Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted for alleged abuse of power in veto dispute

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted for alleged abuse of power in veto dispute
Published August 15, 2014FoxNews.com

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was indicted Friday for allegedly abusing his veto power during a dispute with a public corruption prosecutor over her drunken driving arrest -- in a case that could mar the potential 2016 presidential candidate’s political prospects.

Perry, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, is the first Texas governor to be indicted in nearly a century.

The indictment came down late Friday, after a special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he threatened to veto $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit, which is run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg's office.

The governor wanted Lehmberg, a Democrat, to resign after she was arrested and pleaded guilty to drunken driving in April 2013. When she refused, Perry vetoed the money.

Mary Anne Wiley, general counsel for Perry, said in a statement Friday evening that the governor's actions were allowed under the law.

“The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution," she said. "We will continue to aggressively defend the governor's lawful and constitutional action, and believe we will ultimately prevail.”

Several top aides to Perry appeared before grand jurors in Austin, including his deputy chief of staff, legislative director and general counsel. Perry himself wasn't called to testify.

Perry was indicted by an Austin grand jury on felony counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. Maximum punishment on the first charge is five to 99 years in prison, and two to 10 years on the second.

The Texas Democratic Party called on Perry to resign after the indictment was announced, calling the situation "unbecoming" of a Texas governor.

"Governor Rick Perry has brought dishonor to his office, his family and the state of Texas. Texans deserve to have leaders that stand up for what is right and work to help families across Texas," Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement.

The dramatic development comes toward the end of Perry’s final term in office. In office since 2000 and already the longest-serving governor in Texas history, Perry isn't seeking re-election in November. But he was thought to be weighing a possible presidential run in 2016.

"I took into account the fact that we're talking about a governor of a state — and a governor of the state of Texas, which we all love," said Michael McCrum, the San Antonio-based special prosecutor. "Obviously that carries a lot of importance. But when it gets down to it, the law is the law."

McCrum said he'll meet with Perry's attorney Monday to discuss when he will come to the courthouse to be arraigned. McCrum said he doesn't know when Perry will be booked.

Accusations have flown on both sides in the legal showdown.

Perry originally said Lehmberg, who is based in Austin, should resign after her arrest. A video recording made at the jail showed Lehmberg shouting at staffers to call the sheriff, kicking the door of her cell and sticking her tongue out. Lehmberg faced pressure from other high-profile Republicans in addition to Perry to give up her post. Her blood-alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit for driving.

Lehmberg served about half of her 45-day jail sentence but stayed in office, despite Perry's assertions that her behavior was inappropriate. The jail video led to an investigation of Lehmberg by a separate grand jury, which decided she should not be removed for official misconduct.

Her office is the same office that indicted U.S. Rep. Tom Delay as part of a finance probe.

No one disputes that Perry is allowed to veto measures approved by the Legislature, including part or all of the state budget.

However, the left-leaning Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint accusing the governor of coercion since he threatened to use his veto before actually doing so in an attempt to pressure Lehmberg to quit.

Lehmberg oversees the office's public integrity unit, which investigates statewide allegations of corruption and political wrongdoing. Perry said he wouldn't allow Texas to fund the unit while Lehmberg remained in charge. He used his line-item veto power to remove funding for the unit from the Texas budget.

Perry and his aides say he didn't break any laws.

"The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto power afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution, and we remain ready and willing to assist with this inquiry," spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said in April, after the grand jury was convened in the case.

The indictment is the first of its kind since 1917, when James "Pa" Ferguson was indicted on charges stemming from his veto of state funding to the University of Texas in an effort to unseat faculty and staff members he objected to. Ferguson was eventually impeached, then resigned before being convicted -- allowing his wife, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, to take over the governorship.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

source

**whembly**

Rick Perry thought her to be a disgrace, and wanted her to resign..

She didn’t...

So he took the next step and threatened to veto funding for her office. In response, a grand jury handed down an abuse of power indictment for coercive use of a veto late this afternoon. So the woman who was belligerent and intoxicated stays, Rick Perry is the bad guy and needs to go. Right? Got it?

There's just one problem.

A Gov's veto power is practically absolute.

EDIT:
Besides... the key here is that the Grand Jury is in Austin.

**Ouze**

This seems like a pretty lame thing to be indicted for, but anti-corruption laws are still the law, I guess.

Pic not related.

**whembly**

Yeah...

They want to get him for that?

Frazz... what do they eat in Austin?

Here's the problem with the theory of this case....an executive's veto power is plenary.

Right?

They can use it or not for whatever reasons they want and other than getting the legislature to override it, there's nothing you can do about it.

And guess what? Every Governor in the history of America has traded a veto or a threat of a veto to get something else they want. It's called.... oh... I dunno...politics maybe?

Doesn't anyone want to comment that DA blew a .238 blood alcohol level which isn't just drunk, it's gak faced drunk. She was convicted of the charge.

Nice pic by the way. LOL

**Ouze**

What she did or didn't do is sort of immaterial, whether she was drunk, gak faced drunk, or drinking drain-o.

No one is disputing that Mr. Perry has wide latitude to veto things. The "my power to veto is constitutionally protected" is an answer to a question not asked. The problem legally is the shenanigans that led up to the veto; i.e. the thought he can demand someone be fired or else. That is abuse of power. I guess. It's no Yellowcake Uranium though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, I really want to offer a counterpoint to your argument these are nonsense charges - mostly because I'm at work and like to argue - , but my heart just isn't in it.

IMO this is pretty weak sauce.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
What she did or didn't do is sort of immaterial, whether she was drunk, gak faced drunk, or drinking drain-o.

No one is disputing that Mr. Perry has wide latitude to veto things. The "my power to veto is constitutionally protected" is an answer to a question not asked. The problem legally is the shenanigans that led up to the veto; i.e. the thought he can demand someone be fired or else. That is abuse of power. I guess. It's no Yellowcake Uranium though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, I really want to offer a counterpoint to your argument these are nonsense charges, but my heart just isn't in it. IMO this is pretty weak sauce.

I know... I laughed a bit on the yellowcake reference.

**d-usa**

"You can veto whatever you want for whatever reason you want" is like the saying "you can fire whoever you want for whatever reason you want".

You can, except for reasons.

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Whether it is used against a drunk driving maniac or a kitten loving pacifist. It doesn't matter who Perry tried to use his power against, it matters that he tried to use it.

But we will see what the court says.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The actual charge:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/images/08/15/rick-perry-indictment.pdf

**focusedfire**

d-usa wrote:
"You can veto whatever you want for whatever reason you want" is like the saying "you can fire whoever you want for whatever reason you want".

You can, except for reasons.

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Whether it is used against a drunk driving maniac or a kitten loving pacifist. It doesn't matter who Perry tried to use his power against, it matters that he tried to use it.

But we will see what the court says.

You really want to make that argument?

I could see the RNC gladly sacrificing Gov. Perry just to get this on the books. The Obama abuse of power indictments would roll in like a freight train.

Seriously though, this is an outright attempt to break the political process/government. That the people behind this are willing to be so short sighted for political positioning is mind boggling.
This is creating legal precedent that could likely create a paralyzing quagmire of indictments, under the weight of which the entire process fails.

Almost as annoying as the insanely myopic foresight shown with this indictment is that this is nothing more than political grand standing. The democrats in order to help bolster the campaign of their incompetent candidate Wendy Davis, are trying to create a public perception of "abusive conservatives" that miss davis will fight against.

Oh well, I've got no dog in this fight other than what the grand jury has already done by handing down an indictment. This in itself has just killed any chance for bi-partisan cooperation until the case is resolved. Way to go guys!

Note-Don't get me wrong. Don't care much for Perry either. If they were going to file an abuse of power indictment it should have been over the HPV vaccine fiasco.

Later,
ff

**dogma**

focusedfire wrote:

I could see the RNC gladly sacrificing Gov. Perry just to get this on the books. The Obama abuse of power indictments would roll in like a freight train.

Different laws involve different judgments, and Texas law does not apply to the Federal Government.

**Ouze**

focusedfire wrote:I could see the RNC gladly sacrificing Gov. Perry just to get this on the books. The Obama abuse of power indictments would roll in like a freight train.

Tell me more about how conviction under Texas state anticorruption laws will somehow lead to federal indictments in the executive branch, for I wish to know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

**Ahtman**

Inner state party politics are wacky and a bit mean spirited in Texas (and most states)? Why, who could have guessed?

**focusedfire**

dogma wrote:
focusedfire wrote:

I could see the RNC gladly sacrificing Gov. Perry just to get this on the books. The Obama abuse of power indictments would roll in like a freight train.

Different laws involve different judgments, and Texas law does not apply to the Federal Government.

Ouze wrote:
focusedfire wrote:I could see the RNC gladly sacrificing Gov. Perry just to get this on the books. The Obama abuse of power indictments would roll in like a freight train.

Tell me more about how conviction under Texas state anticorruption laws will somehow lead to federal indictments in the executive branch, for I wish to know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd!

Thought you guys did sarcasm a bit better than that. Note that the first 2 words after that paragraph were, "Seriously though".

As Devils advocate:
Not saying that they would have any luck at this but-

I could still see the Repubs being just as dumb as the Dems.. Using a friendly lower federal court to launch waves of indictments, citing this recent addition to the national body of law/jurisprudence as precedent. Especially if there is somehow a conviction and subsequent appeal on the charges that went to the Supreme Court.

Of course most people over 55 will be dead by that point.

Back to reality:

I could see the federal courts wanting to finally tackle the subject of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted prior to impeachment. While such would be useless on a personal level due to the presidential power of pardon. It would drastically change and limit presidential authority.

Later,
ff

**Ouze**

focusedfire wrote:
Using a friendly lower federal court to launch waves of indictments, citing this recent addition to the national body of law/jurisprudence as precedent.

This is not how the law works.

focusedfire wrote:
I could see the federal courts wanting to finally tackle the subject of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted prior to impeachment. While such would be useless on a personal level due to the presidential power of pardon.

The president's impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. The next step is the trial and possible removal from office. These are two distinctly different things that are commonly, but incorrectly, conflated as a single process called impeachment.

If you're asking if a sitting president can be indicted on criminal charges period, it depends. The President cannot be charged with anything, civil or criminal, related to his duties acting as President (that's what impeachment and removal is for). However, the President can be sued\charged for acts that occurred prior to, or that are unrelated to serving as President. So, President Obama can't be sued for, say, wrongful termination by a General McChrystal*, but if he whips out a pistol on Pennsylvania avenue and shoots a guy, he can be arrested and charged with murder. That's my interpretation of Clinton vs Jones - the President has less protection from arrest that a legislator, even.

Power of the pardon would not come into play: I don't believe the President can pardon himself.

*so, unrelated style question: I

Spoiler:

**focusedfire**

Ouze wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Using a friendly lower federal court to launch waves of indictments, citing this recent addition to the national body of law/jurisprudence as precedent.

This is not how the law works.

Now go back and re-read my entire post.

Then ask yourself, "Why am I cherry-picking from and arguing with the one section of the post that he clearly state afterward as having nothing to do with reality?".

That section that I titled devils advocate was a satirical poke at both parties and how they have been behaving. Neither side has been particularly good at operating within the law. They seem to prefer a less specific attitude of operating "around" the law.

Finally, I somewhat disagree with your blanket statement about that not being the way the law works. Any group could try to constantly bring cases before a lower court seeking indictment. Doesn't mean that those courts will choose to take up those cases or ever act on them in any way.

For stuff that is in murky legal waters, the lower courts generally won't go near such. This is why the anti-obama birthers got nowhere. They filed tons pf paperwork, the courts didn't have to and chose not to do anything.

Note, I said generally
Sometimes that a particular court might be sympathetic or the Judge is looking to increase his profile for political reasons.

As to using state law in the federal courts? It happens when the case asks for a ruling in which there is no prior federal precedent, or that the precedent and law referenced are unclear as to how they are to be applied.

Of course, any criminal indictment would require that Eric Holder would be willing to bite his masters hand.

Later,
ff

**Ouze**

Frankly, I think you posted something incoherent, got called on it, and are now writing it off as "a satirical joke".

**dogma**

focusedfire wrote:

Thought you guys did sarcasm a bit better than that. Note that the first 2 words after that paragraph were, "Seriously though".

You also reiterated your initial statement with:

Seriously though, this is an outright attempt to break the political process/government. That the people behind this are willing to be so short sighted for political positioning is mind boggling.
This is creating legal precedent that could likely create a paralyzing quagmire of indictments, under the weight of which the entire process fails.

Almost as annoying as the insanely myopic foresight shown with this indictment is that this is nothing more than political grand standing. The democrats in order to help bolster the campaign of their incompetent candidate Wendy Davis, are trying to create a public perception of "abusive conservatives" that miss davis will fight against.

Pretending that you were attempting to be satirical is an insult to us all.

Ouze wrote:
Is a General still a General after they leave the service?

I believe the respectful title would be "Retired General X".

**focusedfire**

dogma wrote:
focusedfire wrote:

Thought you guys did sarcasm a bit better than that. Note that the first 2 words after that paragraph were, "Seriously though".

You also reiterated your initial statement with:

Seriously though, this is an outright attempt to break the political process/government. That the people behind this are willing to be so short sighted for political positioning is mind boggling.
This is creating legal precedent that could likely create a paralyzing quagmire of indictments, under the weight of which the entire process fails.

Almost as annoying as the insanely myopic foresight shown with this indictment is that this is nothing more than political grand standing. The democrats in order to help bolster the campaign of their incompetent candidate Wendy Davis, are trying to create a public perception of "abusive conservatives" that miss davis will fight against.

Pretending that you were attempting to be satirical is an insult to us all.

Ouze wrote:
Is a General still a General after they leave the service?

I believe the respectful title would be "Retired General X".

Actually, no where in the above quoted text did I specifically reference the federal/national government.
Was talking about the Texas government which has been working pretty well up to this point.

Sure there are problems but both sides have usually been able to get past or set aside the sticking points in order to keep the state running smoothly.
There is a lot of bi-partisan cooperation that makes the Texas government work.

My concern is that the indictment will polarize and possibly paralyze our state government. We have all seen what overly polarized politics produces these past 6 years. Why would we want such on the state level?

I probably could have been clearer but you guys are being very insulting about things that you are inferring from my post.

Maybe, next time, you guys try to live up to "we're the tolerant ones" attitude by asking for clarification. Rather than willfully misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I've typed.

Later,
ff

**Breotan**

focusedfire wrote:
Maybe, next time, you guys try to live up to "we're the tolerant ones" attitude by asking for clarification. Rather than willfully misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I've typed.

This is Off-Topic, bub. We don't do that kind of stuff here.

**SlaveToDorkness**

How does a DA serve 45 days for a DUI and keep her job?

A fry guy at McDonalds would expect to be fired after that FFS.

**d-usa**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
How does a DA serve 45 days for a DUI and keep her job?

Because they are elected and not at-will employees of the government?

A fry guy at McDonalds would expect to be fired after that FFS.

And an elected official will answer at the polls.

**Ouze**

She's an elected official, and it appears that there needs to be a civil process to force her removal, which has since been filed. She would only be automatically removed if there was a felony conviction, or a misdemeanor involving "official misconduct".

(Ctrl+F to find "intoxication" to get to the relevant parts)

**whembly**

Some crazy rightwinger says the Perry indictment "seems pretty sketchy"

Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) August 16, 2014

Oh... WAIT!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Watch the video:

She is attempting to use her power and influence to get out of jail.

Beside her being completely smashed for driving... the issue here is her attempted abuse of power when arrested.

I'd argue that Perry was right to object to a government corruption prosecution unit being run by someone who tried to use her power to avoid jail.

Now, he's being indicted and charged with a felony...for doing his job. It seems he couldn't force/impeach her out? So, Perry vetoed public funding for an organization whose leader showed she can’t be trusted.

Right?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Now, he's being indicted and charged with a felony...for doing his job. It seems he couldn't force/impeach her out? So, Perry vetoed public funding for an organization whose leader showed she can’t be trusted.

Right?

I would argue that "doing his job" would be pushing for her removal, rather than defunding the entire organization; an action which will require significant effort to reverse should she step down.

**Breotan**

There's a new article on the subject.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/08/16/6047440/perry-felony-indictment-is-a-farce.html?rh=1

Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote:A defiant Perry calls felony indictment a ‘farce’

AUSTIN — Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Saturday that the indictment against him was an “outrageous” abuse of power and vowed to fight it.

“This indictment amounts to nothing more than abuse of power and I cannot and will not allow that to happen,” Perry said at a news conference on Saturday.

Perry spoke a day after a grand jury indicted the Republican on two felony counts of abuse of power for making good on a veto threat. He dismissed the prosecution as a “farce.”

A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to veto $7.5 million over two years for the Public Integrity Unit run by the office of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.

Lehmberg, a Democrat, was convicted of drunken driving, but refused Perry’s calls to resign.

The possible 2016 presidential hopeful is dismissing the charges as nakedly political. Perry is the first Texas governor since 1917 to be indicted.

The governor said he was absolutely correct in seeking Lehmberg’s resignation, and given the chance to do it all over again, he would.

He predicted victory in the courts, and said that ultimately, the people who engineered the indictment will have a price to pay. “Those responsible will be held accountable,” Perry said.

The indictments are related to Perry vetoing funding for a Travis County unit investigating public corruption last year because the Democratic official heading the office refused to resign after being convicted of drunken driving.

The investigative unit is based in Austin, a heavily Democratic city where the grand jury was seated. The rest of Texas is heavily Republican.

The unit Lehmberg oversees investigates statewide allegations of corruption and political wrongdoing. It led the investigation against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican who in 2010 was convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering for taking part in a scheme to influence elections in his home state — convictions later vacated by an appeals court.

Mary Anne Wiley, Perry’s general counsel, predicted Perry ultimately will be cleared of the charges against him — abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant.

“The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution,” she said.

David Botsford, Perry’s defense attorney, whose $450-per hour fees are being paid for by state funds, said he was outraged by the action.

“This clearly represents political abuse of the court system, and there is no legal basis in this decision,” Botsford said in a statement. “Today’s action, which violates the separation of powers outlined in the Texas Constitution, is nothing more than an effort to weaken the constitutional authority granted to the office of Texas governor, and sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a grand jury to punish the exercise of a lawful and constitutional authority afforded to the Texas governor.”

Several top aides to Perry appeared before grand jurors, including his deputy chief of staff, legislative director and general counsel. Perry did not testify.

Abuse of official capacity is a first-degree felony with potential punishments of five to 99 years in prison. Coercion of a public servant is a third-degree felony that carries a punishment of two to 10 years.

Veto powers

No one disputes that Perry is allowed to veto measures approved by the Legislature. But the left-leaning Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint accusing the governor of coercion because he threatened to use his veto before actually doing so in an attempt to pressure Lehmberg to quit.

“We’re pleased that the grand jury determined that the governor’s bullying crossed the line into illegal behavior,” said Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice. “The complaint had merit; serious laws were potentially broken.”

Not everyone is convinced.

“My first impression is, ‘What's the big deal?’ ” said Allan Saxe, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. “The governor has a right to a veto — and a line-item veto.

“When a governor says ‘I'm going to veto something,’ there's power involved.”

Michael McCrum, the San Antonio-based special prosecutor, said he “took into account the fact that we’re talking about a governor of a state — and a governor of the state of Texas, which we all love.”

“Obviously that carries a lot of importance,” McCrum said. “But when it gets down to it, the law is the law.”

Perry’s statement

Below is the full text of Perry’s statement, which was carried live nationally by several cable news networks:

“As governor, I took an oath to faithfully uphold the constitution of Texas, a pledge that I have kept every day as I've worked on behalf of Texans for the last 14 years. This same constitution clearly outlines the authority of any governor to veto items at his or her discretion. Just as I have following every legislative session during my service as governor, I exercised this authority to veto funding for an office whose leadership had lost the public's confidence by acting inappropriately and unethically.

“I wholeheartedly and unequivocally stand behind my veto, and will continue to defend this lawful action of my executive authority as governor. We don't settle political differences with indictments in this country. It is outrageous that some would use partisan political theatrics to rip away at the very fabric of our state's constitution.

“This indictment amounts to nothing more than an abuse of power and I cannot, and will not, allow that to happen. I intend to fight against those who would erode our state's constitution and laws purely for political purposes, and I intend to win. I will explore every legal avenue to expedite this matter and bring it to a swift conclusion. I am confident we will ultimately prevail, that this farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and that those responsible will be held to account.”

Staff writers John Gravois and Anna M. Tinsley contributed to this report, which includes material from The Associated Press.

**d-usa**

And that is an important distinction that seems to be missed by some people.

He's not in trouble for vetoing, and if he would have just vetoed it without saying a single word there wouldn't be anything to even try to charge him over.

He's in trouble for using the threat of the veto to try to force someone out of an elected position.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
[

*so, unrelated style question: I

Spoiler:

try and correctly style people, so it's Mr. Romney, not Governor Romney, and Mr. Clinton, not President Clinton, etc etc since they are not in office. Is a General still a General after they leave the service?

Actually, I believe that the "correct" form of address would be General/Col, etc. And while I think you are correct on Mr. Romney going back to Mr. after his time as Gov. is done, I believe that Presidents "retain" the honorary title even after they are no longer in office. So it'd still be President Clinton, however in most public/official statements, he'd be referred to as Former-President, unless he's being asked something directly. (ie, the former President Clinton jaywalked while walking his dog yesterday. vs. "Mr. President, why were you seen jaywalking while taking your wife's dog for a walk yesterday?" to Pres. Clinton)

**d-usa**

I think I still see a lot of "governors" for former governors.

I wonder if it's more of a state thing. State media referring to previous In-state governors as "governor" while out of state sources go back to "Mr/Mrs"?

**Relapse**

What atreasure for the state of Texas she is. Clearly she should be protected and kept in office by all means.

**d-usa**

I don't think anyone has defended her or said that she should be protected.

You know that it's entirely possible that one person broke the law while trying to force another person that broke the law out of office and end up with two people breaking the law, right?

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
I don't think anyone has defended her or said that she should be protected.

You know that it's entirely possible that one person broke the law while trying to force another person that broke the law out of office and end up with two people breaking the law, right?

I agree with your statement. The whole situation disgusts me.