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

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

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

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

**Frazzled**

Its an interesting play.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Its an interesting play.

Eh... seems like typical legal lawfare...

Here's the key bit of the intro:

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.

**Ouze**

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…..

That sounds an awful like the Dave Chappelle defense - "I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that." (NSFW language)

**Frazzled**

It is a doctrine that a law cannot be impermissably vague.

Else we'd have a law that being bad is a misdemeanor, unless you were really bad, in which case it is a felony.*

*Not to be confused with the DamnYankee Felony Act of 1883 which made being a Yankee a felony offense.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
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…..

That sounds an awful like the Dave Chappelle defense - "I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that." (NSFW language)

Reading the motions...

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.

**Frazzled**

Only if the ham sammich was Republican.

**techsoldaten**

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.

**whembly**

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.

It's simply a state political squabble.

**whembly**

Heh...

Perry’s Favorability Up 6 Among Iowa Republicans Following Indictment

**Ouze**

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?

**Frazzled**

Because he is a Republican and it is a Democratic County known for going after Republicans on little or no grounds. They are going after who they can.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
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.

Does that make them Democrats?

**LordofHats**

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.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

Does that make them Democrats?

You have to be a Democratic activist to attend.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:

Really, maybe they should have taken "we're just too extreme on issues and it hurts us nationally" but w/e.

Gotta dodge that RINO charge.

**techsoldaten**

whembly wrote:
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.

...and they recused themselves. The Grand Jury was convened at the behest of a single prosecutor, McCrum.

whembly wrote:

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.

**Frazzled**

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?)

**techsoldaten**

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?)

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/five-things-know-about-perry-indictment/

"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.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

Does that make them Democrats?

You have to be a Democratic activist to attend.

Really? I don't know much about parties so I kind of just assumed anyone could go.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

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**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

Does that make them Democrats?

You have to be a Democratic activist to attend.

Really? I don't know much about parties so I kind of just assumed anyone could go.

As another said this is a private thing. You're not invited unless you're an activist, a mover in the party, or certain media.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

techsoldaten wrote:
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?)

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/five-things-know-about-perry-indictment/

"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.

**sebster**

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.

**techsoldaten**

Frazzled wrote:

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.

**Frazzled**

techsoldaten wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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.

Democratic activists WERE ON the grand jury.

**Tannhauser42**

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.

**Frazzled**

plus its true.

**d-usa**

If by true you mean "made up facts" you might be right.

She didn't indict Perry and Perry did more than "call her out on it".

I don't know the drinking habits of other democrats in Texas so I'm leaving that one alone...

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
plus its true.

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.