As I said, the length of the indictment has nothing to do with the strength of the case. You find anyone else who knows the process to say otherwise. The Delay conviction and everything that proceeded that was exactly why I say par for the course in Texas. This whole Perry matter is a been there done that kind of situation in that county and state. The article you mention above places blame on both Governor Perry's actions and the actions of the DA . . . par for the course.
I don't think the veto was good for his publicity, no doubt. We're going to find no strength of the case. The indictment document for Perry makes no accusations beyond what we've been reading in every source. the indictment handed up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution. -- NY Times his ill-advised veto still doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a criminal act. -- NY Times
The longer I read through this thread, the more I'm convinced that Perry was out of bounds. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but I look at it this way: the power granted to a public office should not be used to expand that office's power beyond that which is lawfully bestowed. The governor has the power to veto bills. The governor does not have the power to remove a DA--that power resides with the voters. Usurping power that is intended to reside elsewhere sounds to me like an abuse of office. There were some attempts at analogies earlier in the thread, so I'll try another one. Decision is presently pending in the Texas Supreme Court regarding the viability of "vacancy clauses" in property insurance cases. If one of the justices had said "Rick Perry needs to sign that funding bill, or else I will rule against Farmers Insurance", is that a justified use of his office? I would posit that it is not.
What if the Court removed the DA? Perry didn't remove the DA, he pressured her to resign while she was serving jail time. What law would the Justice in your analogy be breaking? In your analogy, is Perry serving jail time?
--What if the Court removed the DA? Has the court been granted that authority constitutionally or by statute? If so--OK. If not--not OK. --What law would the Justice in your analogy be breaking? If the interpretation of the law is correct, the same one that Perry has been charged with--abuse of office. --In your analogy, is Perry serving jail time? In my analogy, whether or not Perry is serving jail time has no impact on whether or not the judge has the right to use his office to mandate specific action from another public office.
So here in SD, the former mayor Bob Filner was accused by a number of women of sexual assault and harassment. The city council reduced his powers by vote until he resigned. Seems like exactly the same not-analogy to me. One more thing, any veto threat would be abuse of office by your definition?
Again, I acknowledge that I could be oversimplifying based on Pollyannaish views. IMO, If the council used their statutory authority to reduce the mayor's power--OK. If they did so while saying that they're doing it specifically to force a resignation--not OK. And yes, I would say that using the power of a veto to unduly influence another is an abuse of power. I think that the use of a veto should be based on the content of the item being vetoed. If the veto is based on external factors, then the power of the veto is being abused.
Interesting, the longer I read this thread I have two thoughts, 1) Perry is out of bounds, 2) not far enough out of bounds for a conviction. If I were a Texas resident I'd be pissed at having my Governor behave like this, but I would just want to vote in someone else next time, not prosecute him. I'd also be pissed at a DA acting so terribly, and in fact, I'd be more pissed at her than Perry.
Allow me to slightly alter your analogy. Bill is presently pending in the House committee regarding the viability of "vacancy clauses" in property insurance cases. If one of the house members had said "Rick Perry needs to sign that funding bill, or else I will not let this bill out of committee", is that a justified use of his office? I posit that lots of people, including elected officials in Texas, are urging Perry and other public officials to resign all the time. The governor has quite limited powers or the woman would have been gone. The legislature could have overridden the veto making his threat and its use meaningless. The justices are likely bound to rule on the law, unlike the veto power which is quite broad. I think there'd be a case against Perry if he was dismantling a unit that was investigating himself, took a bribe to veto the spending, otherwise gained personally from the veto, or something along those lines. http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/12/o...would-require-administration-to-enforce-laws/ Charge him with a crime. I'm sure we can scour the statutes and find one to pin on him. He's certainly coercing house and senate members to say the least.
...is that a justified use of his office? In my mind, no. I don't doubt that it happens all the time, but I would wholeheartedly support statutory prohibition of such action. I posit that lots of people, including elected officials in Texas, are urging Perry and other public officials to resign all the time. Urging is quite different than using the powers granted by public office to issue and enforce an ultimatum. The justices are likely bound to rule on the law, unlike the veto power which is quite broad. A Supreme Court ruling is exactly like a veto--either uphold the lower court's ruling (sign the bill) or overturn the ruling (veto the bill). I fail to see a material difference between the two. And I fail to see how the distinction you're trying to make impacts the opinion I hold. Charge [Obama] with a crime. I'm sure we can scour the statutes and find one to pin on him. He's certainly coercing house and senate members to say the least. If he were threatening to veto the bill unless some other political official took some other unrelated action, then sure, I'd agree that it's comparable. In this case, he's simply saying "I disagree with the content of this bill, and I will veto it if it reaches me." That is exactly what a veto is supposed to be used for. All in all, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. But I think I'm pretty consistent in mine so far.
The point I make and the New York Times makes and Alan Dershowitz makes (et al) is that his veto power is broad, he can barter whatever he likes with it, that this indictment is a real stretch. How about this analogy: Governor vetoes a bill for perfectly legit reasons. DA brings him up on charges. Happens all the time, right? The precedent this sets is that it is the governor who is not being allowed to do his job with the coercion/threat coming from the DA.
The NY Times says she didn't resign because of this and other cases against the state government, which being mostly-Republican, the cases would be terminated under a new Perry protege. Well, then she shouldn't resign. A favor for a big donor is exactly what the investigation was all about, Times. Illogical conclusion.
The "Commercialization Chief" took the fall for the 11 Perry-appointed board members, and for the beneficiary, the Perry donor who owned most of Peloton, the CPRIT supplier. So only The Chief was indicted. How much will the donor "donate" to The Chief for this?
The prosecutors proved they could indict a ham sandwich. These same ones got a conviction against Tom DeLay overturned for legally insufficient evidence. They're partisan hacks in a partisan venue where jurors don't care about the facts; they're votes to indict are guaranteed. I seriously doubt they believe in their own case, that the indictment was their objective. Do you believe Perry publicly announced his intent, then followed through with no legal advice? I wonder if the judge that hears this case can stifle his laughter before summarily dismissing it. There's a reason why Bush and Obama couldn't be sued by the parents of killed soldiers. The same reason why these charges are bogus. We will see.
The donor/investor put in $3M, VCs put in $18M. The investor donated $140M to the school where Peloton was operating from. I don't think he needed his cut of $11M in grants from this program.
If there are charges of corruption, bring them on. But those aren't the charges. What we see is a joke.
