Texans For Public Justice...

[Big girl]

co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,-SHən/Submit
noun
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

[PN-G bamatex]

He should have removed her from office. What is up with the threats? That wasn't even necessary.

 

To my knowledge, the governor's office itself has no authority to remove a district attorney. The only way one can be removed is via the filing of a petition for removal by a resident in the county over which that DA presides who has lived in said county for at least six months, as explicitly outlined in the chapter of the Texas Local Government Code I gave you. While Governor Perry lives at 1010 Colorado Street in his official capacity as governor, his permanent residence is not in Travis County. Therefore, he has no authority to file a petition for removal either as governor or as an average citizen, and such a duty would thus be left to a Travis County resident or, as mentioned, to the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County DA's office.

 

I told you in my previous post that the Public Integrity Unit refused to file such a petition. So, with a DA refusing to step down on one hand, and an office charged with holding her accountable that refused to do its duty on the other, what was the governor left to do? He has no express authority to remove her on his own, so he attempted to motivate the office that is supposed to remove her to do its job. While I still think the action is inappropriate, calling it "coercion" is an asinine political charge (as is this indictment), and I can completely understand both the governor's motivations and his methods.

[stevenash]

The district attorney knew very well exactly what the right action was. She simply refused to take said action.

[Big girl]

So.....it is okay to threaten a public official. I read that two other DA's were issued DWI citations and Perry didn't do anything about it. I don't know how true the story is, but l will post the link.

[stevenash]

In this case, the DA blood alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit.

[PN-G bamatex]

So.....it is okay to threaten a public official. I read that two other DA's were issued DWI citations and Perry didn't do anything about it. I don't know how true the story is, but l will post the link.

 

First off, depending on the county, the DA's office in those other two cases may not have anything resembling a public integrity unit. In fact, the only one I know of is the one in Travis County, which was formed by a long-time DA there specifically because Travis County is the site of the capitol. If that's the case and those other two DA's offices don't have a public integrity, Governor Perry wouldn't be able to handle it the same way, or really at all given that, once again, the governor's office has no express power to remove DAs.

 

Second, you make this out like the governor personally threatened the Travis County DA. He did nothing of the sort. What he said was that if the PIU in Travis County didn't do its job, he was going to veto its funding. When they didn't, he carried out that promise. He didn't make any personal threats against any specific person. All he said was that he expected the DA to either step down or be removed from office as the Texas state law requires, or he would veto funding as he saw necessary if the law wasn't carried out. That's not a personal threat, and thus, this isn't coercion.

[stevenash]

Big Girl- I believe that qualifies as BOOM, ROASTED. Would you concur, ECO?

[Baba Ganoush]

She is googling definitions, she will return shortly

[stevenash]

I am sure that, somehow, Bush will be involved in the conversation.

[Big girl]

First off, depending on the county, the DA's office in those other two cases may not have anything resembling a public integrity unit. In fact, the only one I know of is the one in Travis County, which was formed by a long-time DA there specifically because Travis County is the site of the capitol. If that's the case and those other two DA's offices don't have a public integrity, Governor Perry wouldn't be able to handle it the same way, or really at all given that, once again, the governor's office has no express power to remove DAs.

Second, you make this out like the governor personally threatened the Travis County DA. He did nothing of the sort. What he said was that if the PIU in Travis County didn't do its job, he was going to veto its funding. When they didn't, he carried out that promise. He didn't make any personal threats against any specific person. All he said was that he expected the DA to either step down or be removed from office as the Texas state law requires, or he would veto funding as he saw necessary if the law wasn't carried out. That's not a personal threat, and thus, this isn't coercion.

soooo you guys dont think it is odd that he went after the district attorney and the agency that was investigating he and Abbot"s agency.

[Big girl]

I read that he told the district attorney to resign or he would veto funding to the agency. That is a threat.

[Big girl]

1. Rick Perry helps to create the Cancer Research Agency
2. Perry and Abbott use this as a piggy bank for their donors.
3. Public Integrity Unit led by DA investigates the agency after Perry/Abbott donor gets sketchy 1 million USD.
4. During the investigation, Perry threatened to veto unit funding if the DA doesn't resign



THis is what I read.

[PN-G bamatex]

soooo you guys dont think it is odd that he went after the district attorney and the agency that was investigating he and Abbot"s agency.

 

In light of the full circumstances of the situation, no, I don't. I think it's odd that the same agency wasn't trying to remove a DA facing DUI charges when Texas state law requires that she abdicate the office.

 

And since we're talking about things that are odd, how about we discuss some of the other odd characteristics of this specific unit of the Travis County DA's office. Like the fact that it's investigating the creation of a cancer research organization instead of removing a drunk DA like Texas state law requires.

[Big girl]

What about the 2 other DA's, per Texas law they should've been asked to leave, but they weren't.

[TROJANSWIN]

What about the 2 other DA's, per Texas law they should've been asked to leave, but they weren't.

Do you ever even read any of the other posts?
Bamakid answered this a few posts back. It is like arguing with a broken record.

[PN-G bamatex]

What about the 2 other DA's, per Texas law they should've been asked to leave, but they weren't.

 

I have already answered that question in a separate post.

 

Do you ever even read any of the other posts?
Bamakid answered this a few posts back. It is like arguing with a broken record.

 

No, she doesn't. Which is why I get tired of arguing with her. It's like going in circles. She brings up a point or some irrelevant bit of information that you completely trump with fact, and then two posts later, she's bringing it up again. She either doesn't read it, or she doesn't truly think through what she's reading.

[new tobie]

but dont be confused he received alot of heat from the right and this board. This just proves on so many different levels. Nobody cares just when the other side is doing it. If this was obama charged with this very few would be siding with him like they are with perry. ALL PEOPLE CARE ABOUT NOW IS DO THE POLITICIAN HAVE A D OR R IN FRONT HIS NAME.

Right On

[Big girl]

I have already answered that question in a separate post.


No, she doesn't. Which is why I get tired of arguing with her. It's like going in circles. She brings up a point or some irrelevant bit of information that you completely trump with fact, and then two posts later, she's bringing it up again. She either doesn't read it, or she doesn't truly think through what she's reading.

you said that per texas law a district attorney that has a dui charge should be removed from.office. They were not.( the other DA'S ) Your explanation does not make sense.

[Big girl]

So....per Texas law ALL of them shouldve been removed.

[Big girl]

100% correct. As I have stated before on this board, none of the politicians care about us. They are only out for themselves!
With that being said, wether or not Perry was justified in what he did, this D.A. Should have stepped down or been removed from office. How could her office ever prosecute anyone for a crime involving DWI if she was still there? Just like the rest of us, she is not above the law!

how could the other two DA'S offices prosecute anyone with a dwi if they were still there. ( I read that the other two were Republicans)

[Big girl]

In light of the full circumstances of the situation, no, I don't. I think it's odd that the same agency wasn't trying to remove a DA facing DUI charges when Texas state law requires that she abdicate the office.

And since we're talking about things that are odd, how about we discuss some of the other odd characteristics of this specific unit of the Travis County DA's office. Like the fact that it's investigating the creation of a cancer research organization instead of removing a drunk DA like Texas state law requires.

shouldnt the 2 DA'S abdicate their offices as well per Texas law.

[PN-G bamatex]

you said that per texas law a district attorney that has a dui charge should be removed from.office. They were not.( the other DA'S ) Your explanation does not make sense.

 

 

I've literally already explained this twice, but fine. What's a third time hurt?

 

The Local Government Code in Texas cites intoxication as a specific grounds for removal of a district attorney. A DUI, obviously, constitutes intoxication. However, while it makes that cause explicit, it does not explicitly charge a specific public entity with carrying out the removal. Instead, it places the burden of filing the petition for the removal of a DA on those grounds on the residents of the county in which that DA resides who have lived in said county for at least six months and are not under indictment by that DA at the time of petitioning.

 

The Travis County DA's office houses the Public Integrity Unit, which was created by a former DA in the 80s specifically because of the high incidence of public corruption cases in Travis County due to its hosting the state capitol. To paraphrase Ronnie Earle, the now-retired Travis County DA who created the unit, it is specifically charged with investigating cases of corruption and prosecuting corrupt officials in Travis County. By default, this would include officials at the municipal, county and state level within the county's borders, including the DA herself if necessary, as it obviously would be in this case. And, since the PIU is bound to follow state law, it would, by default, be required to file the petition for removal of its own boss as prescribed in the Local Government Code. It never did.

 

The Public Integrity Unit is not something that every DA's office in every county has. It is in fact unique to Travis County. So, by default, that renders Travis County a special case. In the other two counties where those other two DAs preside, there is no division of their office charged specifically with investigating public corruption or, as necessary, those specific DAs. Does that change the fact that those two DAs should be removed from office? Absolutely not. What it means is that there's effectively nobody there to remove them except the citizens they serve, unlike in Travis County. And, by proxy, it means that there's no specific unit that Governor Perry could threaten to veto funding for to try and force a removal, which effectively renders your question irrelevant.

[stevenash]

Big Girl- I believe that is another BOOM, ROASTED

[Big girl]

I've literally already explained this twice, but fine. What's a third time hurt?

The Local Government Code in Texas cites intoxication as a specific grounds for removal of a district attorney. A DUI, obviously, constitutes intoxication. However, while it makes that cause explicit, it does not explicitly charge a specific public entity with carrying out the removal. Instead, it places the burden of filing the petition for the removal of a DA on those grounds on the residents of the county in which that DA resides who have lived in said county for at least six months and are not under indictment by that DA at the time of petitioning.

The Travis County DA's office houses the Public Integrity Unit, which was created by a former DA in the 80s specifically because of the high incidence of public corruption cases in Travis County due to its hosting the state capitol. To paraphrase Ronnie Earle, the now-retired Travis County DA who created the unit, it is specifically charged with investigating cases of corruption and prosecuting corrupt officials in Travis County. By default, this would include officials at the municipal, county and state level within the county's borders, including the DA herself if necessary, as it obviously would be in this case. And, since the PIU is bound to follow state law, it would, by default, be required to file the petition for removal of its own boss as prescribed in the Local Government Code. It never did.

The Public Integrity Unit is not something that every DA's office in every county has. It is in fact unique to Travis County. So, by default, that renders Travis County a special case. In the other two counties where those other two DAs preside, there is no division of their office charged specifically with investigating public corruption or, as necessary, those specific DAs. Does that change the fact that those two DAs should be removed from office? Absolutely not. What it means is that there's effectively nobody there to remove them except the citizens they serve, unlike in Travis County. And, by proxy, it means that there's no specific unit that Governor Perry could threaten to veto funding for to try and force a removal, which effectively renders your question irrelevant.

yeah right. He was trying to get rid of her, because her unit was investigating him. If she resigned, he could've appointed someone else to her position. ( A republican)...

[PN-G bamatex]

yeah right. He was trying to get rid of her, because her unit was investigating him. If she resigned, he could've appointed someone else to her position. ( A republican)...

And there it is. She can't deny that her question was answered anymore, so she has to dismiss the answer as though it's completely fallacious simply because it doesn't support her side.