That should be a governor’s first/only tool?
Find some indication that Perry gave a fuck about those other DA’s.
No, he didn’t have the special fund because they were not investigating his Integrity. Which we’ll all enjoy learning about in the coming months…
But again, that is not up to you or the governor to decide.
If Lehmberg was the head of law enforcement or disaster response, would Perry’s actions still be justified in your view? It is one thing to pressure someone out of office, but to use an agency’s budget to muscle someone out takes it to another level.
My feelings on the subject
Your post implies that Perry either had, or should have had, some knee-jerk reaction to any one with a DUI conviction. That leaves two important things out of the assessment. One is her behavior after her arrest, which was abominable. The other is the unique position she had heading up a Public Integrity Unit.
Now, taking these other two factors into considerations you might still come out at the same conclusion, but to couch it the way you did attempts to disregard two important considerations.
Whoa, you need a shave, dude. :eek:
The line item veto is something that a Texas Governor gets to decide. Unless there is some reason that you know of that prevents a Texas Governor from exercising his responsibility?
There are some odd comments in this thread.
I think that we are talking past each other, and RNATB has the response already. Political conduct should have political consequences (elections, donations, coalition pressure, impeachment, etc.). Criminal conduct (i.e., conduct that threatens the health, welfare, property or safety of others) should have criminal consequences (incarceration, fines, etc.). Perry’s argument, echoed by scholars and pundits of all persuasions, is that the indictment mixes the two by “criminalizing politics.”
No, the first tool of any politician should be persuasion. In this case, I believe that Perry tried persuasion by shaming. According to a link upthread, Perry next tried persuasion by deal-making, offering the mean drunk DA the opportunity to be replaced by her assistant (and for the mean drunk DA to retain a job in the department). Only then did Perry turn to persuasion by fiscal threat, which of course was followed by the line-item veto.
I do not know how Texas budgeting works, but the fact that Travis County continued to fund the PIU suggests to me that Texas counties have independent budgetary sources and authority, meaning that Perry could not threaten to cut off funding to other counties via line item veto. I am sure that someone will correct me if that is mistaken.
This is not really relevant, as the appropriateness of the indictment turns not on Perry’s reasoning for the veto but rather on whether the threat of a veto, or a veto itself, can be criminalized by the legislature.
However, “those other DAs” are not relevant, even by analogy. For one thing, the mean drunk DA is the only Texas DA funded by the Texas state government to pursue pubic corruption. She had unique authority, and it was only that unique, authority that was affected by the veto. The mean drunk DA continued to be a DA even after the veto. For another, the mean drunk DA’s behavior directly exhibited public corruption - specifically, she used her public office to threaten the jobs of the arresting officers.
This is backwards. In the Texas system, the Travis County DA is uniquely responsible for the state PIU, and receives from the State a unique bundle of funds dedicated to the PIU. The mean drunk DA is the Travis County DA, and thus receives, and has authority over, that unique bundle of funds. No other DA has a similar fund available to him or her, and Perry therefore lacks similar line-item veto authority with respect to those other DAs, as well.
Perhaps. Hardball politicians, as Perry seems to be, tend to run into hardball problems. But Perry’s problems at present do not seem likely to include issues investigated by the PIU, or at least not CPRIT issues:
Missed the edit window for this link:
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/06/former-cprit-executive-indicted-charges-deception/
Why don’t you answer the question I’ve asked rather than countering with more of the same “Perry can do whatever he wants to” rhetoric?
Democrats in Congress could conspire with Obama and moderate Republicans to cut military spending in half, double education spending, and strip all red states of federal disaster aid. Let’s say they threatened to flex this power unless all the Tea Party officials did America a favor and left their seats. Politicians playing chess games with national security to advance political agendas…this should strike you as no biggie, right? “That’s a nice agency you got there…t’would be a shame if something bad happened to it.” This is what you’re defending.
Can anyone find evidence of any other executive pulling a stunt like this and not at least getting fired for it? We can talk all day about how Perry could have theoretically gotten away with this if he’d kept his mouth shut, but that’s a moot point because keeping his mouth shut would have not advanced his agenda. For all it matters, we could easily take Lehmberg’s resignation out of the equation and replace it without something as equally out-of-bounds. Would Perry’s line-item veto be justified if he was trying to pressure Lehmberg into giving him money, real estate, or her political endorsement?
(post shortened)
If the Governor of Texas can use the line-item veto at his discretion, then the entire case against him falls apart. The prosecution still has to prove, first to the court, and then to a jury or judge, that the Gov of TX violated any Texas law(s).
It was proved well enough for a True Bill from a Grand Jury. Perry is not being charged with using the line-item veto. Please see the indictment.
There are now reports that one of the grand jurors was a delegate to the Democratic state convention while the grand jury was sitting. If that proves out, it wouldn’t affect the legality of the indictment, but it certainly would help Perry to cast a political shadow over it.
“Proved?”
I don’t think Perry denies any of the acts that are alleged in the indictment.
The question is: are those acts permissibly criminal under Texas law? That is, can Texas make those acts criminal without running afoul of the state and federal constitution?
Do you believe the grand jury analyzed that question? Is that what you meant by “proved?”
Sorry, I was imprecise in responding to an inane post. Of course the Grand Jury doesn’t “prove” anything, it simply finds that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused.
I surprised that you say that Perry is not denying:
intentionally or knowingly misused
government property
[from Count I - Abuse of Of?cial Capacity 39.02 DPS 23990064]
and:
intentionally or knowingly in?uenced or attempted to influence Rosemary
Lehmberg, a public servant, namely, the elected District Attorney for Travis County,
Texas, in the speci?c performance of her of?cial duty
[from Count II - Coercion of Public Servant 36.03 DPS 13990027]
The grand jurors are not pleased with Perry’s claim that this is a politically-motivated prosecution.
Here’s a link that doesn’t require subscription.
Well… yes. They find probable cause based on the existence of facts for which they have heard testimony.
But they don’t typically reach conclusions of law.
Here’s what I said: I don’t think Perry denies any of the acts that are alleged in the indictment.
Let me explain the difference.
Suppose I am charged with bank robbery. The indictment might read something like, “On such-and-so day, Bricker entered the Bank of Hypothesis Falls, armed with a pistol. He thereupon removed two bags filled with approximately $35,000 in US currency and left the bank. This conduct violated state code 3.4.1, Armed Robbery In the First Degree.”
And I might respond, “Nope, that wasn’t me. I was never there on that date, and never took a penny.” If I did that, I’d be denying the acts alleged in the indictment.
Or I might respond, “It’s all true. I was there on that date, I did enter the bank, I did have a pistol, and I did remove that money. But it was not a crime, because I am an armored car driver, the bank was part of my route, the pistol was never unholstered, the teller gave me the money in exchange for my signed receipt, as we have done twice a week for years in the ordinary course of business.”
In that case, I don’t deny any of the acts alleged in the indictment, but I deny that they constitute any sort of a crime.
What you list are a combination of facts and a legal conclusion: Perry did X, and that constitutes the crime of Y.
Perry agrees he did X, but denies that doing X is a crime.
The charges are related to Perry’s threat to veto funding for the Travis County District Attorney office’s Public Integrity Unit unless District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg resigned after a drunken-driving arrest and a widely-watched video of her booking in which she was so belligerent with police officers she had to be restrained. Perry said Lehmberg had lost the public’s confidence. Lehmberg refused to resign, and Perry vetoed the unit’s $7.5 million in state funding.
The mean drunk is still the DA of the PIU. Which is a shame even it’s not a crime. Will a juror decide that Governor was trying to protect the people of Texas from the future actions of the mean drunk?
Perry can use the Texas Governor’s line-item veto to remove state funding from a bill earmarked for the PIU. Unless you know of a restriction that prevents the Governor of Texas from vetoing the part of a bill funding the PIU, this case will probably fall apart during the preliminary hearings.
This is a canard. All district attorneys exercise prosecutorial authority. If a DWI disqualifies the head of a “Public Integrity Unit” from holding office, it should disqualify a district attorney too.
This is a canard too. An indictment really doesn’t tell us anything except that the prosecutor didn’t make up all his facts from whole cloth. A grand jury hears only what the prosecutor wants it to, and can take inadmissible evidence into account (you confessed because the cops beat you? Tough - the grand jury’s still going to hear about it).
As Bricker notes, none of the facts in this case are in dispute, and the grand jury is not instructed on what it should do if the law it is asked to apply is unconstitutional.