Rick Perry Indicted.

[RavenSky]

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.

Then Rick Perry should have taken the legal and appropriate steps to have her - and the other two drunk-driving Republican DA's - impeached, rather than engaging in the illegal coercion and bribery of a public servant. I would have been fine with that. How about you?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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
- 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.

Maybe that's the case. Volock argues against he second count, but on other grounds.
The "specific duty" would be: "the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis”, but it seems Volock does not object to that particular interpretation - rather, he considers the statute to be too broad.

I'm leaning towards the statute's being too broad regarldess of what is meant by "specific"; for example, what if the governor threatens to veto a law if it does not have the specific wording he wants?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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,

And just where did I mention bribery? I didn't did I? No, the special prosecutor made his arguments, presented his facts and Perry was indicted. All the argument that counts. Airily denying that and demanding arguments was sooooo lame. So pointless.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perry stated that he wanted the DA gone because the public cannot trust an official who has run afoul of the law. Oh, the irony! What a dumb fuck. I doubt he gets it.

But then again Perry probably thinks he's on a holy crusade. Nothing could ever be illegal about that. Again, what a dumb fuck.

Does anyone know if Perry even knows what a Grand Jury is?

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Maybe that's the case. Volock argues against he second count, but on other grounds.
The "specific duty" would be: "the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis”, but it seems Volock does not object to that particular interpretation - rather, he considers the statute to be too broad.

I'm leaning towards the statute's being too broad regardless of what is meant by "specific"; for example, what if the governor threatens to veto a law if it does not have the specific wording he wants?

Volokh did not note this, but at least two other commentators have; it stood out to me when I first read Volokh and kinda wondered why he did not mention it. None the less, the legal presumption is that words have meaning (i.e. they are not 'padding'). The legislature wrote "specific" duty and "specific performance". They recognized that to accuse someone of coercion it has to be for something specific. The only specific thing that he tried to influence on was to quit. Her legal duties as a DA are those assigned by law and perhaps her job description. BUT she has NO legal duty to remain a DA.

Still I agree with your take (and Volokh's as well), that is why I suggested there were other serious problems.

 

[maxparrish]

I am afraid it's not good enough.

Then Rick Perry should have taken the legal and appropriate steps to have her - and the other two drunk-driving Republican DA's - impeached, rather than engaging in the illegal coercion and bribery of a public servant. I would have been fine with that. How about you?

 

[maxparrish]

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,

And just where did I mention bribery? I didn't did I? No, the special prosecutor made his arguments, presented his facts and Perry was indicted. All the argument that counts. Airily denying that and demanding arguments was sooooo lame. So pointless.

No you didn't, that was some other persistently anti-Perry partisan. I retract it.

 

[barbos]

I am afraid it's not good enough.

Then Rick Perry should have taken the legal and appropriate steps to have her - and the other two drunk-driving Republican DA's - impeached, rather than engaging in the illegal coercion and bribery of a public servant. I would have been fine with that. How about you?

Yes, police, DA, judges, etc can't drive drunk and hold their positions.

Having said that, she did not just drive drunk, she completely lost it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Perry stated that he wanted the DA gone because the public cannot trust an official who has run afoul of the law. Oh, the irony! What a dumb fuck. I doubt he gets it.

But then again Perry probably thinks he's on a holy crusade. Nothing could ever be illegal about that. Again, what a dumb fuck.

Does anyone know if Perry even knows what a Grand Jury is?

He does now.

 

[maxparrish]

He is on a crusade, and someone is making some money: these are selling like hotcakes:

 

[maxparrish]

Perry is not guilty as claimed in Count II, Coercion. Here is the definition and statute that the indictment is based on:

§ 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:
(9) "Coercion" means a threat, however communicated:
(A) to commit an offense;
(B) to inflict bodily injury in the future on the person threatened or another;
(C) to accuse a person of any offense;
(D) to expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule;
(E) to harm the credit or business repute of any person; or
(F) to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.

§ 36.03 : Texas Statutes - Section 36.03: COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.Dfix4i1j.dpuf

(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.
(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.

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.Dfix4i1j.dpuf

As I previously noted, (a)(1), the only applicable provision, cannot apply to Perry due to its clear and restrictive language. Even so, an additional difficulty arises in (c), which is a further exception to (a)(1). Under Article 4 of the Texas Constitution the governor is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, a member of the Executive branch, which is a 'governing' body. So he falls within this section, as does his veto. "Official Action" also includes deliberations by the governing body.

Apparently prosecutors are claiming that "threatening" a veto is not an official action but as Chiat points out:

Of course the threat of the veto is an integral part of its function. The legislature can hardly negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,” the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes work.

Arguably, as Prosecutor Patrick Frey asserts:

Deliberations” include discussions about whether an action is going to be taken, including bargaining over whether an action is going to be taken. That bargaining, as long as it is not legally bribery, includes things like logrolling, horse trading — and yes, even “threats.”

BUT, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the Statue (a)(1) does apply AND the exception granted does NOT apply. Well then, the definition of the term "coercion" is:
(F) to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action. It would seem then, that Perry is guilty.

But if were literally true, Texas made it a crime for US Constitutionally protected speech, for a Governor or public servant to threaten action...for example:

“If you Legislators enacts a bill with this language rather than the version I like, I will veto it,” since that too would be “threat[ening]” “to take … action as a public servant” by vetoing the bill in “attempt[ing] to influence” legislators in “specific performance of [their] official duty,” namely drafting and enacting legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-appeals-precedent-as-to-the-coercion-count/

Indeed, it would make seem to make it illegal for an employee to 'unofficially' threaten to his boss (a public servant) that he (the employee) will quit if he is not given a raise.

Finally, the only case that seems to be a precedent clearly sides with the Governor's acts. (Hanson).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

BUT, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the Statue (a)(1) does apply AND the exception granted does NOT apply. Well then, the definition of the term "coercion" is:
(F) to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action. It would seem then, that Perry is guilty.

But if were literally true, Texas made it a crime for US Constitutionally protected speech, for a Governor or public servant to threaten action

You getting desperate, max? It's simply up to the powers to be. I think that both parties are behaving quite well in all honesty.

 

[dismal]

BUT, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the Statue (a)(1) does apply AND the exception granted does NOT apply. Well then, the definition of the term "coercion" is:
(F) to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action. It would seem then, that Perry is guilty.

But if were literally true, Texas made it a crime for US Constitutionally protected speech, for a Governor or public servant to threaten action

You getting desperate, max? It's simply up to the powers to be. I think that both parties are behaving quite well in all honesty.

Actually, no one thinks the Democrats are behaving well here.

They have somehow managed to conjure up legal charges so bizarre most comentators on their own side have found them absurd while simultaneously calling attention to and getting millions of people to watch a youtube video that portrays their imagined victim in a terrible light.

It's hard to imagine what they could have done to benefit Perry more.

 

[maxparrish]

BUT, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the Statue (a)(1) does apply AND the exception granted does NOT apply. Well then, the definition of the term "coercion" is:
(F) to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action. It would seem then, that Perry is guilty.

But if were literally true, Texas made it a crime for US Constitutionally protected speech, for a Governor or public servant to threaten action

You getting desperate, max? It's simply up to the powers to be. I think that both parties are behaving quite well in all honesty.

If I am "desperate" it is only for a little higher brow conversation; I thought by writing and conducting a symphony a few others might elevate their intellectual musicality beyond strumming a wash board and spooning water glasses.

 

[braces_for_impact]

You getting desperate, max? It's simply up to the powers to be. I think that both parties are behaving quite well in all honesty.

If I am "desperate" it is only for a little higher brow conversation; I thought by writing and conducting a symphony a few others might elevate their intellectual musicality beyond strumming a wash board and spooning water glasses.

May I suggest a nice, wholesome country music forum?

 

[ksen]

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.

How's Perry supposed to get a republican in that position if he just waits around for Lehmberg's term to be up?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/yes-rick-perry-could-end-up-doing-time.html#

Yet despite Perry’s outward appearances, he surely knows these charges are dangerous. I don’t care how many so-called “legal pundits” tell you Perry has nothing to fear. Criminal defense lawyers I spoke to who are in the legal trenches on a daily basis made it clear to me that this case could result in a conviction. And the Texas Observer, which has been following this story far before the national media, agrees.


That’s why Perry has hired a team of high-powered lawyers to represent him, including two from Washington, D.C. And the head of Perry’s legal team is nationally known attorney Tony Buzbee, who is being paid $450 an hour by the State of Texas. Perry clearly isn’t putting his fate in the hands of his own version of “My Cousin Vinny.” (Although a Texas version called “My Cousin Cletus” would be hilarious.)

By now, you probably know what led to Perry’s indictment. Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg, who is a Democrat, was stopped by the police on suspicion of drunk driving on April 12, 2013. She was belligerent to the police and had a very high blood alcohol reading. Lehmberg ultimately pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. Perry demanded she resign. However, when two other DA’s during Perry’s time as governor were convicted of drunk driving, he didn’t publicly call for them to resign. Why? Well, they were both Republicans.




Perry’s motivation in wanting Lehmberg out could be her office’s investigation into a $3 billion scandal tied to the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Some of the people being investigated apparently have close ties to Perry.

Lehmberg also heads up the Public Integrity Unit that investigates government corruption. As the Texas Observer noted, “practically speaking, this anti-corruption unit is one of the few checks on the power and influence Perry has accumulated over 14 years in office.”


Perry, in an effort to shame Lehmberg into quitting (allowing him to then appoint a Republican DA), publicly threatened to use his line-item veto to cut the $7.5 million in funding to the integrity unit that had been approved by the state legislature. She refused. Perry vetoed the funding. The unit had to lay off staff, cut its caseload, and lacked the funds to take on statewide corruption cases.





Some have dismissed the charges as nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt. Others, like The New York Times, have in essence defended Perry’s actions as being run-of-the-mill political “horse trading.”

They are wrong. It’s much more than that. That’s why a Republican judge in Texas appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to investigate. And McCrum, whose investigation led to the indictment, is no Democratic operative. He was a federal prosecutor during the George H.W. Bush administration and was even championed by two major Republicans, Senator John Cornyn and then-Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to serve as U.S. Attorney in Texas.

So what did Perry do that landed him in hot water? He used the apparatus of the government to strip the resources of an agency charged with ferreting out fraud and government corruption to further his personal agenda of removing Lehmberg from elected office. That’s undisputed. The question is, do Perry’s actions constitute the crimes of abuse of official capacity or coercion of a public servant under Texas law (the coercion being the threat of a veto)?

Keep in mind, Perry could have followed the statutory procedure under Texas law that provides for the removal of DA’s for misconduct. But Perry didn’t avail himself of this. And in fact, after Perry’s veto, a petition was filed by a local lawyer to remove Lehmberg from office under this statute, but in December 2013 a Texas judge ruled against the application, noting that a single instance of intoxication does not rise to the level of “official misconduct.”

Perry could have also continued to call for her to leave to rally public opinion. He didn’t. Instead, he used the powers of his office to essentially strip an elected official of her powers because he had decided it was time for her to go. That’s what this case is truly about, not whether the DA was a drunk or whether Perry had the power to veto funding.

Adding an intriguing wrinkle to this case, as noted by the Texas media, is the question of whether Perry’s motivation in wanting Lehmberg out was her office’s investigation into a $3 billion scandal tied to the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Some of the people being investigated apparently have close ties to Perry.

At this point, no one can tell you with certainty if Perry will be convicted on either count of the indictment, the most serious carrying a jail term of 5 to 99 years. And don’t think that governors never do hard time—in the last 20 or so years, six have gone to jail. But one thing that seems certain is that these charges are not going away soon. As Seema Iyer, a former prosecutor and current criminal defense and civil rights attorney, explained to me, “In over 90 percent of the cases where a defendant has been indicted by a grand jury, the defendant either enters a plea deal or the case is tried.”

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You getting desperate, max? It's simply up to the powers to be. I think that both parties are behaving quite well in all honesty.

If I am "desperate" it is only for a little higher brow conversation; I thought by writing and conducting a symphony a few others might elevate their intellectual musicality beyond strumming a wash board and spooning water glasses.

You are obviously being influenced by that liberal San Francisco - Berkeley connection which as all good conservatives know is godless and unamerican. We're talking Texas politics here. Strumming washboards, spooning water glasses and yucking it up while we're out muddin' in our pickups is the ultimate experience.

You need to go rewatch Deliverance. Get your canoe and head on down the Cahoolawasie.

And thank you Athena for posting that concise summation.

 

[maxparrish]

If I am "desperate" it is only for a little higher brow conversation; I thought by writing and conducting a symphony a few others might elevate their intellectual musicality beyond strumming a wash board and spooning water glasses.

May I suggest a nice, wholesome country music forum?

(smile)

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/yes-rick-perry-could-end-up-doing-time.html#

Yet despite Perry’s outward appearances, he surely knows these charges are dangerous. I don’t care how many so-called “legal pundits” tell you Perry has nothing to fear. Criminal defense lawyers I spoke to who are in the legal trenches on a daily basis made it clear to me that this case could result in a conviction. And the Texas Observer, which has been following this story far before the national media, agrees. ...
...
Perry’s motivation in wanting Lehmberg out could be her office’s investigation into a $3 billion scandal tied to the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Some of the people being investigated apparently have close ties to Perry. (Emphasis Added)

Lehmberg also heads up the Public Integrity Unit that investigates government corruption. As the Texas Observer noted, “practically speaking, this anti-corruption unit is one of the few checks on the power and influence Perry has accumulated over 14 years in office.”

Where have we seen this "there is no politics in the indictment", "a noble ethics agency is being persecuted", "maybe, could be, might that the sinister Perry is trying to a coverup of (fill the blank)" narrative before? Oh ya, in the three links provided previously by the faithful. As I have already addressed and exploded all the core points and all the mangled facts in this numbing dirge, so I won't bother to do so again. However, just to demonstrate how specious this narrative is, yet another leftest of stature, Micheal Lind, has written a very long article in Salon in a futile attempt to bring a little sanity to his side's left nutroots. http://www.salon.com/2014/08/25/ric...wballs_how_his_indictment_spawned_a_new_flap/

The indictment of Rick Perry on felony charges by a Texas grand jury has revealed a split among left-of-center Americans, dividing progressives and Democrats who think the indictment is dubious or worse from others who defend it. The first category includes the New York Times editorial board, Clinton adviser David Axelrod, progressive pundits Jonathan Chait and Matthew Yglesias, Ian Millhiser at the Center for American Progress, Alan Dershowitz and many others, along with yours truly.

Prominent center-left individuals who support the indictment are … well, they aren’t easy to find. To be sure, there are lots of hyperpartisan trolls who hide their identities behind juvenile screen names in comments sections and accuse those of us on the center-left who have raised doubts about the indictment of being shills for Rick Perry or secret conservatives. The pseudonymous trolls should acquaint themselves with John Adams, who, his Patriot values notwithstanding, defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trial of 1770 and got them acquitted: “Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

The two most high-profile defenders of the Perry prosecution in recent days have been James C. Moore, who defended the indictment against “poorly informed Democrats” in an Op-Ed at the Huffington Post, and Jason Stanford, who did the same in a piece for Politico. ...

The same two major talking points are repeated by Moore, Stanford and other defenders of the indictment: First, key figures in the prosecution are not all partisan Democrats, and second, the indictment will avert a massive Watergate-style coverup by Gov. Perry.

...A couple of points. Imagine what partisan Democrats would have written if Bert Richardson, a Republican judge, had not appointed McCrum to decide whether there was anything to the complaints against Perry, after disgraced Democratic Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had recused herself. Imagine the headline in the partisan Democratic media: “Republican Judge Squelches Perry Corruption Probe!” As for the motives of McCrum, it is not impossible that a sincere and nonpartisan career prosecutor has succumbed to the bias of prosecutors toward … prosecuting.

... The theory is that Perry might have appointed a Republican to replace Lehmberg, whereupon that Republican appointee might have criminally abused his or her power as part of a far-reaching coverup.
Those are a lot of hypotheticals, which add up to an accusation against Perry of a “pre-crime” of the Philip K. Dick kind. What is more, those who take this line of defense of the Perry indictment find it necessary to introduce an entirely new and perhaps nonexistent character — a possible criminal Republican appointee who would agree in advance of appointment to carry out a future coverup to protect Perry. A pre-crime with an imaginary accomplice! This plotline might make for a gripping episode of “House of Cards” or the new “Dallas,” but it seems pretty flimsy as a justification for the first felony indictment of a Texas governor since the indictment of Gov. Jim “Pa” Ferguson in 1917 by another Travis County grand jury.

In their defenses of the Perry indictment, neither Moore nor Stanford mention Texans for Public Justice. But neither this nor the earlier prosecution of Tom DeLay can be understood without understanding the central role of this group, which acts more like an attack dog than a public interest watchdog.

Texans for Public Justice filed the complaint that led to the Perry indictment. It also filed the complaint that led to the earlier indictment of Tom DeLay. According to the Texas Tribune:

Over the years, TPJ has also filed dozens of complaints against elected officials, mostly Republicans but also some Democrats. The majority of the complaints have been filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. Before last week, the complaint that had drawn them the most attention came in 2003, when TPJ noticed discrepancies between paperwork filed by DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority PAC with the Texas Ethics Commission and the IRS.
The founder and head of Texans for Public Justice is a native of Michigan, Craig McDonald, who rose through the ranks of the public interest movement on the left. He worked for Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen activist group and created the Texas office of Public Citizen in 1984. According to TPJ, its board of directors includes, in addition to McDonald, two other veterans of Nader’s Public Citizen; a former aide to the late Texas Democratic Gov. Anne Richards who was also a Clinton-Gore organizer; and a journalist who, according to TPJ, “has written for numerous progressive publications.”

Curiously, this group that pores over campaign donation reports and other public records in order to file ethics complaints and criminal complaints against elected and appointed officials refuses to disclose its own individual donors.


I believe that anybody who publicizes genuine corruption or even run-of-the-mill sleazy and perfectly legal wheeling and dealing in Texas or anywhere else is doing God’s work. But then, I think that the Salvation Army with its office in Times Square in the musical “Guys and Dolls” was doing God’s work, too. When Brother Arvid and Sister Sarah start to spend much of their time filing criminal and ethics complaints against New York City politicians, we are entitled to wonder whether the Salvation Army has crossed a line.

What do you call the the grassroots lurid speculators who have zero support among their own sides major public opinion makers and legal experts? ... Birthers?