|
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.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Elotana posted:From the text of the statute, if the criteria of (c) are met, which they appear to be, they would prevent the application of (a)(1) entirely, so we wouldn't even get to the statement if the action was official. Like, assuming there's no drastically skewed precedent (and I don't really think there would be, this seems like a specific enough set of facts that it would turn on the text of the statute), and this indictment is as thin as it seems at first glance, Perry has a good shot at a directed verdict, which would really get people steamed who aren't following the case except on a partisan level. He's almost certainly in no real danger of conviction. Please correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is that Perry is under indictment for the threat to use his veto power, not for the use of the veto in and of itself. Would you happen to know what the precident is for what defines a deliberation on the use of official power?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:So let me see if I've got all of this straight: You can try to get someone to step down. You can't threaten someone who is investigating you at the county level with defunding if they don't step down, and then veto their funding. You can veto the funding and then issue a veto statement that its because she wouldn't step down. The smart way for Perry to squash the investigation is having a proxy file an ethics complaint against Lehmberg, and have the ethics review board disqualify her. Another option would have been to ask her to step down, and if she does not, then veto the funding and issue the veto statement.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Fair point, but I'm sticking to my guns that proving corruption in a court of law requires insane levels of proof. Perry provided that in his public statements and signing statement. There's a reason Blago and 3J went to jail: They were too blatant, and bigger folk don't like that. The one rule in our political system is no direct and public quid quos; if you get too lazy to even follow that, at least have the decency to do so in private. If you don't have the shame to do that, then you tarnish the reputation of our whole system of governance and must be brough down. I mean, gently caress, don't they require ethics training down there in Texas? Even Blago took that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Yea, it'll become a "he-said but she-said" which never goes anywhere and I don't believe a Grand Jury would indict on that amount of evidence. Is Texas a one-party conscent state?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think he'll be convicted but will win on appeal because of the (R) behind the appeals judges' names. Followed by a Federal investigation for the future burglary bundling during the attempted cover-up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its ok guys, the tweet was "unauthorized" nothing to see here. Unauthorized, from what GoogleID? Who's device has that GID? Are you telling me that a governor willingly gave his personal cell phone to a political campaign staff member, thereby making the phone a political phone and a number which cannot be used for official business?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Um staffers can log in to twitter from any computer Yes, I've done that in the past. I'm guessing with what I've heard of Perry's personality, he might've been careless enough to retweet that himself. All depends upon the device from which it was retweeted, which you can determine by subpoena'ing Twitter. E: Stupid /=/ Careless
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Young Freud posted:It's worth noting that both the judge and the prosecutor are both Republicans, so Captain Goodhair's going to have a hard time claiming a political witchhunt. I'm not so sure, I bet Perry is only now realizing that he's fighting the Bush machine. Of course, these indightments and investigations could all go away if Perry were to bow out and endorse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 14:03
|
|