|
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.  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.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
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
|
|