Posted on 08/16/2014 2:40:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Let’s start with Count Two, Coercion of a Public Servant, since the most commentary has been offered concerning this count. Here is the relevant statute: Texas Penal Code 36.03:
§ 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; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
Subsection (1) is the relevant part. The indictment claims Perry attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg “in the specific performance of her official duty” to “continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected district attorney for the County of Travis through the completion of her elected term of office.”
If the statute did not contain an exception, this language would be absurdly overbroad. In Texas, “coercion” includes a threat “to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.” So, without an exception, the language of the statute would criminalize any threat by a public servant to influence a public official in the performance of their duty. To take an (unrelated) example, if someone in government told their employee: “tell the truth to the legislature or I will fire you,” someone could claim they were thereby trying to prevent a public official from doing their duty through “coercion.” (So, if such a law applied to the federal government, then Barack Obama could not threaten to fire a top official for, say, lying to Congress. It would be legally prohibited, rather than what it is: legal, but impossible to imagine.)
So the law can’t be that broad, and in fact, the statute has an exception:
(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.
To be honest, I thought of this a month ago. He approached his campaign like he always approached his business adventures, and he did well and without massive voter fraud and other questionable things he would have won. However, I think a ticket with him and someone much different would have done better. I think the only reason McCain got as far as he did, was because of Palin. If he picked a McCain like guy, he would have go only 38% of the vote.
Simply, anyone unwilling to be just another supine catamite of The State is labeled “defiant” by leftists.
She almost looks like she is demonically possessed. Oh wait. She’s a Democrat. Of course she is. (nevermind)
Wouldn't surprise me if the White House had something to do with it. Obama hates Rick Perry for sending the National Guard to the border. Amongst other things. Obama just can't stand the freedom we still have in Texas.
Just sayin.
KBH was indicted while treasurer, but she was a Senate candidate at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.