Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Twitter folk are having a ball with this. They hope it stays as front page news for a long time. Example of the fun: "I'm not as think as you drunk I am." check out hashtags:
Could be. Even Axlerod seems to think so. But technically they could move forward with it. But id think moving forward with it would make the ones pursuing it look bad imo. I'd be surprised if most Texans dont agree with what Perry did here. I could be wrong I guess
Axlerod knows so, because this is lawfare, and if the Democrats want to use it to derail promising Republican candidates there is no reason the Republicans shouldn't do it to. Texans should start with Julian Castro, the three term mayor of San Antonio being groomed to run for the vice-presidential slot with Hillary. Make something up, who cares what it is, the Democrats don't.
Axlerod knows so, because this is lawfare, and if the Democrats want to use it to derail promising Republican candidates there is no reason the Republicans shouldn't do it to. Texans should start with Julian Castro, the three term mayor of San Antonio being groomed to run for the vice-presidential slot with Hillary. Make something up, who cares what it is, the Democrats don't.
Except the media would never let Republicans get away with this.
But this has been debated in other threads. Lets stick to Mr perry here shall we? You remember? The topic before you tried to deflect it to be about Obama?
Back to Perry, here are the statutes he is charged with. This case looks weak...
§ 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or
(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment.
§ 36.03 : COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER
a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.
§ 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or
(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment.
§ 36.03 : COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER
a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.
Actually those seem to me to indicate a pretty clear crime. You should read the complaint that was filed, it lays this all out very clearly.
Thanks for that. I tried looking for it, but couldn't find it.
It still looks weak to me, but maybe that's just how I'm reading it.
Id say its a tossup. A good prosecutor could make it stick I think, but since Perry's going to have excellent representation it makes it far more challenging.
Fun fact-both the prosecuting attorney, and the judge who did the indictment are Republicans. I wonder if that was intentional or random?
Thanks for that. I tried looking for it, but couldn't find it.
It still looks weak to me, but maybe that's just how I'm reading it.
Exactly. Her choosing whether or not to stay in office really isn't an "official duty"; that would be her prosecuting or not prosecuting someone.
The misuse of property thing is just BS. It might be a tad more valid if he had actually vetoed the funding, but eve then it would be a huge stretch IMO.
Id say its a tossup. A good prosecutor could make it stick I think, but since Perry's going to have excellent representation it makes it far more challenging.
Fun fact-both the prosecuting attorney, and the judge who did the indictment are Republicans. I wonder if that was intentional or random?
Exactly. Her choosing whether or not to stay in office really isn't an "official duty"; that would be her prosecuting or not prosecuting someone.
The misuse of property thing is just BS.
The ability to carry out her duties is a duty. I think he is in fact guilty of this one, but it takes the other one to bring it up to a felony. And that ones too vaguely worded. Thus, if he is found guilty it will be a misdemeanor. And....I kinda think he is guilty of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
