Can you explain to me where the law makes a distinction where attaching requirements to the content of a bill and attaching requirements to staffing are treated differently where one amounts to a bribe and the other does not?
That's relating to the content of the bill. A DA is not a lawmaker. She does not have the power to change the bill. He asked her to add the gravy of her resignation to it before he would consider it. That's soliciting a bribe and coercing a public servant.
What do you wonder?
Stupid is as stupid does.
JSYK, your definition makes every plea bargain ever bribery.
haha. Just exactly what side of the political aisle you fall on.
I thought sure you'd have joined the liberal pile-on here.
What Perry is doing might be illegal but there's no way it can be called a bribe.There's a reason plea bargains are regulated. Also, the plea is a right. There is no right to bribe the governor.
What Perry is doing might be illegal but there's no way it can be called a bribe.
He's tying the performance of his official duties to her proffering up something to him that he values. That's soliciting a bribe.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BriberyHe's tying the performance of his official duties to her proffering up something to him that he values. That's soliciting a bribe.
The thread is largely missing one important part of the story, lets rehash through it...
The Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg works in Texas's Public Integrity Unit - essentially a part of the Texas Government that's solely purpose is to look for corruption with-in Texas.
As you probably already know, Lehmberg was convicted of driving drunk and acting extraordinarily unprofessional during her arrest. Once it become public, Rick Perry demanded she resign and if she didn't - he'd veto funding for the organization. She didn't resign and he veto'd funding.
Why didn't she resign, because the Public Integrity Unit was investigating CPRIT. The organization grants public funds for cancer research but something fishy was going with whom received the money. They found out that an exec was picking favorites on who got the donations. Who got the donations? Groups/people with ties to Rick Perry. That exec has been indicted and resigned.
If Lehmberg has resigned, Perry would have been able to appoint whomever he wanted into CPRIT and kill the investigation.
The argument is that Perry used Lemberg's DUI as cover to save his buddies but that's hard sell in court. Here's the kicker - supposedly Perry went behind closed doors and told Lemberg if she didn't fight him he'd find her a job someplace else.
If they could prove it in court, Perry will undoubtedly be found guilty.
Obstruction of justice is totally a crime. If those sorts of things came to light you're definitely right that it would be a different ballgame. People in this thread are making the argument that Perry can't demand political concessions of this type for his veto under any circumstances, which is simply not true.
The thread is largely missing one important part of the story, lets rehash through it...
The Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg works in Texas's Public Integrity Unit - essentially a part of the Texas Government that's solely purpose is to look for corruption with-in Texas.
As you probably already know, Lehmberg was convicted of driving drunk and acting extraordinarily unprofessional during her arrest. Once it become public, Rick Perry demanded she resign and if she didn't - he'd veto funding for the organization. She didn't resign and he veto'd funding.
Why didn't she resign, because the Public Integrity Unit was investigating CPRIT. The organization grants public funds for cancer research but something fishy was going with whom received the money. They found out that an exec was picking favorites on who got the donations. Who got the donations? Groups/people with ties to Rick Perry. That exec has been indicted and resigned.
If Lehmberg has resigned, Perry would have been able to appoint whomever he wanted into the Public Integrity Unit and kill the investigation.
The argument is that Perry used Lemberg's DUI as cover to save his buddies but that's hard sell in court. Here's the kicker - supposedly Perry went behind closed doors and told Lemberg if she didn't fight him he'd find her a job someplace else.
If they could prove it in court, Perry will undoubtedly be found guilty. Last but not least Lehmberg is an elected official who's responsible to Travis County so Perry killing her funding doesn't really play out...
Thank you, I tried to point this out earlier. The unspoken allegation here is that Perry tried to kill the investigation of a slush fund that he used to sell favors and influence.
Why not? Extortion is a crime with a very specific definition, one that doesn't depend on whether or not it is a personnel or a legislative condition being placed. So again, what's the basis for this distinction?
Yes, he could de-fund the court. Depending on how the Texas Constitution is written the abolition of the Texas Supreme Court through defunding might be unconstitutional, but that's an entirely different issue than a criminal charge of abusing power.
If Perry were to attempt to do that he would have to face the political consequences of attacking the Supreme Court, but I'm unaware of any legal consequences to him.
I have a pretty strong belief in good government to go along with my commie tendencies. Attempting to prosecute the governor for playing politics is a really bad idea, even if the governor in question is an idiot.
My hat's off to you eski. We rarely agree on things but I still respect you and your determination in trying to hash out the idiocy with some of these posters is very admirable. I am thankful you have more patience than I ever could.
Anyways, a giant pat on the back. :thumbsup:
I really want one of those "most interesting man in the world" memes. It would read something like: I don't always agree with you, but when I do, its when people are being absolute idiots about the obvious.
Texas law is quite peculiar in many respects. Tom Delay's legal problems reflect that entirely. What he was convicted of would not be a crime in many other states. And such may well be the case w/ Perry.
The governor will get his day in court & we'll see. In any case, he violates the public trust in putting personalities above legal principles & interfering with the legal process. That process has confirmed Lehmberg's legitimacy, something Perry has no right to alter.
You're right, i think, in saying it's not bribery. It's extortion.
The thread is largely missing one important part of the story, lets rehash through it...
The Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg works in Texas's Public Integrity Unit - essentially a part of the Texas Government that's solely purpose is to look for corruption with-in Texas.
As you probably already know, Lehmberg was convicted of driving drunk and acting extraordinarily unprofessional during her arrest. Once it become public, Rick Perry demanded she resign and if she didn't - he'd veto funding for the organization. She didn't resign and he veto'd funding.
Why didn't she resign, because the Public Integrity Unit was investigating CPRIT. The organization grants public funds for cancer research but something fishy was going with whom received the money. They found out that an exec was picking favorites on who got the donations. Who got the donations? Groups/people with ties to Rick Perry. That exec has been indicted and resigned.
If Lehmberg has resigned, Perry would have been able to appoint whomever he wanted into the Public Integrity Unit and kill the investigation.
The argument is that Perry used Lemberg's DUI as cover to save his buddies but that's hard sell in court. Here's the kicker - supposedly Perry went behind closed doors and told Lemberg if she didn't fight him he'd find her a job someplace else.
If they could prove it in court, Perry will undoubtedly be found guilty. Last but not least Lehmberg is an elected official who's responsible to Travis County so Perry killing her funding doesn't really play out...
Source?
but not a smart move to threaten to withhold (VETO) money if someone you don't like doesn't do what you tell them to do
Which is typical legislative activity. (E.g., vote for my pork project or I won't vote for your bill. Etc.)
Fern
Obstruction of justice is totally a crime. If those sorts of things came to light you're definitely right that it would be a different ballgame. People in this thread are making the argument that Perry can't demand political concessions of this type for his veto under any circumstances, which is simply not true.