“He does have that power. Since the drunken scumbag’s office doesn’t fund itself, Perry has final say if they get any money. He said if the whiskey soused head of that office did not step down, no money.”
Yes. And that’s coercion which is a felony which is why he’s under indictment.
Will he be convicted? who knows.
Why didn’t he just fire her.
Coercion has to be illegal. If her husband and kids sat her down and told her that if she doesn’t quit they will take the car keys away, should they face 100 years in prison?
The governor says I can veto your budget, you are a disgrace so if you stay there I’m not funding you. That is not coercion.
Showing up at her house late at night and threatening her kids is coercion. Threatening to cut her unit’s budget is within the law, and at worst politics.
Don’t talk yourself into dangerous nonsense by reading statutes in a ridiculous way. You do not coerce anyone with a perfectly legal act. It’s called life. That’s why she didn’t resign instead she made trouble for Perry.
Under your logic, Texas should just abolish the office of governor period. You see in the real world, every decision a governor makes is coercion. A governor threatens vetos all the time to get the legislature to do what he wants. It is all part of the negotiations of crafting legislation. So under your logic, if Perry threatens to veto a state income tax, he should be hauled off to jail. What the law the partisans are using against him is meant to prevent people from threatening public officials. For example, do this or I will kill all your cats. That is what is meant as coercion. What Perry did is not coercion but pure simple legislating.
(c) It is an exception to the application of [coercion] 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.
In exercising the veto, which is an official action, Perry has immunity from the statute, however coercion may be defined therein. Stop digging. You've lost.
It is not. Did you read the link provided in this thread showing that there is a very plain exception for government entities performing government functions (veto). The only crime here is the misuse of prosecutorial power.