On-Topic Tex Gov. Perry Indicted on Felony Counts

[Benvolio]

The only question is whether the statute covers that.

No, even if the statute covers it, the question remains whether the legislature can limit or criminalize the governors use of the veto. If they can criminalize his use to remove a law breaker from office, why not make it a crime for the Governor to veto bills passed by the legislature? No doubt, part of the purpose of the veto is to give the governor a tool to use in negotiation and compromise.

 

[Vitamin]

That's pretty sketchy.

Since when is money not something of value and considered property???

 

[TX-Beau]

No, even if the statute covers it, the question remains whether the legislature can limit or criminalize the governors use of the veto. If they can criminalize his use to remove a law breaker from office, why not make it a crime for the Governor to veto bills passed by the legislature? No doubt, part of the purpose of the veto is to give the governor a tool to use in negotiation and compromise.

My my, where to start, the "legislature" is full of Republican Wing-Nuts you'd let nut in your mouth and isn't even involved anyway, so, no "question" there. If it was up to them, you'd be having spontaneous orgasms over the speed they'd make killing this.

It's not within the Governors purview to "remove law breakers from [elected] office," (or indeed any office not his) so no joy there either. HE'S NOT BEEN INDICTED FOR USING A LINE ITEM BUDGET VETO AND NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED ALTERING THE LINE ITEM BUDGET VETO IN ANY WAY!!!!! Repeated for what, the fourth time.


Whatever the "purpose" of the line item budget veto no one gets to use it to fuck over the voters simply because they don't like who the voters elected. He can try to elect someone to replace her - oh wait, he can't pull that off.

Of course Ben is a "conservative" (still not sure how he defines that) so fucking over voters is a non-issue.

Poor Ben, for a "lawyer" you seem to be singularly unable to parse the legal issues in this case. Where did you go to law school?

 

[Kulindahr]

Since when is money not something of value and considered property???

Because the money in this instance is something he has legitimate authority over. But from what I'm now reading, it goes far beyond the money for that particular department, and it's strongly evident there that he was playing favorites and political games with state money. That isn't kosher, and it's why I'm starting to think he just might go down.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's not within the Governors purview to "remove law breakers from [elected] office," (or indeed any office not his) so no joy there either. HE'S NOT BEEN INDICTED FOR USING A LINE ITEM BUDGET VETO AND NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED ALTERING THE LINE ITEM BUDGET VETO IN ANY WAY!!!!! Repeated for what, the fourth time.


Whatever the "purpose" of the line item budget veto no one gets to use it to fuck over the voters simply because they don't like who the voters elected. He can try to elect someone to replace her - oh wait, he can't pull that off.

That's the key here. For people who on other topics scream that you can't go against the vote of the people, defending Perry here is ludicrous.

 

[Benvolio]

This from democrat Huffington Post in the OP:" A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for allegedly abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding...."
So yes, he was indicted for the VETO, a power granted to him by the constitution.

 

[mightbe]

This from democrat Huffington Post in the OP:" A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for allegedly abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding...."
So yes, he was indicted for the VETO, a power granted to him by the constitution.

The next word is funding. Funding withheld. Funding that would support an investigation of his office. An investigation into his office that was defunded because he may be hiding something. Hiding something as in possible corruption, nepotism, obstruction of justice. Corruption as in would send him out of politics forever, obstruction of justice as in would be sent to prison.

It has very little to do with the act of vetoing. It is entirely to do with WHY.

 

[Benvolio]

The next word is funding. Funding withheld. Funding that would support an investigation of his office. An investigation into his office that was defunded because he may be hiding something. Hiding something as in possible corruption, nepotism, obstruction of justice. Corruption as in would send him out of politics forever, obstruction of justice as in would be sent to prison.

It has very little to do with the act of vetoing. It is entirely to do with WHY.

The constitutional grant of the veto power does not have an exception for funding. Indeed, the line item veto is always about funding. The leglature does not have the power to create exceptions. Your post illustrates the democrat desire to criminalize the veto for political purposes.
And remember, the governor is the chief executive. He is entitled to threaten state officials and employees with discharge and budget reductions, to
get the job done. That is part of what Presidents and governors are supposed to do.
Courts need to be concerned with the precedents they are setting. If this case goes forward, every veto will revoke a lawsuit or prosecution by someone who thinks it was for a bad reason. The opposing party will claim coercion every time the governor threatens a veto.

 

[mightbe]

You miss the point. The indictment has nothing to do with the veto. It has everything to do with that particular veto's usage. The governor is not above the law. The law has provisions against government corruption. The corruption isn't that he fired someone for the DUI. It's that he defunded a program and forced the head to resign to cover up his own investigation.

Nothing to do with the veto and not necessarily related to the forced resignation. It has everything to do with the investigation. The cover may stem from the veto but isn't connected to it. It was a preexisting investigation.

 

[Benvolio]

Here is a law professor in the democrat Washington Post explaining why the prosecution is unconstitutional; http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lly-intrudes-on-the-gubernatorial-veto-power/

 

[TX-Beau]

Do you even bother to read your links? Here's what the Cornell law professor had to say:

...All of this seems perfectly routine and must be obvious to special prosecutor Michael McCrum. He is not charging Perry with making a poor or even foolish decision by vetoing the public corruption unit's budget. The indictment charges that Perry used what would otherwise be a perfectly legal tool for an illegal purpose, and thus committed unlawful acts. Once one thinks this through, one realizes that the defense Perry has thus far publicly mounted is inadequate. It would be as though someone who was charged with committing murder by deliberately running over his victim with his car protested: "But I have a license to operate a motor vehicle."

Your Link.

Then the other guy doesn't even address the corruption charge, and doesn't represent this as anything but his opinion - and you know shit about the politics of anyone involved.

 

[Benvolio]

Do you even bother to read your links? Here's what the Cornell law professor had to say:



Your Link.

Then the other guy doesn't even address the corruption charge, and doesn't represent this as anything but his opinion - and you know shit about the politics of anyone involved.

You took it out of context. He then proceeds to explain why the prosecution is unconstitutional. It of course is more than an opinion. The legislature cannot amend the constitution. Period.

 

[TX-Beau]

Genius this is how your columnist concludes:

... Now note that all of this has just been focused on preserving the constitutionally prescribed allocation of power; it doesn't say what allocation of power the constitution should prescribe. Indeed, some other provisions of the constitution already deter the governor from exercising certain vetoes. The governor might be impeached for such a veto. The governor might lose the next election, or see his allies in the legislature lose the next election. The legislature might respond by flexing its own muscles, for instance refusing to enact laws that the governor wants to see elected, or refusing to confirm the governor’s appointments. I’m not criticizing these constraints on the veto power because they are actually constitutionally prescribed constraints.

Your Source. None of which ADDRESSES THE INDICTMENT ITSELF!

I'm thinking that I'll stick with the Republican Presiding Justice and the Republican Special Prosecutor who actually practice here.

 

[Benvolio]

Impeachment is an entirely different procedure, which would be the proper way to challenge executive misbehavior. This prosecution is an attempt to by-pass the impeachment.
The Judge has not at this point ruled on the constitutional defect.

 

[Kulindahr]

The constitutional grant of the veto power does not have an exception for funding. Indeed, the line item veto is always about funding. The leglature does not have the power to create exceptions. Your post illustrates the democrat desire to criminalize the veto for political purposes.
And remember, the governor is the chief executive. He is entitled to threaten state officials and employees with discharge and budget reductions, to
get the job done. That is part of what Presidents and governors are supposed to do.

It's long been plain you're an authoritarian, but this is the first time you've clearly stated your support for a dictatorship.

Courts need to be concerned with the precedents they are setting. If this case goes forward, every veto will revoke a lawsuit or prosecution by someone who thinks it was for a bad reason. The opposing party will claim coercion every time the governor threatens a veto.

This is so removed from reality I can't even grasp how anyone could believe it.

 

[Kulindahr]

You miss the point. The indictment has nothing to do with the veto. It has everything to do with that particular veto's usage. The governor is not above the law. The law has provisions against government corruption. The corruption isn't that he fired someone for the DUI. It's that he defunded a program and forced the head to resign to cover up his own investigation.

Nothing to do with the veto and not necessarily related to the forced resignation. It has everything to do with the investigation. The cover may stem from the veto but isn't connected to it. It was a preexisting investigation.

In other words, it wouldn't matter whether the veto was involved, or some other gubernatorial power, the point is the use of a power for personal reasons, specifically the reason of trying to escape an investigation into alleged corrupt activities.

 

[Benvolio]

In other words, it wouldn't matter whether the veto was involved, or some other gubernatorial power, the point is the use of a power for personal reasons, specifically the reason of trying to escape an investigation into alleged corrupt activities.

He is being prosecuted for using the veto, I.e. carrying out his threat to veto. Any way you word it, you are trying to limit his constitutional power to veto. The constitution does not say, the governor can veto, except for a personal reason, or trying to escape investigation. Nor does it say that he can veto but only at his peril because he may go to jail if his enemies think up a new exception. You are in effect trying to amend the constitution. Neither you nor the legislature can do that.

 

[opinterph]

The outcome remains to be seen, but here are several relevant links:

The criminal case against Perry centers on his “coercion” of a local elected official using threats and promises. It is not premised—as has been repeatedly misreported—on the veto itself. (Forrest Wilder; The Texas Observer; August 18, 2014)

What the Pundits Don’t Get About the Rick Perry Indictment

Grand jurors offended by Perry suggestion indictment was political (Houston Chronicle; August 19, 2014)

The State of Texas v. James Richard “Rick” Perry: INDICTMENT

 

[Benvolio]

The Huffington post said he was indicted for carrying out his threat to veto. The indictment itself seems to have been designed to avoid the veto power but I don't think it succeeds. The first count says he misused property, I.e the funds voted for the unit. It is obscure but this appears to be a devious way of saying he vetoed the funds voted. To me it is clear that the prosecutor agrees that he cannot base his claim on the veto and is trying to double talk his way around it. The second count says he coerced by threatening the veto. This dog will not hunt. Threatening the veto is inherent in the veto and is part of its intended purpose to enable the executive to influence legislation.
The Texas observer article also mentions promises, but I do not see that in the indictment.

 

[TX-Beau]

The Huffington post said he was indicted for carrying out his threat to veto...

Perry is accused of using his veto authority to coerce a publicly elected official into leaving office. And when the veto threat, and later the actual exercise of the veto didn't work, he may have tried a bit of bribery, which is why he is facing criminal charges.

(emphasis mine)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-rick-perry-will-be-co_b_5686664.html

No, that isn't what HuffPo said. Who cares what you "see," you aren't an expert, and you're the most biased person on this forum.