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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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"?
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?
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.
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?
They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.
The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.
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?
They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.
The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.
Threatening to veto funding because he wants to replace an official of the opposite party is completely inexcusable. Its not like Perry would have given a crap if a Republican had been caught drunk driving.
This is clearly a retaliation for Gov Perry trying to secure the border and keep all those illegal Democrat voters, oops I mean "undocumented immigrants" out of his state and this country. Btw, is that really what we're supposed to call them now? That's kind of like calling bank robbery "illegitimate loans". I hope that Perry is acquited. I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.
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?
They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.
The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.
Threatening to veto funding because he wants to replace an official of the opposite party is completely inexcusable. Its not like Perry would have given a crap if a Republican had been caught drunk driving.
Doesn't matter.
As long as he didn't sell is "veto" or something like that... he can use it however he wants.
Because, otherwise, you'd be saying that the legislature can't negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,” the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes work.
Both counts are beyond ridiculous... the legal websites are going apoplexy over this.
whembly wrote: The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.
That sounds exactly like the kind of thing lawyers argue every day. As is common both sides are being petty, but both are within their legal rights to do so.
Considering this is entirely a Texas issue brought about by Texas politicians within Texas I'm not sure why people bring Pres. Obama into it.
No... because bismirching a potential President candidate is the goal.*
*not that he'd get the nominations w/o this ordeal
*shrug*
Politics as usual.
I wonder if in some round about way, this could end up strengthening a Republican run for the presidency by causing less division if he's eliminated because of this.
This is a good observation. Romney got beaten up pretty bad before he was the nominee. I believe the rules have been changed somewhat for this election's primaries to avoid the voters hearing too much about what a candidate actually thinks.
Taking out Rick Perry as early as possible is probably ideal, since he's not a particularly good candidate anyway; for three reasons: He's towards the bottom in polling for prospective candidates, he's polarizing enough to increase democratic turnout, and... um.... oops. I forgot the third reason.
-at-will employment state. I can fire whoever I want, whenever I want.
-if I decide to fire my secretary tomorrow, I'm not breaking the law.
-if I decide to tell my secretary "you need to work harder or I will fire you" and then fire her, I'm not breaking the law
-if I decide to tell my secretary "you will have sex with me or I will fire you" and then fire her, then I broke the law for abusing my power even though "it's not against the law to fire whoever I want"
Just chanting "a governor can veto whatever, that's the law" over and over again just shows either a complete ignorance of what he is actually charged with or some impressive misunderstanding of the law.
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?
They're going to have an awfully hard time convicting Perry.
The prosecutor is claiming that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not.
.
Leaving out some important details there aren't you?
Threatening a veto is fine and good, gets done a lot, nothing wrong there. Governors and presidents use it a lot as a tool to get the legislature to do things differently. And that is what it is for, a tool to keep a check on bye legislature and to get some bargaining power over them. He is not charged with "threatening to use a veto". He is charged with threatening, and going through with that threat, to defund an entire organization unless an elected official that he doesn't like agreed to resign from her elected position.
That is what he charged with, not "vetoing", not "threatening to veto". Harping on the veto argument is just like saying "he was charged with stabbing people, but it's perfectly legal to hold a knife in your hand!"
Is it legal now for the president to veto any funding for any state with a governor he doesn't like and tell them that they can have their money back as soon as the governor resigns?
Ouze wrote: This is a good observation. Romney got beaten up pretty bad before he was the nominee. I believe the rules have been changed somewhat for this election's primaries to avoid the voters hearing too much about what a candidate actually thinks.
Taking out Rick Perry as early as possible is probably ideal, since he's not a particularly good candidate anyway; for three reasons: He's towards the bottom in polling for prospective candidates, he's polarizing enough to increase democratic turnout, and... um.... oops. I forgot the third reason.
Yeah... but, why?
Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her. You'd have to pull someone out of the blue that can challenge Hillary herself... like Susan Martinez, Gov of NM.
Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her.
Isn't that what was said this far out the last time, and she lost the primary? Hillary still has a lot of hill's to climb. Even if she gets the nomination there is no guarantee she will win, unless the R's run Palin again in some capacity.
Ouze wrote: This is a good observation. Romney got beaten up pretty bad before he was the nominee. I believe the rules have been changed somewhat for this election's primaries to avoid the voters hearing too much about what a candidate actually thinks.
Taking out Rick Perry as early as possible is probably ideal, since he's not a particularly good candidate anyway; for three reasons: He's towards the bottom in polling for prospective candidates, he's polarizing enough to increase democratic turnout, and... um.... oops. I forgot the third reason.
If it's thought of along the lines of resources expended, establishing support blocks, trying to mend fences for the last candidate standing, etc., this could very well be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans if he gets knocked out because of this.
No... because bismirching a potential President candidate is the goal.*
Why would the DNC get involved (forget the Administration) when the Texas (D)s and (R)s will eat each other alive anyway? I have no doubt that both national committees know what is going on, but I doubt either is going to put time or resources into helping or hurting one side. There is more to politics than just the national level. You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.
Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her.
Isn't that what was said this far out the last time, and she lost the primary? Hillary still has a lot of hill's to climb. Even if she gets the nomination there is no guarantee she will win, unless the R's run Palin again in some capacity.
Ahtman wrote: [You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.
... could you rephrase this?
There were a few posts (such as "I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.") that brought the Obama administration into the incident, which makes little sense unless everything somehow revolves around them. Oil fire at the fields? Obama attacking big oil! Protests in MO? Obama stirring up racial issues! ect ect.
Ouze wrote: Also, I don't think Mrs. Palin is ever going to run for any elected office again, ever.
I don't think so either, but in the odd chance they made her running partner again or actually the candidate it would be a win for the Democratic candidate.
Ahtman wrote: [You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.
... could you rephrase this?
There were a few posts (such as "I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.") that brought the Obama administration into the incident, which makes little sense unless everything somehow revolves around them. Oil fire at the fields? Obama attacking big oil! Protests in MO? Obama stirring up racial issues! ect ect.
I might be misunderstanding you here, and if I am, I apologize in advance, but Obama is on record as making comments that are seen in some corners as inflamatory concerning these kind of situations:
Relapse wrote: It would be possible to imagine him doing some small thing to shore up a perceived advantage to the Dems concerning the goings on in Texas.
You would have to imagine it though, as he hasn't been involved and there is nothing making this a national issue. Inner state politicians eating each other isn't really equivalent a shooting that sparks national protests, something that actually would require a national leader to at least comment. I suppose the similarity is that both are more common than they should be, but that really isn't the story.
Ahtman wrote: [You only get to Pres. Obama by wanting to put him there, not by him actually being there or having anything to do with it.
... could you rephrase this?
There were a few posts (such as "I guess the Obama admin doesn't like him actually following the laws and the constitution while they do everything in their power to subvert it.") that brought the Obama administration into the incident, which makes little sense unless everything somehow revolves around them. Oil fire at the fields? Obama attacking big oil! Protests in MO? Obama stirring up racial issues! ect ect.
I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.
It absolutely staggers me that there are people who seem to have missed the problem with a governor saying 'unless the person I don't like steps down I will veto funding for your department'. I mean, holy fething gak people just think about what that is.
Now, I am not for one second saying that he should be indicted for the issue. I just don't know how subjective this issue is or the strengths and power of the veto under Texas law.
But fething hell, everyone understands, or at least should understand basic governance, and de-funding a department because someone isn't quitting like you think they should is a really, really gak way to run things.
sebster wrote: It absolutely staggers me that there are people who seem to have missed the problem with a governor saying 'unless the person I don't like steps down I will veto funding for your department'. I mean, holy fething gak people just think about what that is.
Now, I am not for one second saying that he should be indicted for the issue. I just don't know how subjective this issue is or the strengths and power of the veto under Texas law.
But fething hell, everyone understands, or at least should understand basic governance, and de-funding a department because someone isn't quitting like you think they should is a really, really gak way to run things.
sebster wrote: It absolutely staggers me that there are people who seem to have missed the problem with a governor saying 'unless the person I don't like steps down I will veto funding for your department'. I mean, holy fething gak people just think about what that is.
Now, I am not for one second saying that he should be indicted for the issue. I just don't know how subjective this issue is or the strengths and power of the veto under Texas law.
But fething hell, everyone understands, or at least should understand basic governance, and de-funding a department because someone isn't quitting like you think they should is a really, really gak way to run things.
Just to play devil's advocate, would you give money to someone to run a department if they acted in a way you felt untrustworthy, or would you look to replace them with someone you felt was up to the job before dispensing funds?
Whembly wrote:
Once Hillary announces, none of the potential (R) can really beat her. You'd have to pull someone out of the blue that can challenge Hillary herself... like Susan Martinez, Gov of NM.
Susan Combs would be a better leader than any we've had since Ford.
That's the dumbest thing I have heard this weekend. And that includes the stupid stuff coming out of Riotville...
So we have yearlong hearings because the IRS investigates people, which they are allowed by law to do, because Obama.
And Perry tries to force an elected official out of office by cutting off legislated funding, but that's okay because "it's not against the law to veto stuff".
Count I of the indictment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry alleges that,
[Rick] Perry, with intent to harm another, to-wit, Rosemary Lehnberg and the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, intentionally or knowingly misused government property by dealing with such property contrary to an agreement under which defendant held such property or contrary to the oath of office he took as a public servant, such government property being monies in excess of $200,000 which were approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to fund the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, and which had come into defendant’s custody or possession by virtue of the defendant’s office as a public servant, namely, Governor of the State of Texas.
The relevant statute, Texas Penal Code § 39.02, provides,
A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly … 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.
And “misuses” is defined to mean,
“Misuse” means to deal with property contrary to:
(A) an agreement under which the public servant holds the property;
(B) a contract of employment or oath of office of a public servant;
(C) a law, including provisions of the General Appropriations Act specifically relating to government property, that prescribes the manner of custody or disposition of the property; or
(D) a limited purpose for which the property is delivered or received.
Yet I don’t see how this can possibly apply to Perry’s behavior, which is “carr[ying] out a promise [using his veto power] to nix $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit run by the office of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. The Democratic official was convicted of drunken driving, but refused Perry’s repeated calls to resign.”
1. To begin with, the law applies to a public servant’s misusing property that is in his “custody or possession.” What property was in the governor’s custody or possession? The $7.5 million, if it had been appropriated, would have been in the custody or possession of the district attorney, not the governor.
But, more important, this money was never appropriated, precisely because of the governor’s veto. Presumably this $7.5 million remained in the Texas State Treasury, so if it is was in anyone’s “custody or possession,” it would have been in the custody or possession of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
The power to sign or veto appropriations, of course, does give the governor some power to direct the distribution or nondistribution of money. That is an important power. But it doesn’t carry within “custody or possession” of the money, just like a juror or judge deciding whether to order plaintiff to pay defendant money doesn’t thereby acquire “custody or possession” of the money being paid.
2. Beyond this, how does vetoing the appropriation qualify as “misuse,” in the sense of “dealing with” the $7.5 million “contrary to an agreement under which defendant held such property or contrary to the oath of office he took as a public servant”? I think I understand what this language means in typical cases — for instance, if there’s an agreement (perhaps even an implied agreement) that certain property (say, city-owned trucks managed by the defendant) is to be used for city business and not to haul away material from the defendant’s own private demolition site.
But what sort of “agreement” is there under which the governor “holds” the $7.5 million that he can either choose to allow the DA’s office to receive or order returned to the Texas State Treasury (especially given that the governor never actually had access to the $7.5 million for his own purposes)? Presumably the prosecutor is planning to prove some such “agreement” in court, but I can’t imagine what it might be. Moreover, while for a typical public servant, his employers (or the legislature) can require certain agreements about the use of property as a condition of his employment, I don’t think the legislature may impose such agreements on the governor (nor do I know of their ever having tried to do this).
Also, how does vetoing the approriation constitute as “dealing with” the $7.5 million “contrary to the oath of office of a public servant”? The Texas governor’s oath is, “I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.” Is the prosecution’s theory that vetoes of appropriations are criminal if they are not seen as “faithful[] execut[ion of] the duties of the office of Governor” — though deciding whether or not to “approv[e]” a bill is itself part of the duties of that office? Or is it that such vetoes are criminal if they do not “to the best of [the Governor's] ability preserve, protect, and defend the [federal and state] Constitution and laws”? It’s hard to see what plausible interpretation of the statute the prosecutor has, at least one that isn’t hopelessly vague and politically manipulable.
3. Finally, the Texas Constitution expressly reserves the veto power to the governor. The governor is entitled to decide which laws he “approv[es]” and which he disapproves — without constraint from the legislature, or from county-level district attorneys. The legislature certainly can’t make it a crime for the governor to veto its appropriation bills; that would deny the governor the power that the Texas Constitution gives him.
Nor can the legislature make it a crime, I think, for the governor to veto its appropriation bills as an attempt to influence some government official’s behavior — behavior that is commonplace in the political process, and that is likewise within the governor’s exclusive power to decide which bills to give his “approval.” To be sure, the legislature can make it a crime for the governor to accept bribes in exchange for a veto; but there the crime is the acceptance of the bribe, not the veto itself. In the words of the Supreme Court in United States v. Brewer (1972), upholding a federal bribery statute against a federal constitutional challenge, “There is no need for the Government to show that appellee fulfilled the alleged illegal bargain; acceptance of the bribe is the violation of the statute, not performance of the illegal promise.” Likewise, a prosecutor can’t interpret Texas Penal Code § 39.02 as criminalizing certain uses of the governor’s veto power.
As Patterico noted, Count I of the indictment rests on the theory that it was the veto itself (and not, as with Count II, the threat of the veto) that was a crime. That can’t be so, I think, given the governor’s power to choose what bills to veto.
As I mentioned in my post about Count II of the indictment, I’m not an expert on these Texas statutes; if I am in error here, please let me know, and I’ll be glad to correct the error. But at this point, it seems to me that Count I is just as unsound as Count II.
d-usa wrote: That's the dumbest thing I have heard this weekend. And that includes the stupid stuff coming out of Riotville...
So we have yearlong hearings because the IRS investigates people, which they are allowed by law to do, because Obama.
And Perry tries to force an elected official out of office by cutting off legislated funding, but that's okay because "it's not against the law to veto stuff".
When we look at this story, we need to be very careful to separate out the actual legal issues from the political undertones and optics; they are distinct. Politics seems to try and answer how society distributes power. The law tries to answer questions of where authority and power in certain relationships lay as society is currently configured. We need to keep this in mind as we are navigating this controversy: the politics are important, but since the legal system is being used to solve this problem (instead of using this as an election issue) the courts will review the extent of the authority Mr. Perry has as that authority is currently distributed. If someone stepped out of line, then they are liable for the consequences prescribed by law. I feel like most of us can probably agree on that...
Before I get started, I need to point out that I am not an attorney (nor do a play one on TV or online). I do not live in Texas, nor am I very familiar with their laws. If I say something that is incorrect, please feel free to correct me (with the appropriate citation, of course).
Also, the Texas statutes that are at issue in the case are listed at the top of the indictment. They can be found with a quick google search or here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=PE
If that is all you do I would be happy (and you would probably have done more than most people to understand what is going on and what is actually being argued in court, not the court of public opinion).
He cites Texas legal precedent that seems to be on point. What the precedent seems to reveal is that threats of lawful conduct are protected by free speech, even though the statutory language describing "coercion" seems very broad (he even raises the specter of it being unconstitutionally overbroad). This precedent seems. to me. to pass the smell test: if a governor can't threaten a veto (a lawful act) without breaking the law, how is a legislative body supposed to alter a bill in order to get the executive's signature? So the question becomes whether Mr. Perry has plenary power to strike a budget item. If he does then Texas precedent, at least as to Count II, seems to indicate the Governor can threaten, and follow through on, a veto. Thus, it is my opinion that, at least as to this portion of the lawsuit, this is a political dispute that needs to be settled by the public through the electoral process (the posturing of most comments that have preceded this one indicate to me that most people inherently recognize this and are trying to use this situation to their advantage).
I will not comment on Count I as I am unclear as to what the prosecution is actually arguing. I think they are saying that Mr. Perry misused government property (the money that was supposed to go to the Public Integrity Unit) in contravention of his public oath or as against some type of Agreement. I would need to see the agreement or oath before I made a determination. I am also unclear how Mr. Perry's plenary power for the line item veto would play into that fact scenario.
Relapse wrote: Just to play devil's advocate, would you give money to someone to run a department if they acted in a way you felt untrustworthy, or would you look to replace them with someone you felt was up to the job before dispensing funds?
You don't understand the difference between a department and a department head. The Joint Chiefs of Staff could be all simultaneously caught in a pedophile ring, and refuse to stand down from their positions, and it'd be completely unacceptable to say 'unless you guys stand down we're not giving money to the military anymore'.
Legalese bs. I mean, sure, it may be completely correct and it may well dismiss the indictment completely, but it's all still bs that ignores the real actual problem here - Perry tried to use the release of funds as a beatstick to force another official out of their job.
And for Perry himself, well I don't really care. Whatever he was going to do in Texas is done, and it'd be a stretch to claim that any other governor wouldn't have done much the same, and as a presidential hopeful well there's three agencies who will tell you he never stood a chance and they are Commerce, Education, and the — what’s the third one there? Let’s see…OK. Commerce, Education, and the...
What worries me is the number of people who don't understand, or at least choose to pretend not to understand, how far from acceptable governance this kind of behaviour is. I mean, you want good governance in your country? Then actually start insisting on it.
Relapse wrote: Just to play devil's advocate, would you give money to someone to run a department if they acted in a way you felt untrustworthy, or would you look to replace them with someone you felt was up to the job before dispensing funds?
You don't understand the difference between a department and a department head. The Joint Chiefs of Staff could be all simultaneously caught in a pedophile ring, and refuse to stand down from their positions, and it'd be completely unacceptable to say 'unless you guys stand down we're not giving money to the military anymore'.
If someone in a leadership position is found to be incompetant or seriously deficient in the performance of their duty, they should be relieved. If not being able to get her out of her office, but legaly able to withhold funding that could be squandered because she is a proven incompetant, then the governor is in the right.
Was she in this case found to be such? I don't really know, I was just proposing a scenario if she was.
d-usa wrote: So Obama should be able to stop all federal funds to states with governors that are not up to his standards?
That depends... Do these governors that O. doesn't like get hammered drunk and commit crimes, then go to court for them and get convicted?
If so then yeah, why not? It's not as though he's punishing them because they are simply of a different political bent than he is, but rather that they are ineffective at their job as they can't even control their personal lives.
Relapse wrote: If someone in a leadership position is found to be incompetant or seriously deficient in the performance of their duty, they should be relieved. If not being able to get her out of her office, but legaly able to withhold funding that could be squandered because she is a proven incompetant, then the governor is in the right.
Was she in this case found to be such? I don't really know, I was just proposing a scenario if she was.
When someone did something as bad as that lady did, they absolutely should stand down or be relieved. But if they don't stand and you don't have a mechanism or the numbers to force her out, then you deal with it. You understand that one person won't actually squander a 7 million dollar budget because they're a drunk driver. You don't go about threatening to defund a whole department in order to force that person out. That's fething ridiculous.
I'm beginning to understand more and more why US government is so famously terrible. You guys just don't get it. The basics of government and process just don't register.
I'm beginning to understand more and more why US government is so famously terrible. You guys just don't get it. The basics of government and process just don't register.
Hubris much?
Arrogant insults hurled at a nations government and its people make you feel superior?
Just remember that while currently in the dumps the US is still the equal to any other nation out there. Not better, never better but it is the equal to its peer nations.
Now, we Americans do have many flaws. More of late than in the past but with a little honest help we can turn things around.
By honest help, I don't mean for every would be expert to come along and wax poetic about the perfection of their countries system. We have huge cattle herds in the US so have no need to import BS.
I've asked this before, "Why do you constantly jump in and talk about a country whose systems and methods you disagree with and despise so much?" It doesn't help anything. Could be making things worse, though.
When you consider one of our biggest cultural problems are is narcissism. One should ask, "Does it really help to feed into that illness by making that groups country the center of attention in so many threads?".
I've seen many Aussies and 'Zelanders post in and about the subject of US reparations to the descendants of slaves but have yet to see a thread here about Aussie reparations to the Aborigines for the Lost Generation. What's up with that?
Point here is, you want to have a polite discussion, ok. You want to just bag on a country and its people just "because" or for "reasons" to make you feel better about yourself then take it back down under.
Arrogant insults hurled at a nations government and its people make you feel superior?
Just remember that while currently in the dumps the US is still the equal to any other nation out there. Not better, never better but it is the equal to its peer nations.
I think the US is an awesome country. Not just the people, the culture, and the practices and just the way you all go about your lives are awesome. A lot of Australians do take on an easy posture of complaining about how much Australia has become like the US, and feth those people. What we've taken from the US has made our country better, and there's a lot more we could still take on to improve out country.
And as you for you guys pulling yourselves up, well you're already doing, and much faster than you give yourselves credit for. And compare that to Europe, who are sliding and still pretending they don't have a serious problem.
Now, that said, that doesn't mean everything in the US is done the best way. There are things you do badly, and one of those things is government. The way elected officials use their powers, the debates you have about who should and shouldn't be elected, the way the various elements of government set about planning the long term direction of the country... well its a really long way short of the standard. One really eye opening account was that Jersey corruption scandal a few years back, the US fellow explaining it to us said that basic elements of government that you would just take for granted anywhere else just weren't even considered by anyone in that case. The idea that the power granted to an elected official also comes with a basic responsibility to society just didn't register - the culture was entirely one of using the position to look after themselves and those who got them there.
Since then I've seen a lot of stuff on US politics, and while the overall picture is much more complex than just what happened in Jersey that one time, there is a consistent trend - Americans in general just don't get the basic processes a government officer should follow.
I've asked this before, "Why do you constantly jump in and talk about a country whose systems and methods you disagree with and despise so much?" It doesn't help anything. Could be making things worse, though.
I happen to be an Americanophile. I like the US, and I like talking about it. This being the internet, we pretty much only talk about the bad stuff, which means my engagement with most US speakers is mostly about the bad stuff in the US.
As an example, the US has this year become the largest producer of oil in the world again, after already becoming the largest producer of natural gas a few years ago. An incredible technical achievement and one that's now flowing through and creating wealth in other countries with similar oil and natural gas deposits, such as my own country. But we don't talk about that, because 'slowly this particular thing is getting better' just isn't a story that humans tend to talk about.
Instead we talk about stuff like Rick Perry's governance. And those typically are negative stories for the US.
I've seen many Aussies and 'Zelanders post in and about the subject of US reparations to the descendants of slaves but have yet to see a thread here about Aussie reparations to the Aborigines for the Lost Generation. What's up with that?
Much as you don't talk for all Americans, I don't talk for Australians, let alone New Zealanders. I can't even do their accent without sounding like I've got a learning difficulty.
This thread was the final realization for me that truthiness reigns supreme and that there are people who are so partisan and ideologically blind that there is truly no reason to even attempt to engage them in any kind of argument.
My post count will slow down, but I imagine my blood pressure will improve.
d-usa wrote: This thread was the final realization for me that truthiness reigns supreme and that there are people who are so partisan and ideologically blind that there is truly no reason to even attempt to engage them in any kind of argument.
My post count will slow down, but I imagine my blood pressure will improve.
Eh... really?
I thought I burnt down that bridge during the lively Benghazi/IRS threads.
And YET, you keep coming back!
You're drawn to the seductive allure that is the OT Thunderdome™ that has proven irresistible. Right?
What I find freak'n hysterical is that liberals/Democrats, who are quick to point out that while they're not fans of Governor Perry, that they are appalledby this nakedly political indictment.
I wonder how Perry would do in prison. Not that it will come to that. Rich white politicians can buy their way out, one way or another. The worst case scenario is that he takes a plea deal that ruins his political career but not his life.
LoneLictor wrote: I wonder how Perry would do in prison. Not that it will come to that. Rich politicians can buy their way out, one way or another. The worst case scenario is that he takes a plea deal that ruins his political career but not his life.
Fixed
Let's not involve race in this being we have a touchy one in the Ferguson thread.
LoneLictor wrote: I wonder how Perry would do in prison. Not that it will come to that. Rich white politicians can buy their way out, one way or another. The worst case scenario is that he takes a plea deal that ruins his political career but not his life.
LoneLictor wrote: I wonder how Perry would do in prison. Not that it will come to that. Rich white politicians can buy their way out, one way or another. The worst case scenario is that he takes a plea deal that ruins his political career but not his life.
I find your lack of faith in The Hair, disturbing.
Historically Travis county DAs are known for political witch hunts. They even tried to go out after Hutchinson and got the judge so mad he empanelled a jury and directed verdict so the DA couldn't drop the case and restart it again.
I don't like Perry. I never voted for him, but these charges are nonsensical.
Frazzled wrote: I find your lack of faith in The Hair, disturbing.
Historically Travis county DAs are known for political witch hunts. They even tried to go out after Hutchinson and got the judge so mad he empanelled a jury and directed verdict so the DA couldn't drop the case and restart it again.
I don't like Perry. I never voted for him, but these charges are nonsensical.
Do you think he's capable of wearing a Mothers Against Drunk Driving t-shirt for his mugshot?
Frazzled wrote: I find your lack of faith in The Hair, disturbing.
Historically Travis county DAs are known for political witch hunts. They even tried to go out after Hutchinson and got the judge so mad he empanelled a jury and directed verdict so the DA couldn't drop the case and restart it again.
I don't like Perry. I never voted for him, but these charges are nonsensical.
Do you think he's capable of wearing a Mothers Against Drunk Driving t-shirt for his mugshot?
whembly wrote: Well... that DA is going to get what she wants...
Perry is turning himself in to the authorities to get fingerprinted and mugged shot.
As I read elsewhere - What, they're not going to roll a tactical team in a bearcat at 3am, throw flashbangs in the windows, shoot his dog, and scream at him to put his hands up, freeze, and lay on the ground all at the same time before tasering/pepperballing him?
Because if this was a guy named Jamal Perry who was wanted on 2 felony charges and had pictures like this on his facebook....
Interesting how...er racist that post runs the edge of being.
They won't roll the tactical team, because that man is wielding a Long Colt .45. You don't have to respect the man. You don't even have to respect the office (and in Texas we..don't). But you have to respect the single action Colt .45 revolver.
Frazzled wrote: Interesting how...er racist that post runs the edge of being.
Please, tell me more about how racist I am for imagining that a powerful white man might get better treatment in our legal system than an average black man, for I wish to know. Explain my racism in detail.
Frazzled wrote: Interesting how...er racist that post runs the edge of being.
Please, tell me more about how racist I am for imagining that a powerful white man might get better treatment in our legal system than an average black man, for I wish to know. Explain my racism in detail.
Racial connotation and RItide ask everyone to refrain from using the word being its becoming racially charged in the Ferguson thread
Jihadin wrote: Racial connotation and RItide ask everyone to refrain from using the word being its becoming racially charged in the Ferguson thread
RAW, he asked people to stop using that word in that thread. I was using it to show a double standard with how suspects are treated by the media, not to actually call Mr. Perry a thug.
If we stop using it at all, period, on Dakka, I'd be glad to. It's been my experience on these fora that the use of that word leans very strongly towards a certain complexion.
Historically Travis county DAs are known for political witch hunts. They even tried to go out after Hutchinson and got the judge so mad he empanelled a jury and directed verdict so the DA couldn't drop the case and restart it again.
I don't like Perry. I never voted for him, but these charges are nonsensical.
One article I've seen around my FB feed from uber conservative friends/family posited an opinion that they wished the DAs office could have charges levied against it for all the damage they do with their political witch hunts.
d-usa wrote: And here is a good example of how it can be considered racially charged, because nobody used it for the white guy posing with his posse and guns.
Not really. Do we not have white Caucasians portraying themselves as "T****" in today society?
Frazzled wrote: Interesting how...er racist that post runs the edge of being.
Please, tell me more about how racist I am for imagining that a powerful white man might get better treatment in our legal system than an average black man, for I wish to know. Explain my racism in detail.
When was the last time a black man was indicted on trumped up charges by the Travis County DA?
Also you're ignoring the greatness of the .45 Long Colt. Barbarian.
That article sums it up very nicely. It explains very well why the indictment is a terrible idea, and also explains very well why the people in this thread attempting to defend Perry's actions are being ridiculous.
EDIT: Travis County DAs have a very bad rep here for 1) being drunk (several including one pulled over IN MY CHURCH PARKING LOT; 2) Playing BS partisan games.
There's a reason its a Travis County DA, and it has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
Ouze wrote: I've got to make a bingo square for "Australian, so shut up".
Damn straight. Also you need a Godwin card. Lets put them together.
Mentioning Australian killer attack bears on a thread about a state maybe 15,000 miles away is naziesque and worthy of Godwin! Damn killer drop bears, taking our jobs!!!
Perry's political career is toast maaaaaaaaan... toast!
I doubt many people who would be willing to vote for Perry will be swayed by this matter in any way. I can think of numerous politicians who have faced fare more serious scandals and gone on to have long political careers, Bill and Hillary Clinton immediately spring to mind.
Perry's political career is toast maaaaaaaaan... toast!
I doubt many people who would be willing to vote for Perry will be swayed by this matter in any way. I can think of numerous politicians who have faced fare more serious scandals and gone on to have long political careers, Bill and Hillary Clinton immediately spring to mind.
That's a fair point.
Did ya see that Perry mugshot? I like that "adios mofo" grin.
Frazzled wrote: Australian opines on a Texan affair. Love it.
EDIT: Travis County DAs have a very bad rep here for 1) being drunk (several including one pulled over IN MY CHURCH PARKING LOT; 2) Playing BS partisan games.
There's a reason its a Travis County DA, and it has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
Well, yeah, the drunk driving charge is bad, and that the indictment is partisan politics. I said exactly that in the post you're responding to. Which you didn't read, despite it being two sentences and less than 50 words. I mean, we all have a TLDR point, but when you hit that point on a post that's shorter than The Very Hungry Caterpillar then you probably best starting taking a long look at yourself.
Anyhow, I'll repeat myself so you can fail to read it again, because that's pretty much how we do things around here;
The linked article did a very good job of explaining why the indictment is terrible.
The linked article did a very good job of explaining why the attempts in this thread to defend Perry's actions are ridiculous.
That came in at 37 words. I wonder if you've got the stamina to get through such an epic?
Perry's political career is toast maaaaaaaaan... toast!
I doubt many people who would be willing to vote for Perry will be swayed by this matter in any way. I can think of numerous politicians who have faced fare more serious scandals and gone on to have long political careers, Bill and Hillary Clinton immediately spring to mind.
I guess you could call his career Texas Toast then
Perry's political career is toast maaaaaaaaan... toast!
I doubt many people who would be willing to vote for Perry will be swayed by this matter in any way. I can think of numerous politicians who have faced fare more serious scandals and gone on to have long political careers, Bill and Hillary Clinton immediately spring to mind.
I guess you could call his career Texas Toast then
Rho Chalmers, who disclosed to the Houston Chronicle yesterday that she was a member of the grand jury that indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was an active delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention during grand jury proceedings. Chalmers’ active participation in Democratic state politics is important because she claimed yesterday to the Houston Chronicle that her decision to indict Perry, a Republican, was not based on politics.
“For me, it’s not a political decision,” Chalmers told the newspaper. “That’s what a grand jury is about – take the emotion out of it and look at the facts and make your best decision based on your life experience.”
More troubling, however, is the fact that Chalmers attended, photographed, and commented on an event with Democratic state Sen. Kirk Watson while grand jury proceedings were ongoing.
Watson was a witness in front of the grand jury. On June 27, 2014, Chalmers shared a photo of the Watson event on a community Facebook page she started called Developer’s Dungeon. “Senator Kirk Watson telling the story of the Wendy Davis fillibuster (sic),” she wrote in a comment accompanying the picture.
Jihadin wrote: Really starting to believe Frazz that Austin a Quarantine Zone for Dem's...
It's the biggest and brightest blue island in the sea of red that is Texas.
Also, hotties on 6th street.
Dude, did you see that Bar Rescue show that featured the Austin bar "Metal and Lace"? I am still traumatized.
Nah, I missed that. I don't recall all of the names of the bars on 6th street (and they probably change ownership as often as a painted grey Knight army on swapshop), but they ran the gambit of good to gak-hole.
Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ?
I assume that until/unless he's found guilty there'd be no issue, but if he was found guilty here he would or wouldn't noe be forbidden from legally owning ?
Or does this not apply here, or in this state etc ?
Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ?
Yes no CHLing bang sticks until after adjudication. However there are many rights for carrying that supercede CHLing. EDIT if conveicted of a felony then he's permanently barred from firearm ownership. That aint gonna happen.
I'm not worried. In addition to being hurricane and tornado proof, that perfect coif is laquered so fulsomely, as to be bullet proof.
I do like that meme. He should seriously run with that.
Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ?
I assume that until/unless he's found guilty there'd be no issue, but if he was found guilty here he would or wouldn't noe be forbidden from legally owning ?
Or does this not apply here, or in this state etc ?
Dropped a few notch on my "Kool person stick" WTH are you bringing weapon ownership into this Red.....
Bad Red
I shall stamp "No Desserts" on ID card
Bend your driver license 90 degree's
etc etc etc etc
No. Its freaking Texas and e probably brought all the weapons he wants/like already
Frazzled wrote: Also grand jury members just speaking publicly is a crime in Texas.
Isn't being a Democrat in Texas also a crime?
Just a municipal offense. If you take the insurance class you can get it removed from your record.
"Poor George, born with a silver foot in his mouth."
-Ann Richards, D, Governor of Texas. remember if you call Ghost Ann, it better be important (Alamo Drafthouse joke).
Also grand jury members just speaking publicly is a crime in Texas.
Regarding only specifics of the case, particularly while the grand jury is in session. These comments were made after the fact, Chalmers wasn't the only one to express such a sentiment, and no specifics were discussed.
Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ??
Frazzled wrote:Yes no CHLing bang sticks until after adjudication. However there are many rights for carrying that supercede CHLing.
EDIT if conveicted of a felony then he's permanently barred from firearm ownership. That aint gonna happen. .
To expand upon what Frazzled said with a piece of amusing minutiae an Englishman might not know about American politics: If he is convicted of a felony, he would no longer be able to vote, along with losing his firearms rights. However, he would not be disqualified from seeking several high level political offices, such as a US Senator or Congressman, and in many states, Governor (not Texas though).
A felon in the US can't vote for a Senator, but he can be one. /Murca
Also grand jury members just speaking publicly is a crime in Texas.
Regarding only specifics of the case, particularly while the grand jury is in session. These comments were made after the fact, Chalmers wasn't the only one to express such a sentiment, and no specifics were discussed.
After the fact as well Dogma. Grand Juries in Texas are different than trial juries.
Will these charges affect at all his status with regards to owning/carrying/etc firearm/s ??
Frazzled wrote:Yes no CHLing bang sticks until after adjudication. However there are many rights for carrying that supercede CHLing. EDIT if conveicted of a felony then he's permanently barred from firearm ownership. That aint gonna happen. .
To expand upon what Frazzled said with a piece of amusing minutiae an Englishman might not know about American politics: If he is convicted of a felony, he would no longer be able to vote, along with losing his firearms rights. However, he would not be disqualified from seeking several high level political offices, such as a US Senator or Congressman, and in many states, Governor (not Texas though).
A felon in the US can't vote for a Senator, but he can be one. /Murca
On another board it was noted that the state apparently has pulled his CHL license. No more shootin coyoots with your hogleg Govnah!
By Tim Eaton
American-Statesman Staff
A state district judge in Austin said Thursday that she intends to protect members of the grand jury that indicted Gov. Rick Perry from any threats — veiled or direct — from the governor or anyone else.
Judge Julie Kocurek of the 390th District Court, a Democrat, said Perry’s Saturday statement, issued a day after the indictment, could be construed as a threat and possible violation of the law. Kocurek, as the administrative presiding judge of all criminal courts in the county, said that “no one is above the law,” and the public needs to know that grand jurors are legally protected from any threat.
“I have a duty to make sure that our members of the grand jury are protected,” Kocurek said. “I am defending the integrity of our grand jury system.”
The judge said that Perry might have made a veiled threat when he said: “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.”
The only people that Perry could be referring to as being accountable are the grand jurors, judge and prosecutor, Kocurek said.
The Texas Penal Code that outlaws obstruction and retaliation says that anyone who “intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm” a grand juror faces a second degree felony, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
I don't really think it does... at least, not to THIS level of crazy. Sure, you've got granny and grandad sittin' on the porch in their rockin' chairs moanin' about "them darn liberals" and "I heard on Rush today" But I think that, at some point, MOST of the people elected to state legislatures legitimately have their people's interests at heart. Afterall, in some of those districts, they themselves depend on their own decisions.
I don't really think it does... at least, not to THIS level of crazy. Sure, you've got granny and grandad sittin' on the porch in their rockin' chairs moanin' about "them darn liberals" and "I heard on Rush today" But I think that, at some point, MOST of the people elected to state legislatures legitimately have their people's interests at heart. Afterall, in some of those districts, they themselves depend on their own decisions.
I have found the opposite true, though often for the same reasons. Less people tend to be engaged at state and local levels, but those that are tend to be much more engaged because they know it has more of an impact which can lead to some goofiness. You also tend to have more contact with the people involved and since they aren't as removed it can become more personal much easier.
National politics is two dogs growling at each other but State and local are rabid squirrels fighting.
I have found the opposite true, though often for the same reasons. Less people tend to be engaged at state and local levels, but those that are tend to be much more engaged because they know it has more of an impact which can lead to some goofiness. You also tend to have more contact with the people involved and since they aren't as removed it can become more personal much easier.
National politics is two dogs growling at each other but State and local are rabid squirrels fighting.
Yeah, I can see that... Maybe I'm from an area where things are a little more "sane" (not really the best word, but ohh well) but yeah. Local fights would be much more personal, as opposed to a senator in DC fighting for "his state" that he hasn't really seen in years, except in campaigning
After the fact as well Dogma. Grand Juries in Texas are different than trial juries.
Interesting. In Illinois so long as no specific information, particularly factual information, regarding the case is discussed members of a Grand Jury are free to speak regarding anything they wish once the Grand Jury has concluded.
Of course, the wise thing to do would be to say nothing at all.
Over here a criminal conviction bars one from (elected) political office.
.. at high levels anyway, don't think applies to parish councils and the like.
Yes, I would greatly prefer if it were the other way - if a felony conviction barred you from holding public office, but you were still free to vote.
I hate that felons can't vote - it's pure taxation without representation. You can sometimes get your voting rights restored if enough time passes and you jump through some hoops, but I firmly believe once you serve your time, you are free.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Local fights would be much more personal, as opposed to a senator in DC fighting for "his state" that he hasn't really seen in years, except in campaigning
Not just more personal, but frequently more petty as well.
As an example: people in a subdivision in the town I grew up in actively resisted the construction of a superstore called Meijer in an empty, city-owned piece of untended farmland in the middle of an otherwise developed suburb of Chicago. They didn't complain about noise* they launched a campaign called "Trucks Kill Kids" in which they claimed that trucks going to Meijer would necessarily kill more children than the trucks that already used the thoroughfare already didn't.
Of course, this worked, as most people couldn't be bothered to stand up to idiots.
*Wisely, as it abuts a major road, and all the relevant houses have sound buffers.
d-usa wrote: At least you don't need to gerrymander when everybody just chooses to move to the same city!
Nate Silver made the interesting argument that intentional gerrymandering is probably a less powerful force in US politics than the demographic effect of lots of Democratic aligned blocs choosing to move in to the same neighbourhoods.
This is a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking to bar the prosecution of Applicant, Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry, on multiple constitutional grounds. Some of these grounds relate to defects apparent on the face of the statutes upon which this
indictment was based, and they could be raised by any person charged with an alleged violation of their terms. As Applicant will demonstrate, Section 36.03(a)(l) of the Texas Penal Code is fatally vague and overbroad, failing to give reasonable notice to any official about what is permissible conduct on the one hand and what is felonious conduct on the other…..
In addition, both Section 36.03(a)(l) and Section 39.02(a) are vague and overbroad as applied to this case, and that is true regardless of whether they might pass constitutional muster in some other circumstances….
Even if the statutes under which the Governor is indicted were not unconstitutional on their face or as applied, the facts alleged by the State still fail on their face to set forth any violation of those statutes. Those arguments will not be addressed now, because pretrial habeas corpus is not the remedy for factual inadequacy, even when that inadequacy is as blatant as it is here. Rather, if this
case were to go forward, they will be raised in a motion to quash the indictment.
As Applicant will demonstrate, Section 36.03(a)(l) of the Texas Penal Code is fatally vague and overbroad, failing to give reasonable notice to any official about what is permissible conduct on the one hand and what is felonious conduct on the other…..
As Applicant will demonstrate, Section 36.03(a)(l) of the Texas Penal Code is fatally vague and overbroad, failing to give reasonable notice to any official about what is permissible conduct on the one hand and what is felonious conduct on the other…..
I find these three items fascinating:
1. The petition provides extensive support for the understanding that the veto is a LEGISLATIVE function.
2. The Texas constitution has a debate clause such that all legislative debate is protected speech. I didn't think that this is ever necessary...but, alas...it's there.
3. The governor (through his office staff) informed Senator Watson of his intent to line-item veto the PIU budget. He apparently did not communicate this veto threat outside of the legislative environment. That's new to me...
It is clear to this layman that this is protected speech as laid out in the debate clause of the Texas constitution. But, then again, Travis County has a reputation that they'd indict a ham sammich for being a... ham sammich.
Of note: no Democrats were involved in the decision to charge the governor. Perry was charged by members of his own party.
The prosecutor who chose to bring charges is Michael McCrum. He worked as a lawyer for GWB and he was appointed by a Republican judge. He has complete oversight of the decision to prosecute.
I don't know how they do things down in Texas, but this doesn't sound legit. Either there's more to the story than what the indictment lays out, or this is a stunt to drum up donations. His PAC was selling coffee mugs with the face of the DA in question the day after the indictment.
techsoldaten wrote: Of note: no Democrats were involved in the decision to charge the governor. Perry was charged by members of his own party.
Incorrect.
At least two of the Grand Jury members attended the Democrat Convention in Texas.
The prosecutor who chose to bring charges is Michael McCrum. He worked as a lawyer for GWB and he was appointed by a Republican judge. He has complete oversight of the decision to prosecute.
--Although McCrum is being portrayed as a “Republican” by some, he has been described by one supporter as a “Democrat” and his only contribution to a candidate for political office was to a Congressional Democrat.
Also, interestingly of note, McCrum gave a $500 donation to the judge who appointed him as special prosecutor, before the appointment. Must be how you need to get a civic job in Texas...eh?
I don't know how they do things down in Texas, but this doesn't sound legit. Either there's more to the story than what the indictment lays out, or this is a stunt to drum up donations. His PAC was selling coffee mugs with the face of the DA in question the day after the indictment.
Yeah, he's a real juggernaut now. He's gone from not even polling enough to be listed as an option, to tied for 4th place.
See, what annoys me the most about this, what I would consider to be prosecutorial overreach, is how totally needless it is. He's gone in 5 months, he's never ever ever going to be president, and the scandal itself is not exactly Iran-Contra, so... why bother?
techsoldaten wrote: Of note: no Democrats were involved in the decision to charge the governor. Perry was charged by members of his own party.
The prosecutor who chose to bring charges is Michael McCrum. He worked as a lawyer for GWB and he was appointed by a Republican judge. He has complete oversight of the decision to prosecute.
I don't know how they do things down in Texas, but this doesn't sound legit. Either there's more to the story than what the indictment lays out, or this is a stunt to drum up donations. His PAC was selling coffee mugs with the face of the DA in question the day after the indictment.
It's been noted from the start that the likely purpose behind the action is to try and eliminate Perry from the nomination race. Because, as Ouze said, he will never win the presidency, but he could do a lot of damage to whoever eventually runs for it before the real race for president even begins. Apparently, the lesson Republicans took away from Romney is "our candidate took too much of a hit in the pre-election nomination race to beat Obama."
Really, maybe they should have taken "we're just too extreme on issues and it hurts us nationally" but w/e.
The prosecutor who chose to bring charges is Michael McCrum. He worked as a lawyer for GWB and he was appointed by a Republican judge. He has complete oversight of the decision to prosecute.
--Although McCrum is being portrayed as a “Republican” by some, he has been described by one supporter as a “Democrat” and his only contribution to a candidate for political office was to a Congressional Democrat.
Also, interestingly of note, McCrum gave a $500 donation to the judge who appointed him as special prosecutor, before the appointment. Must be how you need to get a civic job in Texas...eh?
I don't know how they do things down in Texas, but this doesn't sound legit. Either there's more to the story than what the indictment lays out, or this is a stunt to drum up donations. His PAC was selling coffee mugs with the face of the DA in question the day after the indictment.
It's simply a state political squabble.
It hit national media before anything actually went down. That doesn't just happen, that's PR.
Please show evidence anyone in the grandy jury "recused themselves" (can't do that by the way, and proceedings are private so how would you know again?)
Frazzled wrote: Please show evidence anyone in the grandy jury "recused themselves" (can't do that by the way, and proceedings are private so how would you know again?)
"But Lehmberg and other Travis County officials recused themselves from the case and are not prosecuting it. One year ago a Republican judge from Bexar County, Bert Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to handle the prosecution."
Really? I don't know much about parties so I kind of just assumed anyone could go.
The conventions (both RNC and DNC) aren't really "parties" and the only way to go is by invite, so being of the required party, OR a member of the media w/media pass for the express purpose of journalistic coverage.
Frazzled wrote: Please show evidence anyone in the grandy jury "recused themselves" (can't do that by the way, and proceedings are private so how would you know again?)
"But Lehmberg and other Travis County officials recused themselves from the case and are not prosecuting it. One year ago a Republican judge from Bexar County, Bert Richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, to handle the prosecution."
This is common knowledge.
YOU KNOW WHAT A GRAND JURY IS RIGHT? YOU KNOW THEY WEREN'T ON THE GRAND JURY. The prosecutor is not part of the grand jury.
Ouze wrote: See, what annoys me the most about this, what I would consider to be prosecutorial overreach, is how totally needless it is. He's gone in 5 months, he's never ever ever going to be president, and the scandal itself is not exactly Iran-Contra, so... why bother?
Individuals looking for a scalp to establish their own credentials within the political system.
YOU KNOW WHAT A GRAND JURY IS RIGHT? YOU KNOW THEY WEREN'T ON THE GRAND JURY. The prosecutor is not part of the grand jury.
No, I guess I don't since you used all caps. Please explain.
I guess I got confused because it takes a prosecutor to decide whether or not to bring a case before a grand jury, argue the case, etc. The fact that all the democrats who *could* have done that all recused themselves must be what confused me.
YOU KNOW WHAT A GRAND JURY IS RIGHT? YOU KNOW THEY WEREN'T ON THE GRAND JURY.
The prosecutor is not part of the grand jury.
No, I guess I don't since you used all caps. Please explain.
I guess I got confused because it takes a prosecutor to decide whether or not to bring a case before a grand jury, argue the case, etc. The fact that all the democrats who *could* have done that all recused themselves must be what confused me.
A little something amusing to add to this. Apparently, an unauthorized tweet went out from Rick Perry's Twitter account with a picture attached, and while he has since taken it back, it is, of course, out there on the Internet for posterity.
Personally, I think it's funny. CNN cropped the pic a bit, so here's the complete one taken from the Politwoops website CNN linked to in that article.
No, it's junk. Whether you think she should stand down or not (and I think she should), and whether you think Perry should be indicted or not (and I think he shouldn't), it's just plain making up bs to claim that she's having Perry indicted for 'calling her out about it'.
Pretending that's all it the indictment was about is just lazy.
I was using it to show a double standard with how suspects are treated by the media, not to actually call Mr. Perry a thug.
