Rick Perry Indicted

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

Sure could. And no, it wouldn’t. The Prez, if he did it, would lose all respect/power and become an instant lame duck though. And bring a lot of his party down as well.

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about the law, but I’ll wait for some legal experts to chime in. Come on, legal experts!

[YogSothoth]

@DigitalC

So it’s not an abuse of power if the person you are bullying is a dick?

Its Terr. Its not an abuse of power if the person you’re bullying is a liberal. I’m sure Lehmberg could have been saving kittens from Al Qaeda and Terr would have come up with a reason she deserved to get fired

[Bricker]

@iiandyiiii

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about the law, but I’ll wait for some legal experts to chime in. Come on, legal experts!

I’m here at your invitation, but I don’t have much of an informed opinion on this yet.

At some level, every political bargain could be considered a bribe. A bribe is my giving you something of value to influence your vote. But we all agree that “I need your vote for the Red River Dam project. I’ll vote for the new senior center in your district if you vote for the dam in my district, deal?” is not criminal.

In general, courts consider these kinds of maneuvers as non-justicible.

But that’s not exactly what Perry did. He arguably acted to shut down an office that was probing a project important to him.

Also complicating my analysis is my personal conviction that it might be impossible for Perry to commit any crime, as he lacks the wit to form criminal intent. (Hyperbole, but only just).

So I don’t have a strong opinion on the indictment. My very tentative opinion is that this is not justicible conduct, but that’s shooting from the hip with no research.

[Aspenglow]

@Terr

Except there was no breaking the law here. Governor vetoing something is completely legal. If he was doing it for the wrong motivation, that would be breaking the law. The motivation was completely correct though.

Sounds like you’re an “End justifies the means,” sort of guy.

[fiddlesticks]

Excellent news for John McCain!

[rsa]

@running_coach

[snip]
As I understand it, if the head of the Public Integrity Unit had stepped down, Perry would be the one to appoint the replacement.

This is key. Texas being so red it just pisses off the republicans that the Public Integrity Unit is in Austin and is run by a democrat. Threatening to veto funds for the unit so he could appoint one of his cronies is out of line. He just used the DUI as an excuse. What’s funny is that a guy from the Austin Statesman paper said on TV that no one was actually expecting an indictment.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Perry’s actions certainly seem inappropriate. If this kind of behavior is allowed, it could really undermine the democratic process. Threatening to defund agencies if key staff don’t resign, so that the big gorilla can install his own appointees- what does that lead to?

But I don’t have any expertise with this kind of thing, really I’m just posting to subscribe. It is amusing that the poster boy for dumb Republicans is being indicted though, no? Amusing, aside from the further evidence of the corruption of our political system, that is.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

I guess, according to Terr, the President could threaten to veto a disaster-aid bill to Texas after a natural disaster unless Rick Perry resigned, and this wouldn’t be against the law.

A President can veto something for any reason he wants. He’d face political consequences for such a stupid move, but I can’t see what legal consequences could come from that.

[adaher]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Perry’s actions certainly seem inappropriate. If this kind of behavior is allowed, it could really undermine the democratic process. Threatening to defund agencies if key staff don’t resign, so that the big gorilla can install his own appointees- what does that lead to?

If the executive is accountable for the performance of the agencies, why can’t he staff them or fire people?

This indictment seems dumb to me. The governor has the power to veto whatever bill he wants for any reason he wants. And it’s not like this was done in secret, Perry trying to get away with something. It was done in public.

[Irishman]

I really don’t know what to make of all this.

Here is the indictment.

The first count is for Abuse of Official Capacity:

Sec. 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
(a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:
-(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment; or
-(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or 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.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is:
-(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is less than $20;
-(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $20 or more but less than $500;
-(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $500 or more but less than $1,500;
-(4) a state jail felony if the value of the use of the thing misused is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
-(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
-(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
-(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $200,000 or more.
(d) A discount or award given for travel, such as frequent flyer miles, rental car or hotel discounts, or food coupons, are not things of value belonging to the government for purposes of this section due to the administrative difficulty and cost involved in recapturing the discount or award for a governmental entity.
(e) If separate transactions that violate Subsection (a)(2) are conducted pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the value of the use of the things misused in the transactions may be aggregated in determining the classification of the offense.
(f) The value of the use of a thing of value misused under Subsection (a)(2) may not exceed:
-(1) the fair market value of the thing at the time of the offense; or
-(2) if the fair market value of the thing cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the thing within a reasonable time after the offense.

Prosecutor Michael McCrum is charging that Perry misused the funds entrusted to his power as Governor [i.e. section (a)(2)] to either obtain a benefit or harm or defraud another. It is not clear from McCrum’s statement what benefit or harm he has in mind, but could potentially relate to either (a) the withholding of funding to secure his appointment of a replacement head for the Public Integrity Unit, which was in the process of examining the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, one of Perry’s pet projects; or (b) forcing Lehmberg to resign. Reading the indictment, they may be trying to prove either or both.

The second indictment appears to be for Sec. 36.03 Coercion of a Public Servant or Voter

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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 67, Sec. 1, 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

This appears to be for section (a)(1) for demanding Rosemary Lehmberg resign or he would veto the legislation.

Also of interest may be the definition of coercion here:

Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In this code:
[snip]
(9) “Coercion” means 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.

Looks like (a)(9)(F).

I guess the questions relate to Perry’s authority over the Travis County District Attorney’s office and the Public Integrity Unit. If Perry has the authority to appoint the replacement, does he have the authority to fire the incumbent? It would appear not, since he didn’t do that and instead threatened veto of funding. What are the means available to Perry to legally get her removed from office? Impeachment proceedings? Oversight by the Travis County District Attorney?

I don’t know enough about the government structure, but it sounds like Perry is bypassing procedure and trying to directly compel a state agent not under his direct authority to follow his wishes rather than uphold her duty. That will be the case that the Prosecutor is trying to establish, anyway.

[Irishman]

The flipside, it’s hard not to see the timing of this and think there’s political element to affect a potential presidential run.

[magellan01]

@running_coach

He cut the funding to the agency she headed. Not the same thing.

She was the head of a Public Integrity Unit. He said he would cut off funding of it unless she designed. Makes perfect sense to me that he didn’t think she was fit to head up that unit.

[magellan01]

@running_coach

So a DUI should be a bar from holding public office?

No. But that combined with the way she handled things do make her a questionable choice to head up a Public Integrity Unit.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

An example of an abuse of power: “I don’t think this guy that works in X department should be working there. I’m going to veto the X dept funding bill unless he’s gone.”

It doesn’t matter if the guy in X department is a neo-Nazi or the greatest guy in the world – threatening a veto to get rid of him is abusing one’s political power.

No. The question is if there is a legitimate reason for the person to not have a particular job. And her actions make her a less than ideal choice to head up Public Integrity Unit.

[magellan01]

Also, doesn’t a governor have a duty to make sure that state money is spent responsibly? It seems reasonable that based on Lehmberg’s actions, that she might not be a good choice to head up a Public Integrity Unit. That desire can be legitimate even if it comes with a political benefit.

[running_coach]

@magellan01

Also, doesn’t a governor have a duty to make sure that state money is spent responsibly? It seems reasonable that based on Lehmberg’s actions, that she might not be a good choice to head up a Public Integrity Unit. That desire can be legitimate even if it comes with a political benefit.

But that’s not a reason to eliminate or defund the agency.

[adaher]

Can the legislature withhold funds to get an employee to resign?

[magellan01]

@running_coach

But that’s not a reason to eliminate or defund the agency.

It is if you think the person heading it up is unfit for the job. In fact, I think its his responsibility to do so. In essence he proposed a choice: you can either keep your job and lose funding for one part of it that goes to public integrity, or you can step aside and have the funding continue. I see no reason why it is incumbent upon the governor to fund a special unit which is headed by a person whose behavior—DUI + how she conducted herself during the trial—suggests that she is the wrong person to head up a special unit. He has a responsibility to spend the people’s money responsibly.

[magellan01]

@adaher

Can the legislature withhold funds to get an employee to resign?

If you’re talking about whether they can do it legitimately, I think it depends on the reason. To me it’s like when a politician has an affair. It may matter not one iota as far as them doing their job. But there judgement and trustworthiness is brought into question, and that very often leads to a loss of office, either by resignation or loss of an election.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

No. The question is if there is a legitimate reason for the person to not have a particular job. And her actions make her a less than ideal choice to head up Public Integrity Unit.

I don’t think that’s how the law works – if using veto threats to get someone removed is against the law, then it doesn’t matter why the governor wants to get them removed. But we’ll see.