Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) Indicted For Abuse of Power

2456718

Posts

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Yes, she's a shitheel, and if Perry had just vetoed the funding (which he is legally permitted to do) it wouldn't be an issue.

    But no, he had to try and blackmail her to resign. So he abuse his authority to coerce a public official.

    It's not like it's going to hurt him or anything. He won't be convicted, he just has to say he was going to veto the funding whether she quit or not, and his poll numbers will go up.

    emnmnme
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I also edited the OP to reflect that the charges come from the threat of the veto, not the actual veto.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    If the only weapon requires violation of the law, it is totally irresponsible to use it. This isn't something that is hard to grasp.

    Preacheroverride367Regina FongQuidSquigiePolaritieGennenalyse RuebenJusticeforPlutoMrVyngaardPLAStollsCorehealerMan in the MistsCaptainNemoshrykezagdrobWraith260joshofalltrades
  • rhylithrhylith Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I like how an entire department is punished for one persons action. Because that makes sense. Great defense "We did it but she deserved it!"

    If she'd had a shred of integrity she would have resigned instead of trying to tough it out in addition to being a drunken belligerent danger to the public.

    And if Rick Perry had a shred of integrity he wouldn't have threatened to use funding for the agency she headed as a weapon to force it.

    Rhylith - <Shambler Milk> Horde Chogall
    Regina FongSquigieKonphujunjoshofalltrades
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Also I'm not familiar with Texas law, but surely impeachment proceedings (for the DA) would have been an option?

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Lehmberg should have resigned; however, Perry's actions are inexcusable. Letting him off the hook because she fucked up, is a bad precedent to set. If you let one asshole off the hook because he was totally fucking over a department to get back at it's head, for doing something egregious. Then you set the stage for the next asshole to decide to dick around with a department because it's political convenient and political inconvenient to have the department functional.

    Also let's cut the crap about this being politically motivated. If that were the case, I doubt a grand jury would have agreed to let this go forward if there wasn't a case.

    PreacherDarkPrimusGnome-InterruptusPolaritieMrVyngaardCorehealerMan in the MistszagdrobDedwrekkaWraith260joshofalltrades
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Also I'm not familiar with Texas law, but surely impeachment proceedings (for the DA) would have been an option?

    Maybe a recall?

  • HuuHuu Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    what in the


    The prosecutor investigating public integrity was drunk as fuck, on camera screaming and belligerent drunk, then flaunted her inability to be removed despite calls from literally everyone to stop being a fucking embarrassment to the idea of public integrity.

    Here is an actual story, one that makes clear the indictment is for an attempt to coerce her, rather than for actually following through on the veto (which no one disputes is completely within his power)

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-perry-indicted-coercion-veto-threat-25003869

    Also makes clear that the case is politically motivated, brought by leftwing groups and pushed forward by a San Antonio democrat.

    Yup. Republicans: never responsible, always unfairly targeted by the liberal agenda based on nothing but politics.

    Calling Perry an asshole and wanting an investigation over this doesn't mean you support Lehmberg or think she is completely innocent.

    override367QuidRegina FongSyphonBlueDarkPrimusSquigieelectricitylikesmeKid PresentableKonphujunGennenalyse RuebenArdolShadowenJusticeforPlutoMrVyngaardStollsBloodySlothCorehealerMan in the MistsCaptainNemoshrykezagdrobDedwrekkaWraith260joshofalltrades
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Also I'm not familiar with Texas law, but surely impeachment proceedings (for the DA) would have been an option?

    Impeachment would be from the state legislature, it doesn't originate from the justice system. Also his term expires in a couple months anyway, so there wouldn't be a point.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Letting him off the hook because she fucked up, is a bad precedent to set.

    A particularly relevant argument today, considering the news.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • rhylithrhylith Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Also I'm not familiar with Texas law, but surely impeachment proceedings (for the DA) would have been an option?

    Maybe a recall?

    There is no chance in hell anyone would be able to get a recall of Rick Perry through in Texas. Especially since his final term ends in a couple months anyway.

    Rhylith - <Shambler Milk> Horde Chogall
    joshofalltrades
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Ehh, if the case goes to court and he's convicted I'll shit on him right along with you guys.

    But damn, come on.


    Of course, she won her re-election because Austin would rather give Perry the finger than punish somebody who literally didn't give a shit whether she killed one of their neighbors or not.

    spool32 on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    You are engaging in a fallacy. You are basically saying that because she did something wrong it is OK for Perry to do a wrong in turn.

    Regina FongSquigieShadowhopePi-r8Gennenalyse RuebenArdolKristmas KthulhuLinespider5ShadowenMoridin889JusticeforPlutoMrVyngaardEchoDaenrisLorahalojmcdonaldStollsBloodySlothCorehealerMan in the MistsCaptainNemoTaranisshrykezagdrobWraith260PantsBjoshofalltradesSeidkona
  • TexiKenTexiKen Steeeve Perry Steeeeeeve PerryRegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Lehmberg should have resigned; however, Perry's actions are inexcusable. Letting him off the hook because she fucked up, is a bad precedent to set. If you let one asshole off the hook because he was totally fucking over a department to get back at it's head, for doing something egregious. Then you set the stage for the next asshole to decide to dick around with a department because it's political convenient and political inconvenient to have the department functional.

    Also let's cut the crap about this being politically motivated. If that were the case, I doubt a grand jury would have agreed to let this go forward if there wasn't a case.

    It kinda is politically motivated. One of the big reasons she didn't resign is because the democrats in the city didn't want her to; if she resigned Perry would appoint someone until a new election would occur.

    Travis County is Austin, which is the most liberal part of the state. Stuff goes there statewide for a case against republicans all the time simply to increase the chances of indictments going through. That's why this also has no chance of sticking because in the average Texans eye it's nothing but politics.

    So at the end of the day when the judge dismisses this everyone in Austin gets all uppity and feeling persecuted and that there's no justice and that they're all alone as a blueberry in this big cherry pie (Warrant, ha!), the red parts of the state celebrate because they showed the Austin wannabe Berkleyites that they can't Mess With Texas, and the Texans will be shit. The cycle continues.

    Please buy Tito's handmade Vodka.

    HAB3pqF.png
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    Also nobody is defending her?

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    No-QuarterQuidAtomikajmcdonaldCorehealerCaptainNemojoshofalltradesSeidkona
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Come on Spool two wrongs don't make a right

    I'm shitting on Perry because he's a major figure with political aspirations, this woman sounds like a shitheel and I support any legal measures for removing her from office

    edit: I shouldn't have said republicans are pro-abuse of power, because they aren't anymore than Democrats are when it gets them what they want typically

    override367 on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    How in the Hell do you see illegally cutting funding to a public service as an acceptable method?

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    How in the Hell do you see illegally cutting funding to a public service as an acceptable method?

    He was unquestionably in the clear with regard to vetoing a funding bill.

    The issue here is whether he abused his power by threatening to veto the bill if she didn't resign.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    I'd have a problem convicting Perry in my head regardless of the facts if it had any bearing on whether or not he was actually convicted in reality

    but since I have no power and I hate Rick Perry I'm just going to assume he's guilty until proven innocent

    I'd have a problem with any Dem politician coming out and insinuating he was guilty though

  • DacDac Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    How in the Hell do you see illegally cutting funding to a public service as an acceptable method?

    He was unquestionably in the clear with regard to vetoing a funding bill.

    The issue here is whether he abused his power by threatening to veto the bill if she didn't resign.

    Which, you know, the Grand Jury seems to think there's a possibility he might have done.

    If there wasn't, this indictment wouldn't exist.

    Dac on
    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Also I'm not familiar with Texas law, but surely impeachment proceedings (for the DA) would have been an option?

    Maybe a recall?

    No way you recall a Democratic DA in Austin.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    How in the Hell do you see illegally cutting funding to a public service as an acceptable method?

    The veto was legal, the threat was not.

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    As far as I can tell, the only person defending someone else's illegal actions in this thread is you.

    Nobody is defending her drunk driving, or trying to make an excuse for it. We are condemning abuse of power (Perry's threat to veto), something you are apparently trying to excuse.

    notdroid on
    PLAshrykejoshofalltrades
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular


    "Oops"

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    As far as I can tell, the only person defending someone else's illegal actions in this thread is you.

    Nobody is defending her drunk driving, or trying to make an excuse for it. We are condemning abuse of power, something you are trying apparently trying to excuse.
    spool32 wrote: »
    Ehh, if the case goes to court and he's convicted I'll shit on him right along with you guys.

    All right, though, fair enough. I read into the posts attitudes that, on review of the thread, weren't really there.

    I'm glad that no one is trying to defend the drunken DA who would rather risk murdering someone than take a cab home. That is good.

    override367IncenjucarShivahn
  • HuuHuu Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    As far as I can tell, the only person defending someone else's illegal actions in this thread is you.

    Nobody is defending her drunk driving, or trying to make an excuse for it. We are condemning abuse of power (Perry's threat to veto), something you are apparently trying to excuse.

    IOKIYAR

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Also I'm not familiar with Texas law, but surely impeachment proceedings (for the DA) would have been an option?

    Maybe a recall?

    No way you recall a Democratic DA in Austin.

    Republicans are against big government and in favor of local control. Ergo, Republicans support the right of the people of Austin not to recall this idiot DA and oppose the flagrant abuse of power on the part of Big Texas Government trying to crush local government.


    (I typed this all with a completely straight face. I love you, Spool, but you are staring at your own bunghole here).

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    It is entirely possible for them to both be assholes, you know.

    They are definitely both assholes, but only one of them illegally abused their power.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Huu wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    As far as I can tell, the only person defending someone else's illegal actions in this thread is you.

    Nobody is defending her drunk driving, or trying to make an excuse for it. We are condemning abuse of power (Perry's threat to veto), something you are apparently trying to excuse.

    IOKIYAR

    Stop being a silly goose Huu.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    It is entirely possible for them to both be assholes, you know.

    They are definitely both assholes, but only one of them illegally abused their power.

    And only one has been convicted so far

    spool32
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Yeah, if it had just been a veto. I seriously doubt this would even be a thing. It's the whole "either resign or I veto your department's funding," that I have an issue with. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with Texas's political system, but I'm pretty sure they should have a means to remove someone from office if they fuck up in a criminal manner. So if that's not being pursued, it either means there wasn't just cause or someone couldn't be arsed to use the proper procedure. At that point, the person deciding they are going to bypass the process, need to have their balls crushed, so that future assholes understand that you follow proper procedure.

    Sure maybe there was no recourse to remove her because they didn't have a law in place. Well welcome to democracy, sometimes someone fucks up or does something egregious and they get away with it because no one thought a law was needed. We sure as hell don't come up with creative methods or ex post facto laws to to address such oversights because they are ripe for abuse.

    I'd throw in a "I don't know what Perry was thinking," but I see little point because I'm pretty sure the asshole wasn't thinking at all.

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    It is entirely possible for them to both be assholes, you know.

    They are definitely both assholes, but only one of them illegally abused their power.
    Taramoor wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    It is entirely possible for them to both be assholes, you know.

    They are definitely both assholes, but only one of them illegally abused their power.

    And only one has been convicted so far

    How about we don't play the Felony Olympics 2014? Drunk driving is bad. Abuse of power is also bad.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Doesn't Perry have the legislature? Couldnt they pass a law that made it easy to remove public servants who are convicted of crimes?

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Also I'm not familiar with Texas law, but surely impeachment proceedings (for the DA) would have been an option?

    Maybe a recall?

    No way you recall a Democratic DA in Austin.

    Republicans are against big government and in favor of local control. Ergo, Republicans support the right of the people of Austin not to recall this idiot DA and oppose the flagrant abuse of power on the part of Big Texas Government trying to crush local government.


    (I typed this all with a completely straight face. I love you, Spool, but you are staring at your own bunghole here).

    :)

    The public integrity unit handles cases all over the state. It's all at the same level of government! :)

  • HuuHuu Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Huu wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    But of course you guys are all about trashing the republican instead of the drunk driver who made a fool of herself and a mockery of her office.

    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    damn, people. Which other irresponsible criminals who only managed not to kill someone through sheer luck are you going to defend?

    As far as I can tell, the only person defending someone else's illegal actions in this thread is you.

    Nobody is defending her drunk driving, or trying to make an excuse for it. We are condemning abuse of power (Perry's threat to veto), something you are apparently trying to excuse.

    IOKIYAR

    Stop being a silly goose Huu.

    I am not the one engaging in olympic level apology gymnastics to explain away a misuse of power and blaming everyone else of supporting drunk driving. I mean literally your first post is blaming this all on the Democrats and claiming it is nothing but politics. As stated, you are th eonly one defending illegal activity here.

    But as always, calling out a republican is goosery.

    QuidSyphonBlueGennenalyse RuebenMoridin889MrVyngaardPLALorahalojmcdonaldGaddezMan in the MistsCaptainNemoJragghenshrykezagdrobjoshofalltradesSpoit
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    Doesn't Perry have the legislature? Couldnt they pass a law that made it easy to remove public servants who are convicted of crimes?

    That's going to be hard to get past the courts, as it could be easily abused by law enforcement/people cozy with law enforcement.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Doesn't Perry have the legislature? Couldnt they pass a law that made it easy to remove public servants who are convicted of crimes?

    No governor in Texas really has a legislature. Texas governors are comparatively weak. In this case, a different grand jury decided that her behavior didn't constitute official misconduct and though she was convicted, she spent less than 30 days in jail.

  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    How in the Hell do you see illegally cutting funding to a public service as an acceptable method?

    The veto was legal, the threat was not.

    I hate Perry as much as tbe next person, but this is a bit confusing - how can can an executive "threaten" to do something he has the legal right to do regardless? That's not a threat, that's a settlement conference? Does Perry have an unquestionable legal right to veto as he did?

    Like, threatening someone with a civil suit if you have an actual good faith basis for the suit isn't blackmail.

    Really morally unethical considering the impact on the rest of the department, though.

    SummaryJudgment on
    tERiPJd.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    She was already investigated with the potential to be removed for misconduct.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/rick-perry-indicted-power_n_5683406.html
    The jail video led to an investigation of Lehmberg by a separate grand jury, which decided she should not be removed for official misconduct.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's totally because he's an asshole, not because it was the only weapon he had available to try and restore some public integrity to the office of public integrity.

    How in the Hell do you see illegally cutting funding to a public service as an acceptable method?

    The veto was legal, the threat was not.

    I hate Perry as much as tbe next person, but this is a bit confusing - how can can an executive "threaten" to do something he has the legal right to do regardless? That's not a threat, that's a settlement conference? Does Perry have an unquestionable legal right to veto as he did?

    Like, threatening someone with a civil suit if you have an actual good faith basis for the suit isn't blackmail.

    Really morally unethical considering the impact on the rest of the department, though.

    Legal: "I'll veto the bill if it doesn't do X or fund Y." "I'll veto the bill if it exceeds X amount." "I'll veto the bill because I don't like it."

    Illegal: "I'll veto this bill if X doesn't resign from office."

    ChanusQuidHakkekageRegina FongIncenjucarGennenalyse RuebenArdolMrVyngaardStollsCorehealerMan in the Mistszagdrobjoshofalltrades
Sign In or Register to comment.