Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«6 »
  • Post
  • Reply
the
Jul 18, 2004

by Cowcaster


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/u...ffice.html?_r=1

quote:

AUSTIN, Tex. — A grand jury indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts on Friday, charging that he abused his power last year when he tried to pressure the district attorney here, a Democrat, to step down by threatening to cut off state financing to her office.

The indictment left Mr. Perry, a Republican, the first Texas governor in nearly 100 years to face criminal charges and presented a major roadblock to his presidential ambitions at the very time that he had been showing signs of making a comeback.

Grand jurors in Travis County charged Mr. Perry with abusing his official capacity and coercing a public servant, according to Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor assigned to the case.

Following Ms. Lehmberg’s arrest, Mr. Perry and his aides threatened to veto $7.5 million in state funding for the public corruption unit in her office unless she resigned. The governor followed through on his threat, vetoing the money by stating that he could not support “continued state funding for an office with statewide jurisdiction at a time when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public’s confidence.”

Mr. Perry’s detractors said that his moves crossed the line from hardball politics to criminal acts that violated state laws. His aides denied that he did anything wrong and said that he acted in accordance with the veto power granted to every governor under the Texas Constitution. Ms. Lehmberg did not resign and remains in office.

The criminal indictment of the state’s chief executive shocked the Texas political world. Mr. Perry will be arraigned at a later date at the county criminal courthouse a few blocks from the governor’s mansion.

Mr. McCrum said it was a matter of procedure that anyone charged with a felony “will have to be booked in,” including the governor. Asked if Mr. Perry would have to have a mug shot taken and be fingerprinted, he added, “I imagine that’s included in that.”

The charge of abuse of official capacity carries a prison sentence of five to 99 years, and the charge of coercion of a public servant a two- to 10-year prison sentence.

Mr. Perry did not testify before the grand jury. David L. Botsford, Mr. Perry’s lawyer, defended the governor’s actions in a statement late Friday, saying the indictment set a “dangerous precedent” by allowing a grand jury to punish the governor’s use of his constitutional authority.

“This clearly represents political abuse of the court system, and there is no legal basis in this decision,” Mr. Botsford said. “The facts of this case conclude that the governor’s veto was lawful, appropriate and well within the authority of the office of the governor.”

Mr. Perry has announced he is not seeking re-election and will leave office in January. He is considering a second run for president and has been crisscrossing the country and traveling abroad in recent months to raise his political profile and to show he has fully recovered from his unsuccessful 2012 campaign, which for a time turned him into a national punch line. Lately he seems to have rebounded, making numerous appearances on national talk shows to discuss his plan to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to the border to combat crime and illegal immigration and receiving high praise from conservatives on his recent trip to Iowa.

The criminal investigation involving Mr. Perry and his aides began when a nonprofit government watchdog group, Texans for Public Justice, filed a complaint last June accusing the governor of misdemeanor and felony offenses over his veto threat. A judge appointed a special prosecutor — Mr. McCrum, a San Antonio lawyer and former federal prosecutor — and the grand jury began hearing the case in April.

A number of Mr. Perry’s aides have testified in recent weeks before the grand jury, including Ken Armbrister, director of the governor’s legislative office. A previous grand jury was sworn in last year to determine whether Ms. Lehmberg should be removed for official misconduct. Its term expired, however, and it appeared to not consider the issues surrounding Mr. Perry’s threat and veto.

Austin and Travis County are Democratic-dominated regions in a Republican-dominated state. Asked to respond to those who described the investigation as a partisan witch hunt, Mr. McCrum said: “I’m not going to get into that. That didn’t go into my consideration whatsoever.”

The indictment could mar the legacy of Mr. Perry, the longest-serving governor in Texas history, as his tenure nears an end.

According to the state comptroller’s website, the governor’s office has paid his lawyer, Mr. Botsford, nearly $80,000 since June. Legal experts said that other state officials who have been accused of crimes relating to their duties have had to pay for their own defense, and this was one of the first times Texas taxpayers were paying the bill.

One Saturday night in April 2013, Ms. Lehmberg was found by sheriff’s deputies with an open bottle of vodka in the front passenger seat of her car in a church parking lot in Austin and was arrested on a drunken-driving charge. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail.

She plays a powerful role in Austin in overseeing the Public Integrity Unit. At the time of Mr. Perry’s veto last year, prosecutors in the unit had been investigating a state agency called the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. The agency — one of Mr. Perry’s signature initiatives — came under scrutiny by state lawmakers after accusations of mismanagement and corruption; a former official there was indicted last year for his handling of an $11 million grant.

Mr. Perry’s critics accused him of using Ms. Lehmberg’s arrest to try to dismantle the public corruption squad, to thwart the investigation into the cancer-research agency and to seize an opportunity to take down a prominent Democrat. The public corruption unit has been scaled down, but it continues its work largely using county financing.

“The governor has a legitimate statutory role in the legislative process,” said Craig McDonald, the director and founder of Texans for Public Justice, the group that filed the original complaint. “The governor had no authority over the district attorney’s job.”

But Mr. Perry’s supporters said the accusations amounted to an attempt to criminalize politics. Republican lawmakers had attempted for years to strip the public corruption unit of state financing, accusing it of politically motivated prosecutions.

The last Texas governor to face criminal charges was James E. “Pa” Ferguson, who was indicted in 1917 by a Travis County grand jury on embezzlement and eight other charges. His case also involved a veto that stirred anger: Mr. Ferguson vetoed the entire appropriation to the University of Texas because it had refused to fire certain faculty members. The state Senate voted to impeach him, but he resigned first.

Well, this is rather huge. I'm wondering what kind of legal hoops the Perry team will try to use to wiggle out of this. If anything, the ensuing mugshot will be forever enshrined in our memories and our hearts.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

GamingHyena
Jul 25, 2003

Devil's Advocate

Is there a copy of the indictment anywhere?

Edit:

Found a link to a news article that links to a copy of the indictment.

http://kxan.com/2014/08/15/texas-go...-by-grand-jury/

Edit 2:

FYI Perry is being charged with two counts (or crimes).

The first count is Abuse of Official Capacity (Texas Penal Code 39.02). Because the amount alleged to be misused is more than $200,000 its a first degree felony. First degree felonies in Texas are punished by a term of imprisonment from 5-99 years. To prove his case, the prosecutor must prove that Perry misused government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the Perry's custody or possession by virtue of his office or employment. Looking at the definition of "misuse" it'll be interesting to see how the State intends to prove Perry misused government property through a veto.

The second count is Coercion of a Public Servant (Texas Penal Code 36.03). Typically, it is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony (the felony in this case being Abuse of Official Capacity I guess) bumping it up to a Third Degree Felony. The range of punishment in Texas for a third degree felony is a term of imprisonment not less than 2 nor more than 10 years.

GamingHyena fucked around with this message at Aug 16, 2014 around 05:51

Tab8715
May 20, 2006


Even if he somehow gets off, it's another blow to the already dead Republican Party.

Petr
Oct 3, 2000



If he gets off, I imagine it will cause some blowback. The whole fight is already very partisan, so it will come off as Democrats abusing the legal system and trying to send a man to jail for political gain.

OneThousandMonkeys
Oct 9, 2005

The Strangest Vengeance Ever Planned

The right wing shill editorials almost write themselves.

Badger of Basra
Jul 25, 2007
Don't tell Maliki!

Petr posted:

If he gets off, I imagine it will cause some blowback. The whole fight is already very partisan, so it will come off as Democrats abusing the legal system and trying to send a man to jail for political gain.

They're going to say that anyway.

Sheng-ji Yang
Mar 5, 2014

It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.


I hope the jury are all longhorns

Petr
Oct 3, 2000



Badger of Basra posted:

They're going to say that anyway.

Yes, but more people will believe it if there's an actual unsuccessful case.

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


And it's surely true. I mean even if the guy who brought the indictment is a Pat Fitzgerald type, this all happened because of politics. In this specific case you can't remove any of the context because it's all relevant.

Here's a good rundown from before the indictment came down:

http://www.texasobserver.org/everyt...ys-new-scandal/

And after:

http://www.texasobserver.org/rick-p...ted-two-counts/

For Texas stuff, the Observer is usually a good go-to source.

OneThousandMonkeys
Oct 9, 2005

The Strangest Vengeance Ever Planned

ReindeerF posted:

And it's surely true. I mean even if the guy who brought the indictment is a Pat Fitzgerald type, this all happened because of politics. In this specific case you can't remove any of the context because it's all relevant.

Here's a good rundown from before the indictment came down:

http://www.texasobserver.org/everyt...ys-new-scandal/

And after:

http://www.texasobserver.org/rick-p...ted-two-counts/

For Texas stuff, the Observer is usually a good go-to source.

Well, it's the Observer's opinion that this came to a head because Perry was determined to take the chess piece and kill off political corruption investigations, not simply because democrats cooked up a baldfaced scheme to undo him.

This is a rather believable version of events, since Perry is identified by opponents as being really big on cronyism. Like, it's extremely his poo poo.

quote:

Perry's great triumph as governor has been the construction of an elaborate political machine, one that operates according to its own separate dynamic, using donations, appointments and favors as currency. In fact, Texas is run much like a Soviet protectorate, with a party boss (Perry) and a Politburo of superconnected advisers to the governor who shuffle back and forth between the public and private spheres (Perry's chief of staff, Mike "The Knife" Toomey, for instance, jumped from the governor's office to a job lobbying for Merck prior to the HPV vaccination order), all backed by a somewhat larger Central Committee of big financial donors who are the real "representative" power in the state, much more than the actual state legislature.

Who's on that Central Committee? It's not that hard to figure out. Texas has no limit on individual donations to political candidates, which means the governor's best friends don't have to hide behind soft money and other back-door channels. In Texas, you can pay your tribute right out in the open.

"The total of hard-money donations to Perry's three gubernatorial campaigns is $102 million," says McDonald, who tracks the state's pay-for-play system on behalf of Texans for Public Justice. "Half of that, $51 million plus, came from just 204 donors."

The system of uncapped donations means that Perry's superinsiders effectively operate as mobsters who hold a chit on the state's government. "These are obscenely huge amounts," says McDonald. "You can give a politician $100 or $1,000 because you like his ideology. But when you start giving him $250,000 or $500,000, you gotta think you are getting something in return."

So what did Harold Simmons get for his money? A lot.

For starters, a group of Perry appointees on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality gave Simmons a license to build his hazardous nuke dump, even after the TCEQ's own team of scientists agreed that the project was too risky, given how dangerously close it lies to the Ogalalla aquifer, which provides drinking water for seven states.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-texas-20111026

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


No, no, I don't disagree - but even within that narrative it's all political. This is the issue. He didn't rob a liquor store, he's playing politics and they're playing politics back. There's no doubt that Rick Perry is old-school corrupt like the day is long and that all of this is entirely about political corruption, but this is about the worst case imaginable to bring against him because there's no way to unwind the actions of either side from one another.

He isn't on trial for the UT stuff or the pharma stuff or the cancer stuff or anything else, he's on trial for a political pissing match with a DA's office that's notoriously political as well and the central issue is my corrupt Governor trying to force out of office a corrupt DA. He's leaving office soon as well, so it's not really helping to remove him from power.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007



Texas Democrats can't do any worse than they already are, and people hate Perry gently caress him and his corrupt cow tipping jerkoff friends in power.

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


Oh they can do worse than they already are, lest we forget the Dream Team. Wendy Davis is no great shakes, but she's the best thing they've tried in a long time. Bill White would've been an excellent Governor, but in American democracy we don't appoint technocrats, you have to actually go out and win elections. Bill White, for all the positive points about the man, was about as engaging and charismatic publicly as wallpaper paste.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007



ReindeerF posted:

Oh they can do worse than they already are, lest we forget the Dream Team. Wendy Davis is no great shakes, but she's the best thing they've tried in a long time. Bill White would've been an excellent Governor, but in American democracy we don't appoint technocrats, you have to actually go out and win elections. Bill White, for all the positive points about the man, was about as engaging and charismatic publicly as wallpaper paste.

Yes I suppose things could get worse, it just seems like something Perry could have easily not allowed to happen with everything else sliding off of him, this issue might end him?

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


14 years in power I think the Observer nailed it, you just get comfortable with power. One day you do something that's so completely over the line that it's obvious, but you don't even know it because nothing has ever backfired on you. I'm still not sure the legal case has legs, but he obviously abused his power very publicly for what amounts to no gain. He's not a hugely bright man, though, and he's been in power forever, so I guess it makes sense.

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

"We don't need a toilet. The pile of clothes in the hallway has worked fine for us for years, and it will continue to work."

ReindeerF posted:

No, no, I don't disagree - but even within that narrative it's all political. This is the issue. He didn't rob a liquor store, he's playing politics and they're playing politics back. There's no doubt that Rick Perry is old-school corrupt like the day is long and that all of this is entirely about political corruption, but this is about the worst case imaginable to bring against him because there's no way to unwind the actions of either side from one another.

He isn't on trial for the UT stuff or the pharma stuff or the cancer stuff or anything else, he's on trial for a political pissing match with a DA's office that's notoriously political as well and the central issue is my corrupt Governor trying to force out of office a corrupt DA. He's leaving office soon as well, so it's not really helping to remove him from power.

I think the confusion is that (at least in my view) when someone says an issue is "all political" they are typically implying it lacks substance and is only for scoring a few political points. Things like repeatedly voting to repeal PPACA dozens of times when it's obvious the Senate will never take it up and the President would veto it anyway is "all political" because it is done simply to stir up the base. I agree that's a component of this from both sides but the issue at the heart of it is a question of where the limits of power lie and if he crossed them.

The issue is about politics (specifically, the powers available to political office and how they may have been abused) but that question isn't "all political" I think is the fine grain. In that sense it's a bit like the recess appointments by Obama: it's about politics but the question of it's legality is a valid one. Which I think we agree on, it just came across differently.

DoctorWhat
Nov 18, 2011

Am I not permitted the occasional moment of melodrama?


ReindeerF posted:

14 years in power I think the Observer nailed it, you just get comfortable with power. One day you do something that's so completely over the line that it's obvious, but you don't even know it because nothing has ever backfired on you. I'm still not sure the legal case has legs, but he obviously abused his power very publicly for what amounts to no gain. He's not a hugely bright man, though, and he's been in power forever, so I guess it makes sense.

The Grand Old Party - decadent, degenerate, and rotten to the core. Ten million 14 years of absolute power. That's what it takes to be really corrupt.

SedanChair
Jun 1, 2003



I long to see ric perry report to prison, but I don't long for his book tour about re-re-discovering Jesus during his time there. Literal stigmata will appear on his hands.

R. Mute
Jul 27, 2011



ReindeerF posted:

He isn't on trial for the UT stuff or the pharma stuff or the cancer stuff or anything else, he's on trial for a political pissing match with a DA's office that's notoriously political as well and the central issue is my corrupt Governor trying to force out of office a corrupt DA. He's leaving office soon as well, so it's not really helping to remove him from power.
Is the DA corrupt? Unless I read the article you posted wrong, I thought that her main crime seems to be refusing to step down after that DUI incident?

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


Lots of corrupt people aren't accused of crimes against the law. Go watch the videos and read the transcripts of her asking to have the Sheriff come release her and threatening his deputies with jail time and so on. Yeah, she's corrupt.

R. Mute
Jul 27, 2011



ReindeerF posted:

Lots of corrupt people aren't accused of crimes against the law. Go watch the videos and read the transcripts of her asking to have the Sheriff come release her and threatening his deputies with jail time and so on. Yeah, she's corrupt.
I mean, it's possible she's corrupt, but I generally don't see the ramblings of a powerful drunk as evidence of anything.

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


Allow me to transport you to bizarro D&D, where a Republican DA is arrested for a DUI and stats calling for her buddies in the police department to bail her out and threatening officers with jail time and that's not considered corrupt.

R. Mute
Jul 27, 2011



I dunno, I don't have any skin in the game in the Republican-Democrat thing, so my opinion would be the same?

Aliquid
Mar 4, 2005


My dad still complains about Ronnie Earle.

Politics or not, I think there's enough evidence to take Perry down on one of the two. In the first count, the prosecutor will be arguing that the money meant for the Public Integrity Fund was the state property that Perry misused, and if that's got legs he's toast. If not, then this shouldn't be an issue. Perry's counsel issued a statement rebutting this charge, saying he has the authority to fiddle with those funds.

The second charge, according to NPR, has a lower burden of proof. Just the threat was illegal, and Perry's counsel's statement didn't address this at all. I dunno if he's got a defense beyond the best story involving The Oasis since the fire.

Untagged
Mar 29, 2004

Weapons of mass deliciousness.


ReindeerF posted:

Allow me to transport you to bizarro D&D, where a Republican DA is arrested for a DUI and stats calling for her buddies in the police department to bail her out and threatening officers with jail time and that's not considered corrupt.

This thread would be 20+ pages by now if it was. D&D: this time its "my team" and we don't like rick perry soo...

stinkles1112
Jun 20, 2007

You like see-food? I don't...


I don't think the (exceedingly obvious) corruption of the DA has any relevance to the situation with Perry though. The kind of cronyist corruption of trying to weasel your way out of a DUI by name dropping your friends in the PD and throwing around empty threats of jail time is a little more, I don't know, benign? than what Perry is doing which is pretty objectively an abuse of power. In my view it should have nothing to do with political party or consistency of prosecution or whatever, if politicians break the law we need to start nailing these fuckers.

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013


ReindeerF posted:

Allow me to transport you to bizarro D&D, where a Republican DA is arrested for a DUI and stats calling for her buddies in the police department to bail her out and threatening officers with jail time and that's not considered corrupt.

I don't know, if the guy was actually jailed for it, served his sentence, and agreed not to seek re-election? Its not really... corruption unless it actually helps, is it? Attempted corruption, maybe? It doesn't look like it helped the DA, anyway! I'm glad to see she got jail time, and honestly think she deserved more than she got, but I'm not even sure that trying and failing to abuse one's power is actually even illegal? She's a terrible human being, for sure, but... none of that is particularly relevant to whether Perry did anything wrong or illegal, and whether he deserves jail time as well.

Perry's threat seems more like seizing that as a political opportunity to replace her with a crony than any sort of genuine concern about how terrible she is.

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


stinkles1112 posted:

I don't think the (exceedingly obvious) corruption of the DA has any relevance to the situation with Perry though. The kind of cronyist corruption of trying to weasel your way out of a DUI by name dropping your friends in the PD and throwing around empty threats of jail time is a little more, I don't know, benign? than what Perry is doing which is pretty objectively an abuse of power. In my view it should have nothing to do with political party or consistency of prosecution or whatever, if politicians break the law we need to start nailing these fuckers.
It's inextricably linked with the case. It's 100% impossible to understand the facts of the case and say it has no relevance. He cited the situation in his call for her to step down.

GlyphGryph posted:

I don't know, if the guy was actually jailed for it, served his sentence, and agreed not to seek re-election? Its not really... corruption unless it actually helps, is it? Attempted corruption, maybe?
How do you know what corruption does? I can't prove that the campaign donations of the Kochs buy favorable legislation, I only know that money goes in one end and favorable legislation comes out the other. It's not always exactly what they want, but does that mean it didn't work?

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013


Because without the bit where "favorable legislation comes out the other" you're going to have a hard time convincing people it's corruption, duh.

I was referring, though, to the specific issue people are citing where she makes a whole bunch of threats that are not, actually, carried out, and issues a whole bunch of demands that were not, actually, met, and then she serves jail time for it.

What is this weird loving thing where people think consequences, effects and outcomes don't actually matter? It seems to be a serious conservative problem, especially, where what Democrats try to do is so so SO much worse than what Republican's actually DO do. Where does this come from?

No one here is defending the DA's right to break the law, to drive drunk OR to threaten people. I'm saying corruption is a hard challenge to bring when it doesn't actually work, but no one is denying that she definitely WANTED to abuse her position of power and authority to get away with breaking the law! She's pretty terrible, and probably should have been impeached in addition to the jailtime. Hell, if they could have brought charges against her for attempted abuse of power, it would be great.


ReindeerF posted:

It's inextricably linked with the case. It's 100% impossible to understand the facts of the case and say it has no relevance. He cited the situation in his call for her to step down.
So why does it matter? How, exactly, is it important? If you're going to make an argument, make it, don't just point at the obviously bad person and say "bad person!" and expect that to justify someone else doing something illegal, especially when the first person saw jail time for it! The only argument I can see here is that she should also get tried attempted abuse of power... and I agree, actually. But it's not super relevant?

Omi-Polari
Oct 4, 2012


GlyphGryph posted:

I don't know, if the guy was actually jailed for it, served his sentence, and agreed not to seek re-election? Its not really... corruption unless it actually helps, is it? Attempted corruption, maybe? It doesn't look like it helped the DA, anyway! I'm glad to see she got jail time, and honestly think she deserved more than she got, but I'm not even sure that trying and failing to abuse one's power is actually even illegal? She's a terrible human being, for sure, but... none of that is particularly relevant to whether Perry did anything wrong or illegal, and whether he deserves jail time as well.
I think trying and failing to abuse one's power is still abuse of power. Trying and failing to bribe a police officer, for instance... Making a corrupt offer that's rejected is still a violation of the public trust. Whether the target of the bribe or offer reciprocates is immaterial to whether a crime or abuse of power was committed.

R. Mute posted:

I mean, it's possible she's corrupt, but I generally don't see the ramblings of a powerful drunk as evidence of anything.
She was absolutely shitfaced. Which makes things worse, in my mind. In any case, she was discredited in Austin with everyone but the most loyal Tarrytown Democrats.

Py-O-My
Jan 12, 2001


quote:

Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:

(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or

(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.

(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.

Does Rick Perry's veto not meet this criteria?
Or would the initial threat be the "action" in this case?

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


GlyphGryph posted:

What is this weird loving thing where people think consequences, effects and outcomes don't actually matter?
Are you in possession of special knowledge that the Travis County DA didn't receive an even stronger sentence after threatening deputies and law enforcement officials just out of the goodness of someone's heart? I bet all the money in my pocket that even as someone who looks like a retired white dude military member, if I physically resist arrest, scream at the deputies to bring in their boss because he will let me off and threaten them with lawsuits and jail time then a 45 day sentence is the least of my worries. Whatta you think? Care to keep carrying the water for an obviously corrupt politicial official or not?

GlyphGryph posted:

So why does it matter? How, exactly, is it important? If you're going to make an argument, make it, don't just point at the obviously bad person and say "bad person!" and expect that to justify someone else doing something illegal, especially when the first person saw jail time for it!
You obviously have not read the indictment. I know you want this to be punditland where feelings rule and we can all just feel ourselves to death, but the reality of what happened is like 100% public record. It's been linked and cited in this thread and it's not my job to go around re-linking and re-quoting things that have already been linked and quoted. It's your job to read poo poo. If I make some wacky claim that's way off the reservation and cite some unknown authority, then I'm responsible to produce. Otherwise, basically, get off your lazy rear end, you know?

Thank ka!

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013


Omi-Polari posted:

I think trying and failing to abuse one's power is still abuse of power. Trying and failing to bribe a police officer, for instance... Making a corrupt offer that's rejected is still a violation of the public trust. Whether the target of the bribe or offer reciprocates is immaterial to whether a crime or abuse of power was committed.
I actually honestly don't know what the law is here. But generally, murder isn't murder if you don't kill anyone, theft isn't theft if you don't steal anything, etc. and so on. 'Attempted' is generally a lesser crime, but still illegal, but I don't know what Texas law says here. I know bribery laws are generally pretty specific in that the crime is the *offering* of money in return for a favour, not the exchanging of money in return for a favour.

There's probably something about issuing unlawful orders they can bring her up on at least?

What the gently caress are you even trying to say? Do you even have a point, or are you just spewing nonsense out of boredom? Or do you really have THAT much trouble with the term "relevancy", because the things you are saying certainly don't seem relevant to the things I'm saying!

GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at Aug 16, 2014 around 19:22

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


Well in that case, Rick Perry just vetoed funding for a department he didn't like. Murder isn't murder and not wanting to fund something you don't want to fund is just not wanting to fund something you don't want to fund. Case closed.

L-Boned
Sep 11, 2001


Seems like a questionable indictment at best.

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013


ReindeerF posted:

Well in that case, Rick Perry just vetoed funding for a department he didn't like. Murder isn't murder and not wanting to fund something you don't want to fund is just not wanting to fund something you don't want to fund. Case closed.

Are you aware that you say some really stupid loving poo poo and appear to have difficulty reading other people's posts and figuring out what they are saying and with the entire concept of one point being relevant to another point rather than just related?

"Murder isn't murder" (did you stop reading at that point and miss the 'if no one dies' bit because it's pretty important) has jack poo poo to do with whether or not some behaviour is just some behaviour or a part of some larger illegal thing.

But seriously, what is even your argument here? That Rick Perry should get away with stuff because the DA wasn't punished enough? Is that it?

Or is it just to spew bullshit with me because I'm "carrying water" for someone I think should still be in jail, somehow, because I don't think the one particular charge you want levied against her would hold up in court? Man, what the hell.

GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at Aug 16, 2014 around 19:37

stinkles1112
Jun 20, 2007

You like see-food? I don't...


It seems to me that the case of the DUI is irrelevant because abusing your power as governor is an illegal action in and of itself, regardless of whether he was illegally abusing his power to punish someone for themselves committing a crime, or because he didn't like their particular department, or because he didn't like her stupid face. It doesn't matter does it? Similar to how murdering someone for catching them raping your wife is still a crime, is attempting to coerce the resignation of a government employee by threatening to veto funding for their department a crime, or isn't it? (actual question, not just rhetorical)

My Imaginary GF
Jul 16, 2005


ANY DAY NOW


ReindeerF posted:

How do you know what corruption does? I can't prove that the campaign donations of the Kochs buy favorable legislation, I only know that money goes in one end and favorable legislation comes out the other. It's not always exactly what they want, but does that mean it didn't work?

As a corrupt Democrat, corruption is when you want something special and get caught getting it. You can ask for the county sherrif to come release you all you want, its only corrupt if he does and then you drop your investigations into his office.

Johnny Cache Hit
Oct 17, 2011


stinkles1112 posted:

is attempting to coerce the resignation of a government employee by threatening to veto funding for their department a crime, or isn't it? (actual question, not just rhetorical)

Yeah this is the question that needs to be answered.

Py-O-My posted:

Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:

(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or

that's literally what the DA who is responsible for the public integrity unit did. the public integrity unit.

It's pretty obvious that Perry is a scumbag that tried to get rid of a political adversary. It's also obvious that Lehmberg is a scumbag that tried to use her position to get favorable treatment. No one wins, gently caress the system etc.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Omi-Polari
Oct 4, 2012


There are several other points that are being missed:

+ Democrats allege Perry targeted the PIU because it was investigating other corrupt dealings involving Perry.

+ Perry has no authority over the PIU.

+ Perry probably won't serve any time in jail. This is a white-collar political crime and he will lawyer up and drag this out for years.

+ Perry has to submit to processing at the Travis County jail. This means we're getting a Rick Perry mugshot. (I hope.) But he'll be released under his own recognizance.


Johnny Cache Hit posted:

It's pretty obvious that Perry is a scumbag that tried to get rid of a political adversary. It's also obvious that Lehmberg is a scumbag that tried to use her position to get favorable treatment. No one wins, gently caress the system etc.
Yup. I'm just laughing as Texas politics burns.

Omi-Polari fucked around with this message at Aug 16, 2014 around 19:55

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«6 »