Rick Perry indicted for 2 felonies (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

Does a governor have ‘custody or possession’ of funds the legislature wants to appropriate, in a bill that he vetoes?

That one seems pretty straightforward. The other one, not so much.

 

[Hipple II]

How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?

This is pretty weak.

 

[MaxThreshold]

How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?

This is pretty weak.

VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.

 

[bigbottom]

How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?

This is pretty weak.

VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.

How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.

 

[Gawain]

What's the difference between this and the Republicans suing Obama?

I figure both are BS propaganda, safe assumption?

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I am not a Perry supporter by any stretch, but Lehmberg being the face of a Public Integrity Unit was just wrong. And I applaud Perry for taking this stance.

Has Lehmberg's disgraceful conduct stemming from her DUI arrest been made public to the nation outside of Texas? Elected officials should be required to resign for such behavior.

 

[MaxThreshold]

How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?

This is pretty weak.

VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.

How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.

The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.

 

[bigbottom]

How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?

This is pretty weak.

VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.

How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.

The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.

So rather than "an attempt to subvert election results," what you really meant was "an attempt to get a political opponent."

 

[MaxThreshold]

How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?

This is pretty weak.

VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.

How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.

The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.

So rather than "an attempt to subvert election results," what you really meant was "an attempt to get a political opponent."

I suppose it could be viewed both ways.

 

[joffer]

Just turned himself in for booking

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... And I applaud Perry for taking this stance. ...

The stance where he offered Lehmberg a job?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What's the difference between this and the Republicans suing Obama?

I figure both are BS propaganda, safe assumption?

They're both mainly BS propaganda, yes. But they're not the same thing.

Congress has sued the president many times in the past, usually over separation-of-powers issues. The courts are usually reluctant to intervene, but if the legislature thinks that the executive is encroaching on its territory, I don't see why it's automatically BS propaganda for it to ask the courts to step in and settle the dispute.

And of course, nobody faces any prospect of jail time when Congress sues the President, which is another major difference.

In other words, in the one particular case of Boehner (or whoever) suing Obama, I agree that these are both partisan jokes. But the lawsuit is just a PR stunt, whereas the criminal charges are real banana republic stuff.

 

[nirad3]

Damn, all the good stuff happens as soon as I leave town. :(

 

[Sand]

A possible 109 years? The DA who brought this has brass ones.

 

[bentley]

Big fan of the smugshot. And tweeting his trip for ice cream right after booking. I like him more now.

Not sure that "the left" have been the ones out to get Perry. I'm pretty sure that everyone that hates party pandering in the worst way disapproves of the way he's governed over the last decade or so.

 

[skol asylum]

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262897285614.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

This ethics stuff with Perry reminds me of the above story I read when he was running for the GOP nomination. Make no mistake this guy is a typical sleazy politician that knows how to play the game.

 

[timschochet]

If the Left really is out to "get Perry", then they're dumber than I thought. Rick Perry is a clown and an oaf, and an embarrassment to the GOP. A wise progressive would want Rick to stay in power as long as possible.

 

[jon_mx]

A possible 109 years? The DA who brought this has brass ones.

He is a partisan deutchbah.

 

[Sam Quentin]

A possible 109 years? The DA who brought this has brass ones.

he should be thrown out of office. People like that and those who support him are legitimately dangerous.

 

[avoiding injuries]

She was in charge of "public integrity". You almost couldn't make it up to be any worse.

http://youtu.be/mbXHg7_Zqjc

 

[SmoovySmoov]

How can threatening to do something you are allowed to do be a crime?

This is pretty weak.

VERY weak. It's basically an attempt by Democrats to subvert election results.

How so? Perry is not running for reelection. He will be out of office long before this matter will be concluded. As for subverting election results, the same could be said of Perry strongarming a duly elected official to resign from her post.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Perry did or didn't do anything wrong. I just think you're particular point is off base.

The left has trying to get Perry for years, and finally found a slimy, unethical way to do it since they can't do it via election.

You do realize that this was actually brought about by Republicans, don't you? But by all means, don't let actual facts get in the way of your dense theories.

 

[skol asylum]

A possible 109 years? The DA who brought this has brass ones.

He is a partisan deutchbah.

And Perry isn't?

 

[joffer]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

 

[Sand]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.

In fact, I'd say if he can swing it he gets it into the next budget that his defense comes out of the Travis County DA's budget.

 

[joffer]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.

I think I agree

 

[GroveDiesel]

When you've lost even the NYT and Think Progress (along with everyone on the Right of course) it's probably safe to assume you screwed up on your indictment.

 

[jon_mx]

The Kooks are strong in this one. Keep up the good fight kooks.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The more I read about this on legal blogs and stuff, the less I buy it.

I haven't had much time for blogs lately. Have there been any serious legal blogs that have defended the indictments?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Looks like one of the grand jurors was actually actively participating as a Democratic Party Delegate.

Yeah, nothing stinks about this at all.

 

[Apple Jack]

Looks like one of the grand jurors was actually actively participating as a Democratic Party Delegate.

Yeah, nothing stinks about this at all.

That's not allowed? Though, I suppose I can understand a sense of skepticism for Republicans in the Democrat hot bed that is Texas.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Perry is unctuous, petty, and vacuous, but these charges are pretty lame.

 

[cosjobs]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.

I think I agree

Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maybe reimbursement if exonerated

 

[Sand]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.

I think I agree

Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maybe reimbursement if exonerated

Well, you're obviously one of those liberal nutjobs from Austin, so I see why you'd think so.

 

[Christo]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.

I think I agree

Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maybe reimbursement if exonerated

No, he was indicted for threatening to exercise his authorized powers.

 

[jon_mx]

We need some grand juries for all the democrats who threatened to vote against Obamacare until they extorted millions of dollars of taxpayers money for their district. Pretty much all politics are threats and extortion.

 

[cosjobs]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.

I think I agree

Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maylreimbursement if exonerated

No, he was indicted for threatening to exercise his authorized powers.

No. He was indicted for using his authorized power to threaten a department which was investigating his corrupt/inept pet cancer research project that was funneling money to his cronies.

 

[Sand]

We need some grand juries for all the democrats who threatened to vote against Obamacare until they extorted millions of dollars of taxpayers money for their district. Pretty much all politics are threats and extortion.

In Louisiana I think it's against the law not to threaten and extort when big appropriations bills come up.

 

[jon_mx]

The more I read about this on legal blogs and stuff, the less I buy it.

I haven't had much time for blogs lately. Have there been any serious legal blogs that have defended the indictments?

Haven't found any. Volokh can't find anything defensible. The New York Times (!) in an editorial calls it "overzealous prosecution". David Axelrod, Obama's senior aide, calls the indictment "sketchy". Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine the indictment was "unbelievably ridiculous".

I can't seem to find anyone reputable that defends the prosecution here.

There are a half of dozen posters here defending them.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Should Perry be allowed to use taxpayer money to pay for his defense?

If this was a DUI I'd say no, but this was done as an official capacity of office, so I'd say yes.

I think I agree

Not me. He was indicted for malfeasance, which really was not included in his official capacity toolbox. Maylreimbursement if exonerated

No, he was indicted for threatening to exercise his authorized powers.

No. He was indicted for using his authorized power to threaten a department which was investigating his corrupt/inept pet cancer research project that was funneling money to his cronies.

No, he was indicted for threatening to use his legally authorized veto powers.

Seriously, even some of the most in-the-tank lefties are calling this indictment . How is it that you're all in on defending it? The only abuse of power here is the on the DA with the Grand Jury trying to nail Perry on some trumped up charges.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The more I read about this on legal blogs and stuff, the less I buy it.

I haven't had much time for blogs lately. Have there been any serious legal blogs that have defended the indictments?

Haven't found any. Volokh can't find anything defensible. The New York Times (!) in an editorial calls it "overzealous prosecution". David Axelrod, Obama's senior aide, calls the indictment "sketchy". Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine the indictment was "unbelievably ridiculous".

I can't seem to find anyone reputable that defends the prosecution here.

I found one: Michael Dorf (linked from Volokh).

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."

Volokh's response.

 

[sporthenry]

We need some grand juries for all the democrats who threatened to vote against Obamacare until they extorted millions of dollars of taxpayers money for their district. Pretty much all politics are threats and extortion.

Our side does something wrong. "Everyone does it. This is a joke." The other side does something wrong, impeach and imprison them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.

(This is not a prediction or an opinion, just a "is it possible with any realistic probability" question.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.

The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.

If he is convicted, and if he argues on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional, he may have a good shot. Here's Volokh's argument that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is overbroad. More interesting, IMO, is his argument that a legislative act making a veto (or the threat of a veto) illegal would violate the state constitution.

The argument goes that the state constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation. This is a check on the powers of the legislature. As such, when the legislature restricts the governor's veto power, it impermissibly increases its own power. It's obvious, for example, that the legislature cannot pass a law making it a crime for the governor to veto any gun-control legislation. That would allow the legislature to make itself veto-proof, and that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

The statutes in question here are not as brazen as that. But to the extent that they can be applied to prevent a governor from vetoing (or threatening to veto) a legislative act, that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

 

[Todd Andrews]

This is awesome.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.

The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.

If he is convicted, and if he argues on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional, he may have a good shot. Here's Volokh's argument that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is overbroad. More interesting, IMO, is his argument that a legislative act making a veto (or the threat of a veto) illegal would violate the state constitution.

The argument goes that the state constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation. This is a check on the powers of the legislature. As such, when the legislature restricts the governor's veto power, it impermissibly increases its own power. It's obvious, for example, that the legislature cannot pass a law making it a crime for the governor to veto any gun-control legislation. That would allow the legislature to make itself veto-proof, and that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

The statutes in question here are not as brazen as that. But to the extent that they can be applied to prevent a governor from vetoing (or threatening to veto) a legislative act, that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

Actually those arguments are why I asked. (And because I was in Maryland in the '70s when the Marvin Mandale case was happening which seems somewhat similar.) I don't see this argument you posted being so much that the law doesn't apply in this case, but that the legislature can't make such a law. I guess the corollary question is if this were to actually go to trial and reach a jury, would they be likely care about whether or not the law is good or bad, or just whether the facts fall in line with the law? Did he break the law? Just an unconstitutional law?

Also for the first count. If instead of arguing that the "legislatively approved funds" were misappropriated by the governor what if instead they charged him for offering a job in a DA office that wasn't his to offer? (I'm not sure about the "his to offer" part so consider this a "for sake of argument".) While probably still a stretch does it become relatively less of a stretch.

 

[Christo]

So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.

The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.

If he is convicted, and if he argues on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional, he may have a good shot. Here's Volokh's argument that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is overbroad. More interesting, IMO, is his argument that a legislative act making a veto (or the threat of a veto) illegal would violate the state constitution.

The argument goes that the state constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation. This is a check on the powers of the legislature. As such, when the legislature restricts the governor's veto power, it impermissibly increases its own power. It's obvious, for example, that the legislature cannot pass a law making it a crime for the governor to veto any gun-control legislation. That would allow the legislature to make itself veto-proof, and that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

The statutes in question here are not as brazen as that. But to the extent that they can be applied to prevent a governor from vetoing (or threatening to veto) a legislative act, that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

Actually those arguments are why I asked. (And because I was in Maryland in the '70s when the Marvin Mandale case was happening which seems somewhat similar.) I don't see this argument you posted being so much that the law doesn't apply in this case, but that the legislature can't make such a law. I guess the corollary question is if this were to actually go to trial and reach a jury, would they be likely care about whether or not the law is good or bad, or just whether the facts fall in line with the law? Did he break the law? Just an unconstitutional law?

Also for the first count. If instead of arguing that the "legislatively approved funds" were misappropriated by the governor what if instead they charged him for offering a job in a DA office that wasn't his to offer? (I'm not sure about the "his to offer" part so consider this a "for sake of argument".) While probably still a stretch does it become relatively less of a stretch.

Whether the law is unconstitutional is an issue of law for the judge not the jury.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is awesome.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So lawyerguys what would be the likely hood that Perry could be actually tried and found guilty under this Texas law, but ultimately the law itself is found unconstitutional (Texas constitution)? That instead of being an overly broad interpretation of the Texas law it is simply overly broad law? At least the second count.

The chance that Perry is convicted seems exceedingly small.

If he is convicted, and if he argues on appeal that the statute is unconstitutional, he may have a good shot. Here's Volokh's argument that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is overbroad. More interesting, IMO, is his argument that a legislative act making a veto (or the threat of a veto) illegal would violate the state constitution.

The argument goes that the state constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation. This is a check on the powers of the legislature. As such, when the legislature restricts the governor's veto power, it impermissibly increases its own power. It's obvious, for example, that the legislature cannot pass a law making it a crime for the governor to veto any gun-control legislation. That would allow the legislature to make itself veto-proof, and that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

The statutes in question here are not as brazen as that. But to the extent that they can be applied to prevent a governor from vetoing (or threatening to veto) a legislative act, that's not how the state constitution has set up the balance of powers.

Actually those arguments are why I asked. (And because I was in Maryland in the '70s when the Marvin Mandale case was happening which seems somewhat similar.) I don't see this argument you posted being so much that the law doesn't apply in this case, but that the legislature can't make such a law. I guess the corollary question is if this were to actually go to trial and reach a jury, would they be likely care about whether or not the law is good or bad, or just whether the facts fall in line with the law? Did he break the law? Just an unconstitutional law?

Also for the first count. If instead of arguing that the "legislatively approved funds" were misappropriated by the governor what if instead they charged him for offering a job in a DA office that wasn't his to offer? (I'm not sure about the "his to offer" part so consider this a "for sake of argument".) While probably still a stretch does it become relatively less of a stretch.

Whether the law is unconstitutional is an issue of law for the judge not the jury.

So ignoring the validity of the law, did he break it?

 

[Christo]

Am I off base in thinking that news articles reporting on this situation should quote the statutes being invoked? I just Googled the story and none of the results did that.

In any case, here's the abuse of official capacity section. And here's the coercion of public servant section.

Under the first statute, the state would have to prove that Rick Perry misused government property, services, or personnel with the intention of harming Rosemary Lehmberg. That seems like a stretch. Does his veto pen count as government property? Does executing a veto count as misusing a veto pen?

Under the second statute, the state would have to prove that Rick Perry coercively influenced Rosemary Lehmberg to resign. That also seems like a stretch. In my view, vetoes aren't coercive.

I haven't read any of the cases interpreting those statutes.

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

servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly: (1)violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or (2) misuses 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

Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy.

- David Axelrod

It seems like neither of those statutes fit the situation. The first talks about "a specific exercise," "a specific performance," or "violate a public duty." Resigning is none of those. Had he said he'd veto funding unless she stopped investigating someone that would fit. And a veto isn't "property, services or personnel." Nor is it something "of value" that came into Perry's "possession."

 

[GroveDiesel]

Perry's defense seems unbelievably simple to me:

He didn't believe that the woman was capable of leading that department and that her poor judgement and leadership compromised the entire department, in order to protect the taxpayers of Texas, he had a duty to use his powers to prevent a waste of taxpayer money and cut out a department that he believed was no longer able to function in the manner it was designed to.

I'm not saying that that was, or was not, his actual motivation, but I don't think there is any evidence against that. Viewed under that light, I can't see how this prosecution is even a little bit proper.

Just from a rational standpoint, ignoring any possible hidden motivations that we would just be guessing at, it would seem that Perry was the one person that used what tools he had to remove someone from their position that quite obviously didn't belong there. A DUI for someone with her position was bad enough, but her behavior afterwards goes beyond the pale. She was absolutely wrong to not resign. Her superiors were then absolutely wrong to not fire her from her position. Perry gave her an opportunity to do the right thing and resign and she refused once again. So he did what he had to do to get rid of someone that wasn't fit to do their job.

I'm sure that my political bias is informing this next thought, but I feel like if a Perry was a Democrat and the woman was a Republican, that Perry would be being portrayed in the media as a hero for getting rid of a vile and incompetent Republican, while the press screamed about the partisan witch hunt against him.