Sand
Footballguy
That one seems pretty straightforward. The other one, not so much.
That one seems pretty straightforward. The other one, not so much.
How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?
VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?
This is pretty weak.
How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?
This is pretty weak.
The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?
This is pretty weak.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.
So rather than "an attempt to subvert election results," what you really meant was "an attempt to get a political opponent."The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?
This is pretty weak.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.
I suppose it could be viewed both ways.So rather than "an attempt to subvert election results," what you really meant was "an attempt to get a political opponent."The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?
This is pretty weak.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.
They're both mainly BS propaganda, yes. But they're not the same thing.What's the difference between this and the Republicans suing Obama?
I figure both are BS propaganda, safe assumption?
He is a partisan deutchbah.A possible 109 years? The DA who brought this has brass ones.
he should be thrown out of office. People like that and those who support him are legitimately dangerous.A possible 109 years? The DA who brought this has brass ones.
You do realize that this was actually brought about by Republicans, don't you? But by all means, don't let actual facts get in the way of your dense theories.The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?
This is pretty weak.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.
And Perry isn't?He is a partisan deutchbah.A possible 109 years? The DA who brought this has brass ones.
If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?
I think I agreeIf this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?
I haven't had much time for blogs lately. Have there been any serious legal blogs that have defended the indictments?The more I read about this on legal blogs and stuff, the less I buy it.
That's not allowed? Though, I suppose I can understand a sense of skepticism for Republicans in the Democrat hot bed that is Texas.Looks like one of the grand jurors was actually actively participating as a Democratic Party Delegate.
Yeah, nothing stinks about this at all.
Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maybe reimbursement if exoneratedjoffer said:I think I agreeSand said:If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?
Well, you're obviously one of those liberal nutjobs from Austin, so I see why you'd think so.Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maybe reimbursement if exoneratedjoffer said:I think I agreeSand said:If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?
No, he was indicted for threatening to exercise his authorized powers.Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maybe reimbursement if exoneratedjoffer said:I think I agreeSand said:If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?
No. He was indicted for using his authorized power to threaten a department which was investigating his corrupt/inept pet cancer research project that was funneling money to his cronies.No, he was indicted for threatening to exercise his authorized powers.Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maylreimbursement if exoneratedjoffer said:I think I agreeSand said:If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?
In Louisiana I think it's against the law not to threaten and extort when big appropriations bills come up.jon_mx said:We need some grand juries for all the democrats who threatened to vote against Obamacare until they extorted millions of dollars of taxpayers money for their district. Pretty much all politics are threats and extortion.
There are a half of dozen posters here defending them.Haven't found any. Volokh can't find anything defensible. The New York Times (!) in an editorial calls it "overzealous prosecution". David Axelrod, Obama's senior aide, calls the indictment "sketchy". Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine the indictment was "unbelievably ridiculous".I haven't had much time for blogs lately. Have there been any serious legal blogs that have defended the indictments?The more I read about this on legal blogs and stuff, the less I buy it.
I can't seem to find anyone reputable that defends the prosecution here.
No, he was indicted for threatening to use his legally authorized veto powers.cosjobs said:No. He was indicted for using his authorized power to threaten a department which was investigating his corrupt/inept pet cancer research project that was funneling money to his cronies.Christo said:No, he was indicted for threatening to exercise his authorized powers.cosjobs said:Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maylreimbursement if exoneratedjoffer said:I think I agreeSand said:If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?
I found one: Michael Dorf (linked from Volokh).Haven't found any. Volokh can't find anything defensible. The New York Times (!) in an editorial calls it "overzealous prosecution". David Axelrod, Obama's senior aide, calls the indictment "sketchy". Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine the indictment was "unbelievably ridiculous".I haven't had much time for blogs lately. Have there been any serious legal blogs that have defended the indictments?The more I read about this on legal blogs and stuff, the less I buy it.
I can't seem to find anyone reputable that defends the prosecution here.
Our side does something wrong. "Everyone does it. This is a joke." The other side does something wrong, impeach and imprison them.jon_mx said:We need some grand juries for all the democrats who threatened to vote against Obamacare until they extorted millions of dollars of taxpayers money for their district. Pretty much all politics are threats and extortion.
The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.
Actually those arguments are why I asked. (And because I was in Maryland in the '70s when the Marvin Mandale case was happening which seems somewhat similar.) I don't see this argument you posted being so much that the law doesn't apply in this case, but that the legislature can't make such a law. I guess the corollary question is if this were to actually go to trial and reach a jury, would they be likely care about whether or not the law is good or bad, or just whether the facts fall in line with the law? Did he break the law? Just an unconstitutional law?The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.
If he is convicted, and if he argues on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional, he may have a good shot. Here's Volokh's argument that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is overbroad. More interesting, IMO, is his argument that a legislative act making a veto (or the threat of a veto) illegal would violate the state constitution.
The argument goes that the state constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation. This is a check on the powers of the legislature. As such, when the legislature restricts the governor's veto power, it impermissibly increases its own power. It's obvious, for example, that the legislature cannot pass a law making it a crime for the governor to veto any gun-control legislation. That would allow the legislature to make itself veto-proof, and that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.
The statutes in question here are not as brazen as that. But to the extent that they can be applied to prevent a governor from vetoing (or threatening to veto) a legislative act, that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.
Whether the law is unconstitutional is an issue of law for the judge not the jury.Actually those arguments are why I asked. (And because I was in Maryland in the '70s when the Marvin Mandale case was happening which seems somewhat similar.) I don't see this argument you posted being so much that the law doesn't apply in this case, but that the legislature can't make such a law. I guess the corollary question is if this were to actually go to trial and reach a jury, would they be likely care about whether or not the law is good or bad, or just whether the facts fall in line with the law? Did he break the law? Just an unconstitutional law?The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.
If he is convicted, and if he argues on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional, he may have a good shot. Here's Volokh's argument that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is overbroad. More interesting, IMO, is his argument that a legislative act making a veto (or the threat of a veto) illegal would violate the state constitution.
The argument goes that the state constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation. This is a check on the powers of the legislature. As such, when the legislature restricts the governor's veto power, it impermissibly increases its own power. It's obvious, for example, that the legislature cannot pass a law making it a crime for the governor to veto any gun-control legislation. That would allow the legislature to make itself veto-proof, and that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.
The statutes in question here are not as brazen as that. But to the extent that they can be applied to prevent a governor from vetoing (or threatening to veto) a legislative act, that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.
Also for the first count. If instead of arguing that the "legislatively approved funds" were misappropriated by the governor what if instead they charged him for offering a job in a DA office that wasn't his to offer? (I'm not sure about the "his to offer" part so consider this a "for sake of argument".) While probably still a stretch does it become relatively less of a stretch.
So ignoring the validity of the law, did he break it?Whether the law is unconstitutional is an issue of law for the judge not the jury.Actually those arguments are why I asked. (And because I was in Maryland in the '70s when the Marvin Mandale case was happening which seems somewhat similar.) I don't see this argument you posted being so much that the law doesn't apply in this case, but that the legislature can't make such a law. I guess the corollary question is if this were to actually go to trial and reach a jury, would they be likely care about whether or not the law is good or bad, or just whether the facts fall in line with the law? Did he break the law? Just an unconstitutional law?The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.
If he is convicted, and if he argues on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional, he may have a good shot. Here's Volokh's argument that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is overbroad. More interesting, IMO, is his argument that a legislative act making a veto (or the threat of a veto) illegal would violate the state constitution.
The argument goes that the state constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation. This is a check on the powers of the legislature. As such, when the legislature restricts the governor's veto power, it impermissibly increases its own power. It's obvious, for example, that the legislature cannot pass a law making it a crime for the governor to veto any gun-control legislation. That would allow the legislature to make itself veto-proof, and that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.
The statutes in question here are not as brazen as that. But to the extent that they can be applied to prevent a governor from vetoing (or threatening to veto) a legislative act, that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.
Also for the first count. If instead of arguing that the "legislatively approved funds" were misappropriated by the governor what if instead they charged him for offering a job in a DA office that wasn't his to offer? (I'm not sure about the "his to offer" part so consider this a "for sake of argument".) While probably still a stretch does it become relatively less of a stretch.
It seems like neither of those statutes fit the situation. The first talks about "a specific exercise," "a specific performance," or "violate a public duty." Resigning is none of those. Had he said he'd veto funding unless she stopped investigating someone that would fit. And a veto isn't "property, services or personnel." Nor is it something "of value" that came into Perry's "possession."Am I off base in thinking that news articles reporting on this situation should quote the statutes being invoked? I just Googled the story and none of the results did that.
In any case, here's the abuse of official capacity section. And here's the coercion of public servant section.
Under the first statute, the state would have to prove that Rick Perry misused government property, services, or personnel with the intention of harming Rosemary Lehmberg. That seems like a stretch. Does his veto pen count as government property? Does executing a veto count as misusing a veto pen?
Under the second statute, the state would have to prove that Rick Perry coercively influenced Rosemary Lehmberg to resign. That also seems like a stretch. In my view, vetoes aren't coercive.
I haven't read any of the cases interpreting those statutes.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 dutyservant 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- David AxelrodUnless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy.