Rick Perry Indicted.

[maxparrish]

My view of the thread, up to this point:

From the Washinton Post, Volokh Conspiracy Legal Blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...dictment-and-the-criminalization-of-politics/

By Jonathan H. Adler August 16 at 3:20 PM
UC Irvine’s Rick Hasen writes at Electionlawblog:

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been indicted for coercion and abuse of power in a potentially politically motivated prosecution for actions Perry possibly took out of political motivation to shut down possible politically motivated prosecutions. Got that? . . .

Perry joins the list of other politicians prosecuted under controversial or dubious theories, including Tom DeLay, John Edwards, Scott Walker, Don Siegelman, and Ted Stevens. Some go to jail; some don’t. Some get convicted by juries; some don’t. Some have their prosecutions overturned on appeal; some don’t.

What the common thread here is the criminalization of politics.

Eugene has already raised some legal questions about the indictment, as have various pundits one would never expect to find in Perry’s corner. Jonathan Chait, for example, calls the indictment “unbelievably ridiculous.”

Olivia Nunzi has more on the case, and here’s a preview of the indictment I posted in May.

 

[Underseer]

My view of the thread, up to this point:

From the Washinton Post, Volokh Conspiracy Legal Blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...dictment-and-the-criminalization-of-politics/

By Jonathan H. Adler August 16 at 3:20 PM
UC Irvine’s Rick Hasen writes at Electionlawblog:

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been indicted for coercion and abuse of power in a potentially politically motivated prosecution for actions Perry possibly took out of political motivation to shut down possible politically motivated prosecutions. Got that? . . .

Perry joins the list of other politicians prosecuted under controversial or dubious theories, including Tom DeLay, John Edwards, Scott Walker, Don Siegelman, and Ted Stevens. Some go to jail; some don’t. Some get convicted by juries; some don’t. Some have their prosecutions overturned on appeal; some don’t.

What the common thread here is the criminalization of politics.

Eugene has already raised some legal questions about the indictment, as have various pundits one would never expect to find in Perry’s corner. Jonathan Chait, for example, calls the indictment “unbelievably ridiculous.”

Olivia Nunzi has more on the case, and here’s a preview of the indictment I posted in May.

Ah ha! So it definitely is a conspiracy! This proves it! Even the Waco conspiracy doesn't have this much proof! I mean, do you remember any blog posts about the Waco conspiracy? The Waco conspiracy was definitely true, this has more proof behind it than the Waco conspiracy, therefore this is even more true than even the Waco conspiracy!

I knew it! I knew it all along! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ah ha! So it definitely is a conspiracy! This proves it! Even the Waco conspiracy doesn't have this much proof! I mean, do you remember any blog posts about the Waco conspiracy? The Waco conspiracy was definitely true, this has more proof behind it than the Waco conspiracy, therefore this is even more true than even the Waco conspiracy!

I knew it! I knew it all along! [/conservolibertarian]

There is definitely a conspiracy among politicians to piss away resources on things like this while real issues go unresolved and real potential goes unrealized. You don't need an episode of Twilight Zone to see how bizarre and incredible this stuff is.

 

[dismal]

Sure, I may not have generalized with absolute perfection there but I don't see the relevance to your objection.

In this case he clearly had legal authority to do what he did, and the attempted criminalization of this is a complete joke that ought to embarrass even the most rank partisans. Which it seems to be doing.

The objection was to the general principle you were raising, namely that when you threaten to do something you have the legal power to do, it's more of a negotiatio. But that depends on factors such as what the person making the threat is demanding as a condition not to use the legal power that they do have - unless you're including such factors in the definition of having the legal power to do something, but that's not what your exchange with hylidae reflects.

In short, even if he has the legal power to veto line items, that does not entail (on the conception of having the legal power that seems to be used in this exchange) that his use of that power was not criminal.

If, on the other hand, you are not using the same concept of "having the legal power to", and you're using a concept such that he does not have the legal power to veto line items as a means of getting a person to resign for (say) cheating on her spouse, then the kneecaps example is confusing to readers, and n any case, does not work in this context, since what is being debated is precisely whether his actions were criminal.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The legal precedent itself is what distinguishes between threatening acts that one has the lawful power to carry out and threats one doesn't. This is not some distinction I have cooked up.

I assume you would agree that if we want to discuss whether something was "criminal" we would look to the law?

Threats may portend either lawful or unlawful action. First Amendment protection is extended to the former but not the latter. Therefore, a criminal statute that seeks to punish threats must clearly distinguish between an actionable or true threat and protected speech.

Judge Hanson had to guess at the meaning of section 36.03(a)(1) and its application to her official conduct because section 36.01(1)(F) [now 1.07(a)(9)(F) -EV] failed to give fair warning of the nature of the threat prohibited. Did the term “threat” encompass a threat of lawful action or only prohibit a threat of unlawful action?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13334114033535556636

 

[dismal]

Another long analysis of why this is so ridiculously silly:

The idea of indicting a governor for exercising his veto power, unless he was bribed to do so, is so utterly ridiculous it’s tough to know where to start. As Perry said in his statement, he has authority under the Texas Constitution to exercise a veto power. A special prosecutor (especially one Obama considered for a U.S. Attorney job, but whose nomination fell victim to politics and a slow confirmation process) might not like Perry’s reason for the veto. But that doesn’t make it a crime.

Applying a statute directed at a public official’s misuse of government funds to a veto of public funds is even more bizarre. Under such a theory, once the Legislature appropriates funds, then they are “held” by the Governor, and if he vetoes their appropriation (and does so with an “intent to harm” the people who were supposed to get the money), that is a “misuse” of public funds — a first degree felony that could send him to state prison, theoretically for the rest of his life. (The punishment would be determined by a left-leaning Travis County jury.) What is the authority for treating public appropriations as property held by the governor? I am aware of none and would be shocked if the statute were interpreted that way.

Which is a long way of saying: issuing a veto is not a felony.

You’ll have to travel far and wide to find a lefty hack so soulless and partisan that they would support this.

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jon...idiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/

 

[dismal]

Jonathan Chait from the left:

Perry stands accused of violating two laws. One is a statute defining as an offense “misus[ing] government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment.” The veto threat, according to the prosecutor, amounted to a “misuse.” Why? That is hard to say.

The other statute prohibits anybody in government from “influenc[ing] or attempt[ing] to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influenc[ing] or attempt[ing] to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty.”

But that statute also specifically exempts “an official action taken by the member of the governing body.” The prosecutors claim that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not. 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.

The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost any kind of political conflict could be defined as a “misuse” of power or “coercion” of one’s opponents. To describe the indictment as “frivolous” gives it far more credence than it deserves.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...nt-is-unbelievably-ridiculous.html?mid=google

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The legal precedent itself is what distinguishes between threatening acts that one has the lawful power to carry out and threats one doesn't. This is not some distinction I have cooked up.

I don't understand what you mean.
Are you saying that the distinction you're using is such that you're not saying that he has the legal power to veto line items, but rather, that he has the legal power to veto line items in order to achive goals X, Y, Z, but not in order to achieve goals A, B, C, etc.?

But if that's the case, you missunderstood hylidae's point.
hylidae said "I don't understand the constant pounding about how he legally has the power to veto line items", not "I don't understand the constant pounding about how he legally has the power to veto line items in order to force her to resign for DUI."

For more info about hylidae's usage of the expression "legal power", I suggest you read this post

I didn't realize you had misunderstood hylidae's post when you replied to it, so I understood the principle you were proposing as follows: as long as he has the legal power - in general - to veto line items and he's threatening to veto line items, it's not a crime.

I didn't understand your principle as "as long as he has the legal power to veto line items in order to get X, Y, Z (but maybe not A, B, or C), and he's threatening to veto line items in order to get, say, Z, it's not criminal", because that reply would not have made sense as a reply to hylidae's post, and because I didn't know you had misunderstood hylidae's post when you replied to it.

On the other hand, if you did not misunderstand hylidae's post, then you were proposing a false principle, and my objection stands.. Please clarify what you meant.

I assume you would agree that if we want to discuss whether something was "criminal" we would look to the law?

Of course, though I wasn't trying to discuss that. I was objecting to what appeared to me like an objectionable principle. Now I'm not sure it was that, or miscommunication.

Threats may portend either lawful or unlawful action.

Yes, of course. But that he has the legal power to veto line items (in the sense that he holds an office that gives him that power) does not entail that a threat to veto line items on his part is always legal; I don't know the law, but I'm guessing it probably wouldn't be legal if he did so in order to get her to resign for cheating on her spouse, or for insulting the Pope.

 

[dismal]

I don't understand what you mean.

I have no idea what your point is either.

Do you have a point that has some relevance to the topic or are you just trying to quibble about my phrasing?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This doesn't seem out of line on Perry's part. This woman is an embarrassment to the government (even a government that's headed by Rick Perry) and he's entitled to use all the tools of his office to get her to comply with his desire to have her leave it due to how she's acting. It's an extraordinary action on his part, but it's an extraordinary circumstance he finds himself in and the ordinary actions were ineffective.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't understand what you mean.

I have no idea what your point is either.

Do you have a point that has some relevance to the topic or are you just trying to quibble about my phrasing?

I'm not quibbling over definitions, and I already explained the matter in so much detail that I would have expected you to understand it. At least, if you could please address my questions, I might be able to assess whether or not I'm getting through to you.
But let me make this short - for details, please read my previous replies. Either:

a. You misunderstood what hylidae's point was, and posted a reply that was irrelevant to hylidae's question, or
b. You made a claim that a certain principle was true, and the principle was false.

If it's a, then I also miusunderstood your point because I didn't know that in your reply to hylidae you were not talking about what hylidae was talking about - i.e., I didn't know you had misunderstood the post of hylidae's you were replying to.
If it's b, my point stands. You were claiming that a false principle was true.

Either way, your reply to hylidae's was inadequate, because either it is not relevant to the question hylidae made (if it's a.), or it is relevant, but false, since it holds that some people keep pounding on Perry's having legal power to veto line items because it makes all the difference, but it makes no difference in the sense in which hylidae was using the words.

And the reason I replied to you was that I thought it was b. After our exchange so far, it seems it's more likely a. But I can't be sure unless you let me know. Your replies so far, however, are too light on information about what you were saying (in particular, you didn't address my requests for clarification) to be sue.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It seems her behavior is a legal cause for removal, but she may only be removed following a trial by jury. I don't know why Perry chose a threat to cut funds (and then carried it out), givee he could have followed the legal removal procedure, personally or by proxy.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

My view of the thread, up to this point:

From the Washinton Post, Volokh Conspiracy Legal Blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...dictment-and-the-criminalization-of-politics/

Ah ha! So it definitely is a conspiracy! This proves it! Even the Waco conspiracy doesn't have this much proof! I mean, do you remember any blog posts about the Waco conspiracy? The Waco conspiracy was definitely true, this has more proof behind it than the Waco conspiracy, therefore this is even more true than even the Waco conspiracy!

I knew it! I knew it all along! [/conservolibertarian]

Don't be fooled by the name. In this case the blog actually has nothing to do with conspiracies. Link. to old site

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It seems her behavior is a legal cause for removal, but she may only be removed following a trial by jury. I don't know why Perry chose a threat to cut funds (and then carried it out), givee he could have followed the legal removal procedure, personally or by proxy.

On the other hand, years of imprisonment for this would be seriously unjust, and I'm not sure how they interpreted the law to indict him on those charges (there seems to be one or two some ways, though, at least with regard to one of the charges. The statute seems to be somewhat vague, which may be a problem on its own).

 

[dismal]

I have no idea what your point is either.

Do you have a point that has some relevance to the topic or are you just trying to quibble about my phrasing?

I'm not quibbling over definitions, and I already explained the matter in so much detail that I would have expected you to understand it. At least, if you could please address my questions, I might be able to assess whether or not I'm getting through to you.
But let me make this short - for details, please read my previous replies. Either:

a. You misunderstood what hylidae's point was, and posted a reply that was irrelevant to hylidae's question, or
b. You made a claim that a certain principle was true, and the principle was false.

If it's a, then I also miusunderstood your point because I didn't know that in your reply to hylidae you were not talking about what hylidae was talking about - i.e., I didn't know you had misunderstood the post of hylidae's you were replying to.
If it's b, my point stands. You were claiming that a false principle was true.

Either way, your reply to hylidae's was inadequate, because either it is not relevant to the question hylidae made (if it's a.), or it is relevant, but false, since it holds that some people keep pounding on Perry's having legal power to veto line items because it makes all the difference, but it makes no difference in the sense in which hylidae was using the words.

And the reason I replied to you was that I thought it was b. After our exchange so far, it seems it's more likely a. But I can't be sure unless you let me know. Your replies so far, however, are too light on information about what you were saying (in particular, you didn't address my requests for clarification) to be sue.

Whaa? I have no interest in quibbling over who said what on this forum and what they meant by it.

How about we stick to the topic: Can you explain what crime Perry has committed?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not quibbling over definitions, and I already explained the matter in so much detail that I would have expected you to understand it. At least, if you could please address my questions, I might be able to assess whether or not I'm getting through to you.
But let me make this short - for details, please read my previous replies. Either:

a. You misunderstood what hylidae's point was, and posted a reply that was irrelevant to hylidae's question, or
b. You made a claim that a certain principle was true, and the principle was false.

If it's a, then I also miusunderstood your point because I didn't know that in your reply to hylidae you were not talking about what hylidae was talking about - i.e., I didn't know you had misunderstood the post of hylidae's you were replying to.
If it's b, my point stands. You were claiming that a false principle was true.

Either way, your reply to hylidae's was inadequate, because either it is not relevant to the question hylidae made (if it's a.), or it is relevant, but false, since it holds that some people keep pounding on Perry's having legal power to veto line items because it makes all the difference, but it makes no difference in the sense in which hylidae was using the words.

And the reason I replied to you was that I thought it was b. After our exchange so far, it seems it's more likely a. But I can't be sure unless you let me know. Your replies so far, however, are too light on information about what you were saying (in particular, you didn't address my requests for clarification) to be sue.

Whaa? I have no interest in quibbling over who said what on this forum and what they meant by it.

How about we stick to the topic: Can you explain what crime Perry has committed?

Regarding the claim about quibbling, it's out of place. I recommend you (or any interested readers) to read our exchange so far carefully.
Regarding the question, given that I made no claim that Perry committed a crime, I have no burden here. Still, I already made a comment on the matter, and have nothing to add about it at this point.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Defunding a department tasked with investigating government corruption because the leader of such a department is stupid is uncalled for. He is right in calling for her resignation, and working to get her fired by whatever other means he has available. You don't defund the entire organization. That is an abuse of power.

 

[ImGod]

So far, nobody has shown why the grand jury was wrong. Just some opinions in articles or their own opinions. Grand juries consist of random people. In Texas it's likely there were a large percentage of Republicans on the random grand jury. They review evidence that most of us don't get to see, included some that may not get to be introduced in a trial. They indicted him. Probably because most people don't like the BS politicians use to justify the shit they do and that shows in a radom sample.

 

[dismal]

So far, nobody has shown why the grand jury was wrong. Just some opinions in articles or their own opinions. Grand juries consist of random people. In Texas it's likely there were a large percentage of Republicans on the random grand jury. They review evidence that most of us don't get to see, included some that may not get to be introduced in a trial. They indicted him. Probably because most people don't like the BS politicians use to justify the shit they do and that shows in a radom sample.

There have been some lengthy legal analyses posted all of which conclude the charges are somewhere between frivolous and ridiculous.

I have yet to see any serious legal analysis suggesting they are valid.

Links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ants-to-appropriate-in-a-bill-that-he-vetoes/

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

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jon...idiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-weak-case-against-rick-perry

 

[maxparrish]

So far, nobody has shown why the grand jury was wrong. Just some opinions in articles or their own opinions. Grand juries consist of random people. In Texas it's likely there were a large percentage of Republicans on the random grand jury. They review evidence that most of us don't get to see, included some that may not get to be introduced in a trial. They indicted him. Probably because most people don't like the BS politicians use to justify the shit they do and that shows in a radom sample.

There have been some lengthy legal analyses posted all of which conclude the charges are somewhere between frivolous and ridiculous.

I have yet to see any serious legal analysis suggesting they are valid.

Links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ants-to-appropriate-in-a-bill-that-he-vetoes/

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

http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jon...idiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/16/texas-rick-perry-indicted-on-abuse-of-power-charges/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-weak-case-against-rick-perry

Careful dismal, you might kill this thread with knowledge.

 

[maxparrish]

I think the far more important issue is the deep and pervasive corruption of the law, the use of the power by the state to crush politicians and causes it ideologically hates. This is, of course, the kind of thing normally associated with third world totalitarians. But now we've seen the ideologically driven prosecution of Ted Stevens, Kay Hutchinson, Tom Delay, and now Rick Perry. An attorney in Austin (Travis County) explain:

the people of Travis County, and its DA and Grand Jury, are profoundly serious. They are largely not politically or strategically motivated in the ordinary sense. They are philosophically and morally motivated, intent on destroying by any means necessary what they
conclude is wrong thinking by bad people.

And the Perry indictment is not merely the Democrats’ attempt to harm a high-profile Republican. It has historical roots, too, in liberal Republicanism, which is why Lehmberg’s “Public Integrity Unit,” despite the fact that it prosecutes state-wide, has remained under the control of all-blue Travis County voters.

Far from being a farce, the indictment of widely-supported, duly elected officials like a sitting governor — and before Perry, our Tom Delay and Kay Bailey Hutchison — is among the darkest corruptions we are likely to see in our lifetimes.

We shouldn’t assume justice will be done after the bad joke is over. Tom Delay was innocent of “money laundering,” but he was jury-tried, convicted, and sentenced for it. Only after an extraordinary delay was the conviction reversed on appeal, but not unanimously (the Democrat dissenting), and, I believe, it’s not yet completely closed.

Mary Louise Serafine
Attorney at Law
Licensed in Texas, California, New York, and the District of Columbia
Austin, Texas