Rick Perry Indicted.

[dismal]

Oh, can you point me to where someone performed a legal analysis and found these charges to be valid and well supported?

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.

 

[maxparrish]

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/

 

[dismal]

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/

This amounts to a criticism of Perry's statements (which are politics, not legal arguments) not a validation of the logic of the indictment.

 

[maxparrish]

In earlier posts I fell into a presumption, conceding a bone to the Perry haters, i.e.; that if they could prove his motive for the threat and veto was to derail an investigation of him or his appointees then he could be convicted. I feel a little foolish for not having thought this through, and I impressed by Volokh brilliant clarity...OF COURSE his motive does not matter because (fundamentally) a statutory construction cannot negate a broad constitutional power. For example, Nixon had the right to fire the special prosecutor, no matter how sleazy it was...however that act might be evidence for an impeachment conviction.

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

1. The veto power is a power of the governor, but it is more than that: It is a check on the power of the legislature. If Texas legislators want to prohibit some conduct, or appropriate money, or levy a tax, or enact any other law, they have to get a majority vote in both houses and the consent of the governor (unless they can get a 2/3 supermajority vote in both houses).

It follows, then, that the legislature generally cannot criminalize gubernatorial vetoes, because any such restraint on the governor’s power would be an increase in the legislature’s own power — an increase imposed by a mere statute that cuts back on the constraints on the legislature imposed by the constitution. To give the most obvious example, say the legislature enacts a law saying, “The Governor may not veto any bill that protects gun rights, and it shall be a felony for him to do so.” That would be an unconstitutional attempt to allow the legislature to enact gun rights laws without fear of gubernatorial veto. Even if such a law can pass at some point, either because the legislature has a 2/3 majority in each house for the law, or because the governor at the time wants to constrain his successors, it would be unconstitutional to enforce such a law against a future governor.

The same, I think, would be true even if the legislature has a wonderfully public-spirited good-government avoiding-conflict-of-interest motivation for the law. If, for instance, the legislature enacts a law saying, “The Governor may not veto appropriations for a prosecutor’s office that is investigating the Governor’s appointees,” that has to be unconstitutional, given that the constitution provides the governor with a veto power unlimited as to subject matter. There are no laws that the legislature is entitled to enact without the possibility of gubernatorial veto, including really great laws that help keep the governor in check. It thus follows that the legislature can’t outlaw the exercise of the governor’s power to impose such a veto.

PS And on an old matter regarding minimum wage, I thought I was correct in one of our few differences regarding indirect wage effects...upon later reflection that was a second error of mine. Two errors in a couple of years, I guess I can live with it.

 

[ksen]

When Volokh came did you spit or swallow?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When Volokh came did you spit or swallow?

Damn.

 

[maxparrish]

When Volokh came did you spit or swallow?

Insight into the "thinking" and "reasoning" of a member of the left...nuff said.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's another vote for wait-and-see.

http://www.texasobserver.org/pundits-dont-get-rick-perry-indictment/

 

[maxparrish]

Here's another vote for wait-and-see.

http://www.texasobserver.org/pundits-dont-get-rick-perry-indictment/

What bothers me about this article is its similarity to other articles hoping for Perry's political demise, the inclination to see this issue as entirely personal and partisan, but not a legal, issue. Hence, they are perplexed that so many legal analysts and even a few national democrats of stature see this as at least sketchy, if not "ridiculous". The author (like many other anti-Perry folk) spin a narrative of a noble ethics and integrity unit, one of the last adversaries of Perry, being threatened in its mission by a sleazy politician. He touts that their actions must be of good intentions, not only because of who they oppose, but that can be no overt political motive in the special prosecutor (a man of impeccable Republican credentials they claim). And besides, as the authors hope and expect, there must be something sinister and evil that will be reveled because the special prosecutor and his jury have read many cases and interviewed many people. Surly they would not indict for flimsy reasons or badly misunderstood law?

I could, but will not, expand greatly on each of his points to show a different reality; the likely prejudices of a grand jury in Texas's most left wing county, the uncertainty of McCrum's actual beliefs and affiliations, the history of an Austin based unit that has indicted high profile Republicans using dubious law and trivial issues (Senator Kay Hutchinson's jury took only 30 minutes to find her not guilty and Delay's conviction was eventually tossed out), the actual facts established in the CPRIT investigation (e.g. Lehmberg already said none of Perry's appointments to CPRIT were under investigation and that no further indictments related to the scandal beyond the one already issued are anticipated). I could also expand on how it does not take a political bias to make a high handed or ruthless prosecutor, or a really dumb jury (recall OJ Simpson and Rodney Kings juries?).

But here is the thing we can determine; no matter how sleazy or corrupt Perry is, no matter what evidence is uncovered, no matter how damaging it is to his political career or if it leads to some other crime, there is ONE judgement that is easy to make: he is innocent of the counts leveled against him. Why? Because he can veto, or threat to veto, any bill he likes for whatever (lawful) reason he wants. He can threaten to cut funds to get her to resign, he can't threaten to cut funds to get her to commit murder.

That may not be enough to keep a jury from convicting, plenty of politicians have been convicted for their character rather than their actual breaking the law, but it also means that he should win on appeal and the prosecutor is guilty of abusing his office and is corrupting the law. And it also means there is yet another out of control prosecutor making his bones, and a Travis County grand jury that ought to be shipped to an island to join the OJ Simpson and Rodney King juries. Such folk are too stupid to live among us.

Perhaps, for a left winger, the ends justify any means. But that is another issue, no?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tment-liberals-110229.html?hp=r5#.U_bAx7DCBVo

This is an article from the people who originally filed the complaint about Perry.

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tment-liberals-110229.html?hp=r5#.U_bAx7DCBVo

This is an article from the people who originally filed the complaint about Perry.

Same thing, same flaws, add it to the presto log maker...

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I see a lot of knee-jerk hostility to the Volokh site. Will anyone care to explain why they disagree with the content of the blog itself, instead of making empty comments?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tment-liberals-110229.html?hp=r5#.U_bAx7DCBVo

This is an article from the people who originally filed the complaint about Perry.

Same thing, same flaws, add it to the presto log maker...

Same abuse of power, again, Democrats recuse themselves, Republican officials are responsible for this grand jury investigation. Same old denials. Perry and Palin. Two Republican governors who didn't understand these ethical things. Veto powers are not a license to commit abuses of power. This is what Perry did not bother to understand. Now he will be taught this in a rather hard manner.

Experience runs a dear school but fools will learn in no other.
- Benjamen Franklin

 

[maxparrish]

Same thing, same flaws, add it to the presto log maker...

Same abuse of power, again, Democrats recuse themselves, Republican officials are responsible for this grand jury investigation. Same old denials. Perry and Palin. Two Republican governors who didn't understand these ethical things. Veto powers are not a license to commit abuses of power. This is what Perry did not bother to understand. Now he will be taught this in a rather hard manner.

Experience runs a dear school but fools will learn in no other.

- Benjamen Franklin

Yet more contempt and sarcasm oozes from my monitor - anyone got a handi-wipe...?

 

[RavenSky]

He didn't fire her, he vetoed state funding to her group as long as she ran it. No one seems to dispute this was within his legal power.

The indictment rests on bizarre extrapolations from the act, not the act itself.

Yes, some of us are suggesting that using his veto power for the purpose of manipulating an investigation unit and not for purposes that have anything to do with the actual budget is a misuse of that power, not a use of that power. That is apparently what the court suggested as well.

Particularly given that at least two Republican DA's in safely Republican districts without the investigatory powers this one had were both arrested on similar DUI's but Rick Perry never demanded they resign.

 

[RavenSky]

Nobody has the power to fire a DA, not in a conventional sense. And in her case, her office can (with her grand jury) indict anyone they like in the state, for whatever reason. To remove her, the most direct option is to file a petition with the courts for termination for cause, or impeachment.

OK, I obviously didn't follow the thread closely enough. What happened when Perry filed this petition? It seems that she made a very clear-cut violation which was grounds for her removal under that process.

AFAIK he did not file a petition or follow any correct procedure for this particular DA's removal. Nor does Rick Perry actually have an issue with DA's getting DUI's as there have been other DA's issued DUI's that Rick Perry never demanded resign.

In my opinion, based on various articles written on the topic, Rick Perry saw an opportunity to shut down a Democratic stronghold that also has the singular ability to investigate political corruption via this particular DA's DUI. It is my understanding that Republicans have long wanted to strip this jurisdiction of this investigative power BECAUSE the district typically elects Democrats. When this DA (a Democrat) got drunk and stupid, Rick Perry saw an opportunity to defund the division. He doesn't care about drunk DA's. If he did, he would have followed proper procedures to oust her and the two Republican DA's in the other two less powerful districts.

The "evidence" is in what he said and did publicly, he threatened a veto if she did not resign, and when she did not he veto'd legislation providing funds to a particular state office. Unless there is some super-secret nodule of fact withheld from the public, it is almost certain he is innocent.

I had to re-read the above comment written by someone else in this thread several times to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding their meaning. Basically, they admit that Rick Perry publicly threatened an elected official with this veto unless she resigned her office on an unrelated matter - and this person thinks that's perfectly acceptable??

 

[RavenSky]

I despise Rick Perry. Having said that, I think these charges are weak, at best. At worst, they seem purely politically motivated to me. I can't disagree with Perry, or anyone else, demanding the resignation of a district attorney in these circumstances. Judges and DAs all over the country have been fired or have resigned in similar circumstances. I suppose the hinging point is the veto but still, that is a legal action. This whole thing troubles me.

It should be pointed out that the officials responsible for bringing these charges against Perry are all Republicans. The loud loutish squeals of "Politics!" from Perry and assorted right winged politicians is utter and total bunk. It is totally about a politician abusing a law in a game of politics by Perry.

Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor for this case has long been known to be scrupulously fair and has long had support of Republicans, including senators Kaye Baily Hutchison and John Cornyn. Bert Richardson who appointed him is a long time Republican. Several Travis county Democrats who may have been appointed recused themselves to avoid this very example of shrill squeals of witch hunting partinship.

For partisanship and witch hunts, look to Issa and the Benghazi witch hunting partisanship.

^^^ this!

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...tment-liberals-110229.html?hp=r5#.U_bAx7DCBVo

This is an article from the people who originally filed the complaint about Perry.

Excellent information, thank you for posting the link.

 

[RavenSky]

Here's another vote for wait-and-see.

http://www.texasobserver.org/pundits-dont-get-rick-perry-indictment/

Also an excellent article. I think this passage is particularly informative:

The Public Integrity Unit is largely funded by the Texas Legislature. That money isn’t earmarked for Rosemary Lehmberg; it’s earmarked for the oversight function of the Travis County DA’s Public Integrity Unit. It is that money that Perry threatened to line-item veto if Lehmberg did not resign. When she did not, and Travis County opted not to remove her, Perry then yanked the funding. Afterwards, he continued to make offers to restore the funding in exchange for Lehmberg’s resignation, according to media reports. One account says he signaled that he would find Lehmberg another well-paying job within the DA’s office. Had she resigned, Perry would have appointed her successor.

Whether there is enough evidence for a conviction remains to be seen, but I find objections to the indictment rather strange.

 

[RavenSky]

The idea that he was concerned about Lehmberg's drunk driving is also fatuous nonsense. Two other Texas DAs were arrested for DUI during Perry's tenure in office and he spoke not a discouraging word about their indiscretions. Kaufman County D.A. Rick Harrison drove the wrong way into traffic and was found guilty of drunk driving in 2009 and in 2003 Terry McEachern, DA of Swisher County, was convicted of a DUI. Perry said nothing. It's probably only coincidental that both of those individuals were Republicans and did not oversee an investigative unit responsible for keeping elected officials honest in the capitol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/why-rick-perry-will-be-co_b_5686664.html