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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
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.
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.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
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
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
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."
Posts
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.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
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.
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.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Maybe a recall?
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.
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.
A particularly relevant argument today, considering the news.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
No way you recall a Democratic DA in Austin.
The veto was legal, the threat was not.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
"Oops"
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.
IOKIYAR
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).
They are definitely both assholes, but only one of them illegally abused their power.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Stop being a silly goose Huu.
And only one has been convicted so far
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
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.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
How about we don't play the Felony Olympics 2014? Drunk driving is bad. Abuse of power is also bad.
The public integrity unit handles cases all over the state. It's all at the same level of government!
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.
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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/rick-perry-indicted-power_n_5683406.html
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."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.