|
The inditement might be legit or not, it doesn't matter because Rick Perry will win on appeals. Remember, Texas has an all Republican Criminal Court of Appeals (the final court for criminal cases).
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:Man count one of that indictment looks shaky as all hell. He misused funds by exercising a veto? that's the loving argument you're going with? The idea is he exercised a veto with the express intent of getting an elected official (currently investigating Perry's slushfunds) to resign. He gutted the PIU not because he didn't like the work they were doing but so that their elected boss would resign. However, I agree with you that Republican judges will likely find these non-criminal actions. The source you should be looking for is http://texastribune.org they're the best source of Texas political news.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Edit: The forums in fact hosed up on this one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:Yeah, that's the coercion count, #2. The first count in the indictment says that exercise of that veto was tantamount to misusing funds. Instead, I think the second count is telling the DA "resign or else I'll veto" the first count is "I'm vetoing this in an attempt to coerce a public official into resigning". However, yeah I'm sure the ruling on appeals will be that anything dealing with signing/vetoing a bill is exempt from these statutes. Also Texas has always had one of the weakest governors. It wasn't until Perry was in office long enough he was able to overcome those protections and become so powerful. The next governor will likely have less control over state policy than the then-former-governor Perry will. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:I'm not sure how to parse it. The indictment doesn't list the statute, but based on the quotes from the article it looks like 39.02: I don't think there's much tap-dancing when the stated deal was "Resign or I will veto the funding for this thing we both think is valuable". That's what makes this criminal, Perry explicitly made this point. That's the illegal part, not the tool he used. So unless Abbott/Davis was trying to get an elected official to resign through their use of their government powers its not the same thing. One of the core limitations on governors is the fact that there are many powerful commissions with commissioners that rotate in a staggered fashion. So unless you're Perry and just get reelected forever, there is a limit on your ability to influence these commissioners appointed before you. Until you can blatantly say "unless you resign, I'll defund everything you care about" and have that be legal. Instead, I hope that the Republican judges who grant Perry his win use some other loophole to get Perry off, so that we don't end up changing the balance of power in Texas over this. Texas had a governor before that tried to veto funding to get people fired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Once the Rosemary Lehmberg - the Travis County DA was arrested for DUI and the ensuing drama unfolded. Supposedly Rick Perry or his office went behind closed doors and promised her a job if she resigned voluntarily. The Texas Tribune has backed that up and Lehmberg said that part of the reason she didn't agree was because she thought it was illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Going to be hard because the Perry administration is very meticulous about avoiding written communication. But yes if somebody hosed up and wrote that down or the special prosecutor has credible witnesses then Perry is in trouble. It will get 100% overturned on appeal even if there was a handwritten note that says "I Rick Perry, as an illegal use of my official powers, do hereby veto this funding and order the Texas DPS to murder 4 prostitutes." The elected judges (R) won't stand for it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Yeah he is. This is it: Smug.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Why do politicians always get to have mugshots like it's grade school picture day? Where's the little sign he's supposed to be showing, and the height measuring stick embedded in the wall behind him? Nah, that's a normal mugshot for Travis County. Perry just knew to dress snazzy because he was turning himself in.  (http://www.bustedmugshots.com/texas/austin/nicholas-willy/157246741)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Adar posted:Grand juries hear no exculpatory evidence and will indict a hand sandwich. Indictments are paperwork to go through (unless there's a cop involved lol) before getting to the important part. For a Texas jury to convict on these facts is going to take a minor miracle. While grand juries are easy to get to indict anything, a Bush-appointed prosecutor knows better than to stake his reputation on a flimsy case. I don't think this case is so easy for Perry. I know the defense is arguing that anything he does as a veto is legal, but that's clearly not the intent of the law and Perry made many statements of quid-pro-quo. In a state where previously appointed/elected officials are a direct and intentional limit on the governor's the ability to remove them at whim (and appoint your own), by line-item vetoing any funding they approve of until they resign would dramatically shift the balance of power in Texas. We've basically impeached a governor for this before....(vote Ma, she'll do what Pa says!) I'm pretty sure the jury will be from Austin anyway, so there's that to consider. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:The defense and prosecutors picked the Grand Jurors. Given their experience, I doubt they picked anyone undesirable. As I said earlier - I'm not an expert but my analogy is essentially the same. The defense doesn't have a say in selection of a grand jury (http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/grand-jury-where-community-meets-law) and grand juries are easily led to whatever conclusion prosecutors want (http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/27/the-kaley-forfeiture-decision-what-it-looks-like-when-the-feds-make-their-ham-sandwich/). However, any Republican-appointed prosecutor that brings such bombshell charges knows what will happen if they can't back them up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Elotana posted:He'll shrug and go right back to his lucrative white-collar criminal defense practice? Sure, but he was appointed by Bush when he was appointed. I'm saying making Perry your enemy in Texas isn't exactly a no-cost decision in Texas.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted: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. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted: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. I find that State v. Hanson case really interesting. That sounds like the best case to be cited on appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:A 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). Wait, how on earth did we make it a removable offense for all those people to be intoxicated off-duty? Even in 1987 I thought Texas was pretty pro-booze.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Politico is GOP swill. Politico is. But that article wasn't written by politico, it was written by the people who filed the complaint against Perry. quote:Craig McDonald is director and Andrew Wheat is research director of Texans for Public Justice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:It just seems at this point that there really isn't a hope in the world to convict one of the most corrupt governors in the history of Texas, and that's pretty sad. I think he'll be convicted but will win on appeal because of the (R) behind the appeals judges' names.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:So the Statesman is reporting that Perry's office had called Mindy Montford to discuss replacing Lehmberg. Don't know if that's legal, but it's worth noting Montford is a Democrat. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That may be the point of the Texas Constitution, but you can only do that through the Constitution. You can't take away one of the megre powers the Texas Constitution grants the governor through litigation. On the flip-side, I think it would be incredibly foolish to legalize quid-pro-quo vetoes under the guise of it being a legislative action, especially in a state with line item vetoes and commissions that are appointed on a rotating basis. But then again, maybe the Texas Government textbooks in 10 years will explain that "while technically commissions are appointed on a rotating cycle, it is custom for all commissioners to resign when a new governor is elected." twodot posted:Even if it is, I don't see how that would justify vague or overbroad limits, which is one of their several arguments. This is the most interesting one to me, they are claiming immunity because his veto power functions as a legislative action: Without case law, that looks pretty broad to me: The Texas Constitution posted:Sec. 21. WORDS SPOKEN IN DEBATE. No member shall be questioned in any other place for words spoken in debate in either House.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:This is probably not the best way to spend your Sunday evening, Rick. What's great about this is its not even accurate. But it is the media narrative Perry wants.....
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Its ok guys, the tweet was "unauthorized" nothing to see here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted: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? Presumably Perry is like most politicians who has a staffer in their 20s who actually does all the tweeting for them. Probably said person didn't realize the rules change after you've been formally indicted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Juvenalian.Satyr posted:The issue with that is that these cases set precdents that would carry into other prosecution and legal proceedings, they don't exist in a vacuum. The precedent set by allowing the governor to override the democratic process with line-item veto threats is far worse than the risks from banning quid pro quo vetos.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Eh, Also the DA didn't file the complaint that led to an investigation not is she involved in the inditement. So it is very much trying to effect the narrative by spreading untruths. (I'm sure politifact Texas will rank Perry's statements "mostly true"  )
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 20:00
|
|