The Goat Pen

Owlman wrote:Damn, Perry is dumb. But most knew that. He had the 2012 nomination sewed up if he hadn't shown his incompetence in the Republican debates. He has the power to veto. But by connecting that power to someone resigning, he probably committed a felony, at least enough for an independent grand jury to say there's enough there to indict. If he hadn't threatened the person and just cut the funding anyway, he probably wouldn't have an issue now.

Bingo. If he (or his designee) doesn't make the threat, there's no crime, regardless of the veto.

He may get convicted and then years later get it overturned, like Tom DeLay did

aTm wrote:So, in your lawyerly opinion you think he has a snowballs chance in hell of being convicted? I have no such hope.

Oh, there is a chance he'll be convicted. A small chance depending on the jury. But definitely a chance. The jury will come from Austin.

So you think the political leanings of the jury is the most important variable?

As best I can tell the abuse of office statute is designed to prosecute politicians who misuse and appropriate government property for personal gain, like a guy using the county tractors to run his own lawn business. It's also only a felony if the amount appropriated or whatever is over $200k and they are trying to say that the funds he vetoed are what makes it over $200k which is laughable. Coercion of a govt official is also only a felony if the person commits another felony while doing so, which means it's also tied back to the ludicrous idea that the governor vetoing something is tantamount to appropriating govt funds.

Here's the indictment.

No. I think the evidence will be the most important thing. If the evidence is there and the law is explained, regardless of political affiliations, the verdict will be made. The difference is about willingness to believe the evidence. Most, respond appropriately.

Count 1 is basically only a charge that he used his veto of a legislative bill with value over $200k do you believe that will stand up?

Actually, the problem is that he's using his power as governor to intimidate an elected official who's position is one that is to oversee the government. The is supposed to be a wall between the govt and this office to prevent govt influence (Cuomo in New York is potentially facing this same issue, by the way).

Count 1 is that he used his legislative veto in a value over $200,000 to pursue undo influence against an oversight committee that is supposed to be walled off from govt influence.

Part of the problem is the way the office is set up. It's the DA of Austin who faces reelection every 4 years (in this case, I believe 2016). On one hand, you can say that the governor is defunding the office that is supposed to oversee ethics in the government unless he gets to name the person that runs it (he'll get to name her replacement if she resigns). This could be a bad precedent because it gets rid of the independence of the oversight committee and overturn a properly elected position. The solution would be a recall (which they are gathering signatures for) or potentially an impeachment. Bad precedent that each time the governor doesn't like what the oversight committee is investigating of his/her administration, he can just veto their funding.

By the way, this investigation is totally separate from her office but is being headed up by a independent special prosecutor appointed by a judge

aTm wrote:Count 1 is basically only a charge that he used his veto of a legislative bill with value over $200k do you believe that will stand up?

The issue isn't the veto, it's the why behind the veto.

He's using the veto to punish a political enemy and so that he can replace a Democrat with a Republican in that office. That is a textbook definition of abuse of power. His defense can argue that the law is being misapplied and there is prosecutorial overreach, but that's just business as usual in Rick Perry's Texas.

Well the issue for me is the veto, or rather just the act of being a politician should be punished. Perhaps everyone that ends up in the courtroom will be jailed for contempt somehow and justice will be served.

Let the Dems in Texas pursue this. They look foolish. They didn't pursue the resignation of a DA who was a drunk driving belligerent, yet aggressively pursue the person trying to get that drunk driving belligerent out of office.

You clearly just didn't understand the gross misconduct of trying to get her to resign. I mean she's the head of a government oversight committe on ethics! What better person to rule on a committe on govt ethics than a DA in charge of prosecuting DUI using her position to try and get out of one herself! She embodies Texas and US politics as much as the beloved governor with the perfect hair.

aTm wrote:Well the issue for me is the veto, or rather just the act of being a politician should be punished. Perhaps everyone that ends up in the courtroom will be jailed for contempt somehow and justice will be served.

Intent is the whole thing.

Let's say you meet a woman in a hotel bar, you hit it off and you ask her to have sex with you in your room and she agrees. Afterwards, she needs a ride home because she rode to the hotel with friends, so (being a gentleman) you give her $40 to catch a cab. There's nothing illegal at all in that.

Now let's say you meet a woman in a hotel bar, you hit it off and you offer her $40 to have sex with you in your room and she agrees. You have solicited prostitution, which is illegal, and she has committed prostitution, which is also illegal.

Basically, both acts are the same . . . she had sex with you and received $40 from you . . . but legally they're different.

Yes all that is self evident but the distinction would not matter if prostitution wasn't a crime. My problem is that this is a political prosecution and despite Owlman's opinions on law otherwise (and he definitely knows more than me), I still can't see how they plan on convicting under these statutes.

Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:

(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or

(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.

(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.

So basically at the bottom my #1 problem is that the government has exempted itself from this statute at the beginning and they are charging the freaking governor.

And then you have the felony charge, which only applies if the threat used to coerce is a felony. Vetoing is not a felony clearly. So therefore they are using the abuse of office statute to create a felony and that therefore their argument is that Perry's threat was "I will abuse my office if you don't resign!" My my.

Sec. 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or

(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is less than $20;

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $20 or more but less than $500;

(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $500 or more but less than $1,500;

(4) a state jail felony if the value of the use of the thing misused is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;

(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;

(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or

(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $200,000 or more.

It seems to me that the whole argument here is the "intent to obtain benefit" and their argument is that this is talking about "political benefit" rather than what it's really intended to do, which is prosecute officials who appropriate funds for themselves.

sardis wrote:Let the Dems in Texas pursue this. They look foolish. They didn't pursue the resignation of a DA who was a drunk driving belligerent, yet aggressively pursue the person trying to get that drunk driving belligerent out of office.

Dude, it's not the Dems, it's the court. This isn't state assembly members holding hearings, this is an indictment. The Governor of Texas will be arrested, arraigned and tried on felony charges, after the obligatory motions to quash the indictment, dismiss the case, etc. (I'd be stunned if the legislature doesn't try to change the law retroactively as a last resort).

A major part of the problem is the divisive nature of politics these days. In the old days, Perry would've met with Dem leaders and they would've agreed on a mutually acceptable replacement for the woman, then she would've stepped down. Nowadays, these guys can't even take a photo together, much less have conversations and compromises. Perry wouldn't want to be seen as an appeaser of Democrats if he had any future political aspirations and Texas Dems would be idiotic to trust Perry not to back out of the deal once the DA resigned.

The grand jury was set up by local Dems. Without politics involved this wouldn't have happened.

Smart liberals have the fore site to know the political danger of pursuing this. I guess it hasn't sunk in yet with the libs on here.

http://www.businessinsider.com/liberals ... ent-2014-8

sardis wrote:The grand jury was set up by local Dems. Without politics involved this wouldn't have happened.

Are you saying this was a specially convened and selected grand jury? Or was it referred via the normal grand jury process?

Texas is one of two states that utilizes the key-man method rather than random method of grand jury selection so, yes, it is coerced and tainted by politics. Here is an article a few years back analyzing Travis County and their manipulations of grand juries. Even mentions the drunk driving belligerent.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/spec ... e-1/nRmdX/

aTm wrote:Well the issue for me is the veto, or rather just the act of being a politician should be punished. Perhaps everyone that ends up in the courtroom will be jailed for contempt somehow and justice will be served.

But that is not the issue of the court and it is the court that matters in this case.