IMO, it definitely makes it not an abuse of power. I am pretty sure any jury in Texas that is not filled with flower children from Austin will agree. The problem is not that Perry will be convicted. The problem is that the malicious prosecution will create difficulties for him if he tries to run for Prez. Not that I want him to. So I am not worried about him too much.
“Abuse of power” is all about motivation. The method - veto - is completely legal.
Wow. I thought you were a “breaking the law is breaking the law” kind of guy.
Except there was no breaking the law here. Governor vetoing something is completely legal. If he was doing it for the wrong motivation, that would be breaking the law. The motivation was completely correct though.
Vetoing is legal – using a veto threat to try and get someone removed from a position may not be. And if it’s illegal, it’s illegal no matter who they’re trying to remove.
This is a really silly thing to say. You can veto a bill. You can’t (according to the indictment) threaten a veto a bill to try and influence someone to be removed from office. The motivation doesn’t matter, but even if it did, the motivation is wrong.
The motivation was trying to force someone to do something he has absolutely no say over, that is not correct not matter how shitty the victim is.
So a DUI should be a bar from holding public office?
So if I was selling cocaine so that I could buy a nice car, that would be breaking the law. But if I was selling cocaine to pay my mortgage and keep my family off the street, that’s not breaking the law?
An example of an abuse of power: “I don’t think this guy that works in X department should be working there. I’m going to veto the X dept funding bill unless he’s gone.”
It doesn’t matter if the guy in X department is a neo-Nazi or the greatest guy in the world – threatening a veto to get rid of him is abusing one’s political power.
Can someone please explain why threatening to use his veto is not just dirty politics, but actually a crime? Is it a specific crime, or just a general “bringing dishonor to the office” type of vaguely defined crime?
Executives can veto bills and threaten to veto bills, but they can’t threaten to veto bills to try and intimidate someone to resign or get fired.
This looks like the statute (abuse of official capacity) under which he was indicted. The legalese is a little beyond my proficiency.
As I understand it, if the head of the Public Integrity Unit had stepped down, Perry would be the one to appoint the replacement.
Selling cocaine is illegal regardless of motivation. Governor vetoing laws is legal.
The right analogy is: me giving money to you as a birthday gift is not breaking the law. Me giving money to you so that you lower my house’s county assessment value so I could pay smaller RE tax is breaking the law.
And threatening a veto to try and influence someone to be removed from their position is breaking the law, at least according to the indictment.
“According to the indictment”. As I said, malicious prosecutor wielding a bunch of flower children from Austin. No danger of conviction whatsoever.
Or a legitimate indictment based on the possibility that threatening a veto to intimidate someone into being removed from office really is against the law.
I guess, according to Terr, the President could threaten to veto a disaster-aid bill to Texas after a natural disaster unless Rick Perry resigned, and this wouldn’t be against the law.
Sure could. And no, it wouldn’t. The Prez, if he did it, would lose all respect/power and become an instant lame duck though. And bring a lot of his party down as well.