Rick Perry Indicted.

[AthenaAwakened]

Looks like abuse of power

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/u...dicted-over-veto-of-funds-for-das-office.html

 

[Questions]

I lived in Austin when the Lehmberg situation was going on. There were many calls for her to step down over her little drunken escapade. The videos were entertaining. I felt that if it was a localized incident and she wasn't spending her time in office getting wasted; serve your time and go back to work.

More relevant to the OP, watching "Slick Rick" through his career as governor, I get the feeling, I won't say for certain cause no one knows what's in a persons head, that just about anything he does in public office benefits him first and others second. With that in mind I feel that he found a moment of weakness in an organization that was digging into his pet project and sought an avenue to hamper them. Whether they were targeting his project for legitimate or political reasons, I don't know, but I feel the indictment is legitimate given Perry's response was overreaching the purpose of his veto power.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Can someone give a summary?

 

[dismal]

Can someone give a summary?

The DA who supervises a public corruption unit got hammered and pulled over with a .239 BAC. Videos emerged of her drunken antics, which included her changing her story on the fly, failing to negotiate a straight line, and various comments of the "don't you know who I am you're going to pay for this" variety. For some odd reason many people thought this sort of person should not be a DA in charge of a public corruption unit. When she refused to resign, Perry threatened to veto funding to her office and apparently did. A highly political Austin DA feels this use of the veto power is a crime. Based on what legal argument I have no idea.

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/22045698/dash-cam-video-of-travis-co-das-arrest-released

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can someone give a summary?

The DA who supervises a public corruption unit got hammered and pulled over with a .239 BAC. Videos emerged of her drunken antics, which included her changing her story on the fly, failing to negotiate a straight line, and various comments of the "don't you know who I am you're going to pay for this" variety. For some odd reason many people thought this sort of person should not be a DA in charge of a public corruption unit. When she refused to resign, Perry threatened to veto funding to her office and apparently did. A highly political Austin DA feels this use of the veto power is a crime. Based on what legal argument I have no idea.

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/22045698/dash-cam-video-of-travis-co-das-arrest-released

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

I'll fully agree the DA should go. That doesn't justify his actions, though.

 

[dismal]

The DA who supervises a public corruption unit got hammered and pulled over with a .239 BAC. Videos emerged of her drunken antics, which included her changing her story on the fly, failing to negotiate a straight line, and various comments of the "don't you know who I am you're going to pay for this" variety. For some odd reason many people thought this sort of person should not be a DA in charge of a public corruption unit. When she refused to resign, Perry threatened to veto funding to her office and apparently did. A highly political Austin DA feels this use of the veto power is a crime. Based on what legal argument I have no idea.

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/22045698/dash-cam-video-of-travis-co-das-arrest-released

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI

I'll fully agree the DA should go. That doesn't justify his actions, though.

What do you mean?

No one questions he has the right to veto the funding to the anti-corruption group. You can disagree with him doing this, but that is a political disagreement to be resolved at the ballot box.

They have charged him with a crime for "threatening" to take a lawful action that was clearly within his power.

 

[Garnet]

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.

 

[The Paul]

It looks like this whole thing is pretty fucked up. Like, if there's an organization tasked with investigating corruption then none of the people potentially being investigated should probably have veto power on that organization's funding.

But even if Rick Perry is guilty of corruption and is cutting funding because he doesn't want it found, and this is just a matter of Lehmberg finally having given him the to do it... Lehmberg really did give him the chance to do it.

She fucked up, and then doubled down on it.

 

[Angry Floof]

Can someone give a summary?

As governor, Perry has the power to veto budget line items. He used this power to coerce a public servant because she's in charge of the unit assigned to investigate government corruption, but she also was arrested for DUI in 2013. Perry said he'd veto the line item in the budget that was intended to fund the integrity unit unless whatsername was removed from the unit.

So, yes, the court recognized that he did legally have the power to veto line items, but the charges are based on his using that power to coerce drunk driving lady.

The rhetoric floating around facebook: From conservatives, it's just democrats using the courts against Perry because he wants to protect the border and stop the evil Obama from letting in grenade-carrying drug cartels. From liberals: Even those who support harsher action for drunk lady's conduct, Perry did abuse that veto power and hopefully he'll get the maximum sentence, which is 99 years max for the abuse of power charge and 10 max for the coercion charge (not bloody likely he'd get the max even if appeals don't go in his favor).

 

[Underseer]

Obviously, the socialist dictator is persecuting patriot Perry for the crime of loving freedom. Why do the collectivists hate our freedom? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't understand the constant pounding about how he legally has the power to veto line items. The charge is that he abused that legal power. The difference between using that power and abusing that power is what the charges are about, not whether a TX governor has it in the first place.

I think what will happen will be either he wins in appeal or if not, gets the most lenient sentence possible. I don't think even Rick Perry deserves years and years in prison for something like this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll fully agree the DA should go. That doesn't justify his actions, though.

What do you mean?

No one questions he has the right to veto the funding to the anti-corruption group. You can disagree with him doing this, but that is a political disagreement to be resolved at the ballot box.

They have charged him with a crime for "threatening" to take a lawful action that was clearly within his power.

The problem is you don't threaten to kill a whole project because you think one person in it should go.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't understand the constant pounding about how he legally has the power to veto line items. The charge is that he abused that legal power. The difference between using that power and abusing that power is what the charges are about, not whether a TX governor has it in the first place.

I think what will happen will be either he wins in appeal or if not, gets the most lenient sentence possible. I don't think even Rick Perry deserves years and years in prison for something like this.

Agreed. The objective was laudable even though the means were not. It doesn't need a heavy punishment.

 

[arkirk]

Obviously, the socialist dictator is persecuting patriot Perry for the crime of loving freedom. Why do the collectivists hate our freedom? [/conservolibertarian]

Are you sure about this? We had this same type of intervention in the Federal Courts when prosecutors were investigating certain corrupt congressmen. Bush just had them fired. Somehow all the pending indictments disappeared and Congressman Jerry Lewis just hung on a little longer. Bush's intervention was a lot more wide ranging and he saved more than seven of his cronies from the fire. When you cut funding for investigation, you get violators off the hook. I suspect Perry has nothing to worry about...we accept bad behavior from Republicans. Now the Wiener is another matter.

 

[dismal]

I don't understand the constant pounding about how he legally has the power to veto line items.

Because it make all the difference.

If he had threatened to do something he does not have the legal power to do, like break her kneecaps, it would be a crime.

When you threaten to do something you have the legal power to do it's more of a negotiation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't understand the constant pounding about how he legally has the power to veto line items.

Because it make all the difference.

If he had threatened to do something he does not have the legal power to do, like break her kneecaps, it would be a crime.

When you threaten to do something you have the legal power to do it's more of a negotiation.

Are you sure you're not overgeneralizing (in re: the last sentence in your post above)?
For example, what if he had threatened to use the same power he actually threatened to use if she did not quit, but - say - because she cheated on her spouse (or was gay, or an atheist, or insulted the Pope, or insulted Perry, etc.)? Would you still say it's more of a negotiation, or indictable abuse of power, or neither?

 

[dismal]

Because it make all the difference.

If he had threatened to do something he does not have the legal power to do, like break her kneecaps, it would be a crime.

When you threaten to do something you have the legal power to do it's more of a negotiation.

Are you sure you're not overgeneralizing (in re: the last sentence in your post above)?
For example, what if he had threatened to use the same power he actually threatened to use if she did not quit, but - say - because she cheated on her spouse (or was gay, or an atheist, or insulted the Pope, or insulted Perry, etc.)? Would you still say it's more of a negotiation, or indictable abuse of power, or neither?

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.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't understand the constant pounding about how he legally has the power to veto line items.

Because it make all the difference.

If he had threatened to do something he does not have the legal power to do, like break her kneecaps, it would be a crime.

When you threaten to do something you have the legal power to do it's more of a negotiation.

He used it to coerce someone working on investigating corruption in government. Since when is "using to manipulate an investigation unit" a negotiation? lol

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perry really doesn't have anything to complain about. If he had been the DA he'd want precisely what she got, an indictment of the Governor, and he'd be all self righteous about it. Politics is just that way.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Are you sure you're not overgeneralizing (in re: the last sentence in your post above)?
For example, what if he had threatened to use the same power he actually threatened to use if she did not quit, but - say - because she cheated on her spouse (or was gay, or an atheist, or insulted the Pope, or insulted Perry, etc.)? Would you still say it's more of a negotiation, or indictable abuse of power, or neither?

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.