She doesn't have to prove that. That's not even what the indictment is about :lamo[...] She is going to have a hard time proving that she was personally hurt by the Governor's action.
The indictment was ridiculous. He did not interfere with her duties.She doesn't have to prove that. That's not even what the indictment is about :lamo
These 2 statements seem to run contrary to each other. In one statement, is an acknowledgement that it's only 1/2 the story, facts, (or less) are known, and in the other, that all the facts are already known. So which is it? Or can't you decide what you think?
As stated, I don't think that all the facts are known, and they'll come out with further investigation and at trial. You've agreed with that in the first statement. Let's just go with that for now.
Had he been successful in forcing her to resign, she would have been unable to do her duties. No one can sanely argue with that.The indictment was ridiculous. He did not interfere with her duties.
Well, the basics are known at this point, and not even an attorney with an ordinary practice is necessarily going to have a sophisticated understanding of the details of the law(s) on which this case may hinge. So I'm going to be paying attention to what legal experts say. Dershowitz has weighed in already, but it's Texas experts who are really going to understand the law. Here's what Dick DeGuerin, who is one of those experts, says:
“The defendant has a distinct advantage in this case, because the governor of Texas has an absolute veto power over legislation — and that's what he did in this case,” said Dick DeGuerin, a Houston attorney who has defended such high-profile clients as former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Legal experts call Perry indictment a stretch - San Antonio Express-News
It is not an interference.Had he been successful in forcing her to resign, she would have been unable to do her duties. No one can sanely argue with that.
Reading (the indictment) is not rocket science, folks :lamo
If she were at the end of her term, seeking reelection, there would be no duties to perform were she not reelected. At the completion of her term, her duties would be completed as well. Were her term interrupted prematurely by Gov. GoodHair's threats, then her duties would be prematurely interrupted as well, in contravention of the desires of the electorate.[...] It would be like saying the electorate not reelecting her would be interfering with her duties. When it simply isn't.
That is the right of any employer or Governor and there is nothing illegal about it, just like there is nothing illegal about Perry vetoing funding regardless of the reason. Liberals believe they can do no wrong and are "entitled" to a job for life and when challenged they always seek legal relief. Liberals aren't going to like the court rulings. If it is a jury trial and they find 12 idiots who don't understand the responsibilities of the Governor the appeals court will overrule on the merits and the law. She is going to have a hard time proving that she was personally hurt by the Governor's action.
No the flaw is in the indictment.If she were at the end of her term, seeking reelection, there would be no duties to perform were she not reelected. At the completion of her term, her duties would be completed as well. Were her term interrupted prematurely by Gov. GoodHair's threats, then her duties would be prematurely interrupted as well, in contravention of the desires of the electorate.
The flaw is in your argument(s), not the indictment.
First, the Travis County DA is employed by the people of Travis county. They did not try to fire her, and there is definitely a legal process for them to do so if they wish.
Second, it is most certainly not the right of the Governor to fire or force the resignation of an elected official, especially a county-elected official. Otherwise what is the point of even having an election?
Your argument seems more tailored for non-democratic governments like Russia, China, Iran, etc. Perhaps those are more Perry's style as well.
Well, the basics are known at this point, and not even an attorney with an ordinary practice is necessarily going to have a sophisticated understanding of the details of the law(s) on which this case may hinge. So I'm going to be paying attention to what legal experts say. Dershowitz has weighed in already, but it's Texas experts who are really going to understand the law. Here's what Dick DeGuerin, who is one of those experts, says:
“The defendant has a distinct advantage in this case, because the governor of Texas has an absolute veto power over legislation — and that's what he did in this case,” said Dick DeGuerin, a Houston attorney who has defended such high-profile clients as former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Legal experts call Perry indictment a stretch - San Antonio Express-News
the governor of Texas has an absolute veto power over legislation
Perry can veto anything he wants. However.....
1) He is not allowed to abuse his powers by making threats. That is a felony. The statute that applies is Texas 39.02DPS23990064
2) He is not allowed to pressure a public employee to resign by making a threat. That constitutes coercion, and is also a felony. The statute that applies is Texas 36.03DPS13990027
First of all that so called threat is well within the powers of the Governor but she still has her job so she wasn't harmed personally in any way.
You don't think elected officials put pressure on people to resign all the time. You may not like it but that is reality. Again she still has her job so tell me how was she hurt by that threat?
Yes indeed.
Rick Perry was an Austin Democrat right up unto the point at which he became an indirect Exxon employee. Now it's hard to tell if he truly believes or ever did believe anything politically speaking.
First of all that so called threat is well within the powers of the Governor but she still has her job so she wasn't harmed personally in any way.
You don't think elected officials put pressure on people to resign all the time. You may not like it but that is reality. Again she still has her job so tell me how was she hurt by that threat?
You have some polling data?... most independent people and legal types call it a reach at best and an abuse of process...
Reading Conservative's spiel I can't help but read the reasoning as so:Seems you have a problem with the law. Take that up with the State of Texas. Those 2 laws have been on the books for more than a century.
Assuming it went down as accused, Perry basically said "resign or I'll cut funding to this program".It is not an interference.
If she had resigned she would have had no duties to preform. :doh
The indictment is flawed.
It would be like saying the electorate not reelecting her would be interfering with her duties. When it simply isn't.
He has not interfered with her doing any aspect of her job.Assuming it went down as accused, Perry basically said "resign or I'll cut funding to this program".
How is that NOT interference?
Are you seriously claiming that demanding her resignation backed up by the threat of vetoing funding for a program in her department is not interfering?He has not interfered with her doing any aspect of her job.
Are you seriously claiming that demanding her resignation backed up by the threat of vetoing funding for a program in her department is not interfering?
Assuming that happened, at least, I'm unsure if it has been proven yet.
Abuse of power in a quid pro quo is still illegal. Perry's mistake was making it so overt.
As an example: A congressman has the legal power to vote for or against a piece of legislation. However, it's still illegal for that congressman to come out and say "if you pay me money, I'll vote for this!"
Indeed.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.
I agree that we know nothing for sure yet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?