Re: A ridiculus analogy
You're not really that dense are you? The discussion is not about whether he vetoed the bill or not. It was the coersion that was illegal. You cannot bribe a public official. The quid quo pro being, you resign and I will fund your department. If he had kept his mouth shut and vetoed the bill there would have been no criminal act.
He said he would veto the bill and told them why. The legislature has the option to override the veto if they see fit.
Dip s*** you still don't get it. He is in trouble because he is guilty of extortion, bribery and abuse of power.
The executive has the power to veto. The legislature has the power to override. Some state it takes a 2/3 majority to override. Some states take a simple majority.