TexasCHLforum.com

healthinsp wrote:He was indicted under 39.02 and 36.03

I can see this one.

Sec. 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;

I can see this in his actions, but does this exempt him?

(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.

If it does, then I was wrong and I have learned something today.

healthinsp wrote:He was indicted under 39.02 and 36.03

39.02 --- Ok I don't see it.
Sec. 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

Subsection 2 is the only one with a felony attached to it, and I don't see how what he did violated 39.02.

healthinsp wrote:I can see this one.

Sec. 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;

I can see this in his actions, but does this exempt him?

(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.

If it does, then I was wrong and I have learned something today.

healthinsp wrote:

I don't like the borderline personal attacks against you either.

Your statement about Perry is wrong on at least two levels. First, what is did is not "wrong" either legally or morally. Have you looked at the two statutes he allegedly violated? If so, please tell us which specific provisions you feel he violated.

Secondly, you imply that Perry should have simply vetoed the funding bill without first trying to get the convicted criminal to resign. While he could have done just that, he took the high road by trying to avoid having the PIU shut down. Some think that's a laudable goal, but I don't because it shouldn't be in any county DA's office; it should be under the direction of the AG.

The only thing political about this is the despicable conduct of everyone involved in the indictment. Absolutely no person, entity or media outlet that I have seen has supported the indictment, but many all over the country have condemned it as a political assassination attempt by the Democrats. The Texas Democratic Party on one occasion called for Perry to resign, but when it quickly became obvious that Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, were condemning the indictments, even the Texas Democratic Party wisely shut up.

You imply that Lemberg has done everything an elected DA should do under the circumstances; i.e. plead guilty and "server her time." I doubt anyone other than Lemberg herself would agree that it's okay for a sitting DA to drive drunk, then not only stay in office, but also head the State's public integrity unit. If driving drunk and risking the lives of innocent people isn't enough to call her integrity into question, refusing to resign as DA simply because a Republican Governor would appoint a Republican to replace her most certainly does.

The fact that Democrats and liberals haven't been screaming for her resignation since the day she was arrested speaks volumes their character and integrity. This applies also to the Travis County Commissioners Court that could have and should have removed her from office.

Chas.

What I see is Perry supporters trying to make this all about Lemberg. Focusing on why he did instead of what he did. I think it's misdirection. The focus should be what he did.

Perry was indicted last week for the offense of vetoing an appropriations bill. Not vetoing an appropriations bill in exchange for a bribe. Not vetoing an appropriations bill as a favor to a donor. Not vetoing an appropriations bill in excess of his lawful authority. But simply vetoing an appropriations bill.

Lehmberg exercised her power to stay in her position, and Perry exercised his power to veto funding for her Public Integrity Office as long as she did. You can disagree with one or both of them, but no one was committing a crime.

As for the second count, Volokh points to an appeals-court decision that held that “coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression."

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

n5wd wrote:To her credit, though, she never became physically confrontational, as many DUI do.

The police had to put a mask on her because she kept spitting on the officers and everyone else at the PD.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:This is interesting. Perry Grand Juror Was An Active Democratic Party Delegate During Jury Proceedings How does that happen? There's a foul odor coming out of Austin, and it's not the bat guano.

baldeagle wrote:This is interesting. Perry Grand Juror Was An Active Democratic Party Delegate During Jury Proceedings How does that happen? There's a foul odor coming out of Austin, and it's not the bat guano.