• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Texas' Perry indicted for coercion for veto threat

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
thraashman said:
So for all of you who don't think what Perry did was an illegal use of power and blackmail, what if a hurricane his Louisiana and Obama told Bobby Jindal that he wouldn't declare it a disaster thus withholding federal disaster relief funds unless Jindal agreed to form a state Obamacare exchange? Because it would be the same damned thing.
Click to expand...

nope.
not even close to what rick 'mr abuse' perry did
 
One facet the local news has been hinting at is that this particular anti-corruption unit had/has been investigating a company that Perry used to sell influence. The insinuation is that he wanted her gone, and consequently to install his own appointment, in order to cover his and his buddy's asses regarding the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT).

It's very unusual for a grand jury to pursue charges like that. It'll be interesting to see what comes all comes out at trial. Living in TX you hear whispers all the time about how corrupt Perry's good ole' boy operation is.
 
eskimospy said:
The legislature can make exactly zero constraints on how the executive chooses to use its veto powers for. Not almost zero: zero. Again, even in the case of bribery the veto itself would not be illegal, the taking of money would be illegal.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I see your point. If it can't address the use, it can't define a misuse. The $7.5 million angle was always stupid, as he wielded the value of his veto, not $7.5 million, as the $7.5 million budget has no existence until it's law; but yes, additionally, if it cannot address his wielding of his veto, it can't declare a use to be an abuse.
Though if it can address what he receives, then what we have is the soliciting a bribe:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.36.htm
Sec. 36.02. BRIBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;

Soliciting her resignation in exchange for his exercise of his signing discretion is soliciting a bribe.
 
Last edited:
thraashman said:
So for all of you who don't think what Perry did was an illegal use of power and blackmail, what if a hurricane his Louisiana and Obama told Bobby Jindal that he wouldn't declare it a disaster thus withholding federal disaster relief funds unless Jindal agreed to form a state Obamacare exchange? Because it would be the same damned thing.
Click to expand...
Unless there's some mandatory disaster law of which I'm unfamiliar, that would be entirely within Obama's discretion. That exact issue has been raised many times on both sides of the table as a President declares one county a disaster area, bringing in federal money, while for another adjacent county equally hard hit he refuses to make that declaration. The accusation (itself usually a political statement) is that the President made his decision on the basis of politics.
 
DominionSeraph said:
Ah, yes, I see your point. If it can't address the use, it can't define a misuse. The $7.5 million angle was always stupid, as he wielded the value of his veto, not $7.5 million, as the $7.5 million budget has no existence until it's law; but yes, additionally, if it cannot address his wielding of his veto, it can't declare a use to be an abuse.
Though if it can address what he receives, then what we have is the soliciting a bribe:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.36.htm
Sec. 36.02. BRIBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;

Soliciting her resignation in exchange for his exercise of his signing discretion is soliciting a bribe.
Click to expand...

Having someone resign is not a bribe by any standard I have ever heard. Moreover, bribery is not one of the crimes he was indicted on.
 
Texashiker said:
Lehmberg should have resigned. Since she did not resign, funding should have been cut.

if anyone is holding hostages here, it is her.
Click to expand...

That excuses Perry's actions not in the slightest. The performance & purpose of the anti-corruption unit was never in question. Perry knowingly threatened & damaged the functioning of the State he is sworn to support purely as an act of political revenge.

Viewed straight-on, that's naked abuse of power.

Lehmberg really holds the moral high ground here. She acknowledged her wrong, put herself at the mercy of the legal system entirely. She has been entirely compliant. That system allowed to keep her elected position. That should have been the end of it.

Whether the charges against Perry stick or not, the whole episode shows that he's arrogant, stupid & not fit to lead.
 
DominionSeraph said:
So you've never heard of the very definition of bribery?
Saying his signature was for sale for her job is no different than saying it was for sale for money.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me, I was trying to find a nice way to tell you that you don't know what bribery is. Your definition is basically attempting to criminalize deal making in government. Apply it to legislation, etc, and see how ridiculous it is.

Hopefully that changes. I think I'll shoot off an email to a certain DA.
Click to expand...

I encourage you to do so. I'll give you a wager at very favorable odds that they ignore you.
 
eskimospy said:
You misunderstand me, I was trying to find a nice way to tell you that you don't know what bribery is. Your definition is basically attempting to criminalize deal making in government. Apply it to legislation, etc, and see how ridiculous it is.



I encourage you to do so. I'll give you a wager at very favorable odds that they ignore you.
Click to expand...


You're right, i think, in saying it's not bribery. It's extortion.
 
What is up with all these Rick guys in the South to begin with.

Rick Scott should have had his head on pole 4 years ago, but we still have idgits in the boonies voting.

That and the current jermandering thing has went through the court, but it's too late supposedly to do about it with the current elections. *cough BULLSHIT*

That's have the problem, people seem to think the fucking things than can do today have no effect.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
The legislature can make exactly zero constraints on how the executive chooses to use its veto powers for. Not almost zero: zero. Again, even in the case of bribery the veto itself would not be illegal, the taking of money would be illegal.

Any attempt to attach any conditions to how the governor uses his veto power is flatly unconstitutional.



This was definitely the more baffling of the two indictments. Not only is it perfectly legal to leverage the political process to oust people you don't like, but the $7.5 million was never under his control because it was never appropriated.
Click to expand...

There are times when I wonder about you, eskimo.
 
eskimospy said:
So when Obama says he will veto a bill unless a provision he wants is added to it, is he committing extortion?
Click to expand...

Nice straw man. Really. So cute, so life-like.

If he threatened to deny federal funds to Ohio because Boehner wouldn't resign, that would be extortion. If he carried out that threat, it would be abuse of power.

Apples to apples, please.
 
Jhhnn said:
Nice straw man. Really. So cute, so life-like.

If he threatened to deny federal funds to Ohio because Boehner wouldn't resign, that would be extortion. If he carried out that threat, it would be abuse of power.

Apples to apples, please.
Click to expand...

Just so we're clear, demanding job changes is extortion but demanding legislation changes isn't? What is the basis for this distinction?
 
eskimospy said:
Just so we're clear, demanding job changes is extortion but demanding legislation changes isn't? What is the basis for this distinction?
Click to expand...

Both Lehmberg & Boehner are elected officials. Perry has no right to tie Lehmberg's resignation to funding, nor does Obama have the right to do the same wrt Boehner.

Following your line of reasoning, if Perry demanded & failed to obtain the resignation of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, an elective position, he would then have every right to de-fund that Court.

Think it through.
 
Jhhnn said:
Both Lehmberg & Boehner are elected officials. Perry has no right to tie Lehmberg's resignation to funding, nor does Obama have the right to do the same wrt Boehner.
Click to expand...

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?

Following your line of reasoning, if Perry demanded & failed to obtain the resignation of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, an elective position, he would then have every right to de-fund that Court.

Think it through.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eskimospy said:
So when Obama says he will veto a bill unless a provision he wants is added to it, is he committing extortion?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top