- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,014
- Reaction score
- 5,746
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Who is "they" in your quote above?If you think that they would have gone after Perry if he wasn't a potential Presidential candidate and a threat to Hillary (or whoever), you are just lying to yourself.
Technically speaking she could not be forced to resign for the offense she committed. However, any county resident could have filed a petition for her removal, the acceptance of which would have resulted in a trial for her removal -- which she probably would have lost.[...] Nonetheless, it is clear that any effort to have her removed from office - in this case a forced resignation - is either the responsibility of her immediate supervisor - the County Commission(er), the District Court or her own accord. [...]
Sec. 87.018. TRIAL. (a) Officers may be removed only following a trial by jury. [there are later provisions for immediate removal, without trial, in the case of a felony conviction or misdemeanor official misconduct conviction (87.031)]
I've just finished watching Gov. Perry's statement concerning the coercion indictment against him. Conservative posters here seem to be falling back on process in their attempts to justify Gov. Perry's actions per the TX state constitution, i.e., it is within Gov. Perry's power to veto a spending bill. To that, they are correct. However, as I've stated in a recent post to this thread, unless Gov. Perry vetoed the spending bill that provided funding to the PIU purely on the grounds of constraining cost over-runs due to the state's budget deficit, he'd have to provide justification for his actions. And upholding the state's Constitution doesn't provide him cover.
If you listen to his defense, he clearly states starting at the .50 second mark of his video press conference why he vetoed the spending bill. Notice that the spending was targeted directly for the PIU which DA Lehmberg oversees and NO OTHER STATE OFFICE OR AGENCY. He picked the battle! He made it personal. Yes, he tries to wrap "public appearance" and "public trust" into the issue, but the fact of the matter is he can't use his office as Governor to pressure a duly elected official who is NOT under his cognizance to resign. The pressure clearly comes from withholding public funds for her department in an attempt to make the department ineffective.
He can hide behind the TX Constitution, but the law might be a different story.
Who is "they" in your quote above?
The grand jury?
The vague, faceless, Democrat conspiracy? Those guys?The democrats that seek to damage Perry.
Is it now?
Texas Politics - The Executive Branch
Even Texans seem to agree that vetoing power is limited to reasons which modify the legislation itself. An executive trying to modify an agency of government through lack of funding? Nonsense. He's not only being unethical, he's being tyrannical.
Hiding behind the (TX) Constitution is not necessarily a bad thing.
The vague, faceless, Democrat conspiracy? Those guys?
Not Cuomo is it.Don Siegelman was.
Wow! What do you not understand about me not engaging you because as all you do will deny as you have with the others that have pointed out how wrong you are?Once again, and true to form, you have still not answered my question. Where is the hole in this?
Wow! What do you not understand about me not engaging you because as all you do will deny as you have with the others that have pointed out how wrong you are?
Huh? What?
You have already shown that is all you will do.
And yet you continue to think you can bully someone into conversing with you even though they already know you are going to deny?
You really take the cake here with your silliness.
:dohI have now asked you SIX times to poke a hole in the grand jury's reasoning.
:doh
:lamo
How many time do we need to go around the mulberry bush for you to understand what was already said?
It has already been done, and you know it.
I told you I will not rehash what has already been pointed out to you since all you do is deny it.
What do you not understand about that?
And again:Really? Why don't you show the post where the following reasoning was already refuted? You can't because it doesn't exist. Is that how you answer questions? By telling lies? Here is the question for the EIGHTH TIME. Poke a hole in the grand jury's reasoning here. And please, no more lies....
And again:
How many time do we need to go around the mulberry bush for you to understand what was already said?
It has already been done, and you know it.
I told you I will not rehash what has already been pointed out to you since all you do is deny it.
What do you not understand about that?
Let me guess though, you are still going to try to push for something that just isn't gonna happen.
Figures.
You are wrong because you do not understand. Just like you did not understand what Governor Ferguson was indicted for or that it wasn't even the same issue. :doh
Sorry - look at the indictment presented above. It says that Perry acted illegally by coercing the DA in the performance of her duties - that's the charge. How is it any different when a President tells Congress that he will veto a bill if they include some language or don't include some language? Isn't the President coercing an outcome by using the power of his office?
So I've come in late because I finally saw the whole story behind this thing. That politician was dead wrong in her behavior: I hope she got or gets fired over it. But Perry as dead wrong to put the veto of some of the budget in the form of a threat: that alone tells you something about him.
A grand jury has decided that there's enough evidence for a trail, and I hope that Perry gets stuck.
:dohOnce again, you lie, and everybody here can see it, plain as day. There IS NO post that points out where the flaw is in the grand jury's reasoning. It doesn't exist. You just made it up, just like you always do, when you are too lazy or dishonest to answer a question.
For the NINTH time, answer a simple question. Where is the flaw in this reasoning?
1) The law says that, if you intend to harm another by misusing government property that has come into the possession of the government employee by virtue of his or her employment, then you have committed a crime.
2) The property in question consists of the funds for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) The employee in question is Assistant DA Rosemary Lehmburg.
4) Had Perry not made any threat, and just cancelled the funds, he could have given any reason he wanted, within reason... For example "The Public Integrity Unit is a waste of taxpayer money, and so I am vetoing the funds".
5) However, Perry issued a threat against Lehmburg and her office. This was AFTER a grand jury already decided that she could keep her job.
6) In making the threat, Perry showed that his action, if taken, would be to act against a public employee by using property of the state of Texas as a weapon.
7) When Perry then carried out this threat, under the laws of the State of Texas, Perry had harmed Lehmberg by misusing government property (the funds).
8) Perry has been indicted for that.
:doh
Said the person telling the lie.
So again:
How many time do we need to go around the mulberry bush for you to understand what was already said?
It has already been done, and you know it.
I told you I will not rehash what has already been pointed out to you since all you do is deny it.
What do you not understand about that?
Let me guess though, you are still going to try to push for something that just isn't gonna happen, just like a bully. iLOL
Figures.
You are wrong because you do not understand. Just like you did not understand what Governor Ferguson was indicted for or that it wasn't even the same issue. :doh
This is hilarious. You keep claiming it has already been done, but no post in this thread backs your claim. Why is that? It's because no post exists. No post was ever made to poke the hole in the logic, once again given below, of why Perry was indicted.It has already been done, and you know it.
I told you I will not rehash what has already been pointed out to you since all you do is deny it.
:dohYou keep pointing to this.....
This is hilarious. You keep claiming it has already been done, but no post in this thread backs your claim. Why is that? It's because no post exists. No post was ever made to poke the hole in the logic, once again given below, of why Perry was indicted.
Now tor the TENTH time I will post my question to you. Poke a hole, any hole, in the argument below, without telling more lies about so-call posts that were never posted by anybody.
How long are you going to keep lying, instead of answering a simple question? You might think you are being cute, but everybody here can see what you are doing. You are lying, and to be honest, it's making you look like a horse's ass.
1) The law says that, if you intend to harm another by misusing government property that has come into the possession of the government employee by virtue of his or her employment, then you have committed a crime.
2) The property in question consists of the funds for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) The employee in question is Assistant DA Rosemary Lehmburg.
4) Had Perry not made any threat, and just cancelled the funds, he could have given any reason he wanted, within reason... For example "The Public Integrity Unit is a waste of taxpayer money, and so I am vetoing the funds".
5) However, Perry issued a threat against Lehmburg and her office. This was AFTER a grand jury already decided that she could keep her job.
6) In making the threat, Perry showed that his action, if taken, would be to act against a public employee by using property of the state of Texas as a weapon.
7) When Perry then carried out this threat, under the laws of the State of Texas, Perry had harmed Lehmberg by misusing government property (the funds).
8) Perry has been indicted for that.
Hey.:doh
Said the person telling the lies.
So again:
How many time do we need to go around the mulberry bush for you to understand what was already said?
It has already been done, and you know it.
I told you I will not rehash what has already been pointed out to you since all you do is deny it.
What do you not understand about that?
Let me guess though, you are still going to try to push for something that just isn't gonna happen, just like a bully. iLOL
Figures.
You are wrong because you do not understand. Just like you did not understand what Governor Ferguson was indicted for or that it wasn't even the same issue. :doh
She's already been tried and convicted, and served her time.That politician was dead wrong in her behavior: I hope she got or gets fired over it.
Simple solution is to pay attention to what has been said.Hey.
Knock your shenanigans the **** off and post a link to whatever post or posts you keep claiming disprove his logic. Simple solution to this farce.
Then tell him to listen to what he is told and drive on.When posters start C&Ping their previous posts it's no longer a debate, and wastes everyone's time.
No he wont.I bet you that danarhea will admit to such.
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?