it's possible the indictment isn't over the veto, but what allegedly happened afterwards:
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/...if-da-would-r/Even after Gov. Rick Perry stripped funding for the agency that prosecutes state public corruption cases, his emissaries worked to swap the resignation of embattled Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg for restoration of the money, several sources told The Texas Tribune this week.
The Tribune learned of the proposal as a grand jury considers whether Perry overstepped his authority last year when he threatened to veto the public integrity unit’s state funding if Lehmberg did not step down after she was arrested for drunken driving. The sources said the offer was made to Lehmberg through several back channels: If Lehmberg — a Democrat whose office was in charge of investigating state officeholders — would resign, Perry would restore the two years in state funds, about $7.5 million, that he had vetoed following her April 12, 2013, arrest and subsequent guilty plea.
“It was communicated to me if she stepped out, [Perry] would restore the funding,” said Travis County Judge Samuel T. Biscoe, a Democrat who said he was one of several people made aware of the proposal from Perry’s office. “I was told his office made the representations.”
From the above:
“Neither the governor nor any member of staff met with or spoke with Ms. Lehmberg,” Parsons said.
Asked if anyone from the governor’s staff told others to convey any offer, he declined to comment, citing the pending grand jury investigation.
I will tell you this, but I won't tell you that.
God I love this State, it's so full of fun.
You made a statement that you claim to be my argument which its not. That is a strawman. Your accusation of not knowing what a strawman is baseless flailing.
I pointed out that the Texas legal system had de facto corruption with campaign contributions from various cons uents and as such i think it is a fair question to ask along those lines. You invented all this other nonsense and are desperately trying to win a point. Most of this post other than your strawman was ad hominem characterizations.
You haven't picked apart . Picking apart would actually mean going into the sentence structure and words I actually said. Instead what you do is translate it into something else and then argue that. I don't think you are capable of having a semantic arguments. It seems outside your scope.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 08-19-2014 at 11:41 AM.
All 4 GOP Governors Running For President Targets Of Corruption Probes
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...er1016111&t=12
Even the NYT editorial board thinks this is stupid
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/op...f=opinion&_r=2
"not necessarily a felony"
In TX, the allegation is a state felony.
Wasn't it the Dems that tried to overturn the 2000 eelection result? The others you mentioned are based on the actions of the individual and not losing an election.
the Dems wanted a recount, which 2000 Repug lawyers and thugs descended on FL to obstruct.
The Repug SCOTUS, esp the nasty little troll Scalia, said Jan 20 swear in date was more important than swearing in the right guy, giving the US dubya/ hnead, botched Afganistan, the Iraq war-for-oil, 9/11, privatization of Medicare (part D), loss of O/T pay for 1000s, loss of bankruptcy exit for student loans, severe tax cuts for the wealthy, ignoring of the housing/credit bubble, and general assorted incompetence, misgovernance ad nauseam.
Prosecutors have wide, almost unlimited, la ude to decide which cases to bring. The reason is obvious: there is simply no way that the government could prosecute every violation of law it sees. Think about tax evasion, marijuana use, speeding, jay-walking—we’d live in a police state if the government went after every one of these cases.
(Indeed, virtually all plea bargaining, which is an ubiquitous practice, amounts to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.) As a result, courts give prosecutors virtual carte blanche to bring some cases and ignore others. But, once they do bring them, courts respond to the argument that “everyone does it” more or less the same way that your mother did. It’s no excuse. So if Perry’s behavior fits within the technical definition of the two statutes under which he’s charged, which it well might, he’s probably out of luck.
Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited. The executive branch can refrain from prosecuting certain individuals, but it cannot, in theory, offer immunity to entire classes of law-breakers.
Nor can a prosecutor only charge people of a certain race, or, for that matter, political party. But it’s hard to know who would have standing to challenge a failure to bring a criminal case or a deportation. The rules of standing are usually limited to individuals who have suffered a specific harm, and there’s no harm in not being prosecuted. (The New Republic has a useful primer on the subject. )
That sort of limitation on prosecutorial discretion is unlikely to help Rick Perry. His complaint is that the prosecutor is bringing one case too many, not too few. That claim, almost invariably, is a loser. So, it turns out, may be the soon-to-be-former governor.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/rick-perry-may-luck
This "case" goes nowhere in spite of how badly moonbats want it to.
TBAlways shows up to stalk The Great Boutons
Your boy RickyBobby is a ing loser, fashion glasses can't save him, a typical corrupt TX Repug, won't do in the Repug Pres primaries.
Not stalking, you less RSS fellator.
Perry has never been my boy, moron. I voted Dem the last two times I voted in Gubernatorial elections.
God Damn boy....you're a ing loon.
Nope. The case was styled Bush v. Gore. Bush sued Gore, after stopping a recount, and after suing Palm Beach County.
Repugs are pissed off that they IMAGINE that their boy RickyBobby might be the target of smash-mouth, bad faith politicking, smearing?
ah, what a pity. sniff sniff
Typical less bullies dish it out non-stop for years, but can't stand having the tables turned, at least in their paranoid imaginations.
The potential cons utional problem with the indictment arises from the way the state’s cons ution allocates power between the governor and the legislature. The Texas Cons ution gives the governor broad discretion to decide which bills he wishes to veto and why he chooses to veto them. Moreover, that cons ution contains an explicit protection against one branch of government attempting to encroach upon the powers of the others. “The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments,” the state cons ution proclaims, “and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.”
Though we are unaware of a case decided by a Texas state court which lays out if and when the state legislature can regulate the governor’s veto power, there is a United States Supreme Court case that is likely to inform the judges who consider Perry’s case. In 1996, Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act, which purported to give the president the power to cancel individual line items in a much larger appropriations bill. Two years later, in a case calledClinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court declared this law uncons utional. Quoting President George Washington, the Court explained that the president’s veto power allows him to “approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto.” An ordinary Act of Congress could not upset this balance of power between the Executive and the Legislative branches. Only a cons utional amendment may change the president’s veto power so that he may veto only part of a bill.
The Perry indictment presents a mirror image of the issue in Clinton, but a similar cons utional principle is likely to apply. Unlike the federal cons ution, the Texas Cons ution explicitly gives Perry a line-item veto power. This is the power he used to cancel funding for the Travis County District Attorney’s Office’s Public Integrity Unit. Yet, if an ordinary act of the legislature cannot reallocate power away from the legislative branch and towards the executive, than it is unlikely that a similar act could take power away from the executive and give it to the legislature. In both cases, the law would seek to reallocate a balance of power set by a cons ution, and that requires a cons utional amendment.
Texas courts are not bound by Supreme Court precedents when they interpret their state’s own cons ution, so it is possible that the Texas courts will diverge from Clinton. But Clintonis a highly persuasive precedent, and Texas’ courts are dominated by members of Perry’s own party. It is unlikely that they will reject the separation of powers principles established by the Supreme Court. And, if they do not, then it is equally unlikely that they will allow a state statute to be used to criminalize the governor’s use of his own veto power.
So it is fairly likely that Perry will escape conviction due to a cons utional flaw in the indictment. Yet, even though Perry’s actions may be legal, that does not mean that they are defensible on moral or ethical ground. At best, it is likely that Perry used his power in an attempt to place his own party in charge of a key prosecutor’s office. At worst, he may have done so to shut down a specific investigation.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-cons ution/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...tml?ml=m_t3_2h
Why Liberal Pundits Are Wrong About the Perry Indictment
Rick Perry once said:
"Guns require a finger to pull the trigger."
That's true. Sadly, Ricky's fingers are gonna have to itch themselves for at least another year—maybe more. Turns out there's federal law (and Texas law) that does not allow someone under indictment to carry arms. As the Austin American-Statesman points out, the law–18 USC 922(n) says:
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
But, it gets so much better:
As an indictee, Perry’s state-issued Concealed Handgun License, assuming he still has one — his office didn’t know as of Tuesday afternoon — will be suspended until the case against him is decided [...]And, he noted, Perry can no longer carry a handgun while jogging on public property, as he was doing when he famously gunned down a menacing coyote in 2010.
Teehee.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/21/1323537/-Not-so-fast-gov-nur-you-ll-have-to-leave-those-with-me?detail=email
Travis DA’s Drunken-Driving Arrest Riled Perry; Others’ Didn’t
By CHRISTY HOPPE
Austin Bureau
[email protected]
Published: 19 August 2014 11:42 PM
Updated: 19 August 2014 11:55 PM
Related
Perry vows to fight ‘with every fiber’
more...AUSTIN — Rick Perry was outraged at the spectacle of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s drunken-driving arrest last year. But he didn’t feel that strongly when two other district attorneys faced the same charges under similar cir stances.
In those cases, he said and did nothing.
There were differences, chiefly that Perry had leverage over Lehmberg, whose office contains the state-funded Public Integrity Unit. As the governor builds his defense against felony coercion and abuse of power charges partly around concerns about Lehmberg’s behavior, Democrats are pointing to the two previous cases as a sign that the governor had other motives.
“The key difference was that one of the DAs was investigating his administration for corruption and the other two DAs weren’t,” said Democratic strategist Jason Stanford.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state...hers-didnt.ece
Democratic consultant Stanford, who called for Lehmberg to step down after her arrest, said Perry stepped over a line when he continued to negotiate ways to remove her from office even after vetoing the funds.
The above could be big if they really have evidence on just how this was being negotiated.
Interesting. I heard some talking head allude to the possibility that there is something there that the public hasn't seen yet.
I dunno. Seems on its face overblown, but the grand jury seemed to see enough to move it along.
I will wait until I see more to have any kind of firm opinion either way.
I expect it to end like Tom DeLays. A conviction in the Travis County monkey court and an overturn on appeal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
