Rick Perry Indicted.

[RavenSky]

She seems drunk on both youtube videos, I mean she was still drunk in the morning.
I have zero tolerance for people who try to kill me (drunk drivers) and I can't see her working in DA office after that.

And she won't be. She served time for that specific incident (which is far more than most drunk drivers do) and had already committed to stepping down at the end of her term - something neither of her drunk-driving Republican DA counter-parts did. Moreover, local officials had already considered and declined to remove her from her office prior to the end of her term.

In other words, Rick Perry didn't need to do anything - the situation had already been dealt with. But IF he thought the penalties she received locally were too light, (1) why isn't he pursuing the other drunk DA's with similar gusto, and (2) why didn't he choose to pursue proper established correct avenues to have her removed?

The bottom line is that focusing on her drunk behavior that night is a distraction (a purposeful one on the part of those who don't want us examining Rick Perry's behavior in general). Whatever you think of her behavior (and I agree is was appalling), it has nothing to do with the fact that Rick Perry specifically and publicly tied his veto of funds for the investigative division to his demands that she resign immediately (instead at the end of her term as she had already agreed to do) so he could appoint a Republican to her position. Allow me to repeat: He PUBLICLY tied his vote in an unrelated matter to his demand that she resign immediately.

Rick Perry is charged under Texas Statute - Section 36.03 COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT which says

(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

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.Rti7P5W2.dpuf

Rick Perry specifically and purposely attempted to intimidate DA Lehmberg into resigning before the end of her term by threatening to veto funds for the public integrity unit. Yes, he had every authority to veto funds for the unit, but he does not have the authority coerce a public official into any action that is against the public official's own will by using that authority to veto as the compelling threat and/or psychological pressure. Whether you agree or disagree with the charge, this is the issue - not how disgraceful Lehmberg was when she got drunk.

Someone up-thread mention Blagojevich, and this quote from him seems to be Rick Perry's attitude too: "I don't believe there's any cloud that hangs over me. I think there's nothing but sunshine hanging over me."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Rick Perry specifically and purposely attempted to intimidate DA Lehmberg into resigning before the end of her term by threatening to veto funds for the public integrity unit. Yes, he had every authority to veto funds for the unit, but he does not have the authority coerce a public official into any action that is against the public official's own will by using that authority to veto as the compelling threat and/or psychological pressure. Whether you agree or disagree with the charge, this is the issue - not how disgraceful Lehmberg was when she got drunk.

Someone up-thread mention Blagojevich, and this quote from him seems to be Rick Perry's attitude too: "I don't believe there's any cloud that hangs over me. I think there's nothing but sunshine hanging over me."

Precisely, and he's trying to spin it as best he can.

The Perry supporters fall into two camps: 1) Perry is right because the DA was drunk. 2) Perry is right because this is politics. But neither one of those make Perry right in a court of law.

And of course any politician would love to see Perry's charges laughed away because they'd love to enjoy the same license to engage in similar behavior.

 

[barbos]

And she won't be. She served time for that specific incident (which is far more than most drunk drivers do) and had already committed to stepping down at the end of her term

I am afraid it's not good enough.

 

[maxparrish]

And she won't be. She served time for that specific incident (which is far more than most drunk drivers do) and had already committed to stepping down at the end of her term - something neither of her drunk-driving Republican DA counter-parts did. Moreover, local officials had already considered and declined to remove her from her office prior to the end of her term.

In other words, Rick Perry didn't need to do anything - the situation had already been dealt with. But IF he thought the penalties she received locally were too light, (1) why isn't he pursuing the other drunk DA's with similar gusto, and (2) why didn't he choose to pursue proper established correct avenues to have her removed?

Although she was guilty on the grounds of removal, a judge decided not to punish her with removal from office.

And in regard to Perry's "hypocrisy", as has been explained ad nauseam, the previous two county D.A.'s did not represent and manage the state-wide Texas Public Integrity Unit, nor were they video taped being abusive and threatening to arresting officers.

Why can't you get that an office, whose mission is to prosecute abuse of power by public officials, can't have an asinine, two-faced, power abuser making a mockery of the "Integrity" mission. And here is the IRONY and HYPOCRISY: those who think she should stay till the end of her term are ACTUALLY MAKING their political goals trump integrity. What those accuse Perry of, is what they (and Lehmberg) are doing: making political choices over acting with with honor.

Glass house alert: You can't justify her staying while hair pulling about integrity...right?

The bottom line is that focusing on her drunk behavior that night is a distraction (a purposeful one on the part of those who don't want us examining Rick Perry's behavior in general). Whatever you think of her behavior (and I agree is was appalling), it has nothing to do with the fact that Rick Perry specifically and publicly tied his veto of funds for the investigative division to his demands that she resign immediately (instead at the end of her term as she had already agreed to do) so he could appoint a Republican to her position. Allow me to repeat: He PUBLICLY tied his vote in an unrelated matter to his demand that she resign immediately.

And let me REPEAT you are carping about an attempt to remove a person without integrity, supporting her staying in office for political reasons, WHILE making your political reasons your "justification" for her staying to the end of her term.

Less than convincing is an understatement. It's nonsense.

Rick Perry is charged under Texas Statute - Section 36.03 COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT which says

(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

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.Rti7P5W2.dpuf

Rick Perry specifically and purposely attempted to intimidate DA Lehmberg into resigning before the end of her term by threatening to veto funds for the public integrity unit. Yes, he had every authority to veto funds for the unit, but he does not have the authority coerce a public official into any action that is against the public official's own will by using that authority to veto as the compelling threat and/or psychological pressure. Whether you agree or disagree with the charge, this is the issue - not how disgraceful Lehmberg was when she got drunk.

Someone up-thread mention Blagojevich, and this quote from him seems to be Rick Perry's attitude too: "I don't believe there's any cloud that hangs over me. I think there's nothing but sunshine hanging over me."

Read literally that means a governor that threatens a veto, or a legislator that threatens legislation, are all guilty of coercion. Perhaps, in a separate post, it is time to illuminate the law?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Rick Perry specifically and purposely attempted to intimidate DA Lehmberg into resigning before the end of her term by threatening to veto funds for the public integrity unit. Yes, he had every authority to veto funds for the unit, but he does not have the authority coerce a public official into any action that is against the public official's own will by using that authority to veto as the compelling threat and/or psychological pressure. Whether you agree or disagree with the charge, this is the issue - not how disgraceful Lehmberg was when she got drunk.

Someone up-thread mention Blagojevich, and this quote from him seems to be Rick Perry's attitude too: "I don't believe there's any cloud that hangs over me. I think there's nothing but sunshine hanging over me."

Precisely, and he's trying to spin it as best he can.

The Perry supporters fall into two camps: 1) Perry is right because the DA was drunk. 2) Perry is right because this is politics. But neither one of those make Perry right in a court of law.

And of course any politician would love to see Perry's charges laughed away because they'd love to enjoy the same license to engage in similar behavior.

The response seems to be for many that Perry is being indicted for his veto, but is not the case. He is being indicted for coercion of a public servant and abuse of official capacity. You are probably right, this raises the stakes in such situations for politicians. Perry's scorched earth tactics here have gotten him into trouble.
Ironically, these laws were made to prevent politicization from running rampant, while Perry lies about this being a political witch hunt against himself.

Perry's term will soon end, as will Lehmberg's. Perry's chances to be president were low, he never polled well for 2016. Wiley Coyote Perry's legacy will to be a bad example and a warning for future Texas politicians.

 

[maxparrish]

Precisely, and he's trying to spin it as best he can.

The Perry supporters fall into two camps: 1) Perry is right because the DA was drunk. 2) Perry is right because this is politics. But neither one of those make Perry right in a court of law.

And of course any politician would love to see Perry's charges laughed away because they'd love to enjoy the same license to engage in similar behavior.

The response seems to be for many that Perry is being indicted for his veto, but is not the case. He is being indicted for coercion of a public servant and abuse of official capacity. You are probably right, this raises the stakes in such situations for politicians. Perry's scorched earth tactics here have gotten him into trouble.
Ironically, these laws were made to prevent politicization from running rampant, while Perry lies about this being a political witch hunt against himself.

Perry's term will soon end, as will Lehmberg's. Perry's chances to be president were low, he never polled well for 2016. Wiley Coyote Perry's legacy will to be a bad example and a warning for future Texas politicians.

Read Count One - contrary to the mindless propaganda from the left transmission belt, it is about the veto. Count II is about the threat to use the veto.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, a simple "defense for the indictment" has now moved several yards past the endzone to become "a legal analysis"?

Nice one, dismal, keep moving those goal posts.

Or feel free to take a shot at it yourself.

I'm guessing you won't.

I'm just a dispassionate observer on this topic. It seems to me like a politically motivated response by the democrats to a politically motivated action by Gov. Perry. I don't expect it to go anywhere, and doubt it will hurt Gov. Perry in Texas, but if it drags on too long it could hurt his Presidential aspirations. Not that I think he had a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining the GOP nomination, much less winning the general election, to begin with. I just enjoy pointing out your typical discussion antics when I notice them.

Well, a legal analysis in support of the indictment would be nice furtherance to the discussion. Multiple legal analyses have been posted to suggest it is crap. They stand un-rebutted.

I finally found one. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2014/08/rick-perrys-indictment.html

BUT, to be honest, I found Volokh's Rejoinder to be far more persuasive. In fact, I always assumed that IF a motive of obstructing justice could have been proven, Perry would be in the legal wrong. However, Volokh's deeper insight has convinced me otherwise...it does not matter what Perry's motives were.

Cornell law professor Michael Dorf, for instance, is unpersuaded by the veto power argument:

Governor Perry’s defense team is at least initially taking the position that Perry has done nothing wrong because he was simply exercising one of the powers that the Texas Constitution vests in him as governor, namely vetoing legislation, in this instance the entire budget of the public corruption unit overseen by the Travis County District Attorney. This strikes me as a very weak argument, at least if not further qualified.

In numerous ways and circumstances, the law confers power on people but restricts — sometimes with criminal penalties — the means by, and purposes for which, they may permissibly exercise that power. Governors and other state officials have the power to make personnel decisions. Some of these decisions are considered discretionary, in the sense that they are not subject to review by others who think that they reflect a poor policy or personal judgment. Nonetheless, such decisions are not wholly unconstrained by law. For example, a public official who fired or refused to hire someone based on race would thereby violate the Constitution. A public official who made a personnel decision based on a bribe would thereby commit a crime.

All of this seems perfectly routine and must be obvious to special prosecutor Michael McCrum. He is not charging Perry with making a poor or even foolish decision by vetoing the public corruption unit’s budget. The indictment charges that Perry used what would otherwise be a perfectly legal tool for an illegal purpose, and thus committed unlawful acts. Once one thinks this through, one realizes that the defense Perry has thus far publicly mounted is inadequate. It would be as though someone who was charged with committing murder by deliberately running over his victim with his car protested: “But I have a license to operate a motor vehicle.”

On reflection, though, it seems to that the veto power argument is actually quite strong. Let me elaborate...

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lly-intrudes-on-the-gubernatorial-veto-power/

That rejoinder applies to one of the charges, but not to the one based on the threat to veto. In that second case, Volokh's analysis is based on the unconstitutionality of the statute - but the prosecutor might still be trying to apply it, not considering the precedent sufficient (if he knew about the precedent).

 

[maxparrish]

Quite a few posters have made generalized and lurid claims without a parsnip of proof of exactly what laws he is breaking and how he broke them. Ravensky, to her credit, provided some grounding that has been sorely lacking. Her take:

Rick Perry is charged under Texas Statute - Section 36.03 COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT which says

(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

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.Rti7P5W2.dpuf

Rick Perry specifically and purposely attempted to intimidate DA Lehmberg into resigning before the end of her term by threatening to veto funds for the public integrity unit. Yes, he had every authority to veto funds for the unit, but he does not have the authority coerce a public official into any action that is against the public official's own will by using that authority to veto as the compelling threat and/or psychological pressure.

However, in order to confidently make assertions, one must look at both the indictment and the law, as well as the Constitution. If one does so, one can only come to one reasonable conclusion: Rick Perry is innocent. And it is so obvious, the natural conclusion is that we have another rogue Travis County Grand Jury politicizing politics.

Don't want to believe it? Begin by looking at the indictment, the part that claims coercion. http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1275641-rick-perry-indictment

Count II

Beginning on or about June 10, 2013, and continuing through June 14, 2013, in the County of Travis, Texas, by means of coercion, to-wit: threatening to veto legislation that had been approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to provide funding for the continued operation of the Public integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney's Office unless Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg resigned from her official position as elected District Attorney, James Richard "Rick" Perry, intentionally or knowingly influenced or attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg, a public servant, namely, the elected District Attorney for Travis County, Texas, in the specific performance of her official duty, to-wit: the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis, Texas through the completion of her elected term of office, and the defendant and Rosemary Lehmberg were not members of the same governing body of a governmental entity, such offense having been committed by defendant, a public servant, while acting in an official capacity as a public servant.

The Count II indictment is based upon the provisions of section 36.03 of the Texas Penal Code, entitled “Coercion of Public Servant or Voter,” subsection (a)(1) of which provides as follows: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/36.03.00.html

A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he [. . ] 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[.]

The first and most obvious problem is the difference between a "specific exercise" and a "general exercise", as well as "specific performance" and a "general performance". The intentions and understanding of the law is obvious; had the law been "to influence a public servant in the general exercise of his official power or a general performance of his official duty" the indictment might have had some legs - however, "out of the box" it collapses. There are, of course, other serious problems but it seems to me this is fatal.

PS - And for those that focus on the last line "to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty", note that there is not a "known legal duty" to stay in office. She can resign when she wishes to.

 

[maxparrish]

Apparently in the numerous cases he read, he missed the only one that seems relevant within the State of Texas.

 

[dismal]

We have a Constitution that says the governor has veto powers. When laws clash with a Constitution, Constitution wins.

NO ONE IS ARGUING WHETHER HE HAD VETO POWERS. THE ISSUE IS THE THREATS AND ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.

There is no mention of bribery in the indictment. And the threat that was made was something that Perry had the lawful power to do so criminalizing it is absurd.

If you have an actual argument let us know.

 

[dismal]

At an abstract concept, apart from the legal concept:

Coercion is an attempt to influence through a threat, an outcome that is perceived as harmful to the well being a person.
Bribery is an attempt to influence through a reward, an outcome that is perceived as beneficial to the well being of a person.

Both are attempts to influence but through different means and effects. And it is the means that make them different, covered under different laws.

That depends on how the law(s) are written. There is little reason to suppose that a single law can't address both.

Moreover, criminal complaints are not used for constitutional redress they only apply to statutory laws. Therefore, the Governor has to be in violation of a statutory law BEFORE any constitutional issue (such as the power of veto) becomes a subject of debate.

I don't think I disagree with you here. I'm not discussing the indictment (which does cite violation of statue). I'm addressing what I take to be dismal's contention that nothing can circumscribe a power granted by a constitution.

It seems obvious that the governor was attempting to affect the official action or influence of the Travis County DA. That he attempted to coerce her utilizing a power the constitution grants to the office he holds is not relevant. That he did so attempt is the relevant part.

Of course it is relevant; threatening a veto (withholding consent) UNLESS person X does Y is a fundamental element of veto power. Executives frequently threaten vetoes or bargain over line item vetos unless certain conditions are met.

You appear to be making a category error here. Executives might threaten vetos or bargain over conditions of a bill with the legislature. Vetos are a constitutional withholding of consent to the will of the legislature, which is their purpose, and there is a constitutionally granted means of accommodating or over ruling said veto on the part of the legislature. Their purpose is not to withhold consent from entities which are not the legislature, 'consent' in such a context is not something that the executive branch is granted by the constitution.

As you'll note, Article 4, Sec. 14 makes no provisions for the governor to bargain with any entity except the legislature about vetos over appropriations bills, nor is there any provision made for any entity except the legislature to accomodate or over rule the veto.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.4.pdf

This seems to be mostly an exercise in you bending the meaning of words in ways the indictment itself (already considered absurd by most people) does not even dare attempt.

 

[dismal]

He PUBLICLY tied his vote in an unrelated matter to his demand that she resign immediately.

Rick Perry is charged under Texas Statute - Section 36.03 COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT which says

(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

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.Rti7P5W2.dpuf

Rick Perry specifically and purposely attempted to intimidate DA Lehmberg into resigning before the end of her term by threatening to veto funds for the public integrity unit. Yes, he had every authority to veto funds for the unit, but he does not have the authority coerce a public official into any action that is against the public official's own will by using that authority to veto as the compelling threat and/or psychological pressure. Whether you agree or disagree with the charge, this is the issue - not how disgraceful Lehmberg was when she got drunk.

So, if a Texas public employee tells her boss "if you don't get me a promotion I'm going to quit" has that person committed a felony under this statute?

 

[maxparrish]

He PUBLICLY tied his vote in an unrelated matter to his demand that she resign immediately.

Rick Perry is charged under Texas Statute - Section 36.03 COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT which says
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.Rti7P5W2.dpuf

Rick Perry specifically and purposely attempted to intimidate DA Lehmberg into resigning before the end of her term by threatening to veto funds for the public integrity unit. Yes, he had every authority to veto funds for the unit, but he does not have the authority coerce a public official into any action that is against the public official's own will by using that authority to veto as the compelling threat and/or psychological pressure. Whether you agree or disagree with the charge, this is the issue - not how disgraceful Lehmberg was when she got drunk.

So, if a Texas public employee tells her boss "if you don't get me a promotion I'm going to quit" has that person committed a felony under this statute?

That depends. If the employee is a member of a public union and a member in good standing of the left, and the boss is a sleazy, sinister, and mean spirited Republican then of course it is not a felony. It's not even a crime!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

NO ONE IS ARGUING WHETHER HE HAD VETO POWERS. THE ISSUE IS THE THREATS AND ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.

There is no mention of bribery in the indictment. And the threat that was made was something that Perry had the lawful power to do so criminalizing it is absurd.

If you have an actual argument let us know.

The special prosecutor and the grand jury seem to disagree with you. Texans for Public Justice that filed the complaint seem to have presented an actual set of arguments that have prevailed as far as several officials, and a grand jury are concerned. And these were the arguments that count. Nobody is criminalizing anything, they are applying the law outlawing official oppression etc.

This will in the future make governors of Texas more cautious about their actions serving to help eliminate this horrible politicization of public service in Texas that some here complain about.

 

[dismal]

There is no mention of bribery in the indictment. And the threat that was made was something that Perry had the lawful power to do so criminalizing it is absurd.

If you have an actual argument let us know.

The special prosecutor and the grand jury seem to disagree with you.

This is an appeal to authority, and unfortunately an authority legal scholars on both sides find somewhat ridiculous.

Do you have an actual argument?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

View attachment 939

The 2nd presidential candidate that actually ran while in prison was Lyndon LaRouche. The first was Eugene Debs.

 

[maxparrish]

There is no mention of bribery in the indictment. And the threat that was made was something that Perry had the lawful power to do so criminalizing it is absurd.

If you have an actual argument let us know.

The special prosecutor and the grand jury seem to disagree with you. Texans for Public Justice that filed the complaint seem to have presented an actual set of arguments that have prevailed as far as several officials, and a grand jury are concerned. And these were the arguments that count. Nobody is criminalizing anything, they are applying the law outlawing official oppression etc.

This will in the future make governors of Texas more cautious about their actions serving to help eliminate this horrible politicization of public service in Texas that some here complain about.

Where do you get this stuff, or do you just make it up? There are two counts; one for abuse of public office due to a veto, the other is coercion of a public official by threatening a veto. The special prosecutor and grand jury said nothing about bribery, or the statutes related to bribery.

Whatever set of arguments that animated the Grand Jury and SP has resulted in just the charges I mentioned,

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The special prosecutor and the grand jury seem to disagree with you.

This is an appeal to authority, and unfortunately an authority legal scholars on both sides find somewhat ridiculous.

Do you have an actual argument?

Facts!!? We don't need no steenking facts!

Yeah, buddy! All you need is a conservative political orientation and an opinion. Several judges, all Republican, found the arguments Perry broke several laws persuasive enough to appoint a special prosecutor, who found the arguments persuasive enough to present these arguments with supporting facts to a grand jury who found the arguments Perry broke the law persuasive enough to indict him. These arguments that resulted in Perry having a fine official state of Texas mugshot are all the arguments needed. This will keep late night comedians in material for weeks.

 

[dismal]

This is an appeal to authority, and unfortunately an authority legal scholars on both sides find somewhat ridiculous.

Do you have an actual argument?

Facts!!? We don't need no steenking facts!

Yeah, buddy! All you need is a conservative political orientation and an opinion. Several judges, all Republican, found the arguments Perry broke several laws persuasive enough to appoint a special prosecutor, who found the arguments persuasive enough to present these arguments with supporting facts to a grand jury who found the arguments Perry broke the law persuasive enough to indict him. These arguments that resulted in Perry having a fine official state of Texas mugshot are all the arguments needed. This will keep late night comedians in material for weeks.

Several lengthy articles with in depth legal analysis pointing out how ridiculous this indictment was were linked early in the thread.

No one has even attempted to rebut their substance.

Maybe you would like to give it a try.

Because there is widespread ridicule of the indictment from both sides, Perry seems pretty pleased with all of this. Almost gleeful.