- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Charges against Perry should wait until he is out of office - agree/disagree?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:04 am to NikolaiJakov
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:04 am to NikolaiJakov
quote:
Is that a direct quote? Cause it actually is a pretty accurate depiction.
Not a direct quote, it is my approximation for exactly how fishy this whole situation is.
0
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:05 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
There's a lot more going on here than Lehmberg's drunken rage.
It's a shame it wasnt included in the indictment then. Maybe you should contact them and give them all your information.
LINK
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:09 am to teke184
quote:
Tying the continued funding of an office to the removal of someone would be questionable IF the person involved had no skeletons in their closet and it were clearly due to something they were investigating.
It wasn't funding of an office. If was funding of the Public Integrity Unit - which was actively investigating CPRIT.
www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/message.aspx?action=create&p=51636831
quote:
What’s more, the Public Integrity Unit was in the process of conducting an investigation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. CPRIT received a ton of money from the Legislature to award grants to high-level medical research projects. The problem: a lot of that money was going to people who shouldn’t have gotten it. And some of those folks had close ties to Perry. Just a few months ago, Lehmberg’s office indicted CPRIT’s former director over his allegedly improper disbursement of an $11 million grant. But when Lehmberg got pulled over with the potato juice in her car last spring, the investigation was just underway.
He was also simply trying to get a Republican to take her place - as he has the authority to appoint an interim DA.
quote:
Tying the funding to removing someone who had threatened multiple officials *on tape* with their jobs if they didn't break the law to do what she wanted, though? Negro, please. That bitch should be the one getting charged instead of Perry.
She didn't follow through on a single one of her threats and was over 3 times the legal limit. It would be extremely hard to convince a jury she made the threats with a clear mind. Hey go for it though. It doesn't even matter as far as the Perry case goes. You don't get to coerce public officials because they got a DWI.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:10 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:13 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The rule of law is it is a crime in Texas to coerce a public official in the exercise of her duty.
I read the statute yesterday, and although I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
The obvious purpose of that law is to keep officials from being coerced into performing something foreign to the public interest, or to keep officials from being coerced into neglecting something that would be in the public interest.
Coercing a person to perform or refrain from a particular duty is not the same as coercing her to step down... after which there is NO particular action to perform or neglect. The latter type of coercion is not meant to provoke a particular discharge or mischarge of a public duty, and is not the type of coercion addressed in the statute.
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:15 am to SpidermanTUba
If I'm Perry I want to get this over with.
Once the charges are tossed (as the Governor has the right to a line-item veto of any appropriation, for any reason or no reason), he can get back to campaigning for the 2016 GOP POTUS nomination. (Though I still think Rand Paul has the best chance)
Once the charges are tossed (as the Governor has the right to a line-item veto of any appropriation, for any reason or no reason), he can get back to campaigning for the 2016 GOP POTUS nomination. (Though I still think Rand Paul has the best chance)
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:17 am to Rex
quote:
I read the statute yesterday, and although I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
The obvious purpose of that law is to keep officials from being coerced into performing something foreign to the public interest, or to keep officials from being coerced into neglecting something that would be in the public interest.
Coercing a person to perform or refrain from a particular duty is not the same as coercing her to step down... after which there is NO particular action to perform or neglect. The latter type of coercion is not meant to provoke a particular discharge or mischarge of a public duty, and is not the type of coercion addressed in the statute.
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
Rex - the DWI is just a cover for the real reason. The real reason Perry wanted her to step down is the Public Integrity Unit is one of the only political bodies with statewide power in Texas with a Democrat in charge. They were investigating Perry's pet project - CPRIT - for making grants to Perry's buddies without following protocol - and Perry wanted that to stop.
Come on dude - you didn't seriously think this was just about a crazy drunken lady, right?
LINK /
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:18 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:18 am to SpidermanTUba
The Texas Constitution gives the Governor the right to veto any portion of an appropriation bill, and it doesn't limit the reasons therefor:
quote:(Texas Constitution, Article 4, Section 14)
If any bill presented to the Governor contains several items of appropriation he may object to one or more of such items, and approve the other portion of the bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he objects, and no item so objected to shall take effect.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:18 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
It's a shame it wasnt included in the indictment then.
There's no need. It will come out at trial.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:19 am to Quidam65
No, if an official is guilty of corruption they need to face trial as soon as possible.
However, this case is nonsense. I think Austin is going to lose original jurisdiction because of this kind of foolishness.
However, this case is nonsense. I think Austin is going to lose original jurisdiction because of this kind of foolishness.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:19 am to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:20 am to BigJim
quote:
No, if an official is guilty of corruption they need to face trial as soon as possible.
Well he aint guilty until AFTER a trial finds him guilty - so your statement doesn't make sense.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:20 am to Rex
quote:Agree with all of that.
I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
However, the courts deemed it reasonable and prudent to proceed, so the die is cast.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:21 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:20 am to Rex
quote:
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
As the poster above you stated, "She didn't follow through on a single one of her threats and was over 3 times the legal limit".
That sounds like someone who offers "poor leadership".
I'm not a big Perry fan, but I believe he did nothing wrong here.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:21 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
He was also simply trying to get a Republican to take her place - as he has the authority to appoint an interim DA.
quote:
She didn't follow through on a single one of her threats and was over 3 times the legal limit. It would be extremely hard to convince a jury she made the threats with a clear mind. Hey go for it though. It doesn't even matter as far as the Perry case goes. You don't get to coerce public officials because they got a DWI.
eff it. i'm going to go around threatening to rape girls while drunk. i know you'd come to my defense the exact same way.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:22 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:21 am to Quidam65
quote:
If I'm Perry I want to get this over with.
this only works if it doesn't linger. this shite could drag out for a year or more, well into the start of primary season.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:22 am to REG861
quote:
Even Bob Mann is ridiculing this hack partisan tactic
quote:If her replacement wasn't going to be a hand picked Republican political appointee of Perry's this probably is what would have happened. If Lehmberg resigns then the investigation against Perry dies. That is the entire point of Perry's actions - to kill an investigation against him. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Perhaps the DA should have done the right thing and stepped down.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:23 am to 3nOut
quote:
eff it. i'm going to go around threatening to rape girls while drunk.
So now Lehmberg was threatening to rape people?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:23 am to Rex
quote:
I read the statute yesterday, and although I'm not a fan of Rick Perry's I think this indictment is pure baloney that does not comport with the intent or spirit of that law.
The obvious purpose of that law is to keep officials from being coerced into performing something foreign to the public interest, or to keep officials from being coerced into neglecting something that would be in the public interest.
Coercing a person to perform or refrain from a particular duty is not the same as coercing her to step down... after which there is NO particular action to perform or neglect. The latter type of coercion is not meant to provoke a particular discharge or mischarge of a public duty, and is not the type of coercion addressed in the statute.
Perry seems to be well within his gubernatorial rights to withhold funding by veto power from an agency he thinks suffers from poor leadership.
Rex ftw
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:24 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
However, the courts deemed it reasonable and prudent to proceed, so the die is cast.
I thought all that has happened to far is a grand jury indictment. If I'm not mistaken judges don't really have a big say in that.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:24 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
If her replacement wasn't going to be a hand picked Republican political appointee of Perry's this probably is what would have happened. If Lehmberg resigns then the investigation against Perry dies. That is the entire point of Perry's actions - to kill an investigation against him. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
what investigation was against him before this dumb broad decided to drive drunk, threaten police officers, and not step down?
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News