It is already established that the governor of Texas is restricted in the ways he can use his office’s powers. It is established in the law that prohibits misuse of power. Whether this specific act is a misuse of power is for the court to decide, but certainly there are some limits.
I agree that the Gov’s office has restrictions but I’m wondering about any restrictions specific to the Gov’s use of the line-item veto.
If he had demanded that Lehmberg donate money to his presidential campaign fund as a condition for not vetoing these funds, that would have been the offense of bribery. If he had demanded that Lehmberg sleep with him as a condition for not vetoing the funds, that would have been the offense of official oppression (surprisingly, only a class A misdemeanor.)
I simply don’t know if the statute Perry’s charged under is specific enough to cover a demand that another elected official resign, and grey areas go to the defendant. And as a beleaguered Texas Democrat, I must say that the very worst thing that Perry’s done here is made me have to take his side. Perhaps there’s some stuff that the grand jury saw that we didn’t see, and I do believe that this isn’t clearly a political hit job, but it doesn’t seem like an especially strong case at this point.
I assume her insistence that the Deputy’s “call Greg” doesn’t do her any favours either. Most people arrested for DUI do not try to have the local Sherrif informed of the incident. Why should the case not simply go through normal procedure? Why does the sherrif need to be involved?
According to this article from a San Antonio newspaper website, Perry’s staff did try to negotiate a deal with Lehmberg. They offered to let her stay on the payroll and agreed to appoint a Democrat in her place, but Lehmberg wouldn’t budge.
Well, I stand corrected. Interesting background. Thanks.
Another way to put it is he said, “As governor,it is my responsibility to make sure the taxpayer’s money is spent responsibly. Based on your behavior, with the DUI and its aftermath, I have little to no confidence that you are able to do that with the 7.5 million dollars. Therefore, I feel it my duty to withhold those funds. On the other hand, if you want to remove yourself from that responsibility, I will gladly authorize the funds and have them be managed by someone that I, and the people of Texas, can have more confidence in.”
Agreed. And that is exactly the cane of thing that goes to public integrity. She was trying to get her busy to help her flout the law.
What if instead of insisting that she resign or else he will veto the funding, he stated that he would veto the funding unless the bill allowed for the appointment of a “super commissioner” who she served under and could remove her at the commissioner’s discretion?
That seems legitimate under any interpretation of the law, but serves the same purpose.
I don’t see how that’s any less actionable. It amounts to an act of coercion, a threat “to take or withhold action as a public servant,” to influence the legislature to pass a desired bill.
That’s the breadth of the prosecution’s theory – any statement by the Governor to the effect that “if the legislature does X, I intend to do Y” is a crime.
In fact, through no effort on the governor’s part, due process was followed, and the separate grand jury investigated and determined that Lehmberg’s unsavory actions did NOT warrant her removal from her position(s) – which means Perry was out of line to even hint that she should resign. [Granted, he didn’t know the results of that separate investigation & inqury until later, but he should have waited to find out before asking, much less threatening anything.]
I’ll quibble on this point: Even if she does resign, it is not proper for the governor to cut the funding for the agency. If she resigned, the governor’s job would have been to name a temporary replacement (temporary until the next election, and required to run – abeit, as an “incumbent” – when Lemberg’s term ended).
Absolutely. He didn’t have to give a reason, and he didn’t have to have a motive. Speculation or even solid confirmed information about his motive and subsequent plans are irrelevant. Again, I want to emphasize that the sequence of Perry’s debatable actions is critical here:
First, he threatened Lehmberg to cut the PIU funding if Lehmberg didn’t resign. That’s the *Coercion of a Public Servant *part.
And the critical issue is that Coercion of a Public Servant was not a tool available to him. In other words, he used a tool that he should not have used. [Take the discussion of “who should be able to use such a tool?” to another thread.]
But Lehmberg’s conviction is irrelevant because Perry didn’t need a reason – legitimate or otherwise – to want her to resign. He could have wanted her to resign just because her hair is lighter than his. He didn’t even need a reason to cut the PIU funding. He could have done it and the legislative record would come out the next day and the world would have gone “HUH? WTF!!!” and he could have had an intern make something up when the press called. He Coerced a Public Servant when he tied the PIU funding to Lehmberg’s resignation.
Let me try an analogy that hits close to home: Imagine TomnDebb read the discussions in this thread around post #160-ish and announced “Jay4, you’ve crossed the line. If you don’t relinquish your SDMB subscription, I’m going to shut down the Elections discussion board.”
Some of us would grumble because we agree with Jay4 and some of us would cheer because we disagree with Jay4. I think none of us would find it appropriate that the entire board was being threatened in order to deal with one person’s apparent misbehavior. I bet several of us would be writing directly to Cecil and Ed to say, “Hey! TomnDebb is way out of line in his efforts to reign in Jay4!”
Badgering Lehmberg to resign would not be illegal. Threatening the well being of a third party (the Texas constituency that the PIU serves – oh, and the PIU employees whose jobs are at stake, as well) to coerce that resignation is the illegal part.
Again, the first part of the indictment against Perry is first because it’s a more grevious crime, even though it is sequentially second. It’s a crime because it’s following through on the coercive threat (which, remember, was illegal) and the abused item was worth 7+ Million dollars. An analogy (I suspect this one is going to be weak; sorry, it’s late at night and I’m getting tired) would be me grabbing a baseball bat and threatening to hit you with it if you don’t extinguish your cigarette before stepping on the baseball field, then swinging away at you when you blow smoke at me and step on the grass. The bigger charge against me is assault with a deadly weapon; the lesser charge is brandishing a weapon, even though I did the brandishing first.* And the assault-with-a-deadly-weapon charge is even more grievous because I waved the bat and threatened you before-hand.
–G!
*And, had I actually managed to connect, the even bigger charge would be battery. But it all flowed from me grabbing the bat and making threats about something you were doing that was, in fact, not illegal (you’re allowed to smoke outdoors in most parks).
‘zat you, Will Munny? You’re speakin’ more kindly lately, ain’t ya?
“I will not fund the department of ___ unless it is restructured” would be a separate matter from “The department of ___ and their ongoing projects and the beneficiaries of those projects will suffer unless specific person complies with my will.” Furthermore, the restructuring efforts would require a completely separate effort, study, review, political debate, bureaucratic SNAFU, et cetera. And no “the leader is making the department look bad” excuse would be needed to foster the suggestion of restructuring the department.
–G!
No, he didn’t need a reason to want her to resign, but he did need one to propose that she resign or ask her to. And without a reason, you are right that he would have been challenged and ridiculed the next day. But the fact is that she did, in fact, create a reason. And he acted only after she did. He might have wanted her out of the slot every bit as much before her conviction and bad behavior, but his hands were tied. Her actions changed that.
And you seem to completely ignore that Perry is the governor. and as such, he has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that the state’s money is spent responsibly. Now, you can be of the opinion that her actions did not suggest that her judgment was questionable and she was perfectly able to responsibly carry out her responsibilities concerning the PUI. But someone else cold just as easily come to the opposite opinion. Especially when part of her shenanigans involved trying to flout the law by summoning her friend. That’s not someone who will instill confidence that public officials will act with integrity.
[/QUOTE]
Grestarian, would you say that the above is at least an equally valid way to couch what happened? If not, why not? Not, why is your interpretation better, but, specifically, what is wrong with this one?
No idea why people are going on about the DUI. The DUI is utterly irrelevant to the legal case of whether or not Rick Perry broke the law. His veto threat may have been legal, but the DUI has nothing to do with whether or not it’s legal.
Because the Republican Party, or at least the farther-right side of it, seems to believe that if their opponents do something wrong then they have the right to do something wrong. ‘Two wrongs make a right’ and all that. Like when the Democrats say, ‘Bush lied! and got us into a stupid war!’ The Republicans return, ‘Oh, yeah? Well Clinton got a blow job and he lied!’
No, under the prosecution’s theory, both statements amount to crimes. Any veto threat for the purpose of influencing public policy (i.e., any veto threat) is a crime.
This also is not correct. The crime alleged in Count I is the use of the veto. The threat to veto (i.e., the motive) is not an element of that crime. The prosecution’s theory as to Count I is that it is a criminal act for the Governor to veto funds appropriated by the legislature.
The DUI is the basis of Perry’s defense. Fromthe Dallas Morning News:
So we Texans will be paying a fair amount of money to Perry’s team–who will not be discussing his alleged innocence.
I wonder about the political motives some claim for the indictment. It’s pretty obvious that, should the Republicans decide to go with a Texan in 2016, it won’t be Perry. Ted Cruz may be loathsome, but he’s not an idiot…
I don’t see where the link says the DUI is the basis of Perry’s defense.
I think there’s a bit more fire behind this smoke than what you get from most of the media. The author of the piece cited thinks that Perry will be convicted. Not sure what the jury will think but there does seem to be a lot more to it than Perry’s supposed desire to get rid of someone with a DUI.