|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
I would love Perry to be guilty, but this case is such an embarrassment that whoever brought it should be out of a job. This is not a crime, however sleazy. A governor is entirely within their rights to make a veto threat in these circumstances and if there's an abuse of power here its the prosecutor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
So let me see if I've got all of this straight: - Perry awards contract for HPV vaccine to the company of a political donor - The state Political Integrity Unit (run by a county DA, what?) begins investigating possible corruption - Said county DA gets a drunk driving charge and makes an rear end of herself - Perry tries to get her to step down, with the side benefit of appointing her replacement - DA refuses, Perry threatens to veto funding of the department - Perry vetoes funding - First count alleges that vetoing funds to get the DA to step down was a misuse of state funds. What specifically about this makes it not a legal use of the governor's veto power? - Second count alleges that Perry illegally tried to coerce a state official by using his veto power. As I understand it this charge is on more solid ground?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted: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 06:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. .23 BAC, how is she not dead?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:.23 BAC, how is she not dead?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Governor, you have the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present when you speak with us, and the right to...to- I-I can't. Sorry. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted: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. Perry isn't exactly known for being the sharpest knife in the drawer. That said, he might have a legitimate first amendment argument. How is, 'I will veto this spending unless Lehmberg steps down,' significantly different from, 'I vetoed that spending, because Lehmberg is in charge?' In both cases, Perry is cutting off funding until Lehmberg quits. They're both political statements, the only real difference is tense. You can make the argument that he could have just issued the veto without explaining why he vetoed the funding, but as an elected official, he is generally obligated to explain to voters why he vetoed a particular piece of legislation. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted: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. This seems like a very pedantic argument, though (not you, just in general). What difference should it make in the order in which things happened in this case? Isn't "I will do x unless you do y" basically the same as "I did x, because she didn't do y"? The talking point that's already catching on among the right here is that Perry was attempting to use his legal powers of veto to remove an irresponsible person out of an important position. I'm just confused about how the law puts him in the wrong on that, especially from some of the posts in this thread. If I'm going to argue against this narrative I'd really like to establish exactly what he did wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Hey, remember Bridgegate? That looked, and looks, pretty bad, right? Even though Christie's still standing and the investigation is probably dead, it's going to taint his career for a while. Because 1) he made the lives of citizens intentionally worse, 2) he did for his own selfish gain, and 3) he did it hidden well away from the public eye. Rick Perry, meanwhile, 1) was only targeting a politician who committed a serious crime, 2) he gave a reason that he can at least make a case for to the general public, and 3) he did it out in the open instead of skulking around. None of that has anything to do with whether his methods were legal (at least I think it doesn't, I'm not a lawyer), but I don't really see this affecting his support or popularity without either serious jail time (not likely) or some major new revelations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:This seems like a very pedantic argument, though (not you, just in general). What difference should it make in the order in which things happened in this case? Isn't "I will do x unless you do y" basically the same as "I did x, because she didn't do y"? MisterBadIdea posted:Hey, remember Bridgegate? That looked, and looks, pretty bad, right? Even though Christie's still standing and the investigation is probably dead, it's going to taint his career for a while. Because 1) he made the lives of citizens intentionally worse, 2) he did for his own selfish gain, and 3) he did it hidden well away from the public eye. ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Elotana posted: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" The Governor is not the governing officer of the Travis County District Attorney's office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Hey, remember Bridgegate? That looked, and looks, pretty bad, right? Even though Christie's still standing and the investigation is probably dead, it's going to taint his career for a while. Because 1) he made the lives of citizens intentionally worse, 2) he did for his own selfish gain, and 3) he did it hidden well away from the public eye. Hey, remember the Moreland commission? Where NY Governor Cuomo gave them carte blanche to investigate NY corruption, until they actually started investigating corruption in the Governer's office, and Cuomo shut the whole investigation down. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
There's a good article up on The Texas Tribune, that discusses many of the points in this thread: http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/five-things-know-about-perry-indictment/quote:It’s Not Just the Veto: No one disputes that Perry, a Republican, had the authority to use his line-item veto power, guaranteed by the Texas Constitution, to eliminate the $7.5 million in two-year state funding for the public integrity unit. Also the article points out that the prosecutor in this case isn't from the Travis County DA and was appointed by a Republican judge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
foot posted:The Governor is not the governing officer of the Travis County District Attorney's office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I would love Perry to be guilty, but this case is such an embarrassment that whoever brought it should be out of a job. This is not a crime, however sleazy. A governor is entirely within their rights to make a veto threat in these circumstances and if there's an abuse of power here its the prosecutor. I assume "in these circumstances" refers to the DUI? The DUI shouldn't matter. Either he has the right to try and force an elected official to resign via a veto threat or he doesn't. It's not like there is a law with an asterisk next to it with the text *if convicted of a crime. Obviously from the discussion here it may not actually be a crime under the law, but I don't like the idea of my governor having the ability to tell an elected official that if they don't resign their funding will be cut. What's to stop him from telling a state congressman that if he doesn't step down he will veto all funding for projects in his district? In a legal sense how is that different from this? I'm really asking, maybe there is something I am missing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There's a good article up on The Texas Tribune, that discusses many of the points in this thread: http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/five-things-know-about-perry-indictment/
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I assume "in these circumstances" refers to the DUI? The DUI shouldn't matter. Either he has the right to try and force an elected official to resign via a veto threat or he doesn't. It's not like there is a law with an asterisk next to it with the text *if convicted of a crime. Part of the argument is that it is purely political. I don't mean that as a strictly R vs D political battle, but as something that can be resolved amongst politicians, straight up old school separation of powers political. If a governor tried to strongarm a state congressman in the way you suggested, it's likely that other state congressman would try to assert their power. The Texas governor has pretty weak executive powers, most of the power comes from having a bully pulpit. (The Railroad commissioner arguably has more power than the governor.) So pissing off an otherwise friendly state senate wouldn't be in the best interest for a governor. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Some useful background on subsection (c) of the Coercion section of Texas law can be found here; it's an analysis of the bill that added the subsection by the House Research Organization, and gives a bit more information on what it's about. The wording of the subsection seems pretty broadly applicable so maybe there's jurisprudence I haven't seen yet that would limit it. If the roles were reversed could the DA threaten Perry and tell him to resign or she'll investigate him? Can the governor tell any state / county / city employee to resign or he'll veto funding for their department?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Some useful background on subsection (c) of the Coercion section of Texas law can be found here; it's an analysis of the bill that added the subsection by the House Research Organization, and gives a bit more information on what it's about. It was actually a reconstruction setup where Travis County was set up in charge of investigating state corruption. So Travis County is a bit unique that it is the the only county charged with investigating state level corruption. Rick Perry can't really deny funds to the DA office in cities like Dallas or Houston, because he has no control over their budgets, since the vast majority of their money comes from local property taxes. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Some useful background on subsection (c) of the Coercion section of Texas law can be found here; it's an analysis of the bill that added the subsection by the House Research Organization, and gives a bit more information on what it's about. I would argue it's an abuse of power for a DA to threaten an investigation if they don't get something, because an investigation probably has legal restrictions on what level of actual suspicion you need. A veto, however, is granted to the governor to use in their discretion by the state Constitution and they're the final arbiter of what they will and will not veto. It's not an abuse of power to horse-trade over vetoes, and that's part of the point: a governor (or President) says "if you pass this as is, I will veto it" then you negotiate over what he will or will not veto. If you don't like a governor's vetoes your only recourse is the ballot box.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I don't see how this doesn't get tossed for actually being a political issue wrapped in criminal charges.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
quote:Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. Just going by a literal reading, I don't see how he violated the is law. Which "specific exercise" of official power was Perry trying to influence? Or which "specific performance" of official duty was Perry trying to influence? Resigning is is not an official duty. The power to resign is not an official power. Resigning is what you do to relieve yourself of official duties. I haven't found a list of duties for DA's in Texas, but I'm pretty sure "the duty to resign" or "the duty to not resign" isn't on it. Those would be incoherent as duties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Just going by a literal reading, I don't see how he violated the is law. Which "specific exercise" of official power was Perry trying to influence? Or which "specific performance" of official duty was Perry trying to influence? Resigning is is not an official duty. The power to resign is not an official power. Resigning is what you do to relieve yourself of official duties. I haven't found a list of duties for DA's in Texas, but I'm pretty sure "the duty to resign" or "the duty to not resign" isn't on it. Those would be incoherent as duties. The official duty he was trying to influence was the investigation of his dealings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The official duty he was trying to influence was the investigation of his dealings. Ah, but he did not threaten to veto funding unless the investigation is dropped. So the threat he explicitly did make was legitimate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Ah, but he did not threaten to veto funding unless the investigation is dropped. So the threat he explicitly did make was legitimate? Its also that after Vetoing, Perry kept saying that if the DA resigned Perry would reinstate funding or find her another job in government: quote:The allegation is that Perry improperly combined the two — that he illegally tied his power over integrity unit funding to his demand that Lehmberg resign, essentially setting up a quid pro quo arrangement that crossed the line into an abuse of power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I would love Perry to be guilty, but this case is such an embarrassment that whoever brought it should be out of a job. This is not a crime, however sleazy. A governor is entirely within their rights to make a veto threat in these circumstances and if there's an abuse of power here its the prosecutor. The court could use a black box ruling. Person investigated Perry for wrongdoing, Perry shut down the persons department. The tool used (in this case the line item veto) could easily go into the black box. Thus you show simple cause and effect, You investigate Perry, He shuts you down. The question would come down to if the method used is an element of the crime. We can of course thank a few supreme court rulings that have been using this logic as of late to shut things down that they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's not an abuse of power to horse-trade over vetoes, and that's part of the point: a governor (or President) says "if you pass this as is, I will veto it" then you negotiate over what he will or will not veto. It's not an abuse of power if the entire thing happens within the realm of the legislative body over issues that are relevant to that legislative body, but that isn't at all what happened here. This case, when you look at the mechanics of it, is similar to the Blagojevich case in Illinois. Blagojevich had the right to appoint a Senator. Perry has the right to a line item veto. However, trying to sell those rights off or wave it as a baseball bat like a mobster to circumvent the democratic process is abuse of power. Perry would have gotten to appoint her replacement. So his threat, in reality, is him saying "give me control of the position you were elected into or the funding for your entire office goes away." Whether or not the politician in question said a bunch of stupid poo poo when she was arrested is not relevant here at all. There was no legal requirement that she step down. The governor's office clearly did not have the direct power to fire her. He was trying to trade the threat of his veto for control of an elected position he does not have direct power over under ordinary circumstances. The second order ramifications of them maybe investigating Perry for his own corruption don't actually matter much in my reading of it either. I have no doubt the speculation about that is true, but it's not necessary to even attempt to prove that speculation. The mechanics of what happened here make it clear that this was an abuse of office. He tried to sell control of his veto power off in return for circumventing the election process. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:It's even better - it was .239 several hours after her arrest. Everything's bigger in Texas… 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Texas measures BAC in Imperial pints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I forgot to point out that .239 indicates that there was 1.239 pints of pure alcohol in her blood, which is fairly normal for native Texans at that time of night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Yeah, I forgot to point out that .239 indicates that there was 1.239 pints of pure alcohol in her blood, which is fairly normal for native Texans at that time of night. There's a reason DWI checkpoints never passes the ledg....
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There's a reason DWI checkpoints never passes the ledg....
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:This seems like a very pedantic argument, though (not you, just in general). What difference should it make in the order in which things happened in this case? Isn't "I will do x unless you do y" basically the same as "I did x, because she didn't do y"? Welcome to the legal system, the most pedantic thing in the universe. The issue with accusing Perry here is that it doesn't establish a quid pro quo; which in the American legal system requires a photo of the governor holding a contract which in no uncertain terms delineates the deal which is then notarized by 40 abyssal silithids, signed in the blood of Perry with his phylactery hung from the binding. You don't go to jail as a politician, unless you are on drugs and are black.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
I'd bet just like there are more white welfare recipients there are more white politicians in jail. Just off the top of my head in the last few years there's been like every living Governor of Illinois, some living Governors or Louisiana, Duke Cunningham, James Traficant, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff and so on. Of black politicians I can only think of Jesse Jackson Jr., Kwame Kilpatrick (are we going to get into mayoral level here?) and William Jefferson. I'd definitely agree that a wealthy, white politician is going to get off with a slap on the wrist more of the time than a black politician, but just by sheer weight of numbers I think my people in politics probably still hold the edge in going to jail for crimes, heh. DON'T TRY TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM US OKAY.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I'd bet just like there are more white welfare recipients there are more white politicians in jail. Just off the top of my head in the last few years there's been like every living Governor of Illinois, some living Governors or Louisiana, Duke Cunningham, James Traficant, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff and so on. Of black politicians I can only think of Jesse Jackson Jr., Kwame Kilpatrick (are we going to get into mayoral level here?) and William Jefferson. Fair point, but I'm sticking to my guns that proving corruption in a court of law requires insane levels of proof.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
I agree completely on that, which is why I think this case will go nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:You don't go to jail as a politician, unless you are on drugs and are black. Leland Yee is still my favorite feel-good story of 2014.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:42
|
|
