Gov. Goodhair Perry Indicted, Felony Abuse of Power Charged

[Rogue 9]

Do you really think every drunk driver intends to kill people? If you do, you're a fucking imbecile. And if you don't, you're a liar.

They may be risking killing people, but doing something reckless is not the same as intending to kill.

Are you saying that drunks accidentally drive cars? Everyone knows that driving drunk is extremely dangerous to everyone around. You can't be a functioning adult and not know this; the information is pervasive and self-evident. Getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated anyway is a deliberate decision made in full knowledge that you will probably cause property damage at the very least and have a high chance of maiming or killing another person or even many people. A deliberate decision. Something they have set out to do. If there's a fucking imbecile in this equation, it's the hypothetical person who somehow manages to grow tall enough to reach the pedals of a car without learning this fact. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying drunks accidentally drive cars. I'm saying that they don't all intend to kill people. Which is self-evident to anyone who's not a moron.

Also, it is possible to be so drunk you don't fully understand the risk.

Drunk driving is bad, but I don't think that means we should engage in obviously false rhetoric. Doing something irresponsible is not the same as pre-meditated murder.

[Gandalf]

What a person is saying when they are impaired by alcohol cannot be taken seriously as evidence of a person's competence or personality, given the many ways that alcohol affects brain chemistry. You get the most accurate picture of a person when they are sober.

Does this sober person not choose to be drunk, and thus become this apparently different person?

I've seen far too many nice people turn into vile drunks for that argument to hold a lot of water.

[Raw Shark]

What a person is saying when they are impaired by alcohol cannot be taken seriously as evidence of a person's competence or personality, given the many ways that alcohol affects brain chemistry. You get the most accurate picture of a person when they are sober.

Does this sober person not choose to be drunk, and thus become this apparently different person?

I've seen far too many nice people turn into vile drunks for that argument to hold a lot of water.

Do you think that when they made that decision, their thought process was more like, "I am going to drink until I am vile to everybody!" or perhaps, "I am going to have just one more, because I am not feeling better about my day and/or the life of the party yet but feel like I have this potential for it inside me!"

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but that doesn't mean their drunk actions reflect their sober brain state. The fact that Dr. Jekyll periodically turns into Mr. Hyde as a result of his actions doesn't mean that Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde.

In this case, we have a person whose drunken rantings indicate an attempt to bully her way out of responsibility while under stress in the drunk tank... but who made repeated, consistent, public decisions to accept responsibility after she sobered up.

If we assert that she was trying to avoid responsibility using her position, we have to weigh her isolated drunken actions against her consistent sober actions. I think the consistent sober actions are a better indicator of what her intentions really were.

This does not mean she is free of responsibility for actions while drunk. Or for choosing to become drunk when she (presumably) knew that she was an irresponsible and wild drunk. But if you want to assess her intentions, it makes more sense to judge her by actions she took consistently and repeatedly while in her right mind. Rather than by isolated actions taken once while under the influence of a drug.

[Gandalf]

Do you think that when they made that decision, their thought process was more like, "I am going to drink until I am vile to everybody!" or perhaps, "I am going to have just one more, because I am not feeling better about my day and/or the life of the party yet but feel like I have this potential for it inside me!"

Does it make a difference? If they know the potential outcomes, they bear the responsibility.

[Batman]

And she did exactly that by pleading 'guilty'.

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way.

We can and do reasonably say that a person bears full responsibility for their actions while intoxicated.

But it is willful ignorance of the nature of alcohol to assume that we can accurately judge a person's intentions and state of mind by their words while intoxicated.

[Gandalf]

Why though? Saying stuff is still doing something, which is why we have laws relating to defamation, threats and hate speech.

[Simon_Jester]

Those are types of speech with specific consequences- which is what takes those kinds of words into the realm of actions. They reflect specific, pre-meditated kinds of speech hurtful to another person.

Rambling semi-coherently about "don't you know who I am" and "get these cuffs off me" and "have you called the sheriff about this" is not that type of offense, in my honest opinion.

So it is reasonable to say "she took the risk that she would get in an accident while drunk when she got drunk, and is therefore responsible. It might even be reasonable to say "she took the risk of defaming someone with slanderous remarks made due to her low social inhibitions when she got drunk, so she's responsible!" Those are reasonably foreseeable consequences of being drunk- that you might have an accident while operating heavy machinery, that you might insult someone inappropriately.

It is not reasonable to assume "oh, she took the risk that she would make a half-assed attempt to use her office to get out of trouble when she got drunk!" That is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence. Nor is this a crime we can argue that she was predisposed to commit. Not when we know fully well that the attempt was (rightly) ignored as the ravings of an intoxicated person and when she made extensive efforts to NOT avoid responsibility after she sobered up.

The alternative is to assume that an isolated incident while intoxicated is a better gauge of a person's state of mind than a persistent pattern of behavior while sober. I don't think in vino veritas can be taken that far.

[Ralin]

The alternative is to assume that an isolated incident while intoxicated is a better gauge of a person's state of mind than a persistent pattern of behavior while sober. I don't think in vino veritas can be taken that far.

A persistent pattern of behavior in public, while sober enough to remember that you only say shit like that behind closed doors when you're not being recorded. Would we be having this conversation if she'd decided to reflect on how black people would be improved by forks up their butts?

[Maraxus]

Again, the law as written doesn't specify that it must be an unlawful act that influences or attempts to influence, but if read as written, then any act that influences or attempts to influence a public servant is criminal coercion. Declaring you will veto a bill that doesn't have spending to replace a bridge (for example) would be criminal coercion. So State v. Hanson set a sensible precedent that the act that attempts to influence must be unlawful. So the act itself must not be legal to do, regardless of whether it's coercive or not.

The Constitution of Texas does not list any restriction on why a veto can be used, just that the Governor has to explicitly use it within a set period of time (no pocket vetos), and the legislature can over-ride the veto by a 2/3rd majority after it's used. The reasoning why it was used may not be normal, but no reasoning is necessary in the use of the power. All that is required is that the governor object to an item of appropriation, and to state that he objects to that item. The counterchecks to capricious use of the veto power as designed in the constitution are to over-ride it, or to remove the governor via impeachment.

If you want to claim that the laws of Texas support his conviction for coercion of a public servant, you must prove that the use of the veto, in and of itself, was illegal. Not just abnormal, or morally wrong. The veto itself is illegal. You are unlikely in the extreme to be able to do so. Laws that would do so are almost certainly unconstitutional, as they would strip power from the governor in favor of the legislature.

The attempt to remove the DA is a political act. It may be that the governor saw the DA as no longer fit to head an anti-corruption unit, or maybe he's cynically using her conviction to take her out. It's obvious that quite a few members of the public see her as unfit for office. Hell, my wife instantly flip-flopped from abuse of power by Perry to righteous action when she read far enough into the article to see that the DA had been convicted of a DUI.

Hmm. Conceeded on the legal argument. Most of the legal analyses I've seen so far point to the case being far weaker than I'd initially thought (hoped?) for. Leastwise that Perry stands a very good chance of beating this thing. That being said, I'm curious to see the reasoning once the prosecution gets underway. Hanson's got to be the first case that comes up if you take even a cursory look at this case, and I'm sure the prosecution's at least thought about it. From what I understand, the prosecutor in question is a fairly well-regarded guy with bipartisan support. And he's from San Antonio, so not much connection to Austin either.

That being said, I think that the underlying mechanism here is certainly unethical. Perry's likely acquittal seems like a failure of the state ethics laws more than anything else. It'd be considered an abuse of office if something similar happened on the federal level.

hUH?

In a criminal prosecution, the only things that matter are that a) the lawful process is followed and b) justice is served.

The point is that DeLay was, quite frankly, an evil man in service of an evil cause. The fact that he's no longer in office is justice in the grand scheme of things.

A drunk driving charge has nothing to do with anti-corruption.

No, it's to do with attempted murder. We're not talking about some minor misdemeanor; to get behind the wheel intoxicated is to deliberately set out to end the life of everyone else in the general vicinity of the road. Someone that incomprehensibly reckless should not hold public office.

Which isn't to say Perry isn't a douchebag, but come on, drunk drivers should be chucked in the nearest holding cell, not hailed as martyrs.

Nobody's hailing Lehmberg as some sort of martyr. She's already not running for re-election and she'd surely have resigned if Perry weren't able to appoint some right-wing toady in her place.

Whatever Lehmberg's sins, it seems to me that she's paid them, leastwise according to the law. There are at least two other DAs with DUIs on their records while Perry's served in office. To the best of my knowledge, he has not pressured either of them to resign. Nor has he pressured any of the State Reps who got busted during his tenure. The only official he's pressuring to resign happens to be the one heading up an investigation into his finances. And in charge of an agency that the Texas GOP has officially hated since 2002. And in an office that is generally a pain in the ass to corrupt pols in a land without much in the way of functional ethics laws.

The line between illegality and things that make you raise their eyebrows might be a bit thin. This just seems really slimy, even for Texas politics.

[Beowulf]

That being said, I think that the underlying mechanism here is certainly unethical. Perry's likely acquittal seems like a failure of the state ethics laws more than anything else. It'd be considered an abuse of office if something similar happened on the federal level.

Such is pretty much impossible at the federal level though. The President doesn't have a line-item veto, and the US has a unitary executive. Everyone in the executive branch works for him. So he could tell a US Attorney to take a hike, and be able to enforce that without resorting to such measures as seen here. That said, there has been a recent controversy over firing a US Attorney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_ ... ontroversy Which resulted in no criminal charges being filed.

hUH?

In a criminal prosecution, the only things that matter are that a) the lawful process is followed and b) justice is served.

The point is that DeLay was, quite frankly, an evil man in service of an evil cause. The fact that he's no longer in office is justice in the grand scheme of things.

So, anything goes to get a guy you consider bad out of office?

[Irbis]

I believe he was talking about between when she got pulled over and when she was arraigned.

Ok, but that was discussed in meantime and what people say while drunk doesn't reflect what they do while sober.

It's not blackmail. Blackmail is threatening to reveal information in exchange for something (usually of value).

I mean blackmail as common usage, using a threat to gain something valuable. Ok, I can see specific legal meaning in Texas differs from that, but no matter how we call it, blackmail, extortion, coercion, or whatever, the fact is Perry tried to use brute force to touch something he had no business with. Calling to resign would be fine, threatening to destroy public service to force issue is not. Comparing it to political usage is as dumb as comparing thug extorting money on street with unspoken threats with trading, IMHO, after all, there's money exchange in both cases

But then again, might be just cultural difference of US 'winner blindly robs all' with EU political system where that shit would never fly. Or maybe it's because elected DAs are seen as more 'fair' game than state officials performing the same function in Europe, I don't know.

This counterfactual requires that Obama have the capability to do so. He does not.

US presidents had line veto until recently, IIRC. Besides, Obama has million more 'technically' legal creative ways of stopping congress from convening, no matter which he would use, though, it would have caused enormous shitstorm, and for good reason.

Perry has a constitutionally conferred line-item veto that lets him remove budget items. No such capability exists for the President. The best he can do is to defund the government as a whole by not passing a budget as a whole.

Ok then, would Obama be right to try to get single congressmen to resign by defunding whole government?

Furthermore, the analogy fails in that any given Republican in Congress has little individual power (the power being invested in Congress as a whole). This is distinct from the DA, who is the top of her little pyramid, and has extensive individual power.

Filibuster? Just a single person switching allegiance can have enormous difference on what can pass through US legislative process. Imagine democrats could stop it by replacing a republican with their nominee by asking president to defund whole government until one of them guilty of anything resigns - would you be perfectly fine with that?

Hell, my wife instantly flip-flopped from abuse of power by Perry to righteous action when she read far enough into the article to see that the DA had been convicted of a DUI.

Funny that, just after this you said something you should have asked her, "So, anything goes to get a guy you consider bad out of office?". How exactly she would justify the flip flop besides knee jerk moral guardian reaction that between others got USA into war on drugs, I wonder?

Are you saying that drunks accidentally drive cars? Everyone knows that driving drunk is extremely dangerous to everyone around.

Jesus, if there is one good line in Bible, it's "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Gee, if people didn't do things they know are bad every fucking second, tobacco industy would bankrupt, there would be no global warming, no finance crisis's, no nothing. Yet, they do that, and without excuse of having impaired thinking at the time.

Is DUI driving bad? Undoubtedly. Does it mean you can no longer do your job, especially when you plead guilty after single time you did that? And that it's worth to destroy public service just to get you? Show me where exactly it says so in relevant law, because until then, people criticizing her are just blind to beams in their eyes.

[Maraxus]

That being said, I think that the underlying mechanism here is certainly unethical. Perry's likely acquittal seems like a failure of the state ethics laws more than anything else. It'd be considered an abuse of office if something similar happened on the federal level.

Such is pretty much impossible at the federal level though. The President doesn't have a line-item veto, and the US has a unitary executive. Everyone in the executive branch works for him. So he could tell a US Attorney to take a hike, and be able to enforce that without resorting to such measures as seen here. That said, there has been a recent controversy over firing a US Attorney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_ ... ontroversy Which resulted in no criminal charges being filed.

It's not inconceivable. I outlined just such a scenario early on in the thread. What if the President were to get into a tiff with a state governor somewhere and that governor were caught in some sort of indiscretion. What if the president were to threaten to veto, and then to veto, state Medicaid or highway funds. Let's say that these funds were a separate bill that the president could veto, just for the sake of argument. The governor doesn't serve at the President's pleasure and is theoretically supposed to be insulated from federal pressure to resign. Nobody would dispute that the veto is absolutely constitutional, just like nobody disputes that Perry's veto powers are constitutional. But would that constitute an abuse of power/abuse of office? I think so. I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

Also, nobody got charged in the US attorney's case because basically everyone in the upper echelon of the justice department resigned. They weren't charged with criminal offences because the threshold for charging people with abuse of office in the Justice Department is really quite high.

So, anything goes to get a guy you consider bad out of office?

Of course not. My point wasn't that anything goes, but rather that DeLay being out of office is still a net good for humanity, regardless of whether or not he spent a day in jail. I don't like to use terms like "evil" to refer to politicians, but I'd make an exception for DeLay.

[Raw Shark]

Is DUI driving bad? Undoubtedly. Does it mean you can no longer do your job, especially when you plead guilty after single time you did that? And that it's worth to destroy public service just to get you? Show me where exactly it says so in relevant law, because until then, people criticizing her are just blind to beams in their eyes.

I'm just lucky that I never got caught back in college (I was the go-to guy: "Oh shit, Matty, you only had eight? I had twelve so here's the keys!"). I wouldn't have my career now. I'm actually extremely lucky, because I managed to set myself on fire during a roadside once. Luckily I got the dumbest cop in a string of dealing with extremely dumb cops (and there have been many extremes in this continuum; honestly I think that they select for stupidity or at least ignorance as much as tough-guy-ism because anybody who is even slightly on-the-ball would totally not want want to be a cop because it involves being the last bastion of an indefensible status quo) and walked away that time, but it could've gone a lot differently.

[Simon_Jester]

The alternative is to assume that an isolated incident while intoxicated is a better gauge of a person's state of mind than a persistent pattern of behavior while sober. I don't think in vino veritas can be taken that far.

A persistent pattern of behavior in public, while sober enough to remember that you only say shit like that behind closed doors when you're not being recorded. Would we be having this conversation if she'd decided to reflect on how black people would be improved by forks up their butts?

I honestly don't know.

I remain very skeptical of the idea that getting a person drunk is a reliable way to find out "what they really think," for any meaningful definition of the word "they." To me, it's like...

Alcohol removes our inhibitions.

Our inhibitions are part of who we are.

Thus, consuming alcohol can in a real sense alter who we are, make us act and speak like a different person. On the one hand, we're responsible for the consequences of what that 'different person' does... but on the other hand, it's unreasonable to pretend that the 'different person' and the sober person are one and the same in all ways. If that were true, alcohol wouldn't impair people nearly as badly as it does.

That being said, I think that the underlying mechanism here is certainly unethical. Perry's likely acquittal seems like a failure of the state ethics laws more than anything else. It'd be considered an abuse of office if something similar happened on the federal level.

Such is pretty much impossible at the federal level though. The President doesn't have a line-item veto, and the US has a unitary executive. Everyone in the executive branch works for him. So he could tell a US Attorney to take a hike, and be able to enforce that without resorting to such measures as seen here. That said, there has been a recent controversy over firing a US Attorney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_ ... ontroversy Which resulted in no criminal charges being filed.

Yes. But the point is that here, the DA Perry is trying to fire doesn't work for him. She's not his to fire, she's the Travis County electorate's to fire.

But it's bullshit to say "well, he can't fire her legally, so he's GOT to find some other way to coerce her into resigning SOMEHOW!" Because it is not. His. Job. He is under no obligation to get rid of her, even if he personally thinks she should go. His duties as governor do not demand it... so it is unethical for him to use the full power of his office to get it by threatening to destroy an organization that serves the public interest.

I mean, I would consider it even more unethical for Perry to use a veto threat to pressure a legislator to resign. That's even worse because in theory it would let him totally wipe out the opposition party in the state legislature by taking political hostages.

If Lehmberg worked for Perry, he wouldn't need to do something like this to get rid of her. Since she doesn't, it's not his job to decide to get rid of her, and even if it were, the way he went about trying to do it would still be unethical. Especially since his credentials as an honestly-outraged vigilante are pretty weak here.
______________________________

The point is that DeLay was, quite frankly, an evil man in service of an evil cause. The fact that he's no longer in office is justice in the grand scheme of things.

So, anything goes to get a guy you consider bad out of office?

Put this way. If a bad person is no longer in office, and no unethical things have occurred, I count it a win.

Lehmberg leaving office wouldn't bother me. What bothers me is the use of unethical means to make that happen.

[Irbis]

I'm just lucky that I never got caught back in college (I was the go-to guy: "Oh shit, Matty, you only had eight? I had twelve so here's the keys!"). I wouldn't have my career now. I'm actually extremely lucky, because I managed to set myself on fire during a roadside once. Luckily I got the dumbest cop in a string of dealing with extremely dumb cops (and there have been many extremes in this continuum; honestly I think that they select for stupidity or at least ignorance as much as tough-guy-ism because anybody who is even slightly on-the-ball would totally not want want to be a cop because it involves being the last bastion of an indefensible status quo) and walked away that time, but it could've gone a lot differently.

Yes, I am fine with temporary loss of driver licence if you DUI. I would be fine even with big fine or in some cases even vehicle loss. However, I am really not sure it would be in any way justified - or just - to declare person worthless or incapable of doing anything after just one lapse in good behaviour.

Especially so because alcohol is not only very insidious substance that makes you unaware your behaviour changed, but also because people often have no idea how big the changes are. Laws should not be targeted with exceptional individuals in mind, ones capable of will strong enough to resist altered brain chemistry, because it will make shitty law that on balance end of things will only make things worse, just like a lot of examples (war on drugs, for one) that we see daily.

[Beowulf]

I'm not arguing whether Perry's use of the veto was unethical. I'm arguing that (a) it is not currently criminal for Perry to do what he did, and that (b) what he did shouldn't be criminal but dealt with by normal political processes.

[Maraxus]

I'm not arguing whether Perry's use of the veto was unethical. I'm arguing that (a) it is not currently criminal for Perry to do what he did, and that (b) what he did shouldn't be criminal but dealt with by normal political processes.

Such as? How can Travis County residents get relief in the GOP-dominated state legislature?

[Simon_Jester]

My concern with (b) is that normal political processes are for when a politician does something that is simply bad. Like, say, murdering someone.

Here, Perry's wrong action wasn't simply a bad action. It was an action that attacked the structure of government itself, an attempt to blow up one of the checks and balances that lawfully should be constraining his behavior.

That's the sort of thing you really, really need abuse-of-power laws to cope with.

[Maraxus]

My concern with (b) is that normal political processes are for when a politician does something that is simply bad. Like, say, murdering someone.

Here, Perry's wrong action wasn't simply a bad action. It was an action that attacked the structure of government itself, an attempt to blow up one of the checks and balances that lawfully should be constraining his behavior.

That's the sort of thing you really, really need abuse-of-power laws to cope with.

Exactly. It's bad enough Perry killed funding for one of the very few effective watchdog groups in Texas. His crocodile tears are somehow worse.

FWIW, here's a bit of background on the PIU and its relation to Perry over the last couple of years.

What Did Perry's Grand Jury Know?
by Edgar Walters, The Texas Tribune
August 19, 2014

Following a grand jury’s indictment of Gov. Rick Perry on charges of coercion and abuse of power, supporters of the state’s longest-serving governor have flocked to his defense, claiming he's the victim of a partisan witch hunt.  

But Perry’s detractors are quick to note what the integrity unit was up to at the time — investigating allegations of improper reviews and conflicts of interest inside the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, a grant-making entity that Perry has touted as one of his signature accomplishments. That inquiry, which resulted in an indictment of a high-ranking CPRIT official, was delayed by Perry's line-item veto of the unit's funding. 

The public won’t know the details of Perry’s prosecution unless it goes to trial; be assured Perry's lawyers will try every legal tool in the toolbox to derail it. In the meantime, the secrecy surrounding the evidence the grand jury heard is providing fertile ground for speculation.  

Perry and his lawyers say the governor was simply exercising a constitutional right when he vetoed $7.5 million in state funding for the public integrity unit, which is overseen by a district attorney who had pleaded guilty to drunken driving. 

“This is nothing more than banana republic politics," said Houston lawyer Tony Buzbee, who is leading Perry’s legal team. “What has happened here not only has no merit, but also was absolutely contrary to the law.” 

The leading theory Texas Democrats are peddling is that Perry wanted to upend the public integrity unit, which is housed within the Travis County’s district attorney’s office, because it was investigating CPRIT — bringing at least one of Perry’s major donors under the microscope. 

Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, insinuated in an email to supporters that Perry might be "using a veto in attempt to force an elected official to resign and possibly stymie a politically damaging investigation." 

CPRIT, an entity created by voters in 2007 to spend $3 billion on cancer research, came under investigation after an oversight committee disclosed that the agency had approved an $11 million grant to Peloton Therapeutics without scientific review. 

One of Peloton’s initial investors was Dallas philanthropist Peter O’Donnell, a friend to Perry who has donated $241,000 to his campaigns since 2000, campaign finance records show. At the time, The Dallas Morning News reported that O’Donnell had also given $1.6 million to the CPRIT Foundation, a nonprofit. State law prohibits the CPRIT Foundation from accepting donations from CPRIT grant recipients.

The public integrity unit eventually indicted Jerry Cobbs, CPRIT’s former chief commercialization officer, for allegedly deceiving CPRIT officials about the grant given to Peloton Therapeutics. At the time, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said, "other current CPRIT board members are not under suspicion in the investigation." 

In the months preceding and following Perry's veto, the public integrity unit certainly had more on its plate than CPRIT. It was pursuing more than 400 cases at the time of the veto, including 23 “public corruption” cases, county documents show. 

Of those public corruption cases, 10 resulted in indictments, including an elected sheriff who had allegedly falsified records and various state employees who had been accused of behaving unscrupulously. Another 13 public corruption cases remained under investigation and were therefore confidential.  

While details on what the grand jury heard are thin, it's indisputable that the public integrity unit took a hard hit from the veto. While Travis County covered some of the lost funding, the unit’s annual operating budget dropped to $2.5 million from $3.7 million. The unit was forced to downsize to 24 employees from 34, and it reportedly dropped more than 50 of its pending cases — none of which fell under the “public corruption” category. 

Disclosure: Tony Buzbee was a major donor to The Texas Tribune in 2012. A complete list of Texas Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here.

Link

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The alternative is to assume that an isolated incident while intoxicated is a better gauge of a person's state of mind than a persistent pattern of behavior while sober. I don't think in vino veritas can be taken that far.

A persistent pattern of behavior in public, while sober enough to remember that you only say shit like that behind closed doors when you're not being recorded. Would we be having this conversation if she'd decided to reflect on how black people would be improved by forks up their butts?

"Reality is important, unless it disagrees with us. Then we make shit up."

Man, I want to make a list of shit like this for people who think this forum has high debating standards.

[Simon_Jester]

Trainwreck, would you mind expanding on that? You're clearly criticizing the argument, but I'm not quite sure about your reasoning.

[Beowulf]

My concern with (b) is that normal political processes are for when a politician does something that is simply bad. Like, say, murdering someone.

Here, Perry's wrong action wasn't simply a bad action. It was an action that attacked the structure of government itself, an attempt to blow up one of the checks and balances that lawfully should be constraining his behavior.

That's the sort of thing you really, really need abuse-of-power laws to cope with.

What? Murdering someone is obviously not something that should be handled by normal political processes.

Perry's use of a veto is not something that's obviously bad, seeing as we have a number of people supporting his use of it. Beyond that, the PIU failed to indict any of the CPRIT board members (the only members of CPRIT appointed by Perry). Moreover, none of them were even being investigated at the time of the veto threat and resignation demand.

October 2012: Concerns about CPRIT’s practices come to light in a report in the Dallas Morning News. Within a month of the Morning News story, members of the Texas Legislature call for reforms of the state cancer agency.
December 2012: The Public Integrity Unit officially begins its CPRIT investigation.
January 2013: Lehmberg tells the American-Statesman that the 11 members of the CPRIT board – all of whom were appointed by Perry – “are not under suspicion in the investigation.” That means the investigation is focusing only on CPRIT staff members, none of whom were appointed or hired by Perry.
April 2013: The Texas Senate passes a bill reforming CPRIT and putting more funding into the agency. Lehmberg is arrested for drunken driving.
June 2013: Following a Statesman report that he was weighing a veto if Lehmberg didn’t resign, Perry vetoes state funding for the Public Integrity Unit. Despite the veto, the unit continues to operate.
January 2014: CPRIT commercialization chief Jerry Cobbs is indicted. Cobbs’ indictment alleges that he misled former CPRIT executives by failing to disclose that the Peloton Therapeutics grant application hadn’t been reviewed as required by law. Lehmberg says no other indictments are expected.
May 2014: Gregg Cox, who heads the Public Integrity Unit, confirms to the American-Statesman that the CPRIT inquiry continued following Perry’s veto. “The loss of the state funding slowed us down somewhat, but we were able to complete a thorough investigation, ” Cox said.

And again, there's a gulf between immoral and unethical, and criminal. We have a politician who use his power to coerce another politician into commiting an act. To make what Perry did illegal would require that you be able to pin down in law why this coercion is illegal, and other types of coercing (even involving the same power) would not be.

Lets play counterfactual: the Governor has done something a legislator considers wrong, and a legislator tells the governor to resign, or he'll submit a bill of impeachment. The legislator is threatening to use his power to get a public official who doesn't work for him out of office. The governor obviously does not work for the legislator.

You object "The legislator isn't trying to blow up one of the checks and balances! He's using them!". Arguably, so is Gov Perry. The power of the purse is one of the tools of the Governor of Texas. And he's using it on a state offiicial. Lehmberg may be elected by Travis County, but because she's in charge of a state office, she's a state official.

I'm not arguing whether Perry's use of the veto was unethical. I'm arguing that (a) it is not currently criminal for Perry to do what he did, and that (b) what he did shouldn't be criminal but dealt with by normal political processes.

Such as? How can Travis County residents get relief in the GOP-dominated state legislature?

She's in a state office (as mentioned above). How does a resident of Houston get relief from a hypothetical corrupt Travis County DA?