I would hope not. In some jurisdictions that could be sanctionable conduct.
On top of which, Perry’s veto was front-page news in Texas. So the statement would be closer to “renew the public’s attention . . . .”
That’s a common narrative . . . but perhaps not an accurate one. I don’t know the politics of the Austin Statesman, or if it matters, but here is their timeline:
Note the dates: Lehmberg publicly cleared the Perry appointees two months before her DUI, and even longer before the veto.
Investigations can change, witnesses can turn, and so on, but it is rare and then some for prosecutors to give a public figure (like the CPRIT board members) a clean bill of health on a particular subject, and then to pursue them later on.
Finally, there is this: the lead investigator on the CPRIT matter has sworn out an affidavit (pdf warning) that says that neither Perry nor “anyone associated with him” was under investigation, ever.
I just found this on Rosemary Lehmberg’s site: (“Turner” is Rep. Sylvester Turner D-Houston) First story…
It looks like this defunding attempt is nothing new in the grand scheme of things… which makes this more interesting. With a little more digging, it looks like the Public Integrity Unit was the brainchild of Ronnie Earle, who’s known for investigating Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom DeLay from arguably political motives.
Republicans also want to put the responsibility for investigating public corruption under the state Attorney General’s office, instead of under the Travis County DA- there have been multiple attempts to do that as well, under the rationale of why do the voters of Travis County have the electoral decision to elect people who have statewide powers? (and a predominantly Democrat county at that.)
“Political Ammunition” for whom? Perry isn’t running for Governor; we Democrats are concentrating on Greg Abbott, who is. One theory I’ve encountered on other boards (which make this place look like the Algonquin Roundtable) is that the indictment is a Tea Party Plot. Yup, the minions of Ted Cruz are trying to make Ricky look bad. Cruz has said he’s standing with Perry, but it’s all part of his cunning & subtle plan…
In the unlikely event that Perry does get the nomination, we’re ready. The *Texas Observer *compiled a Perry Dossier before the last primary season; he opened his mouth too often for it to be needed, but it’s been kept up to date. There were already plenty of Reasons Perry Should Not Be President before this latest kerfluffle…
(I think the project was inspired by The Late Great Molly Ivins, once editor of & longtime contributor to the little paper offering “sharp reporting and commentary from the strangest state in the Union” since 1954. She warned us about W!)
Fascinating stuff. If I had to place a bet, I think he will walk. Somebody in the thread paraphrased “grey areas go to the defendant”, and that’s how I read it too. The correct remedy for both what the DA did and what Perry did is for the voters to vote them out.
So much discussion of the case against Perry for the veto, and the past cases related and so on, but not much has been said here of Amberlei’s post #131:
The last link is about an indictment that came from the PIU investigation, but the last paragraph says:
“According to Assistant District Attorney Rob Drummond, the Public Integrity Unit investigators and prosecutors spent months reviewing bank records, emails and other evidence to evaluate possible conflicts of interest between the CPRIT Foundation and former CPRIT oversight board members, and found no evidence of criminal misconduct. They now consider the investigation into CPRIT closed.”
How do the underlined parts square? And it says the investigation was “delayed” not interrupted. That implies it eventually concluded without hitting Perry, right? Other news today says a member of it swears Perry was not targeted. Did the funding veto actually stop anything? Has some Texan here followed it more closely?
ETA: Re-reading bbonden’s post 4 above me answers half my questions, duh. but I’ll leave my post as is anyhow. The CPRIT things seems to not be a part of it after all.
What a fascinating question! Indeed, let’s set aside such trivialities as Perry’s conduct in office so we may concentrate more clearly on the questions about grand jury propriety and protocol!
Thanks, Bricker, what a great idea! Say, why don’t you kick it off with a few thoughts of your own.
Absolutely. That doesn’t make it morally right or even politically right, but the remedy for all wrongs of the world is not a criminal conviction.
Such a move by Obama would be met with near universal disapproval in Congress and his veto would be overridden. Congress would not want to give such power to the President in this or any other circumstance.
Is what Perry did equivalent? I don’t think so, but there could be political consequences to such a thing if the Legislature or the public believed that the Governor shouldn’t wield such a weapon.
I believe that the proper use of the power of a grand jury is to bring suspected criminals to court where it can be decided whether they’re criminals or not (I’m probably missing some nuances of the roles of different organs of the court there, but that’s the gist of it). I believe that, given the Texas corruption laws, there’s at least a reasonable question to be asked whether Perry’s actions were legal. It may be that the court decides that they are, and it may even be that the prosecution considered that result likely. But as long as the prosecution did not consider that result to be guaranteed, no, I do not believe that this was an improper use of prosecutorial power.
A prosecutor must of course exercise some cost-benefit analysis in deciding which cases to take to court. A case can be too unlikely to result in a conviction to bother with. But the point at which a prosecution becomes not worth bothering with must necessarily depend on the individual case. Even a longshot can be a good bet if the payoff is big enough, and a governor is pretty big.
I’m making the point that there is a lawyer who found it to be a crime, one who is not a democrat, and appears to have no political axe to grind. In fact, one appointed by a republican judge for that reason.
I just want to repeat the sentiment that it makes no sense to slap an indictment on Perry for 2016 political reasons, for the same reasons that Democrats sometimes root for the crazy Tea Party primary challengers of incumbent Congresscritters. The crazy tends to get exposed in the general, which makes it easier for the Democrats to win. It doesn’t always work out that way- Cantor’s district still went to the Republican, but nonetheless Cantor’s ouster was a welcome and amusing turn of events.
Any sane Democrat wants Perry to be the GOP nominee, since one can almost take it for granted that Perry will never be president. Insofar as this indictment hurts Perry’s chances, that is bad for the Democrats, since this creates opportunities for more competitive candidates.
And- sorry for the use of the word ‘Democrat’. I’m open to suggestions of better phrasing.
The Legislature amended the definition of “coercion” in 1989, before the court decision in Hanson but after Judge Hanson’s actions. After the Hanson decision was issued, the definition was amended in 1993 back to the original version to remove the word “unlawfully,” where it had been inserted.
In other words, the version of the law that applied to Judge Hanson’s conduct, and which the court ruled unconstitutional, was the same version of the law that exists right now.
The sequence of events:
Legislature passes “current” version, Law “A,” before any of this started.
Judge Hanson threatens to cut budget, and does cut budget.
Judge Hanson is criminally charged under Law A.
Legislature changes Law A to “Law B,” in 1989.
Court rules Hanson’s conduct was constitutionally protected, applying “Law A,” even though Law B is currently in effect. The Ex Post Facto clause requires this.
Legislature changes Law B back to Law A in 1993.
Governor Perry threatens to cut budget, and does cut budget.
Governor Perry is criminally charged under Law A.
So it’s true the legislature changed the law in 1993, after the Hanson case. And it’s true that no appeals court has explicitly said anything about that 1993 changed affecting the law. But since the 1993 law re-created the law as Hanson was tried under, why would an appeals court be expected to address that change?
To add to my early short (but highly effective) trashing of the Ferguson example, Eugene Volokh takes a more thorough look at the Ferguson example, with identical results. He first points out:
He then discusses the impeachment and Texas Senate conviction and removal from office:
And remember – this is for impeachment, NOT a criminal trial.
He then observes:
Anyone want to argue that the author was on solid ground?
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone object to the use of the word Democrat as you did, namely as a noun meaning a person in the Democratic party. It’s its use in the phrase “Democrat Party” party that is objected to as that’s not the name of the party, and is often knowingly said that way purposefully to rankle.
Republicans are already doing many of the underhanded techniques such as malicious voter ID laws and gerrymandering. I’m not worried that suddenly more conservatives will be doing this, I’m worried that liberals aren’t doing it enough to catch up to conservatives.
Although given the way Perry was treating his arrest like a victory rally, it may be the perfect storm. Where the True Red Republicans see his indictment by the “Liberal establishment” as a badge of Honor, but the Liberals and independents see it as a bad thing. Thus he gets a boost for winning the primary but gets an additional smackdown in the general.
Perry filed a motion of pretrial habeas corpus today.
This is a motion that precedes even a motion to quash, which I thought would be the first bullet out of their gun. The motion is broad in scope, assumes the truth of the factual allegations for the purposes of the motion only, and lays out a number of defenses.