Gov. Goodhair Perry Indicted, Felony Abuse of Power Charged

[Simon_Jester]

I have committed quote spaghetti here, but I'm trying to make it coherent regardless.

She demonstrated her integrity when she drove drunk while in office.

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. When a person commits a crime, they become a person of zero integrity. Does it even matter whether they accept the punishment in an orderly fashion, or whether they try to use the power of their office to evade punishment?

I have to disagree with this bit. The DA is elected to uphold the law. Thus, it behooves the DA to uphold the law in her personal conduct. This isn't a cease of something like adultery - the DA broke the law in this case. Would you make the same argument if the person in question was the chief of police rather than the DA?

No, it is simply that... imagine there are two ways for a public official to breach public trust.

1) Use of state assets, or the powers vested in a public official by the state for personal reasons.
2) Personal crime not involving their use of state assets.

I consider cases of type (1) to be far more serious than cases of type (2).

SHOULD Lehmberg resign? All else being even remotely equal, yes. Should she be punished for her specific crimes? Yes. Should impeachment proceedings be enacted? Assuming that her conduct is deemed serious by those with the lawful power to impeach her, very probably.

But that does not mean that an outside individual who is subject to investigation by her office has grounds to threaten to abolish her office- not her position, the office itself- as a way of forcing her to do what she should, in my opinion, do.

That is an abuse of type (1), with Perry using his state-given authority (to veto funds) for a personal reason (his distaste for Lehmberg). Granted that Lehmberg is distasteful. It's still wrong to try and torpedo an organization funded to the tune of millions of dollars a year that serves a necessary public interest as a way of "getting" her.

And even that is the most charitable interpretation I can think of, given that Perry also has a clear ulterior motive in that he gets to replace Lehmberg withone of his own appointees who will no doubt be more sympathetic to any corruption cases that might take place.
_____________________________

He could also buy a gun, walk over to her office, and start waving it around and threatening to shoot people if she doesn't resign.

Just because it is possible for him to do that doesn't make it "right and proper."

I am sure there are various state laws against waving a gun around and threatening to shoot people.

If there weren't, would that make it right?

Now here is a link to the text of the very statute Perry is accused of breaking.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.39.htm

Note what word is missing?

"Veto"

The very absence of that word in the statute should be dispositive of the issue of whether the threat of a veto constitutes abuse of office.

[I quote some passages below. In keeping with normal English usage, the '...' means I snipped irrelevant words]

Now, Amigo... did you even read that thing? You may need to work on your reading comprehension. I'm not a lawyer, but just off the top of my head the relevant passage could be:



"A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to... harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly misuses... 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."

A veto is a pretty valuable thing- a power of the office of governor, which is entrusted to him to use responsibly, not to just randomly blow up departments he dislikes because he doesn't approve of the people in charge.

For that matter (and the fact that I missed this before reading the indictment is a great example of why I'm not a lawyer), Perry also threatened to "misuse" seven and a half million dollars of taxpayer money by diverting it away from the anti-corruption unit.

Remember, this is the same Perry who thought it proper for a president to decide on his own initiative to disband the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and I forget the third one. He seems very much content to willfully decide that his government will not provide certain services because it doesn't suit him to provide them. Not good.



OR it could be...

"A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he... intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right... knowing his conduct is unlawful... For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity."

Now, when the governor threatens to veto something, he is acting "under color of his office." And he is intentionally trying to deny Lehmberg the right not to resign her office if she does not see fit to do so. Which is, in point of fact, her right. No one can be compelled to resign against their will. Compelling someone to leave their job against their will is called "firing them," not them "resigning."

Should Lehmberg resign? In my opinion, yes. Could Perry exert certain kinds of pressure to make her resign? Sure... in his capacity as a private citizen. What he cannot do is use the powers of his office in an attempt to compel her to do something that, legally, she doesn't have to do.

NOTE: this is not something Perry was charged of, but it would seem reasonable to me to charge him of that. Again, there are good reasons why I am not a lawyer, and especially not a Texan lawyer. The prosecutors in this case are.

[Mr. Coffee]

She demonstrated her integrity when she drove drunk while in office.

Do you even know what the hell integrity is, son?

[Patroklos]

Whether you agree with or not it's a standard used commonly. In the military it is a career ender for anyone with any rank (all officers and most enlisted). They might let you hang around until your next board that you won't select for but more than likely you will be gone in months.

On top of that a DUI will probably get your security clearance stripped (this is a big reason why DUIs are career enders regardless of anything else, you are useless if your day to day work requires a clearance) whether civilian or military and if you didn't have one before your DUI you will probably never have one.

Again you can disagree with this but Perry will have no problem demonstrating he was enforcing a well known and wide ranging standard. Then again the drunk was a fellow elected politician so maybe she just deserves the normal hypocritical free pass they normally get instead of the treatment the poor schedule civil servants who works for them do.

[Mr. Coffee]

Whether you agree with or not it's a standard used commonly. In the military it is a career ender for anyone with any rank (all officers and most enlisted). They might let you hang around until your next board that you won't select for but more than likely you will be gone in months.

Only we're not talking about the military, so who cares? She's an elected official, not held to the standards of the UCMJ or any such nonsense, but to the same laws as the rest of us regular civilian jackoffs. She had a DUI, accepted responsibility for her actions, and paid the required penalties for it. She didn't try to weasel out, deflect, or otherwise abuse her position to get out of it.

Seriously, she made a bad decision and followed it up by doing the right thing. What's blowing my fucking mind is apparently we have shitheads on this board that are attempting to justify Rick "The Dick" Perry making a blatant attempt to shove a shill appointee into one of the few effective anti-corruption enforcement agencies in the state of Texas.

Again you can disagree with this but Perry will have no problem demonstrating he was enforcing a well known and wide ranging standard.

The fuck... Have you even read this damn thread, man? One of the big points is Perry is not enforcing anything, at least not legally, hence why the hatfucker is being charged with a pair of felonies.

Then again the drunk was a fellow elected politician so maybe she just deserves the normal hypocritical free pass they normally get instead of the treatment the poor schedule civil servants who works for them do.

Ok, it's official, you didn't even read the fucking OP article, much less the rest of the thread. The "drunk" plead guilty, took her punishment, and did not at any time attempt to use her position to get out of her predicament. Maybe if you spent less time explaining irrelevant bullshit about how the military would do things and more time reading the damn thread before posting you might have picked up on that, high speed.

[Maraxus]

Whether you agree with or not it's a standard used commonly. In the military it is a career ender for anyone with any rank (all officers and most enlisted). They might let you hang around until your next board that you won't select for but more than likely you will be gone in months.

On top of that a DUI will probably get your security clearance stripped (this is a big reason why DUIs are career enders regardless of anything else, you are useless if your day to day work requires a clearance) whether civilian or military and if you didn't have one before your DUI you will probably never have one.

I'm not sure that we ought to be applying the US military's standard of justice to civilian issues, particularly as they relate to drunk driving.

Again you can disagree with this but Perry will have no problem demonstrating he was enforcing a well known and wide ranging standard. Then again the drunk was a fellow elected politician so maybe she just deserves the normal hypocritical free pass they normally get instead of the treatment the poor schedule civil servants who works for them do.

You don't seem to get this any more than Amigocabal does. It's not Perry's place to regulate the moral character of fellow elected officials. It'd be one thing if this was his state highway director or some other medium/high ranking member of his administration, but Lehmberg isn't. She got elected by her own constituents and does not serve at the Governor's pleasure. Therefore he does not have the right to force her resignation, nor does he have the right to defund the PIU.

The Texas GOP has hated the PIU from its very inception, mainly because it's very effective at rooting out corrupt politicians. Since Texas is a mostly conservative state, these politicians tend to be conservative Republicans. Since Travis County skews liberal, the DAs tend to be liberal Democrats. Therefore, the state GOP hates the PIU with a fiery passion. They've made dismantling the PIU a part of the state party platform for the last decade and a half, and have tried numerous times to get the PIU shifted over to the state attorney general's office. An office that the very conservative state GOP controls with an iron fist, and an office that wouldn't be particularly inclined to look into, say, the GOP state legislature funneling millions to state agencies that gave unwarranted cash grants to politically connected biotech companies. Whatever crocodile tears the state GOP's leaking over the supposed damage Lehmberg's DUI has done to their office, it's pretty clear (at least to me) that they see this as their best chance to destroy the last bastion of Democratic power.

[Simon_Jester]

To second Maraxus, but on a somewhat different note:

The point that Patroklos and amigo are missing here is that saying "Lehmberg is a bad person for driving drunk and should have her career brought to an end" over and over is completely irrelevant to the charges against Perry.

Perry is not being charged with the 'crime' of thinking Lehmberg is a bad person. Asserting over and over like a broken record (amigocabal's style) that Lehmberg deserves to lose her job does not impact the charges against Perry. Asserting over and over (correctly) that in other arenas of life Lehmberg's career would already have ended does not impact the charges against Perry.

Perry is not being charged with "thinking Lehmberg should resign" or "wanting Lehmberg to resign" or anything like that.

No. Perry is being charged with abuse of official power. The fact that someone abuses their official powers in order to accomplish a goal you WANT does not mean it stops being abuse.

The reasons Perry is being charged are:

1) He was attempting to use coercion to interfere with the performance of an elected official's duties. Since Lehmberg was still the lawfully elected district attorney of Travis County, trying to force her to stop doing her job and resign constitutes 'attempting to influence her in the specific performance of her official duty.' And Perry was doing this while being a public servant.

Like it or not, that's against the law in Texas.

"But this time she really deserves it!" you say. Thing is, that doesn't mean you get to blackmail, extort, or otherwise coerce a public official into acting the way you want. At least, you don't get to do those things without at least being charged with some kind of offense.

And yet this charge is in my opinion the relatively lesser of the two. Perry is also charged with a separate, more serious offense:

2) Perry stands accused of misusing government money. When the governor decides to veto spending on a particular program, that constitutes a 'use' of taxpayer money allocated by the legislature. He is deciding on his own authority how to dispose of the money- or rather, how not to dispose of it.

Now, it's perfectly legal for the governor to do that in his capacity as a public servant. But it is not legal for him to do that in order to achieve a private political victory over a rival. Or to enforce his private opinions like "the head of this organization should resign, but refuses to, so if she doesn't I will defund her agency."

At that point, you're disposing of the money in a way that pleases you personally, but is not in keeping with your responsibility as a public servant.

[amigocabal]

She demonstrated her integrity when she drove drunk while in office.

By pleading guilty, taking her sentence to completion, and continuing on with her duties? Lawmakers are human just like everyone else. It's entirely possible to be a good and decent public servant and have demons and/or make terrible mistakes. I'm not sure why you think our public servants should all be saints, but "because I say so" isn't really a good enough warrant for me. Again, if you have any evidence that her office is performing with less integrity after her arrest, I'd be more than happy to see it.

I am sure there are various state laws against waving a gun around and threatening to shoot people.

It's Texas. Don't be so sure.

Now here is a link to the text of the very statute Perry is accused of breaking.


http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.39.htm


Note what word is missing?

"Veto"

The very absence of that word in the statute should be dispositive of the issue of whether the threat of a veto constitutes

Actually, that's really only dispositive of the notion that you have no idea what the case is about. Here are two of the four statutes Perry allegedly broke.

Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant's known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "official action" includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.

Lehmberg had a legal duty to enforce public ethics laws, a legal duty made impossible by Perry vetoing funding for her office. Incidentally, coercing a public official violates Texas criminal statute and is one of the two felony counts Perry's charged with.

So if the chair of the board of education is convicted of a crime, it is appropriate to abolish that district's school system?

If the crime were something like engaging in sex with underage prostitutes, then every elected official would be justified to use whatever legal and political means they have to pressure the chairman to resign if the chairman refuses to do so.

So drunk driving and child rape are roughly morally equivalent for you? Good to know. Guess that clears up why you're being such a dingus on this topic.

Look, you clearly don't have a whole lot of love in your heart for people with DUI convictions. That's fair enough. Leaving aside that politicians are people and it's unrealistic and utterly naive to hold them to a higher moral standard than us, I'd like to know the basis for your assertions here.

1. You've asserted that Lehmberg has violated the public trust on this issue and should resign. Please provide a warrant, not an assertion as you have previously, that Lehmberg's DUI charge impacts the "public's trust." It'd also be nice to know why that's important for a public corruption unit.

Those in a public corruption unit must have the utmost integrity, even above those expected from other prosecutors. Common sense would dictate that.

2. You've asserted that Perry acted legally in firing her. The special prosecutor in Austin disagrees. Please provide some reasoning that this is so. How did defunding the PIU office do anything except unduly hamper Lehmberg's office.

Perry did not fire her; she still is the Travis county D.A. and still in charfge of the public integrity unit.

3. You've asserted that public officials must be held to a higher moral standard than the rest of humanity. First, I'd like to know why that is the case. Second, I'd like to know where you draw the line between "must be publicly pennant" and "must be run out of town on a rail."

Is it not just common sense that public officials must adhere to a higher moral standard than the rest of humanity? After all, they are trusted with specialized duties. And even among public officials, some public officials must be held to a higher standard than other public officials.

I make no opinion of whether Lehmberg's DUI would disqualify her from any public service, even as a prosecutor. But for a public integrity unit, having driven drunk while in office is most certainly disqualifying.

[Simon_Jester]

Those in a public corruption unit must have the utmost integrity, even above those expected from other prosecutors. Common sense would dictate that.

Which is a meaningless statement since it relies on us agreeing with you about what "integrity" means.

Plus, if you actually read my arguments (which I doubt), you would have to notice that IT DOES NOT MATTER whether Lehmberg has lots of integrity or no integrity. Perry is not being charged with "thinking Lehmberg has no integrity." He is being charged with misusing the power of his office and threatening to misuse taxpayer money, in order to coerce an elected official into acting in a certain way.

It DOES NOT MATTER that you think Perry was justified in doing so because this particular elected official was dishonorable and inferior. It is not Perry's place to hire or fire Lehmberg, and it is not his place to threaten to defund a law enforcement operation in an attempt to blackmail her into resigning against her will.

2. You've asserted that Perry acted legally in firing her. The special prosecutor in Austin disagrees. Please provide some reasoning that this is so. How did defunding the PIU office do anything except unduly hamper Lehmberg's office.

Perry did not fire her; she still is the Travis county D.A. and still in charfge of the public integrity unit.

You are dodging the question in a particularly empty-headed way. To rephrase the question:

2) You've asserted that Perry acted legally in trying to fire her. The special prosecutor in Austin disagrees. Please provide some reasoning that this is so. How did defunding the PIU office (or threatening to do so) do anything except unduly hamper Lehmberg's office?

Answer the question.

Because your very first post in this thread boiled down to "I think Perry acted legally." You have never justified that claim. All you have done is repeat yourself about how Lehmberg should have resigned on her own or whatever. Which, as I said, DOES NOT MATTER to the question of whether Perry acted legally.

Hint: committing an act against a bad person does not mean that the act itself was legal.

So how about you actually answer the question: why do you think Perry's actions were legal?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Is it not just common sense that public officials must adhere to a higher moral standard than the rest of humanity? After all, they are trusted with specialized duties. And even among public officials, some public officials must be held to a higher standard than other public officials.

See, you are goddamn right. This is why the accusations against Perry are very serious indeed and shouldn't be sidetracked with bullshit about Girls Gone Drunk.

[amigocabal]

Those in a public corruption unit must have the utmost integrity, even above those expected from other prosecutors. Common sense would dictate that.

Which is a meaningless statement since it relies on us agreeing with you about what "integrity" means.

Plus, if you actually read my arguments (which I doubt), you would have to notice that IT DOES NOT MATTER whether Lehmberg has lots of integrity or no integrity. Perry is not being charged with "thinking Lehmberg has no integrity." He is being charged with misusing the power of his office and threatening to misuse taxpayer money, in order to coerce an elected official into acting in a certain way.

It DOES NOT MATTER that you think Perry was justified in doing so because this particular elected official was dishonorable and inferior. It is not Perry's place to hire or fire Lehmberg, and it is not his place to threaten to defund a law enforcement operation in an attempt to blackmail her into resigning against her will.

2. You've asserted that Perry acted legally in firing her. The special prosecutor in Austin disagrees. Please provide some reasoning that this is so. How did defunding the PIU office do anything except unduly hamper Lehmberg's office.

Perry did not fire her; she still is the Travis county D.A. and still in charfge of the public integrity unit.

You are dodging the question in a particularly empty-headed way. To rephrase the question:

2) You've asserted that Perry acted legally in trying to fire her. The special prosecutor in Austin disagrees. Please provide some reasoning that this is so. How did defunding the PIU office (or threatening to do so) do anything except unduly hamper Lehmberg's office?

Answer the question.

Because your very first post in this thread boiled down to "I think Perry acted legally." You have never justified that claim. All you have done is repeat yourself about how Lehmberg should have resigned on her own or whatever. Which, as I said, DOES NOT MATTER to the question of whether Perry acted legally.

Hint: committing an act against a bad person does not mean that the act itself was legal.

So how about you actually answer the question: why do you think Perry's actions were legal?

Perry had the legal right use the veto, and to threaten to use the veto.

Jonathan Chait can explain it better than I can.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... mid=google

See, you are goddamn right. This is why the accusations against Perry are very serious indeed and shouldn't be sidetracked with bullshit about Girls Gone Drunk.

Perry is accused of threatening to veto funding for the office of District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg if she did not resign, because she was convicted of drunk driving while in office.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Perry is accused of threatening to veto funding for the office of District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg if she did not resign, because she was convicted of drunk driving while in office.

I think the actual charge here is abuse of power. What you said are a few details, mixed with Perry's own justification.

I replied before as well, asked you why Perry should be allowed to cut down all laws to get at the devil. So, should he?

[Omega18]

Perry had the legal right use the veto, and to threaten to use the veto.

Jonathan Chait can explain it better than I can.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... mid=google

Jonathan Chait, and possibly you, are taking a preposterous position that would give the Governor of Texas an incredible amount of power and allow for a massive amount of corruption.

You're basically talking about a separation of power issue, with the office very deliberately not placed in a way that gives Rick Perry the power to remove someone even if convicted of a criminal charge.

There are other mechanisms involved for the removal of the elected official from office, including the voters no re-electing her, or recalling her for that matter. Impeachment would appear to be the other legitimate means of removing her from office.

As previously noted, other than possibly expressing his personal opinion on the subject, whether the Prosecutor in question resigns or not is none of Rick Perry's business.

The further question is even if you're going to argue this is a specific instance where this is ok, where are you going to draw the line and for that matter how is the law in question going to effectively do so? What if Rick Perry pulled the same stunt for Democratic prosecutors convicted of jaywalking while leaving Republican prosecutors convicted of more serious crimes alone? Chait's position would appear to allow Perry to engage in veto threats and vetoes to coerce any possible behavior of elected officials for any reason he would desire, other than possibly an instance of explicit personal financial gain for Perry. Basically while Perry can engage in arbitrary vetoes legally when providing no explanation, however when using them explicitly to coerce actions of elected officially (especially if related to them leaving office) he runs afoul of the law. (Something along the lines of stopping program x by cutting its funding may be ok, but not a situation where Perry insists on an elected official taking a specific action or he will veto funding in retaliation.)

As noted, in this case there also is a clear potential political benefit from securing Lehmberg's resignation so its clearly not a case of him simply taking this position out of some high minded moral principal where he has no relevant involved stakes. The other point noted as far as the big picture is concerned, if not legally, is that the net effect of his action was to punish a county in a problematic way, while not actually securing the removal of the potentially objectionable prosecutor.

[Patroklos]

I did not say what I did to be specific to the military, it was simply an example of a public servants who are held to this standard. The FBI, Secret Service, or your local fire fighter or police officer face the same deal. The specifics for why they are career killers might vary but they remains one. And the reason people say they should be is getting drunk and putting to lives of strangers at risk for nothing is the height of irresponsibility. Whether you paid satisfied your criminal requirements is irrelevant to someone having tipped their hand regarding judgement. Again disagree if you want, but this is not some new idea.

The security clearance issue applies to everyone and most security clearances are not held by military members.

I said nothing about the legality of the veto in this case, only that there is nothing odd about insisting someone in the government service resign or be fired for it.

Also I missed the post about Tom Delay earlier, I am not sure it some of you realize he was acquitted.

[Omega18]

I did not say what I did to be specific to the military, it was simply an example of a public servants who are held to this standard. The FBI, Secret Service, or your local fire fighter or police officer face the same deal. The specifics for why they are career killers might vary but they remains one.

You appear to be stating an absolute which is definately not always the case here.

For instance, in the following case the police officer was able to continue his career after a driving while intoxicated conviction until a second arrest on that same charges, which presumably did actually end his career as a law enforcement officer. In fact as a matter of policy a suspension rather than being fired is the usual punishment policy for the department.

It's unclear what Johnson's standing with IMPD will be after his internal investigation. Department policy recommends a suspension for officers who are arrested on OWI charges while driving a personally owned vehicle. A second such offense, however, can be grounds for dismissal.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crim ... /13781435/

In this case I suppose you can argue the firefighter technically was never convicted of drunken driving, but he was arrested for it three times and pled down to lesser driving charges twice. The third instance of arrest led to him having to drive with a breathe ignition interlock for his personal vehicle, but he remained on duty without any such requirement for driving a fire truck, at least until a political issue was made of the case months after the fact.
http://mynorthwest.com/76/2532869/Is-co ... ire-trucks

[Omega18]

Edit: Doublepost

[Alkaloid]

Also, none of the examples you gave involve an elected official. The ridiculous situation where US law enforcement ant prosecutors can be elected aside, if what she has been convicted of does not bar her from holding the position, she has to be allowed to continue the role she was elected to perform.

Would you also say that Perry was in the right if he cut funding for a towns police department because he had personal issues with the sheriff? Because that's the equivalent.

(For the record, the correct and lawful response to this from the governor would be to attempt to have the laws surrounding what convictions would bar prosecutors from this particular office changed. What he's done could be considered extortion)

[Maraxus]

Those in a public corruption unit must have the utmost integrity, even above those expected from other prosecutors.Common sense would dictate that.

Perry did not fire her; she still is the Travis county D.A. and still in charfge of the public integrity unit.

Is it not just common sense that public officials must adhere to a higher moral standard than the rest of humanity? After all, they are trusted with specialized duties. And even among public officials, some public officials must be held to a higher standard than other public officials.

I make no opinion of whether Lehmberg's DUI would disqualify her from any public service, even as a prosecutor. But for a public integrity unit, having driven drunk while in office is most certainly disqualifying.

Your appeals to "common sense" do not impress me. Give me a good reason why a moral failing, which incidentally has nothing to do with investigating corruption, should automatically disqualify a person from holding office. You assert without cause that this is the case. Please provide evidence that Lehmberg's DUI has harmed the PIU's integrity in any way. If you can't do this without repeating some version of your "DUIs are rly bad guys" silliness, then maybe you should just go away.

Perry had the legal right use the veto, and to threaten to use the veto.

Jonathan Chait can explain it better than I can.

Jesus christ. Did you even read the article Chait wrote? He handwaves away the misuse of government powers charge by saying that it's "hard to say" why a governor defunding an independent judicial agency for the flimsiest of reasons would be a "misuse" of the gubernatorial veto. Like, that's literally all the analysis he has on that count. The whole reason behind the abuse of power charge is that Perry used ill-defined and ill-tested powers as governor to unduly influence a state agency that is by its very design supposed to be independent. Perry's not supposed to be able to fire, or threaten to fire, or even hint about threatening to fire Lehmberg.

What, was this the first article that came up when you Googled "Perry Indictment Argument" or something?

Perry is accused of threatening to veto funding for the office of District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg if she did not resign, because she was convicted of drunk driving while in office.

No, he is acused of unduly using his ill-defined and ill-tested powers to unduly influence an independent agency. An agency that he as governor has no legal authority over. The whole point is that Lehmberg and other District Attorneys serve by the sufferance of the Travis County Commissioners Court and the County voters. Rick Perry is not a voter in Travis County, therefore he does not have any say as a public official over whether or not she resigns.

Whether or not you agree with the particulars, I think the mechanism here is inherently unethical and certainly something we don't need to have in the United States. Imagine if the President became bitter opponents with some governor somewhere. Imagine if that governor happened to get caught in some scandal. Tax fraud, say. Now imagine if the President were able to veto Medicaid reimbursements to the state if the governor in question wouldn't resign. And the governor in question didn't resign. And the president therefore vetoed state Medicaid funds. Would that not be an abuse of power? Is that something that you would be OK with? If so, why? If not, why not?

I said nothing about the legality of the veto in this case, only that there is nothing odd about insisting someone in the government service resign or be fired for it.

Also I missed the post about Tom Delay earlier, I am not sure it some of you realize he was acquitted.

Still doesn't matter. None of the people you mentioned are elected officials. We have legal ways of removing people from office. This was, in my view, not one of them. Perry's window dressing justification isn't really all that important.

And as for The Hammer, that's true. He did get his conviction overturned by the Texas Supreme Court, an elected body that consists almost entirely of conservative Republicans. They didn't think DeLay actually did all that stuff, and Texas doesn't really have much in the way of campaign finance laws anyway. It makes no matter, though. He was still a cancerous growth on Congress' asscheek, begging for a public fall from grace. And when he got convicted the first time around, we as a nation are better off for it. Ronnie Earle did humanity a favor when he realized that DeLay broke campaign finance laws, and he did us an even greater one when he got DeLay convicted. Whether or not "justice" was actually served against him isn't so important. The fact that he no longer holds office though? That's very important.

[Simon_Jester]

Perry had the legal right use the veto, and to threaten to use the veto.

Jonathan Chait can explain it better than I can.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... mid=google

His explanation is better than yours, but not good enough. He claims that the issue is purely that a threat to veto is not an official action. He is wrong. The issue is that in this case, the official decision to veto and defund an office of the government over what amounts to a personal dislike of the person running that office is wrong. That is abuse of the veto power.

It's very much like the recent case with Chris Christie (or, apparently, his aides acting totally independently) closing down two out of three traffic lanes on a major bridge to get back at the mayor of the town the bridge occupied. It's not that Christie doesn't have the power to close a bridge if he deems it necessary for the good of the state. It's that he doesn't have the power to use bridge closures (which have real fallout that affects the people of New Jersey) as a way of penalizing an elected politician for not following Christie's wishes.

Likewise, while Perry has the power to remove state funds from the anti-corruption group if necessary for the good of the state. That does not mean he has the power to do so on a whim. If he does it on a whim, or threatens to do it for purely personal reasons, or as a way to coerce the person running the group to step down... that is not okay. The mere fact that the veto is one of his official powers does not mean he has an unlimited license to use it for his benefit, any more than a policeman has permission to use their gun at random times for his benefit.

I said nothing about the legality of the veto in this case, only that there is nothing odd about insisting someone in the government service resign or be fired for it.

It is not odd that Perry wanted Lehmberg to resign, or that he said so.

It IS odd that he would threaten to use the power of his office in an attempt to destroy the unit responsible for corruption investigations against his friends, unless Lehmberg actually does step down. That's a pretty blatant act of political hostage-taking, with a hostage that really should not be allowed to be taken. Hence the accusation that Perry was abusing his powers.

It is not relevant that Lehmberg "should resign." What is relevant is that Perry chose to try and force Lehmberg's resignation in a way that was abusive of his power as governor.

[Terralthra]

Hilariously, our 43rd President, George W. Bush, and our 46th Vice President, Dick Cheney, had 3 DUIs between them. I didn't know the standard for President was so much lower than the standard for Travis County DA. Even more hilariously, GWB's DUI predates his election as...wait for it...Governor of Texas. Surefire career-ender, that DUI!

[Grumman]

Hilariously, our 43rd President, George W. Bush, and our 46th Vice President, Dick Cheney, had 3 DUIs between them. I didn't know the standard for President was so much lower than the standard for Travis County DA. Even more hilariously, GWB's DUI predates his election as...wait for it...Governor of Texas. Surefire career-ender, that DUI!

GWB's DUI predates his election by twenty years. There is nothing hypocritical about believing that committing a crime while in office is worse than committing a crime and then, twenty years on, being elected to office. If Lehmberg had to immediately run for re-election, so that the electorate could decide for themselves whether they wanted a drunk driver in office, then the situations would at least be more comparable, even if there's still a big difference between someone who was once a dangerous drunk and someone who is still a dangerous drunk.

But that still doesn't excuse the head of an anti-corruption unit trying to use her position to get out of trouble with the law.

[Beowulf]

Ok, so we've got two claims against the Texas Governor: first, that he's misusing funds. Second, that the use of a veto is a coercive abuse of power.

The first is laughable. He can't be misusing appropriated funds because they haven't been appropriated until he fails to veto them. How is it misusing funds? It's failing to appropriate funds. He does not have control of the funds beyond appropriate or non-appropriation. The standard is "contrary to an agreement under which defendant held such property or contrary to the oath of office he took as a public servant". There's no agreement under which he holds such property (he doesn't hold it, for one). And his oath of office is to faithfully execute the duties of his office. Of which, determining whether to approve a bill is part of his duties. If it's illegal for the governor to veto this specific section of a funding bill, it's likely that it's illegal for him to veto any section of any funding bill, under the same theory (it's a misuse of funds to fail to appropriate funds as specified by a funding bill), and for that matter, to fail to pass any funding bill, in whole or in part. Which is an absurd conclusion, given that it's his constitutionally mandated job to determine what parts of a funding bill get passed.

He handwaves away the misuse of government powers charge by saying that it's "hard to say" why a governor defunding an independent judicial agency for the flimsiest of reasons would be a "misuse" of the gubernatorial veto.

Chait claims it's hard to say why use of the veto is a misuse of funds, not that it's a misuse of the veto. Which is correct. See above.

So, part the second: that it's an abuse of power.

A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he … influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty

Coercion is defined as

a threat, however communicated:
(A) to commit an offense;
(B) to inflict bodily injury in the future on the person threatened or another;
(C) to accuse a person of any offense;
(D) to expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule;
(E) to harm the credit or business repute of any person; or
(F) to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.

Which I assume to be for this case to be (F), as the others make no sense. So let's look at State v. Hanson:

The state alleged that [County Judge Regina Hanson] intentionally and knowingly threatened to terminate the county’s funding of the salaries of a deputy district clerk and an assistant district attorney in an attempt to coerce the district judge into firing the county auditor and the county attorney into revoking a misdemeanant’s probation.

...

Threats may portend either lawful or unlawful action. First Amendment protection is extended to the former but not the latter. Therefore, a criminal statute that seeks to punish threats must clearly distinguish between an actionable or true threat and protected speech.

Judge Hanson had to guess at the meaning of section 36.03(a)(1) and its application to her official conduct because section 36.01(1)(F) [now 1.07(a)(9)(F) -ed] failed to give fair warning of the nature of the threat prohibited. Did the term “threat” encompass a threat of lawful action or only prohibit a threat of unlawful action?

Judge Hanson was the budget officer for Bosque County and the presiding officer of the commissioners’ court. She had jurisdiction over misdemeanants on probation. Bosque County could legally terminate its funding of employees in the district attorney’s office or district clerk’s office, and Judge Hanson could legally request the county attorney to institute proceedings to revoke a misdemeanant’s probation. Likewise, the district judge had the legal authority to terminate the county auditor, and the county attorney was the appropriate official to file a motion to revoke a misdemeanant’s probation. Assuming the allegations were true, Judge Hanson could have lawfully taken the actions threatened, and the district judge and county attorney, had they acted as she desired, would have acted lawfully.

Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression. See [Wurtz v. Risley, 719 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir.1983)]. Could Judge Hanson threaten to use her lawful authority and prerogatives of office to coerce other public officials into taking lawful actions which she or the commissioners’ court deemed expedient or desirable, or should she refrain from doing so out of fear of prosecution? What is and what is not lawful conduct cannot be left to such conjecture. Section 36.01(1)(F) was not drawn with the narrowness and precision required when legislating within the realm of the First Amendment.

A preeminent purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee free and unfettered political discussion within government and among the citizenry. Consequently, those who enter the political arena are fair game for sharp attacks inflicted by both the electorate and the elected. The hurly-burly world of courthouse politics is an arena where robust debate, often accompanied by blunt, caustic and even intemperate and vituperative language, is the by-product of public officials clashing over divisive issues. However, as long as the means are peaceful and their actions lawful, the boundaries of their political debate cannot be measured for constitutional protection by conventional standards of acceptability.

Freedom of speech must encompass the liberty of elected officials to discuss matters of public concern without prior restraint or fear of punishment. A vague statute that potentially could punish protected political debate violates due process because of its chilling effect on the exercise of that essential right.

Section 36.01(1)(F) was unconstitutionally vague when applied to Judge Hanson’s alleged conduct. This constitutional defect was transmitted to section 36.03(a)(1) by the impermissibly vague definition of “coercion.” These penal provisions violated due process because they did not give Judge Hanson fair notice of what type of threat was prohibited, failed to provide a clear, objective standard by which those charged with enforcement could assess her alleged conduct for its legality, and had a potential of inhibiting the exercise of her protected free expression as a public official.

As such, (F) only applies to unlawful action. This is actually a fairly direct analog of Perry's case, involving cutting funding, to cause some other party to do an act. Hanson won their case. Therefore, we can reason based on precedent that Perry did not unlawfully coerce the DA by cutting funding. What would be unlawful coercion? Something like threatening to charge someone with felony coercion if they use a veto in a specific way.

Again, we come to crazy land if use of veto is unlawful. Because then a governor can't threaten to veto a bill from the legislature unless it has specific things in it. Because that's coercing the legislature in the performance of it's duties.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Threats may portend either lawful or unlawful action. First Amendment protection is extended to the former but not the latter. Therefore, a criminal statute that seeks to punish threats must clearly distinguish between an actionable or true threat and protected speech.

Well I for one concede that Perry did nothing wrong under Texan law. I've read something similar in a different board.

But the law, to me, looks batshit. Let's say a constructor goes to a judge and tells him he'll build the judge a pool for free if his cousin is acquitted of whatever. Building someone a pool is legal, as is acquitting a defendant (despite what the Tough on Crime people would have you believe). Does this mean the constructor's actions are legal, despite the very obvious incentive? Or it's only when a civil servant threatens another civil servant?

[Beowulf]

Threats may portend either lawful or unlawful action. First Amendment protection is extended to the former but not the latter. Therefore, a criminal statute that seeks to punish threats must clearly distinguish between an actionable or true threat and protected speech.

Well I for one concede that Perry did nothing wrong under Texan law. I've read something similar in a different board.

But the law, to me, looks batshit. Let's say a constructor goes to a judge and tells him he'll build the judge a pool for free if his cousin is acquitted of whatever. Building someone a pool is legal, as is acquitting a defendant (despite what the Tough on Crime people would have you believe). Does this mean the constructor's actions are legal, despite the very obvious incentive? Or it's only when a civil servant threatens another civil servant?

Nope, that's bribery. Accepting the bribe, regardless of whether he then acquits the defendant is still illegal. The legislature could make this form of using a veto illegal, but the charges as specified don't match what he's done. The legislature doing so might be iffy too as that gets into the fact that using the veto is an inherently political act, and then you're criminalizing politics... and the state constitution gives the Governor exclusive use of the veto, thus it may actually require amending the state constitution to do so.

[Terralthra]

Hilariously, our 43rd President, George W. Bush, and our 46th Vice President, Dick Cheney, had 3 DUIs between them. I didn't know the standard for President was so much lower than the standard for Travis County DA. Even more hilariously, GWB's DUI predates his election as...wait for it...Governor of Texas. Surefire career-ender, that DUI!

GWB's DUI predates his election by twenty years. There is nothing hypocritical about believing that committing a crime while in office is worse than committing a crime and then, twenty years on, being elected to office. If Lehmberg had to immediately run for re-election, so that the electorate could decide for themselves whether they wanted a drunk driver in office, then the situations would at least be more comparable, even if there's still a big difference between someone who was once a dangerous drunk and someone who is still a dangerous drunk.

But that still doesn't excuse the head of an anti-corruption unit trying to use her position to get out of trouble with the law.

It actually preceded his first election campaign by...2 years (he lost that one). And his gubernatorial election campaigns by less than 20. All of this timing being irrelevant to the point that if DUIs uniformly and universally end careers, GWB should have never been elected to any position of power at all. Rick Perry making a DUI into the political rubicon when his immediate gubernatorial predecessor got elected despite a conviction for DUI is what makes it hilarious. If this DA has truly "lost the respect of the people", then it seems likely she'll get booted out of office in November, which is when she'll have to stand for re-election. That Perry chose to defund the entire office rather than wait to let one elected official go down in ignominious catastrophic defeat is...interesting, let's say.

[Irbis]

But that still doesn't excuse the head of an anti-corruption unit trying to use her position to get out of trouble with the law.

And how exactly did she do it? By pleading guilty in court?

If someone is using his position to get out of trouble with the law, it's Perry.

Nope, that's bribery. Accepting the bribe, regardless of whether he then acquits the defendant is still illegal. The legislature could make this form of using a veto illegal, but the charges as specified don't match what he's done.

Ok, but the actions matching what he is done are called 'blackmail' and last time I checked, that's illegal too. Yes, we might debate how far the veto powers can reach, but I really don't think "I'll destroy the inconvenient agency I cannot touch under checks and balances unless I can put my sock puppet in charge of it" was intended purpose of its usage.

Those in a public corruption unit must have the utmost integrity, even above those expected from other prosecutors. Common sense would dictate that.

As do lawmakers and law executors, like, you know, Perry. And he does something far worse than DUI.

Now, let's take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, and consider following scenario: Obama threatening to defund whole Congress once a single republican does something bad, unless he/she immediately resigns. That is ignoring the fact Obama cannot pick the replacement, meaning that would be less wrong than what Perry tries to do.

Do you agree this should happen, and if not, why?