It’s possible that such an act might not be a crime for Obama, yet might still be a crime for Perry. Perry’s actions are subject to Texas law, while Obama’s are subject to federal US law. Is there a federal statute against abuse of power, analogous to the one in Texas?
Note, incidentally, that just saying that Perry’s office is given the power to do what he did is not a defense. The statute acknowledges that. If he didn’t have the power, then he couldn’t very well abuse it, could he?
So is abuse of power.
Then that Austin prosecutor that indicted Perry should be indicted for abuse of power.
Isn’t his job to put pieces of shit in jail?
It’s not an abuse of power to indict someone for committing a grime.
It is abuse of power for a prosecutor to force through a politically motivated indictment that has no hope of conviction whatsoever.
Wasn’t an Austin prosecutor. It was special prosecutor, assigned by a judge, out of San Antonio IIRC (it was Bexar county anyway). Some of the members of the grand jury were republicans. It wasn’t “flower children” or any such nonsense.
You must have some dirt on him. 
Sure of that?
If Rick Perry took away funding from a department that was investigating corruption in an organisation he was supporting, for the purpose of getting rid of an elected official, that is an abuse of power and is allegedly a crime.
A prosecutor who fails to bring indictments when a crime is committed would be guilty of negligence. Whether Perry is guilty of a crime must be determined by due process.
BTW, the judge who appointed the special prosecutor–republican.
Yep
The indictment is out of the Third Court of Appeals (Austin).
Yes, it is. The special prosecutor was Michael McCrum, a San Antonio defense lawyer specializing in white collar crime. The judge that appointed him was Bert Richardson, who is a republican.
Although the stuff I’ve been reading tends to list (1) Veto, and (2) Coercion as the crimes committed, I think it’s more useful to view the indictment as (1) Coercion --> (2) Veto and I think* the distinction is subtle-yet-critical.
It’s apparently common knowledge that the governer and his aids@ started threatening to veto funding for the PIU shortly after Lehmberg’s DUI arrest, and it’s also apparently common knowledge that Texans for Public Justice filed a complaint shortly thereafter, accusing the governor of misdemeanor and felony offenses over his veto threat.
As others have noted, the governor had no authority over the elected DA/PIU Leader. That’s what made the coercion illegal.
Yes, the court convicted Lehmberg on the DUI charge and she served time like any other DUI convict. And that may even support Perry’s claim that "the person charged with ultimate responsibility of [the PIU] has lost the public’s confidence.”
However, it’s also relevant at this point to note that there was “investigation of Lehmberg by a separate grand jury, which decided she should **not **be removed for official misconduct.” [bolding mine] (This is off Fox News’ site, and I’m a bit surprised they included the info.)
Had the governor simply vetoed the funding when the bill came across his desk, and made his statement while doing so, he would have been (as his supporters claim) just doing politics as usual. However, since his act of coercion was illegal, the veto can be seen as following through with the threat embedded in the coercive act, and is therefore illegal because of the coercion.#
The funding becomes an item that was misused. Its normal use is to facilitate operations of the PIU; it was used by the governor as a threat in the act of coercion. Irishman provided some lovely quotes of the legalese involved [c.f. post #50] and I think that ©(7) is relevant since the amount of the funding was $1.7 million.
–G!
{IANAL}
*Obviously, or I wouldn’t be writing all this.
@Since it was a shared/discussed action by many people, does that make it into a conspiracy, as well? What level of crime is Conspiracy to Commit an Offense (coercion)?
#In other words, he should have simply kept his mouth shut instead of trying to brandish his political influence – but I’ve been thinking that for the last couple decades.
The lawyer is from San Antonio. The prosecutor is from Austin, since that is where the court is. It doesn’t matter where his private residence is. And am still waiting to find out how exactly you know what the makeup of the grand jury was…
No. The prosecutor is from San Antonio. It is where he lives, and where he has his practice. He is not an employee of Travis county. He was appointed for this case.
He can live and practice in NYC for all it matters. The indictment is from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin so that’s where the prosecutor is from. The prosecutor is associated with the court, not with his private residence or his practice.
So - how did you know that there were Republicans in the grand jury?
I write for a newspaper. I got the makeup from a reporter that is covering the case. I’ll post a link-able source for you when I get it, but it’s public record. Two were registered Republicans, four were registered democrats, the rest were unaffiliated.