• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perry hires lawyer for inquiry into veto threat

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Aww, the ultimate "good ol' boy" apparently tried to use his gubernatorial power in an unlawful manner

Perry hires lawyer for inquiry into veto threat

AUSTIN -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry has hired a high-profile Austin defense lawyer to represent him in an investigation into whether he illegally withheld money from the Travis County District Attorney’s office.

KVUE News and the Austin American-Statesman confirmed Sunday evening the hiring of David L. Botsford.

The hiring comes as a special Travis County grand jury is set to be seated Monday to hear evidence into whether Perry broke state laws concerning bribery, coercion and abuse of authority.
 
And you conveniently leave out the part of the DA's drunk driving arrest. Predictable.

And I don't like Perry at all, so this is no defense of him.
 
This is nothing new in Texas. If budgets are cut or salary raised denied, the underlings claim it is extortion and bribery.
 
This is nothing new in Texas. If budgets are cut or salary raised denied, the underlings claim it is extortion and bribery.

Yes but the case in hand is whether the veto was retaliatory. I don't know what the specific veto laws are for the state, but if there are laws that are against it he could be in trouble.

It sounds like a he said she said thing so that's what needs to be proven.
 
And you conveniently leave out the part of the DA's drunk driving arrest. Predictable.

And I don't like Perry at all, so this is no defense of him.


How was the DUI charge relevant to Perry's attempt to shut down the an investigative unit in the DA's office?

from the linked article
When she refused, Perry in June vetoed a state budget item that would have given a $7.5 million allocation to the Public Integrity Unit in the District Attorney’s Office. The unit investigates ethics violations against public officials.

NOW isn't this interesting? Perry refused to pay for a unit that investigates "ethics violations" Could there have been an ongoing investigation he wanted to stop and just used the stupidity of a DA to stop the investigation? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Veto power is just that, veto power. Unless Perry wanted something personal for himself, he can use veto power for any governmental purpose he wants. Cutting of the budget of an agency isn't bribery or corruption UNLESS there is a personal gain for Perry - for which there was not.

Probably his logic is that if DA wouldn't hold herself to public integrity, then that DA doesn't need a Public Integrity Unit.
 
Veto power is just that, veto power. Unless Perry wanted something personal for himself, he can use veto power for any governmental purpose he wants. Cutting of the budget of an agency isn't bribery or corruption UNLESS there is a personal gain for Perry - for which there was not.

Probably his logic is that if DA wouldn't hold herself to public integrity, then that DA doesn't need a Public Integrity Unit.

There is gain for Perry if they can't investigate him.

I don't see what the DA's DUI has to do with it. Can every defense lawyer in Austin use that in their case now?
 
There is gain for Perry if they can't investigate him.

I don't see what the DA's DUI has to do with it. Can every defense lawyer in Austin use that in their case now?

The article mentions the DUI as the reason the overall bill was vetoed. I don't see how a governor vetoing a spending bill from the legislature can be illegal, but I don't live in Texas.
 
The article mentions the DUI as the reason the overall bill was vetoed. I don't see how a governor vetoing a spending bill from the legislature can be illegal, but I don't live in Texas.

And now that it's been vetoed, there won't be any consequences for the DA either. It was probably all legal that he vetoed it, but you do wonder a little about why he did. It really doesn't make any sense to me - the DA had a DUI, therefore I'll defund their investigation unit???
 
And now that it's been vetoed, there won't be any consequences for the DA either. It was probably all legal that he vetoed it, but you do wonder a little about why he did. It really doesn't make any sense to me - the DA had a DUI, therefore I'll defund their investigation unit???

According to the article, he did it because she wouldn't resign. Apparently the governor cannot dismiss district attorneys in Texas. I would be interested to know whether any other similar positions in Texas have committed DUI's and how Perry acted in those instances. The rest of this is just a power play and each party has done what they are authorized to do--either veto a bill or choose not to resign.
 
NOW isn't this interesting? Perry refused to pay for a unit that investigates "ethics violations" Could there have been an ongoing investigation he wanted to stop and just used the stupidity of a DA to stop the investigation? Inquiring minds want to know.

Or.....perhaps Perry refused to pay for a unit that investigates "ethics violations" because it was being run by a DA who committed a serious "ethics violation."

Eh?
 
Yes but the case in hand is whether the veto was retaliatory. I don't know what the specific veto laws are for the state, but if there are laws that are against it he could be in trouble.

It sounds like a he said she said thing so that's what needs to be proven.

A governer vetoed a bill for--gasp!--political reasons?!?
 
A governer vetoed a bill for--gasp!--political reasons?!?

Hard to believe, isn't it? I, too, was soooo shocked! :mrgreen:

Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
 
Had nothing to do with the multiple safety violations that resulted in the BP explosion and oil spill - right?

No, the spill--which had nothing to do with any safety violations on BP's part--was his excuse.
 
There is gain for Perry if they can't investigate him.

I don't see what the DA's DUI has to do with it. Can every defense lawyer in Austin use that in their case now?

So if there is no special unit, other cops can't investigate ethics charges?

Is that what you are trying to say?
 
No, the spill--which had nothing to do with any safety violations on BP's part--was his excuse.

You don't live in the same world I live in, that's for sure.

BP's role in the Deepwater explosion and oil spill has zero relevancy to the topic of this thread
 
A governer vetoed a bill for--gasp!--political reasons?!?

There is a difference between political reasons and personal retaliatory reasons. You know that but if you want to play the stupid con be my guest.

It will all come out in court one way or another. Either way it's a he said she said type of thing so I can't say who is at fault at this point.
 
You don't live in the same world I live in, that's for sure.

BP's role in the Deepwater explosion and oil spill has zero relevancy to the topic of this thread

The topic of the thread is the complaint that politicians make executive decisions based on--gasp--politics.

I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy from your camp.
 
download (1).jpg
This is not the first time Rick has bitten off more than he could chew.
 
There is a difference between political reasons and personal retaliatory reasons. You know that but if you want to play the stupid con be my guest.

It will all come out in court one way or another. Either way it's a he said she said type of thing so I can't say who is at fault at this point.

Tell you what. Just to satisfy everyone, we won't vote to reelect him in November.
 
Back
Top Bottom