like I said, this has nothing to do with her DUI. there have been writeups about all of this and political cartoons in the paper now for months.
And it seems all that most of the republicans on this thread want to talk about is the DUI. Hey, I'm not supporting her. And I have not said perry is guilty. Except for that one "Ill bet" sentence, everything I wrote is straight out of the paper. If you don't like it or don't believe, take it up with the paper. I'm just the messenger. trying to get a little more detailed info into this discussion that so far has mostly talked about "how can she prosecute DUIs when she has had one", and

erry can veto whatever he wants" etc. You guys are way off target.
It's about taxpayer money going to companies that were not approved or did not go through the vetting process or whatever the right term might be. " Without proper review" is the term in the paper. $11 million
There have also been several stories about taxpayer money (several $million) going to a company that was supposed to move to Texas from California. They bought a few acres of land and several years later they are still in CA with no employees in Texas.