|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
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
|
|