Rick Perry Indicted.

[maxparrish]

Yet more contempt and sarcasm oozes from my monitor - anyone got a handi-wipe...?

You are not getting this are you? There are many laws in Texas. Sometimes they clash. Thus we have laws that forbid bribery, official oppression, and so on. And we have a law the governor has veto powers. What happened here is Perry thought his veto powers were open ended and unlimited. It ain't.

How do you know that? Have you read the law? Have you read the Texas Constitution? Or do you just accept a Grand Jury in Travis County claiming he is guilty of two counts?

He has now run afoul of his foolishness. Those other laws are still binding on even a governor.

He has run afoul of a badge heavy prosecutor and lefty jury, not unknown in Travis county.

This is not new, the other Texas governor who was in fact found guilty of breaking the law and was impeached, Pa Ferguson was found guilty of exactly the same thing, cutting funding to the University of Texas because he objected to policies of those running the University. Yet, from that clear precedent, Perry learned nothing. Perry learned nothing from that and apparently did not avail himself of the expertise of legal experts that were available to him in the state of Texas whose function was to advise Texas legislators of what they can do legally or not.

Apparently Perry learned something you did not:

AUSTIN (1917) Undergoing impeachment, with conviction only days away, Texas Governor James E "Pa" Ferguson resigned on this date in 1917.
The charges of impeachment grew from a controvesy with the University of Texas administration, and resulted in Ferguson being charged with misapplication of public funds among nine other charges.
Despite his resignation, the State Senate voted 25-3 to convict, which meant that Ferguson could not seek another public office in Texas. But his wife, Miriam Ferguson, was still eligible to run for office, and run she did.

http://howdyyall.com/Texas/TodaysNews/index.cfm?GetItem=1452

What you should have learned is that THIS WAS AN IMPEACHMENT, not a criminal trial. Perry knows, as I do, that he may be impeached for any subjective reason, regardless of statutory law. BUT this is a criminal complaint.

The complaint against Perry was filed before he actually vetoed anything. He apparently had been warned he would have a complaint filed and yet continued on recklessly. After it was filed, he kept charging on. He was obviously not considering the repercussions to his acts carefully. Arrogant overreach.

No, misplaced confidence in the sanity of blue Texas. So much so, legal experts are laughing at the indictment as the politicization of politics.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Per an article in the Daily Beast:

It seems two other DA’s during Perry’s time as governor were convicted of drunk driving, he didn’t publicly call for them to resign. They were both Republicans.

A Republican judge in Texas appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to investigate. It was McCrum, whose investigation led to the indictment. He was a federal prosecutor during the George H.W. Bush administration and was even championed by two major Republicans, Senator John Cornyn and then-Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to serve as U.S. Attorney in Texas.

Perry could have followed the statutory procedure under Texas law that provides for the removal of DA’s for misconduct, but he did not. After Perry’s veto, a petition was filed by a local lawyer to remove Lehmberg from office under this statute, but in December 2013 a Texas judge ruled against the application, noting that a single instance of intoxication does not rise to the level of “official misconduct.”

 

[dismal]

I don't know if the Constitution prohibits it but I imagine there are statutes that do. Since it's not relevant to the case it has not come up in anything I have read, and I don't claim to know off the top of my head.

We'll the constitution does prohibit it expressly. See Article 16, and specifically section 41. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.16.htm

Now the argument I would make is that coercion is merely a negative form of bribery. I think this is a pretty unremarkable stance, but I expect you will argue against it.

It seems obvious that the governor was attempting to affect the official action or influence of the Travis County DA. That he attempted to coerce her utilizing a power the constitution grants to the office he holds is not relevant. That he did so attempt is the relevant part.

This is not what the indictment argues. Not even close really. I'm inclined to think this means it is even crazier than what the indictment argues, but perhaps it means you have the true talent to be an abusive prosecutor.

The main problem you have here (other that the fact that "bribery" is defined in the section and does not mean what you say it means) is that Perry threatened to use a power he clearly has the legal authority to use.

If he had threatened to have Moose and Rocco rough her up a little if she didn't resign, that would be a crime under the statute.

Using clearly granted political powers to influence other politicians is not a crime. It's absurd to try and make it one.

- - - Updated - - -

Per an article in the Daily Beast:

It seems two other DA’s during Perry’s time as governor were convicted of drunk driving, he didn’t publicly call for them to resign. They were both Republicans.

A Republican judge in Texas appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to investigate. It was McCrum, whose investigation led to the indictment. He was a federal prosecutor during the George H.W. Bush administration and was even championed by two major Republicans, Senator John Cornyn and then-Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to serve as U.S. Attorney in Texas.

Perry could have followed the statutory procedure under Texas law that provides for the removal of DA’s for misconduct, but he did not. After Perry’s veto, a petition was filed by a local lawyer to remove Lehmberg from office under this statute, but in December 2013 a Texas judge ruled against the application, noting that a single instance of intoxication does not rise to the level of “official misconduct.”

You're a bit late to the irrelevancy party. This particular irrelevancy was already brought up.

 

[maxparrish]

I don't know if the Constitution prohibits it but I imagine there are statutes that do. Since it's not relevant to the case it has not come up in anything I have read, and I don't claim to know off the top of my head.

We'll the constitution does prohibit it expressly. See Article 16, and specifically section 41. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.16.htm

Now the argument I would make is that coercion is merely a negative form of bribery. I think this is a pretty unremarkable stance, but I expect you will argue against it.

At an abstract concept, apart from the legal concept:

Coercion is an attempt to influence through a threat, an outcome that is perceived as harmful to the well being a person.
Bribery is an attempt to influence through a reward, an outcome that is perceived as beneficial to the well being of a person.

Both are attempts to influence but through different means and effects. And it is the means that make them different, covered under different laws.

Moreover, criminal complaints are not used for constitutional redress they only apply to statutory laws. Therefore, the Governor has to be in violation of a statutory law BEFORE any constitutional issue (such as the power of veto) becomes a subject of debate.

It seems obvious that the governor was attempting to affect the official action or influence of the Travis County DA. That he attempted to coerce her utilizing a power the constitution grants to the office he holds is not relevant. That he did so attempt is the relevant part.

Of course it is relevant; threatening a veto (withholding consent) UNLESS person X does Y is a fundamental element of veto power. Executives frequently threaten vetoes or bargain over line item vetos unless certain conditions are met.

 

[maxparrish]

Per an article in the Daily Beast:

It seems two other DA’s during Perry’s time as governor were convicted of drunk driving, he didn’t publicly call for them to resign. They were both Republicans.

A Republican judge in Texas appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to investigate. It was McCrum, whose investigation led to the indictment. He was a federal prosecutor during the George H.W. Bush administration and was even championed by two major Republicans, Senator John Cornyn and then-Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to serve as U.S. Attorney in Texas.

Perry could have followed the statutory procedure under Texas law that provides for the removal of DA’s for misconduct, but he did not. After Perry’s veto, a petition was filed by a local lawyer to remove Lehmberg from office under this statute, but in December 2013 a Texas judge ruled against the application, noting that a single instance of intoxication does not rise to the level of “official misconduct.”

Please read post 151,155,158, and 159 before commenting further.

Correction: A local lawyer filed for removal of Lemberg from office BUT the County Attorney, a personal friend of Lehmberg, got a judge to throw it out in favor of the County attorney's 'friendly' complaint. And after the County weakly asked for her removal (i.e. taking a dive), even though the grounds for removal were very clear, the judge decided not to punish her by removal from office.

 

[Cobalt]

We'll the constitution does prohibit it expressly. See Article 16, and specifically section 41. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.16.htm

Now the argument I would make is that coercion is merely a negative form of bribery. I think this is a pretty unremarkable stance, but I expect you will argue against it.

It seems obvious that the governor was attempting to affect the official action or influence of the Travis County DA. That he attempted to coerce her utilizing a power the constitution grants to the office he holds is not relevant. That he did so attempt is the relevant part.

This is not what the indictment argues. Not even close really. I'm inclined to think this means it is even crazier than what the indictment argues, but perhaps it means you have the true talent to be an abusive prosecutor.

That's just sad. I'm sure you can come up with better back-handed insults. You just need to try harder.
But in any case you'll notice that I'm not responsible for the contents of the indictment nor am I limited to only discussing your views thereof.

The main problem you have here (other that the fact that "bribery" is defined in the section and does not mean what you say it means) is that Perry threatened to use a power he clearly has the legal authority to use.

I'm pretty sure I can extract at least two understandings directly from Article 16, Sec. 41, that align well with what I'm saying. The governor "solicited or demanded, directly or indirectly, a thing of value for official influence, or withholding of same". Here the 'thing of value' was to bring an end to the investigation of Perry's protection of donors and CPRIT grants, and the official influence is his use of or abstaining from vetoing the funding for PIU.

Nested inside that bribe we also see the governor "solicited or demanded for another an appointment for official influence". Here the official influence desired was for her to vacate the office, the appointment sought is one which Perry himself would then be allowed to make.

If he had threatened to have Moose and Rocco rough her up a little if she didn't resign, that would be a crime under the statute.

Using clearly granted political powers to influence other politicians is not a crime. It's absurd to try and make it one.

Blagiovich possesed the constitutional power to appoint someone to the US Senate (granted by the 17th Amendent) but his solicitation of something in exchange for it is what got him into trouble. Exercising a power granted by the constitution doesn't magically prevent a politician from falling afoul of other parts of the constitution (or even subordinate laws and statutes). Details and motives matter.

 

[Cobalt]

We'll the constitution does prohibit it expressly. See Article 16, and specifically section 41. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.16.htm

Now the argument I would make is that coercion is merely a negative form of bribery. I think this is a pretty unremarkable stance, but I expect you will argue against it.

At an abstract concept, apart from the legal concept:

Coercion is an attempt to influence through a threat, an outcome that is perceived as harmful to the well being a person.
Bribery is an attempt to influence through a reward, an outcome that is perceived as beneficial to the well being of a person.

Both are attempts to influence but through different means and effects. And it is the means that make them different, covered under different laws.

That depends on how the law(s) are written. There is little reason to suppose that a single law can't address both.

Moreover, criminal complaints are not used for constitutional redress they only apply to statutory laws. Therefore, the Governor has to be in violation of a statutory law BEFORE any constitutional issue (such as the power of veto) becomes a subject of debate.

I don't think I disagree with you here. I'm not discussing the indictment (which does cite violation of statue). I'm addressing what I take to be dismal's contention that nothing can circumscribe a power granted by a constitution.

It seems obvious that the governor was attempting to affect the official action or influence of the Travis County DA. That he attempted to coerce her utilizing a power the constitution grants to the office he holds is not relevant. That he did so attempt is the relevant part.

Of course it is relevant; threatening a veto (withholding consent) UNLESS person X does Y is a fundamental element of veto power. Executives frequently threaten vetoes or bargain over line item vetos unless certain conditions are met.

You appear to be making a category error here. Executives might threaten vetos or bargain over conditions of a bill with the legislature. Vetos are a constitutional withholding of consent to the will of the legislature, which is their purpose, and there is a constitutionally granted means of accommodating or over ruling said veto on the part of the legislature. Their purpose is not to withhold consent from entities which are not the legislature, 'consent' in such a context is not something that the executive branch is granted by the constitution.

As you'll note, Article 4, Sec. 14 makes no provisions for the governor to bargain with any entity except the legislature about vetos over appropriations bills, nor is there any provision made for any entity except the legislature to accomodate or over rule the veto.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.4.pdf

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No, misplaced confidence in the sanity of blue Texas. So much so, legal experts are laughing at the indictment as the politicization of politics.

Ohhhhhhhh bullshit! All we get from you is conspiracy think, well poisoning antics and special pleading.. To paint this grand jury as a collection of irresponsible far left liberals out to get poor lil Perry is to besmirch these grand jurors who may very not be Democrats all of them,, and probably are not far left partisan liberals. You endeavor to paint this as a witch hunt without a single hard fact to back that charge up. I no longer can take you seriously here on this subject. When you roll in bitter partisan conspiracy think like this, you lose all credibility.

This grand jury heard at least 41 witnesses and examined hundreds of documents. Perry has now been indicted on 2 charges, based on the facts here presented to this jury. Making baseless claims about this doesn't cut the mustard.

Hopefully all of this will warn future GOP office holders, don'r be an arrogant dumbass.

 

[ksen]

Yeah, but VOLOKH!!!!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Again, will anyone explain why they disagree with the content of the Volokh site, instead of completely dismissing it?

 

[ksen]

I'm not dismissing Volokh, I'm mocking the near deification of him by some in this thread.

 

[maxparrish]

At an abstract concept, apart from the legal concept:

Coercion is an attempt to influence through a threat, an outcome that is perceived as harmful to the well being a person.
Bribery is an attempt to influence through a reward, an outcome that is perceived as beneficial to the well being of a person.

Both are attempts to influence but through different means and effects. And it is the means that make them different, covered under different laws.

That depends on how the law(s) are written. There is little reason to suppose that a single law can't address both.

Moreover, criminal complaints are not used for constitutional redress they only apply to statutory laws. Therefore, the Governor has to be in violation of a statutory law BEFORE any constitutional issue (such as the power of veto) becomes a subject of debate.

I don't think I disagree with you here. I'm not discussing the indictment (which does cite violation of statue). I'm addressing what I take to be dismal's contention that nothing can circumscribe a power granted by a constitution.

...You appear to be making a category error here. Executives might threaten vetos or bargain over conditions of a bill with the legislature. Vetos are a constitutional withholding of consent to the will of the legislature, which is their purpose, and there is a constitutionally granted means of accommodating or over ruling said veto on the part of the legislature. Their purpose is not to withhold consent from entities which are not the legislature, 'consent' in such a context is not something that the executive branch is granted by the constitution.

I find your construction totally opaque. Of course withhold consent (veto) any legislation, including appropriations to whatever office or private entity in a line item. And he can send it back to the legislature with his objections, and the legislature can attempt and over-ride if it likes.

As you'll note, Article 4, Sec. 14 makes no provisions for the governor to bargain with any entity except the legislature about vetos over appropriations bills, nor is there any provision made for any entity except the legislature to accomodate or over rule the veto.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.4.pdf

A text search of your link provided no hits for veto or bargain(ing) and no restrictions on bargaining with anyone, in the private or public life. The law does not require "permission" for any official to communicate or horse trade as they like, rather it either requires or prohibits certain kind of conduct by public servants.

Governors and legislators, or any other official with power, can horse-trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they like as long as it is for a lawful use for a lawful purpose. The governor can tell the Chamber of Commerce that they better support his programs, and he can threaten to veto some other bill they want if they do not.

It's politics.

 

[maxparrish]

No, misplaced confidence in the sanity of blue Texas. So much so, legal experts are laughing at the indictment as the politicization of politics.

Ohhhhhhhh bullshit! All we get from you is conspiracy think, well poisoning antics and special pleading.. To paint this grand jury as a collection of irresponsible far left liberals out to get poor lil Perry is to besmirch these grand jurors who may very not be Democrats all of them,, and probably are not far left partisan liberals. You endeavor to paint this as a witch hunt without a single hard fact to back that charge up. I no longer can take you seriously here on this subject. When you roll in bitter partisan conspiracy think like this, you lose all credibility.

Feel better?

This grand jury heard at least 41 witnesses and examined hundreds of documents. Perry has now been indicted on 2 charges, based on the facts here presented to this jury. Making baseless claims about this doesn't cut the mustard. Hopefully all of this will warn future GOP office holders, don'r be an arrogant dumbass.

One might enjoy how Cheer(less) Charlie might fair before a judge and jury as a prosecutor...

C.C. "Your Honor and members of the jury, I have issued an indictment against the defendant. I have a wonderful reputation, the defendant is besmirched by two charges and we all know what a scum bag he is. More importantly, we only brought these charges after hearing 41 witnesses and reading lots of documents. Please take our word, this guy is guilty of all the charges. This is not a matter of your consideration of the law or review of the evidence, its a matter of our reputation and professed due diligence. Either you trust us or you don't". "The prosecution rests".

 

[Cobalt]

That depends on how the law(s) are written. There is little reason to suppose that a single law can't address both.

Moreover, criminal complaints are not used for constitutional redress they only apply to statutory laws. Therefore, the Governor has to be in violation of a statutory law BEFORE any constitutional issue (such as the power of veto) becomes a subject of debate.

I don't think I disagree with you here. I'm not discussing the indictment (which does cite violation of statue). I'm addressing what I take to be dismal's contention that nothing can circumscribe a power granted by a constitution.

...You appear to be making a category error here. Executives might threaten vetos or bargain over conditions of a bill with the legislature. Vetos are a constitutional withholding of consent to the will of the legislature, which is their purpose, and there is a constitutionally granted means of accommodating or over ruling said veto on the part of the legislature. Their purpose is not to withhold consent from entities which are not the legislature, 'consent' in such a context is not something that the executive branch is granted by the constitution.

I find your construction totally opaque. Of course withhold consent (veto) any legislation, including appropriations to whatever office or private entity in a line item. And he can send it back to the legislature with his objections, and the legislature can attempt and over-ride if it likes.

This is in response to your 'withholding consent' trope. That you seemingly can't parse the significance is odd. A veto is withholding of consent from a directive of the legislature, but it has fuck-all to do with any 'consent' from a DA.

As you'll note, Article 4, Sec. 14 makes no provisions for the governor to bargain with any entity except the legislature about vetos over appropriations bills, nor is there any provision made for any entity except the legislature to accomodate or over rule the veto.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.4.pdf

A text search of your link provided no hits for veto or bargain(ing) and no restrictions on bargaining with anyone, in the private or public life. The law does not require "permission" for any official to communicate or horse trade as they like, rather it either requires or prohibits certain kind of conduct by public servants.

Governors and legislators, or any other official with power, can horse-trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they like as long as it is for a lawful use for a lawful purpose. The governor can tell the Chamber of Commerce that they better support his programs, and he can threaten to veto some other bill they want if they do not.

It's politics.

Your understanding of the issues results from text searches? No wonder you're finding your interlocutors' arguments to be opaque. Just to explain the situation for you a bit: though the word 'veto' appears nowhere in the Texas constitution so far as I see, when Article 4 details the process by which the executive rejects a bill that is what is widely referred to as a 'veto'.

And no, the constitution does not allow governors and legislators, or any other official with power, to horse-trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they like (see Article 16, Sec 41). The conditions and details of the case in question go to the heart of if this was a lawful use for a lawful purpose, which it does not appear to have been.

 

[RavenSky]

We have a Constitution that says the governor has veto powers. When laws clash with a Constitution, Constitution wins.

NO ONE IS ARGUING WHETHER HE HAD VETO POWERS. THE ISSUE IS THE THREATS AND ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.

 

[maxparrish]

That depends on how the law(s) are written. There is little reason to suppose that a single law can't address both.

Moreover, criminal complaints are not used for constitutional redress they only apply to statutory laws. Therefore, the Governor has to be in violation of a statutory law BEFORE any constitutional issue (such as the power of veto) becomes a subject of debate.

I don't think I disagree with you here. I'm not discussing the indictment (which does cite violation of statue). I'm addressing what I take to be dismal's contention that nothing can circumscribe a power granted by a constitution.

...You appear to be making a category error here. Executives might threaten vetos or bargain over conditions of a bill with the legislature. Vetos are a constitutional withholding of consent to the will of the legislature, which is their purpose, and there is a constitutionally granted means of accommodating or over ruling said veto on the part of the legislature. Their purpose is not to withhold consent from entities which are not the legislature, 'consent' in such a context is not something that the executive branch is granted by the constitution.

I find your construction totally opaque. Of course withhold consent (veto) any legislation, including appropriations to whatever office or private entity in a line item. And he can send it back to the legislature with his objections, and the legislature can attempt and over-ride if it likes.

This is in response to your 'withholding consent' trope. That you seemingly can't parse the significance is odd. A veto is withholding of consent from a directive of the legislature, but it has fuck-all to do with any 'consent' from a DA.

One cannot parse "significance" from a comment that is opaque. And replying with "...but it has fuck-all to do with any 'consent' from a DA." is still meaningless chatter. What branch or official, pray tell, gets 'consent' from a DA? Who said anyone did??? When someone says you are failing to communicate your point, it means you ought to restate it in a different manner - "fuck-all to do..." is little more than your crib kicking fit.

As you'll note, Article 4, Sec. 14 makes no provisions for the governor to bargain with any entity except the legislature about vetos over appropriations bills, nor is there any provision made for any entity except the legislature to accomodate or over rule the veto.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.4.pdf

A text search of your link provided no hits for veto or bargain(ing) and no restrictions on bargaining with anyone, in the private or public life. The law does not require "permission" for any official to communicate or horse trade as they like, rather it either requires or prohibits certain kind of conduct by public servants.

Governors and legislators, or any other official with power, can horse-trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they like as long as it is for a lawful use for a lawful purpose. The governor can tell the Chamber of Commerce that they better support his programs, and he can threaten to veto some other bill they want if they do not.

It's politics.

Your understanding of the issues results from text searches? No wonder you're finding your interlocutors' arguments to be opaque.

No, I am finding them opaque because you toss out a link to an entire section, fail to quote any relevant text, and leave it to your "interlocutor" to waste their time trying to discover what you might be talking about. A 'search' of terms you used (veto, bargain) showed zero point zero references. So other than the obvious, that legislation requires consent of the Governor, I failed to find anything that illuminates your point (such as it is).

Just to explain the situation for you a bit: though the word 'veto' appears nowhere in the Texas constitution so far as I see, when Article 4 details the process by which the executive rejects a bill that is what is widely referred to as a 'veto'.

And no, the constitution does not allow governors and legislators, or any other official with power, to horse-trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they like (see Article 16, Sec 41). The conditions and details of the case in question go to the heart of if this was a lawful use for a lawful purpose, which it does not appear to have been.

Please cite the specific text that prohibits a governor or legislator to trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they please. Please cite the text that says they may trade, threaten, or horse trade with some people, but not others.

You are free to advance air castles with supercilious affectations, but it won't be convincing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You are not getting this are you? There are many laws in Texas. Sometimes they clash. Thus we have laws that forbid bribery, official oppression, and so on. And we have a law the governor has veto powers. What happened here is Perry thought his veto powers were open ended and unlimited. It ain't. He has now run afoul of his foolishness. Those other laws are still binding on even a governor.
This is not new, the other Texas governor who was in fact found guilty of breaking the law and was impeached, Pa Ferguson was found guilty of exactly the same thing, cutting funding to the University of Texas because he objected to policies of those running the University. Yet, from that clear precedent, Perry learned nothing. Perry learned nothing from that and apparently did not avail himself of the expertise of legal experts that were available to him in the state of Texas whose function was to advise Texas legislators of what they can do legally or not.
The complaint against Perry was filed before he actually vetoed anything. He apparently had been warned he would have a complaint filed and yet continued on recklessly. After it was filed, he kept charging on. He was obviously not considering the repercussions to his acts carefully. Arrogant overreach.

These are my feelings as well, that Perry is just not very smart. And perhaps doesn't have very smart advisers. He tries to make up for it with "swagger," and we've been hearing a lot about Perry getting back the old "swagger." But swagger doesn't cut anything in a courtroom.

Perry fucked up and he either knows it or he doesn't. Right now he's acting like he doesn't. Hell, the Shrub didn't know there were different brands of Muslims. Perry maybe never heard about Fergy. But when you get all that "swagger" going you're not really interested in such details.

 

[maxparrish]

You are not getting this are you? There are many laws in Texas. Sometimes they clash. Thus we have laws that forbid bribery, official oppression, and so on. And we have a law the governor has veto powers. What happened here is Perry thought his veto powers were open ended and unlimited. It ain't. He has now run afoul of his foolishness. Those other laws are still binding on even a governor.
This is not new, the other Texas governor who was in fact found guilty of breaking the law and was impeached, Pa Ferguson was found guilty of exactly the same thing, cutting funding to the University of Texas because he objected to policies of those running the University. Yet, from that clear precedent, Perry learned nothing. Perry learned nothing from that and apparently did not avail himself of the expertise of legal experts that were available to him in the state of Texas whose function was to advise Texas legislators of what they can do legally or not.
The complaint against Perry was filed before he actually vetoed anything. He apparently had been warned he would have a complaint filed and yet continued on recklessly. After it was filed, he kept charging on. He was obviously not considering the repercussions to his acts carefully. Arrogant overreach.

These are my feelings as well, that Perry is just not very smart. And perhaps doesn't have very smart advisers. He tries to make up for it with "swagger," and we've been hearing a lot about Perry getting back the old "swagger." But swagger doesn't cut anything in a courtroom.

Perry fucked up and he either knows it or he doesn't. Right now he's acting like he doesn't. Hell, the Shrub didn't know there were different brands of Muslims. Perry maybe never heard about Fergy. But when you get all that "swagger" going you're not really interested in such details.

I am sure these are your feelings as well. But I wonder where the bottomless pit of deep and soul-less loathing comes from? Obviously it is not compassion for Rick Perry, nor an affection for lady justice, nor a sense of decency or respect for liberal democratic values. Both of you are beside yourselves with hate and contempt for Perry.

Perry didn't "fuck up", he (like much of the liberal community) never expected this Grand Jury would shamelessly politicize the law. It caught everyone, other than the people's tribunal, by surprise. (By the why, yet another CC falsehood - the complaint was not filed before the veto. It was submitted two weeks later according to the timeline I googled). Of course, like most Republicans, he was unprepared for the depth of ruthlessness and corruption of the law that left-wingers that routinely practice. Republicans can't seem to learn that Democrats play hard ball - NOTHING is out of bounds (till now).

He was doing that most of America thinks is legal in politics (see NYTimes, Washington Post, WSJournal, the New Yorker, etc.).

If he is now "arrogant" it is because FINALLY there was an act so ridiculous that even the MSM liberals can't believe it. So he is working to make a lemon into lemonade, and its working. His popularity on the right is far greater, and everyone over there is taking a second look. And while some of the left has jumped ship, the remainder of the left is making a martyr for incredibly stupid reasons. Don't think so? Consider this:

Governor Cuemo and his staff derailed and/or directed the State wide corruption investigative commission, telling it what and who it can and cannot investigate or subpoena. The governor abruptly shut down commission because after it uncovered two Republicans, it also started uncovering corruption in Cuemo's numerous friends, and perhaps Cuemo. He was so blatant in his coverup, that if the feds (who are now investigating Cuemo and his friends) decide to indict it will have legs - AND no sympathy or martyrdom.

In contrast, Governor Perry is "in trouble" for making an effort to get rid of a drunk, abusive, and coercive DA that is the leader of a unit on Ethics and Integrity. IMAGINE THAT! HOW TERRIBLE! And he did it by openly announcing that if this sleaze would not resign he would veto her funds. GASP...how terrible! THEN HE HAD THE GAUL to do it! GASP! You honestly think it will sell the public? It didn't sell the MSM liberal press, did it?

LOL...you guys don't get it. Both sides are calling this a farce, and Perry is going to enjoy showing the videos of the crazy drunk DA to the jury and dozens of legal scholars telling the jury the prosecution's view of the law is daffy. And this is not an indictment for corruption BUT for a political choice that most folks sympathize with. You do know that these folks said Lehmberg should resign, right?


Travis County officials/groups who have commented, either directly or indirectly, that Lehmberg should resign:
1. County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty
2. Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo (indirectly - as in, I would if I were in her circumstances)
3. Austin Police Association
4. The Austin American-Statesman editorial board
5. Current candidate for Commissioner's Court Pct. 2, Jay Wiley
Local officials/groups who have said Lehmberg should not resign:
1. State Senator Kirk Watson
2. Commissioner Margaret Gomez
Local officials/groups who have not expressed publicly a position on whether or not Lehmberg should resign:
1. Former Commissioner, current candidate for County Judge, Sarah Eckhardt (refuses to give one)
2. Current candidate for County Judge, Andy Brown (did not respond to my request for one)
3. Commissioner Ron Davis (refuses to give one)
4. County Judge Sam Biscoe
5. Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell
6. Austin Councilmember Sheryl Cole
7. Austin Councilmember Chris Riley
8. Austin Councilmember Mike Martinez
9. Austin Councilmember Kathie Tovo
10. Austin Councilmember Laura Morrison
11. Austin Councilmember Bill Spelman
12. Sheriff Greg Hamilton
13. Travis County Sheriff's Law Enforcement Association (did not respond to my request for one)
14. Travis County Sheriff's Officers Association (did not respond to my request for one)
15. Current candidate for Commissioner's Court Pct. 2, Brigid Shea
16. Current candidate for Commissioner's Court Pct. 2, Richard Jung
17. Current candidate for Commissioner's Court Pct. 2, Garrett Brown

Nope this is a farce and regardless of what happens to his Presidential efforts, its going to be a fun ride.

 

[Cobalt]

This is in response to your 'withholding consent' trope. That you seemingly can't parse the significance is odd. A veto is withholding of consent from a directive of the legislature, but it has fuck-all to do with any 'consent' from a DA.

One cannot parse "significance" from a comment that is opaque. And replying with "...but it has fuck-all to do with any 'consent' from a DA." is still meaningless chatter. What branch or official, pray tell, gets 'consent' from a DA? Who said anyone did??? When someone says you are failing to communicate your point, it means you ought to restate it in a different manner - "fuck-all to do..." is little more than your crib kicking fit.

It is possible that I've been less than clear and it is possible that you've been overly obtuse, or both of these possibilities could obtain.

Let's summarize the arc of our discussion thus far. I said: the constitutional authority to veto is not relevant for the defense against a coercion charge. Then you said: of course it's relevant because withholding consent is a fundamental piece of veto power. Then I said: you've made a category error; withholding consent by vetoing bills applies to disagreements with the legislature and not to disagreements with anyone else. Then you said: yeah governors sure as hell can withhold consent from the legislature. Then I said: um, you brought up the withholding consent thing, but it's a non-sequitur as it concerns this situation. Then you said: you're a cry baby.

I think I'm going with the working assumption that you're just obtuse, but I'm willing to be convinced that I've failed at communication. Would any other readers care to weigh in on this question?

Your understanding of the issues results from text searches? No wonder you're finding your interlocutors' arguments to be opaque.

No, I am finding them opaque because you toss out a link to an entire section, fail to quote any relevant text, and leave it to your "interlocutor" to waste their time trying to discover what you might be talking about. A 'search' of terms you used (veto, bargain) showed zero point zero references. So other than the obvious, that legislation requires consent of the Governor, I failed to find anything that illuminates your point (such as it is).

Did you read the section I suggested as relevant?

If any bill presented to the Governor contains several items of appropriation he may object to one or more of such items, and approve the other portion of the bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he objects, and no item so objected to shall take effect. If the Legislature be in session, he shall transmit to the House in which the bill originated a copy of such statement and the items objected to shall be separately considered. If, on reconsideration, one or more of such items be approved by two-thirds of the members present of each House, the same shall be part of the law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor.

Since we were discussing the proper uses of veto power as it concerns appropriations, the point I am trying to convey here is that the governor must communicate to the house in which the bill originated about any line items vetoed and that house then has the opportunity to reconsider the item. That is the constitutional basis for, and extent of, any bargaining or horse trading involving veto power for appropriations bills. It is a process that involves the legislature and the governor. It does not involve DA's.

The governor demanding of a DA that they must step down or else the funding for an office they head will be vetoed as a line item on the next appropriations bill is not an activity that enjoys any constitutional justification, as far as I can tell. If such constitutional justification exists, I invite you to correct me.

Crucially, such an action not only finds no justification in the constitution, it actively contravenes Article 16, Sec. 41, which I've already pointed you towards.

Just to explain the situation for you a bit: though the word 'veto' appears nowhere in the Texas constitution so far as I see, when Article 4 details the process by which the executive rejects a bill that is what is widely referred to as a 'veto'.

And no, the constitution does not allow governors and legislators, or any other official with power, to horse-trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they like (see Article 16, Sec 41). The conditions and details of the case in question go to the heart of if this was a lawful use for a lawful purpose, which it does not appear to have been.

Please cite the specific text that prohibits a governor or legislator to trade, threaten, or plead with anyone they please. Please cite the text that says they may trade, threaten, or horse trade with some people, but not others.

You are free to advance air castles with supercilious affectations, but it won't be convincing.

I am not motivated by your claim that you don't find me convincing. I have provided you with the relevant articles and sections of the pertinent state constitution that deal with both the veto process and with the prohibition of bribes and related quid pro qui. I now consider as fulfilled any obligations that I might have inadvertently assumed toward your education on the subject.

 

[barbos]

Can someone give a summary?

The DA who supervises a public corruption unit got hammered and pulled over with a .239 BAC. Videos emerged of her drunken antics, which included her changing her story on the fly, failing to negotiate a straight line, and various comments of the "don't you know who I am you're going to pay for this" variety. For some odd reason many people thought this sort of person should not be a DA in charge of a public corruption unit. When she refused to resign, Perry threatened to veto funding to her office and apparently did. A highly political Austin DA feels this use of the veto power is a crime. Based on what legal argument I have no idea.

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/22045698/dash-cam-video-of-travis-co-das-arrest-released

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

She seems drunk on both youtube videos, I mean she was still drunk in the morning.
I have zero tolerance for people who try to kill me (drunk drivers) and I can't see her working in DA office after that.