• 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!

Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat [W:613/629]

Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
The pretext of a DWI conviction for a person in charge of a Public Integrity Unit,
Click to expand...

The Public Integrity Unity has absolutely nothing to do with DWIs. Try again?

What is the Public Integrity Unit? | KXAN.com

The Public integrity Unit prosecutes insurance fraud, motor fuels tax fraud and government corruption – in 2013 that meant 425 cases. It’s no mistake the Unit is housed at the Travis county DA’s Office, in the capital of Texas where some element of these types of crime can take place. Since 1982 under former DA Ronnie Earl’s watch, The Public Integrity Unit had been state-funded under a reimbursement scheme to the county. In June 2013 when Governor Perry ordered the funding shut off, the unit was left to fend for itself.
Click to expand...

Again, it is nobody is saying veto threats are illegal. What is being said is that Perry's reasons for vetoing set a dangerous precedent and no court will vote in his favor. Not only that, there is no precedent for it. Setting a precedent for it today would allow for executive tyranny. It will not fly.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
Is it now?
Click to expand...

Yes, "If he approve he shall sign it; but if he disapprove it, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which House shall enter the objections at large upon its journal, and proceed to reconsider it."
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

I actually think Rick Perry is probably one of the more honest politicians in that he doesn't go to great lengths to hide his overt snake oil salesmen esq trappings.


He's in it for the money and he makes no bones about it. Played Democrat for as long as he needed to then once he understood who was who he promptly became an oil lobbyist unofficially under the guise of governor.


In some sense you have to at least respect that. It's a solid transition and a logical one.



NslL61g.jpg
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
Yes, "If he approve he shall sign it; but if he disapprove it, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which House shall enter the objections at large upon its journal, and proceed to reconsider it."
Click to expand...

And again, what legislative objection does Perry have to the bill? None. His objection is with something which has nothing to do with the legislation itself. He's being unethical and tyrannical. Any court which allows this to pass is setting a terrible precedent. Any US citizen who supports it is in favor of tyranny at the state level.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Jetboogieman said:
I've taken a more cautious approach.

Naturally for many this will be cut down partisan lines no matter what happens.

But there's just so much noise around this whole thing we just have to wait and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Not too partisan. Michael Crum is the prosecutor who pleaded his case before the grand jury that indicted Perry. He is not readily identifiable as either a Democrat or a Republican, and is well liked by people in both parties. Add to that the fact that he was appointed by a Republican judge, and the claim of a political witch hunt goes out the window. Said Crum......

"“I looked at the law. I looked at the facts and I presented everything possible to the grand jury.”

Michael Crum did his job, and the grand jury returned the two indictments.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
The Public Integrity Unity has absolutely nothing to do with DWIs. Try again?
Click to expand...

I don't care. 'Public Integrity' and driving drunk are inconsistent and you damn well know it. As a lawyer in NJ, if I were convicted of DWI, I would be subject to ethical punishment in NJ --- YES.....

Hatuey said:
What is being said is that Perry's reasons for vetoing set a dangerous precedent and no court will vote in his favor.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong, but even if you were right, and you're not, the proper venue would be a civil proceeding to get a court. The dangerous precedent would be to resolve a political question in CRIMINAL courts. That's ridiculously dangerous on so many levels.

I'm telling you, this is how its going down: NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION. Perry will not be scathed in criminal court (he might pay a political price, but his political actions have natural political consequences). Its so bad that whoever is instigating this better distance themselves because its BAD, its not just bid, its truly frivolous as in ****ING RIDICULOUS BAD, its so bad that the BETTER DEBATE is about what the consequence to the prosecutors are going to be.
 
Are all veto threats categorically legal?

newpublius said:
Veto threats are LEGAL.
Click to expand...
Are all veto threats categorically legal?
Iow, is there any possible way that a veto threat could be illegal?
If there is anyway that veto could be illegal we should also make the case that the veto threat in question is not one of the illegal ones.

What if I were governor of Texas and I decided to threaten to veto legislation unless a certain someone would perform sexual favors?
Would that be an example of a legal veto threat?
Or is it possible for a veto threat to cross some line and not be legal anymore?

Also...

If we take as granted the premise "Veto threats are LEGAL," that means it's likely that the GJ erred in some fashion.
What is the nature of the GJ's error?

Do the Texas laws in listed in the indictment apply to the governor but Perry did not perform acts which match the specifics of the crimes detailed in the laws?

Did Perry perform acts which match the specifics of the Texas laws in question but it's not a crime when the Governor performs those acts?
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
And again, what legislative objection does Perry have to the bill? None. His objection is with something which has nothing to do with the legislation itself. He's being unethical and tyrannical. Any court which allows this to pass is setting a terrible precedent. Any US citizen who supports it is in favor of tyranny at the state level.
Click to expand...

Legal experts such as Dershowitz and DeGuerin disagree with you.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

danarhea said:
Michael Crum did his job, and the grand jury returned the two indictments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but his basic legal competence is absolutely going to be questioned. 36.03 contains a specific exception that anybody with two neurons should know not to proceed against the Governor, the other count is about misusing funds which itself is absurd because Perry vetoed the funds. If he took the funds and spent the funds on roads and UNILATERALLY mis-used public funds, then you would have SOMETHING....

Crum may or may not have a political agenda, he's dancing with frivolity and he may not realize it yet, but he just stepped in ****. I really don't know how deep, maybe nothing will stick, but I could see him being admonished or censured for even proceeding on what any lawyer should know is a nonjusticiable political question.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
I don't care.
Click to expand...

I know you don't. Which is like saying, you don't care if Obama decided to veto a bill if white people voted in favor of it. However, we both know you'd be against it and would even call him a racist tyrant. With tyrant being the important word here. This is no different. I stand against it on the grounds that the executive has shown that he is lowering politics to a personal level and their opposition to the bill in 100% personal not political or even legislative.


No, you're wrong, but even if you were right, and you're not, the proper venue would be a civil proceeding to get a court. The dangerous precedent would be to resolve a political question in CRIMINAL courts. That's ridiculously dangerous on so many levels.

I'm telling you, this is how its going down: NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION. Perry will not be scathed in criminal court (he might pay a political price, but his political actions have natural political consequences). Its so bad that whoever is instigating this better distance themselves because its BAD, its not just bid, its truly frivolous as in ****ING RIDICULOUS BAD, its so bad that the BETTER DEBATE is about what the consequence to the prosecutors are going to be.
Click to expand...

Facts:

1. Veto is not limitless. An executive can't veto a bill because they don't like X's face and want them to quit. That's unethical.
2. Perry has made it clear that his opposition is personal not in anyway legislative.
3. His reasons for veto will not stand in any court.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

danarhea said:
Not too partisan. Michael Crum is the prosecutor who pleaded his case before the grand jury that indicted Perry. He is not readily identifiable as either a Democrat or a Republican, and is well liked by people in both parties. Add to that the fact that he was appointed by a Republican judge, and the claim of a political witch hunt goes out the window. Said Crum......

"“I looked at the law. I looked at the facts and I presented everything possible to the grand jury.”

Michael Crum did his job, and the grand jury returned the two indictments.
Click to expand...

It's McCrum.

Perry's defense by attacking DWI lady isn't a defense at all. He wants to put her on trial and that's not gonna fly. Even with her deplorable behavior, she hasn't been disbarred. Attacking her doesn't help his case.

With that said, I have zero faith that the courts will take action against him and convict him. I would be surprised if it happens.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Ryan5 said:
I actually think Rick Perry is probably one of the more honest politicians in that he doesn't go to great lengths to hide his overt snake oil salesmen esq trappings.

He's in it for the money and he makes no bones about it. Played Democrat for as long as he needed to then once he understood who was who he promptly became an oil lobbyist unofficially under the guise of governor.


In some sense you have to at least respect that. It's a solid transition and a logical one.
Click to expand...

From your link:

Perry spent his first six years in politics as a Democrat, in a somewhat forgotten history that is sure to be revived and scrutinized by Republican opponents if he decides to run for president.

A raging liberal he was not. Elected to represent a slice of rural West Texas in the state House of Representatives in 1984, Perry, a young rancher and cotton farmer, gained an early reputation as a fiscal conservative. He was one of a handful of freshman “pit bulls,” so named because they sat in the lower pit of the House Appropriations Committee, where they fought to keep spending low. Rick Perry: The Democrat Years | The Texas Tribune

First, historically, Texas Democrats have been pretty conservative. Second, Perry was 34 in 1984 and is now 64. It's just as easy to think that his political thinking evolved as it is to deride him for "playing Democrat."

In what way does Perry "make no bones" about being "in it for the money"? Again, links please.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
Yeah, but his basic legal competence is absolutely going to be questioned. 36.03 contains a specific exception that anybody with two neurons should know not to proceed against the Governor, the other count is about misusing funds which itself is absurd because Perry vetoed the funds. If he took the funds and spent the funds on roads and UNILATERALLY mis-used public funds, then you would have SOMETHING....

Crum may or may not have a political agenda, he's dancing with frivolity and he may not realize it yet, but he just stepped in ****. I really don't know how deep, maybe nothing will stick, but I could see him being admonished or censured for even proceeding on what any lawyer should know is a nonjusticiable political question.
Click to expand...

This wasn't about the funds at all. This was about Perry issuing a threat to cancel the funds, then carrying out the threat when it didn't go his way. Making the threat is a felony under the laws of the State of Texas. If Perry hadn't made the threat, and just cancelled the funds, he would have been OK, but his mouth overloaded his ass on this one.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
And again, what legislative objection does Perry have to the bill? None. His objection is with something which has nothing to do with the legislation itself. He's being unethical and tyrannical. Any court which allows this to pass is setting a terrible precedent. Any US citizen who supports it is in favor of tyranny at the state level.
Click to expand...

The factual operation of the bill as it hits the streets/ground is exactly what he should be concerned with as an executive officer. He needn't object to the legislation one iota, not one iota. He can simply object to how its actually going to be applied, in reality, based on his judgment of facts on the ground as he sees them to be. And he doesn't even have to be correct either.....Legislatures can make 'bad laws' and Governors can make 'bad vetoes' -- nothing alters the quantum of constitutional authority vested.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
The factual operation of the bill as it hits the streets/ground is exactly what he should be concerned with as an executive officer. He needn't object to the legislation one iota, not one iota. He can simply object to how its actually going to be applied, in reality, based on his judgment of facts on the ground as he sees them to be. And he doesn't even have to be correct either.....Legislatures can make 'bad laws' and Governors can make 'bad vetoes' -- nothing alters the quantum of constitutional authority vested.
Click to expand...

But that is not the real issue. Here in Texas, it is a felony to use one's office to make threats, which is what he has been indicted for. If Perry had kept his big mouth shut, and just vetoed the funds, he wouldn't be in trouble. Instead, he made the threat after a grand jury decided that she could keep her job.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

danarhea said:
This was about Perry issuing a threat to cancel the funds, then carrying out the threat when it didn't go his way. Making the threat is a felony under the laws of the State of Texas. If Perry hadn't made the threat, and just cancelled the funds, he would have been OK
Click to expand...

Do you understand how absurd that is? You're essentially arguing that Perry had the unconditional power to veto the legislation, but he didn't have the conditional power to veto the very same legislation. Think about that.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

danarhea said:
But that is not the real issue. Here in Texas, it is a felony to use one's office to make threats, which is what he has been indicted for.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, it specifically EXCEPTS this.....36.03 contains an exception.....

Look, this is getting circular. Watch this play out. NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION.

THAT'S THE ACTUAL ANSWER.....I know you disagree, but that is really how its going to play out and when it does you'll learn something about separation of powers.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
Do you understand how absurd that is? You're essentially arguing that Perry had the unconditional power to veto the legislation, but he didn't have the conditional power to veto the very same legislation. Think about that.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it subverts the will of the voters who elected her to office?

Isn't that tyranny?
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
Do you understand how absurd that is? You're essentially arguing that Perry had the unconditional power to veto the legislation, but he didn't have the conditional power to veto the very same legislation. Think about that.
Click to expand...

he doesn't have the right to make threats. That is a felony under Texas law.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

danarhea said:
But that is not the real issue. Here in Texas, it is a felony to use one's office to make threats, which is what he has been indicted for. If Perry had kept his big mouth shut, and just vetoed the funds, he wouldn't be in trouble. Instead, he made the threat after a grand jury decided that she could keep her job.
Click to expand...

Good thing none of the Sheriff's Office employees decided to make a deal out of what DA Lehmberg said to them then, eh? Because she definitely was abusing her office when she told them that they'd be the ones who'd end up in jail. ;)
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Thorgasm said:
Don't you think it subverts the will of the voters who elected her to office?
Click to expand...

Nothing compelled her resignation, she could sit in an unfunded office with the lights out as ridiculous as that sounds. The local people wanted her in there, but the people of TX chose Perry and the fact is is that the state is funding this office. Perhaps the county should and Perry wouldn't be involved.

If the TX legislature had, to a person, said they weren't passing legislation to fund this office and passes a concurrent resolution saying that is was because of her. WOULD YOU INDICT THE LEGISLATURE?

Why not?

Isn't that tyranny?

Fact is checks/balances and separation of powers actually DOES vest powers. In the case of the legislature you wouldn't indict them because its simply within their legislative purview not to pass any law, FOR ANY REASON. Same with the executive branch, the executive branch DOES have powers vested in it and those powers CAN BE UTILIZED -- one of them is the power to VETO legislation and yes, Perry can do JUST THAT
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

nota bene said:
Good thing none of the Sheriff's Office employees decided to make a deal out of what DA Lehmberg said to them then, eh? Because she definitely was abusing her office when she told them that they'd be the ones who'd end up in jail. ;)
Click to expand...

A separate grand jury was convened for that, and made the decision that she could keep her job, so you need to take that up with them.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

danarhea said:
he doesn't have the right to make threats. That is a felony under Texas law.
Click to expand...

Statutes don't modify constitutions. The TX Constitution vests authority in Perry to veto whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants and he can threaten and posture accordingly, the TX legislature can't, by statute change that. Sorry, that's not how our political system works.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

danarhea said:
A separate grand jury was convened for that, and made the decision that she could keep her job, so you need to take that up with them.
Click to expand...

And she didn't have to resign. But the state isn't compelled to fund her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom