Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Saw this on yahoo, can't attest to its validity.
§ 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
"(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."
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
I am too lazy to look it up, but I would suggest Don Diego Google the actual indictment as it should cite the relevant law or laws in question.Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiegoQuote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Generally speaking you cant threaten to veto funding for an elective office unless an elected official resigns.
Is there a legal citation to support malibber's assertion that the Governor of Texas cannot threaten to veto or, in fact, veto funding for a District Attorney's Office within the State? Umm, . . . preferably a State of Texas citation.
Saw this on yahoo, can't attest to its validity.
§ 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
"(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."
While being processed during her arrest for drunk driving, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg threatened a number of sheriff's deputies, telling them they would lose their jobs. Her perceived influence didn't result in any of those officers losing their jobs, but her close ties to the sheriff did result in no charges being filed against her for hit and run that same evening.
Texas does have a rarely used tenet of state law that authorizes the removal of county officials over drunkenness, so that could have been used to remove her from office.
The Public Integrity Unit is part of one Texas county District Attorney's office. The partisan population of that county therefore has the power to elect one person to execute and control investigations and prosecutions of ethics violations that might occur anywhere in the state of Texas. The extreme lack of personal integrity by the head of that county office should be ignored, according to some people.
Vetoing funding for that particular unit is fully within the rights of the governor. It doesn't remove her from office. If it did, she would have been gone more than a year ago. If Travis County voters feel so strongly about keeping that unit under the control of Rosemary Lehmberg, let them vote to fund it...and her. Austin is certainly prosperous enough at this point in time to pay for it.
