|
The inditement might be legit or not, it doesn't matter because Rick Perry will win on appeals. Remember, Texas has an all Republican Criminal Court of Appeals (the final court for criminal cases).
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Man count one of that indictment looks shaky as all hell. He misused funds by exercising a veto? that's the loving argument you're going with? http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.4.htm#4.14 The second count doesn't look as much like a hilarious overreach but if you take out the first count you can't run with the headline "PERRY FACES 109 YEARS IN PRISON" Omi-Polari posted:Perry has no authority over the PIU. So I'm guessing the hullabaloo is over him vetoing an appropriations bill funding the PIU, am I right? Does anyone have an actual link to that? Super hard to find non lovely sources on this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:Man count one of that indictment looks shaky as all hell. He misused funds by exercising a veto? that's the loving argument you're going with? The idea is he exercised a veto with the express intent of getting an elected official (currently investigating Perry's slushfunds) to resign. He gutted the PIU not because he didn't like the work they were doing but so that their elected boss would resign. However, I agree with you that Republican judges will likely find these non-criminal actions. The source you should be looking for is http://texastribune.org they're the best source of Texas political news.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Edit: The forums in fact hosed up on this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Py-O-My posted:Does Rick Perry's veto not meet this criteria? Pretty certain the veto meets the criteria and, I'm pretty confident, he'll get off of it based on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Most of why this has come up is because Perry publicly threatened to the veto in order to force her to resign. If the funding had mysteriously disappeared with no commentary from Perry, the case might be weaker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The idea is he exercised a veto with the express intent of getting an elected official (currently investigating Perry's slushfunds) to resign. He gutted the PIU not because he didn't like the work they were doing but so that their elected boss would resign. Yeah, that's the coercion count, #2. The first count in the indictment says that exercise of that veto was tantamount to misusing funds. I await the Perry mugshot with great anticipation too, I just don't think it's a good idea to say that the executive use of a constitutionally-provided balance to the legislative branch's power is criminal. Ideologically it's important to allow the executive branch to exercise the veto freely. But from a realpolitik standpoint the executive veto is gonna be a big loving deal in state governments. People talk about Texas going purple due to changing demographics... the governor is gonna be blue long before the legislature keeps up, so setting up precedent that limits the executive branch is Pretty loving Stupid imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:Yeah, that's the coercion count, #2. The first count in the indictment says that exercise of that veto was tantamount to misusing funds. Instead, I think the second count is telling the DA "resign or else I'll veto" the first count is "I'm vetoing this in an attempt to coerce a public official into resigning". However, yeah I'm sure the ruling on appeals will be that anything dealing with signing/vetoing a bill is exempt from these statutes. Also Texas has always had one of the weakest governors. It wasn't until Perry was in office long enough he was able to overcome those protections and become so powerful. The next governor will likely have less control over state policy than the then-former-governor Perry will. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
I'm not sure how to parse it. The indictment doesn't list the statute, but based on the quotes from the article it looks like 39.02: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.39.htm Maybe if you can prove Perry's intent in removing funding was to get the benefit of not being investigated for sleaziness, and can somehow tap-dance around the whole "Texas gives the governor line-item veto" thing, maybe... Trabisnikof posted:However, yeah I'm sure the ruling on appeals will be that anything dealing with signing/vetoing a bill is exempt from these statutes. This is probably the best or else we'll see Governor Wendy Davis charged for misusing state funds for vetoing a bill requiring mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Even if he somehow gets off, it's another blow to the already dead Republican Party. It is very much alive, just not where you live apparently. Nonsense posted: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? Al Capone, tax evasion, yadda yadda etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:I'm not sure how to parse it. The indictment doesn't list the statute, but based on the quotes from the article it looks like 39.02: I don't think there's much tap-dancing when the stated deal was "Resign or I will veto the funding for this thing we both think is valuable". That's what makes this criminal, Perry explicitly made this point. That's the illegal part, not the tool he used. So unless Abbott/Davis was trying to get an elected official to resign through their use of their government powers its not the same thing. One of the core limitations on governors is the fact that there are many powerful commissions with commissioners that rotate in a staggered fashion. So unless you're Perry and just get reelected forever, there is a limit on your ability to influence these commissioners appointed before you. Until you can blatantly say "unless you resign, I'll defund everything you care about" and have that be legal. Instead, I hope that the Republican judges who grant Perry his win use some other loophole to get Perry off, so that we don't end up changing the balance of power in Texas over this. Texas had a governor before that tried to veto funding to get people fired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted: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! The DA, after being picked up for drunk driving, admitted on camera to her participation in local corruption in the county of Travis and you for some reason feel this is irrelevant and are getting pissy about it, which is very funny to people who live in town and have been following this story for longer than the last 24 hours. This indictment might end Perry's career, and its probably the one thing in the last five years where Rick Perry kinda has a point, actually. Rick Perry being Rick Perry, he's of course going to do this in a way that also causes maximum benefit to Rick Perry and Friends of Rick Perry, and now the schweeny ineffectual Austin liberal bloc is trying to oppose him with procedural political games of their own, but because of their tragic Austinite handicap they're doing it in the stupidest way at the least effectual time. Again, this all very, very funny to people familiar with the story and the tender mercies of the Travis County DA's office, which you clearly are not. To reiterate: 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. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think there's much tap-dancing when the stated deal was "Resign or I will veto the funding for this thing we both think is valuable". That's what makes this criminal, Perry explicitly made this point. That's the illegal part, not the tool he used. So unless Abbott/Davis was trying to get an elected official to resign through their use of their government powers its not the same thing. I absolutely agree that Perry's explicit "resign or veto" is criminal. Under the second count of the indictment. I don't think you can legally establish that it's criminal under the first. Look at the statute and tell me how. Seriously I'd love to be wrong and see a piece of poo poo like Perry in jail for ONE HUNDRED YEARS, I just don't see how it happens with the law written as it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:I absolutely agree that Perry's explicit "resign or veto" is criminal. Under the second count of the indictment. As an official, everything you say or do is either in an official or personal capacity. While Lehmberg was in custody, she made threats of a personal, and not official, nature. If she had said, "If you don't let me go, you will all be in jail on corruption charges," such a threat would be an illegal use of official capacity for personal gain. As an elected official, you're allowed to imply that official powers may be used to achieve political purpose, however, it is illegal to explicitly state that official powers will be used for a political purpose. Perry made the mistake of making an implication into a statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
I'm really so confused by this and it makes me feel stupid. It would seem this all boils down to the wording Rick Perry used to use a veto or something? I'm stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:I'm really so confused by this and it makes me feel stupid. It would seem this all boils down to the wording Rick Perry used to use a veto or something? I'm stupid. The DA (a Democrat) whose office was investigating Rick Perry's corruption got drunk, did a DUI, and might've said a thing to the police that maybe approached corruption. Perry saw a chance to get rid of her and appoint someone (a Republican) who might've "looked into his corruption" for him. But he hosed up. Basically Perry said "resign or I veto your funding"; therefore, coercion. If he said "mumble mumble you lost the trust of the people" and vetoed the funding, we wouldn't be here. never underestimate rick perry's buffoonery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:The DA (a Democrat) whose office was investigating Rick Perry's corruption got drunk, did a DUI, and might've said a thing to the police that maybe approached corruption. It basically has approached corruption, Former chief commercialization officer of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas indicted. Granted, he hasn't gone to trial but he resigned his position. If it weren't for the Public Integrity Unit this would have never been unearthed the fraud. Perry attempted to squash the investigation and used the DUI of the Public Integrity Unit employee as cover. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
I think Johnny Cache Hit was talking about Lehmburg talking poo poo in the drunk tank about how she'd get out free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Really, I care less about Rick the Dick going to jail and more about exposing what a horrible corrupt prick he is so people stop taking him seriously. Also maybe it'll reflect badly on Greg Abbott merely for claiming the same party affiliation. Can we just have Ann Richards back now? I was okay with her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI Here's the video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I just don't understand the part where slick rick hosed up? Because of the wording he used to fire her?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
I'm just hoping this is some sort of karmic punishment for when he steamrolled an innocent man's execution and then abolished the committee investigating the execution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The DA, after being picked up for drunk driving, admitted on camera to her participation in local corruption in the county of Travis and you for some reason feel this is irrelevant and are getting pissy about it, which is very funny to people who live in town and have been following this story for longer than the last 24 hours. This indictment might end Perry's career, and its probably the one thing in the last five years where Rick Perry kinda has a point, actually. Rick Perry being Rick Perry, he's of course going to do this in a way that also causes maximum benefit to Rick Perry and Friends of Rick Perry, and now the schweeny ineffectual Austin liberal bloc is trying to oppose him with procedural political games of their own, but because of their tragic Austinite handicap they're doing it in the stupidest way at the least effectual time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I am fine with Perry being indicted for this because Perry is a huge piece of poo poo, but it's a goddamn mystery to me how a grand jury could indict Perry on this set of facts but no-bill Lehmberg (which they did two weeks ago IIRC). She didn't actually do anything to abuse the power of her office. Perry actually did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted: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? Anyway, GlyphGryph aside, IANAL but my reading of the charges is that they're linked - as in, if the first count doesn't stick then the second count doesn't either and vice versa. It is an interesting use of the law, is this pretty standard or what? The first count basically says he misused state property, period. That's the entire first count. In order for that to be true, the second count also has to be true. If they don't find that the second count is true then he didn't misuse state property. Sounds like a shaky case. I mean it sounds like it's entirely possible that the just would come back and say yes on count two but no on count one because vetoing funding is a normal part of his job. Obviously, I also know full well that he did this to get back at the people who were investigating him and making his life difficult, but Republicans in Texas going after the Travis County DA is news on par with the Travis County DA going after Republicans. The curious part to me is whether what he did is actually something you can't do. I don't mean among the hyperventilating lefties, but among people who are trying to view this objectively. There's obviously a law about coercing a public official, which is basically the second count of his indictment, but if you're the Governor and you're required to either sign or veto funding for stuff and you say it all very publicly then doesn't that sort of fall under your powers of being the Governor? It seems like the case would be a lot stronger if he had hidden everything and there were deleted emails or voice recordings unearthed from his Niggerhead Lair. The thing that gives me pause is that the investigator they appointed really sounds like there's more going on than he's been able to charge and he seems like a pretty legit guy. I don't know anything about him, but he seems pretty well respected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:She didn't actually do anything to abuse the power of her office. Perry actually did. ReindeerF posted:Anyway, GlyphGryph aside, IANAL but my reading of the charges is that they're linked - as in, if the first count doesn't stick then the second count doesn't either and vice versa. It is an interesting use of the law, is this pretty standard or what? The first count basically says he misused state property, period. That's the entire first count. In order for that to be true, the second count also has to be true. If they don't find that the second count is true then he didn't misuse state property. Sounds like a shaky case. I mean it sounds like it's entirely possible that the just would come back and say yes on count two but no on count one because vetoing funding is a normal part of his job. Elotana fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Elotana posted:What the gently caress? Watch that booking video and tell me she's not at least as guilty of official misconduct and coercion as Perry is. She had a .23 BAC. You're, uh, kinda not 100% accountable for everything you say while under the influence of mind-altering drugs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Elotana posted:What the gently caress? Watch that booking video and tell me she's not at least as guilty of official misconduct and coercion as Perry is. No, I did watch the video. She has not commited an illegal act of misconduct in the video. You are allowed to imply that you will use your official powers for political purposes. It is illegal to directly use your official powers for political purposes. She did not use her official powers, nor did she say directly that she would use her official powers, for political/personal gain. Meanwhile, Perry used his official power (veto) for a political purpose (force Lehmberg to resign). That was Perry's public statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
MrBims posted:She had a .23 BAC. You're, uh, kinda not 100% accountable for everything you say while under the influence of mind-altering drugs. My Imaginary GF posted:No, I did watch the video. She has not commited an illegal act of misconduct in the video. You are allowed to imply that you will use your official powers for political purposes. It is illegal to directly use your official powers for political purposes. She did not use her official powers, nor did she say directly that she would use her official powers, for political/personal gain. Meanwhile, Perry used his official power (veto) for a political purpose (force Lehmberg to resign). That was Perry's public statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Elotana posted:What the gently caress? Watch that booking video and tell me she's not at least as guilty of official misconduct and coercion as Perry is. Drunken babbling is not a power of her office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
It is, however, Rick Perry's debate strategy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
MrBims posted:She had a .23 BAC. You're, uh, kinda not 100% accountable for everything you say while under the influence of mind-altering drugs. My Imaginary GF posted:No, I did watch the video. She has not commited an illegal act of misconduct in the video. You are allowed to imply that you will use your official powers for political purposes. It is illegal to directly use your official powers for political purposes. She did not use her official powers, nor did she say directly that she would use her official powers, for political/personal gain. Meanwhile, Perry used his official power (veto) for a political purpose (force Lehmberg to resign). That was Perry's public statement. quote:Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Well Governor Perry threatened her, but she still has her job, so I guess he's clean too! It is legal to imply a personal threat. It is illegal to threaten through the use of official power. If Perry had veto'd the funding with the following statement, his veto would have been legal: "The agency is headed by an individual with a DUI conviction. I veto this funding." What is not legal is to veto with the following statement: "The agency is headed by an individual with a DUI conviction, therefore I veto this funding." You can make the two statements as long as they are unconnected. Lehmberg never threatened a direct use of official power. Such a threat could have taken the form of, "If you don't let me call the sherrif, I will indict you." However, Lehmberg never connected her personal and political statements with official use of her elected office. Were her actions unethical? Potentially; there is an ethics review board somewhere that has the power to decide that. Were her actions in the video illegal? No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Well, I'll leave it at her not being the one up on charges, so it doesn't really matter I guess, but I'm pretty sure that when a DA threatens the job of the law enforcement officers arresting her that's a personal threat just as much as "if you don't blow me, you're fired" is sexual harassment when a manager to whom you're not a direct report says it (even if he's drunk). Elotana makes an interesting point with his last post in that the (c) exception actually does look like it could help exonerate Governor Goodhair. Vetoing funding is basically a normal part of his job. Now if he'd gotten drunk, arrested and indicted and then screamed at her threatening to have her fired, he would obviously be not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Seriously, I would like nothing more than for Rick Perry to go to jail for a century, but ever since this story broke and I looked up the actual statute I have asked every Texas Dem I know (most of them through law school!) to explain to me how 36.03(c) doesn't 100% apply to Perry's veto and nobody can. Maybe the judicial precedent is some abstruse interpretation that's totally at odds with the text, but I can't bill Westlaw research to "idle curiosity" 
Elotana fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
How about "arguing on the internet"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Elotana makes an interesting point with his last post in that the (c) exception actually does look like it could help exonerate Governor Goodhair. Vetoing funding is basically a normal part of his job. Now if he'd gotten drunk, arrested and indicted and then screamed at her threatening to have her fired, he would obviously be not guilty. The way my campaign lawyer explained it to me was, you can make any political statements you want as long as you don't attach a political statement to an official act. I expect Perry's appeal to rely upon (c). However, by combining an official act (veto) with a political act (demand to step down), the act of veto becomes a political use of official power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree that's going to be their case from what it looks like. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The way my campaign lawyer explained it to me was, you can make any political statements you want as long as you don't attach a political statement to an official act. I expect Perry's appeal to rely upon (c). However, by combining an official act (veto) with a political act (demand to step down), the act of veto becomes a political use of official power. I'm genuinely not trying to be That Contrarian Guy here, I hadn't followed the Lehmberg/Perry affair at all and was stoked when I heard he was indicted out of the blue the other day. But the more I learn about it the less impressed I am.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:04
|
|