The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

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.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2014 20:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 16:46

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

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.

:cawg:

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.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 16, 2014

# ¿ Aug 16, 2014 20:51

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Frackie Robinson posted:

Rick Perry has never taken a bad photo. Say what you will about him, but he's photogenic as gently caress.

Yeah he is. This is it:

The man. The hair. The mugshot.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2014 23:45

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Michael McCrum looks bulletproof. I'm not finding charges of partisanship very convincing either, only because everything I've read about McCrum shows him on the straight and narrow. But that doesn't mean his case isn't full of holes.

Count me in the pro-Perry camp on this one. I'm no legal expert but the legal experts I'm reading are skeptical (and that's an understatement) this indictment will stick. I'm in Travis County and most of my friends are convinced -- ecstatic really -- that Perry is going down on this. But I rarely see them discussing any actual laws or whether Perry violated them.

Instead of discussing the actual laws, they point to McCrum and the fact that he was appointed by a Republican as proof of the case's validity. Sure, this suggests there was no partisan motive in pursuing the indictment. But that, by itself, doesn't convince me whether McCrum has a case or not. It really comes down to whether a crime was actually committed. And you can play the opposite game: The only people I'm seeing who are really for this case are the most partisan yellow-dog Democrats ... and McCrum. A lot of other Dems are pouring on the cold water.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Aug 20, 2014

# ¿ Aug 20, 2014 21:16

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm sure Perry will win on appeal. But can anyone point to other instances of a Texas governor using a line item veto as a threat in a blatant tit-for-tat? The only example I can think of is Pa Ferguson.

For those that imagine that saying "resign or I veto funding to your office" is a legal political tactic, what would be an illegal use of the veto power or are all uses of the veto power legal?

It's a good question. And no, I can't answer the first question. But to answer the second, one argument is that the threat of a veto is necessarily part of the veto process -- that's what gives the veto its power. There's also a distinction between lawful threats and unlawful threats. So if the governor ordered a legislator to do something demonstrably illegal (like killing someone or offering a bribe), lest the governor vetoes a bill, that would be an unlawful threat. But threatening to veto a bill unless Lehmberg resigns would arguably fall under a lawful threat and be protected under the First Amendment -- he's not coercing her into committing a crime.

It's politically risky, arguably skeezy. But not illegal, if I'm reading these arguments correctly. There are other ways of stopping the governor, like having the legislature override the veto.

Also see State v. Hanson (Tex. Ct. App. 1990), which involved a similar dispute in Bosque County a lower level, here:

quote:

The state alleged that [County Judge Regina Hanson] intentionally and knowingly threatened to terminate the county�s funding of the salaries of a deputy district clerk and an assistant district attorney in an attempt to coerce the district judge into firing the county auditor and the county attorney into revoking a misdemeanant�s probation.

[...]

Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression. See [Wurtz v. Risley, 719 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir.1983)]. Could Judge Hanson threaten to use her lawful authority and prerogatives of office to coerce other public officials into taking lawful actions which she or the commissioners� court deemed expedient or desirable, or should she refrain from doing so out of fear of prosecution? What is and what is not lawful conduct cannot be left to such conjecture. Section 36.01(1)(F) was not drawn with the narrowness and precision required when legislating within the realm of the First Amendment.

A preeminent purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee free and unfettered political discussion within government and among the citizenry. Consequently, those who enter the political arena are fair game for sharp attacks inflicted by both the electorate and the elected. The hurly-burly world of courthouse politics is an arena where robust debate, often accompanied by blunt, caustic and even intemperate and vituperative language, is the by-product of public officials clashing over divisive issues. However, as long as the means are peaceful and their actions lawful, the boundaries of their political debate cannot be measured for constitutional protection by conventional standards of acceptability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...coercion-count/

The Texas Court of Appeals said the problem here is that the law was vague/overbroad. So it's possible that Perry's actions could be illegal under the law while the law is also totally nebulous and vague. Meaning it won't survive a First Amendment challenge.

Now stepping away from the law for a moment. The other thing that Democrats are pounding is that Perry vetoed funding to the PIU in order to block investigation into his own misdeeds with CIPRIT. But there are two problems with this. (1) That's not what Perry is being indicted for. (2) PIU wasn't investigating Perry over CIPRIT or any Perry-appointed officials. (PIU was investigating CIPRIT staff.) Maybe more will come out. Stay tuned!

Finally, there's the assertion that Perry wants Lehmberg out so he can replace her with a political ally. Wouldn't be surprised by that. But Perry also has a decent case (!) for wanting Lehmberg out. And the only people who are going to be pissed off by this are hardline Texas Democrats since they don't want to lose control of the Travis DA. It also puts Dems in a bad position because it makes them look like this is all about keeping an abusive, corrupt drunk in power. So expect heavy TV ads this election year featuring Lehmberg's arrest video.

Lehmberg's not the law! -- Judge Dredd

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Aug 20, 2014

# ¿ Aug 20, 2014 22:27

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

GamingHyena posted:

Edited for clarity:

If you're talking about her removal, the grand jury didn't return a true bill against Lehmburg because her case never went in front of a grand jury. Trials to remove public officials in Texas are civil cases (see Subchapter B in Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code).

If you're talking about her allegation of official misconduct, I believe that was reviewed by a grand jury but remember that grand juries only get to listen to whatever evidence and recommendations are given to them by a prosecutor. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to use grand juries as political cover to dismiss cases by only showing them evidence to support that view.

Interesting you mention that, because Rick Reed -- who is a Democrat and former Lehmberg colleague -- was the attorney who filed the misconduct complaint to the grand jury against Lehmberg.

It might sound :tinfoil:

but there you go. The civil case, which was also dismissed, was brought by Kerry O'Brien, a Republican.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 21, 2014

# ¿ Aug 21, 2014 00:34

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

ReindeerF posted:

Wouldn't be the first thing he's been down on.

Oh snap! That mugshot would make a good new Grindr profile pic...

# ¿ Aug 21, 2014 21:56

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

RickPAC is really owning it. They're selling these t-shirts:

# ¿ Aug 22, 2014 21:24

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

TARDISman posted:

Political mullet, gotta love it!

If you think that's bad...

My reaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQb3h0EEK8Y

# ¿ Aug 22, 2014 22:26

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

So after I did all that posting defending Perry, here's Evan Smith calling everyone's bluff:

http://kut.org/post/evan-smith-rick-perry-indictment-nobody-knows-anything

# ¿ Aug 23, 2014 00:48

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

So the Statesman is reporting that ~~Perry's office~~ Rick Perry had called Mindy Montford to discuss replacing Lehmberg [edit:] before the veto threat was publicly known. Don't know if that's legal, but it's worth noting Montford is a Democrat.

It's funny if you read a website like BOR which is promoting a lot of theories about Perry putting in a die-hard Republican, and comparing it to BOR in 2010 creaming itself for uber-progressive Montford in an election for a judge position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pF477abcPE

And Montford accepted if Lehmberg resigned.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Aug 25, 2014

# ¿ Aug 25, 2014 04:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 16:46

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Trabisnikof posted:

I love the people behind the BOR report to death, but they clearly view it as a political tool rather than a source of information for the community.

I met one of the BOR guys once, and he was really sweet and smart. But I'm still going to shoot spitballs at them.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2014 06:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread