[SSS Two]

The judge said Count 1 isn't specific enough and encouraged the prosecutor to amend it. The judge said that the defense was making assumption -- "reasonable" assumptions according to the judge -- that Count 1 referred to his veto of a spending bill. The judge indicated Count 1 will have Constitutional problems if it indeed has to do with the veto.

The judge said that Count 2 was "defective" because it didn't address all the elements of a crime. He directed the prosecutor to amend Count 2 to argue that discussing the veto with his Staff wasn't part of Perry's deliberative process. It will be interesting to see how the prosecutor does that.

The judge explicitly found that the statutes in question are Constitutional. The judge specifically declined to make a determination if the indictment intends to prosecute Constitutionally protected speech. That would have to come at a later date, he said. It looks to me that the judge does not want to rule on this case on Constitutional grounds. I think the judge tightened the noose around the prosecutor's neck. The judge is guiding the prosecutor to amend the indictment so that he can find that even that no crime was committed even if all the allegations in the indictment are true.

[doc1019]

Gee, wonder what brought him to this decision. Mayap ole “I have a pen and a phone”?

[Red Steel]

OK then. You couldn’t tell by the sensational and misleading title.

[outinyellowdogcountry]

Thanks for the information.

[smoothsailing]

The judge is setting a trap for the prosecutor?

Son of a gun.

[MaxMax]

Yep. Make your case clear so that it may be judged accordingly.
It was a wash from the start so having the judge force them to be clearer
they'll have no choice but to hang themselves.

[TheConservator]

What you describe sounds very plausible. Where can one find these decisions online?