Texas Gov. Rick Perry Indicted For Abuse Of Power

[Londoner]

Republicans and fair weather libertarians claim to be skeptical of the competence and ethics of political leaders, but there has been no other group of people in my lifetime who support dear leader so completely. When any of their government leaders are in trouble, Republican voters come to the rescue with a degree of blind loyalty that is as predictable as it is pathetic.

They never - and I mean never - questioned Reagan, who sold weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation and then pleaded ignorance (talk about a weakling who won't take accountability for his administration's actions). They never questioned Bush's big government conservatism as he expanded the Medicare entitlement system and sold his pie in the sky dream for rebuilding an Arab culture. (They don't trust government to run a laundromat, but when dear leader wants to save the world from Washington, they bow and kneel.)

So yes, it's funny to see how much they love their government leaders. We know the Left loves government because they admit it. Who knew the Right loved it more? Try suggesting that maybe just maybe one of their government leaders might be corrupt and they loose their shit. Hilarious ... And sad.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Cool. I'm extremely wealthy, look like George Clooney, own four homes scattered throughout the world, have a fleet of luxury cars and a yacht, and my girlfriend is Miss Arkansas.

So you think that after her actions she should be allowed to remain as head of the Public Integrity Unit. Did you see the video of her booking act?

See the video? Nope, and I couldn't care less. And Perry was free to ask her to resign, that's all legally he could do, and that wasn't enough for him so he broke the law instead.

Of course you couldn't care less. Why do you hate integrity and honesty in government?

Hate it? What part of getting nailed for DUI means you can't do your government job? And what part of taking an illegal action like Perry trying to get his way means you are honest and have integrity? You, my retired friend, have the criminals mixed up...

 

[JoeB131]

So the far left comes in to try and take down Perry as he may run for President in 2016.

The woman in question is a far left zealot that does not have the good sense to step down after her actions. Notice how the far left on this board will not condemn their own.

The far left "news" has two things to take the eye off the illegal war Obama started in Iraq.

The complaint was filed last year by Texans for Public Justice, a far left watchdog group.

Then again if this goes through, that means all governors will be at risk of anything they veto from extremist political groups.

If Perry runs in 2016, he'll crash and burn like he did in 2012.

That said, this is the wrong issue to try to nail him on. What they should nail him on is that Texas is dead last in most stats that count in terms of workers wages, environment, health care, education.

This one, he asked someone who has no business running a state agency to step down, and when she refused, he cut off funding to that agency until she does.

That's actually reasonably responsible governing.

 

[Ibentoken]

So the far left comes in to try and take down Perry as he may run for President in 2016.

The woman in question is a far left zealot that does not have the good sense to step down after her actions. Notice how the far left on this board will not condemn their own.

The far left "news" has two things to take the eye off the illegal war Obama started in Iraq.

The complaint was filed last year by Texans for Public Justice, a far left watchdog group.

Then again if this goes through, that means all governors will be at risk of anything they veto from extremist political groups.

If Perry runs in 2016, he'll crash and burn like he did in 2012.

That said, this is the wrong issue to try to nail him on. What they should nail him on is that Texas is dead last in most stats that count in terms of workers wages, environment, health care, education.

This one, he asked someone who has no business running a state agency to step down, and when she refused, he cut off funding to that agency until she does.

That's actually reasonably responsible governing.

For the record. I think that Perry is a twit. I think it's a sad commentary on the GOP that he is considered a major leader in this party.

That said, he was completely in his rights to veto this item. This is a bogus prosecution meant to embarrass him.

this was a govenor that abused Texas state law ... we aren't talking about his right to veto a bill ...its how he went about doing it... texas law says you can't use a threat to veto money to run a government department to get what you want ... thats what perry did... I can't help if you're to stupid to look up the law he violated in texas ... you went on the thought that he was being prosicute to emparras him ... he did that when he ran for presdent when he couldn't remember what he was for... look at the state law first before you make a fool of yourself

Can you show me the law.

 

[Stephanie]

For the record. I think that Perry is a twit. I think it's a sad commentary on the GOP that he is considered a major leader in this party.

That said, he was completely in his rights to veto this item. This is a bogus prosecution meant to embarrass him.

For the record, no one cares you think a twit.
For the record, I'd take Perry over that twit you all put on us what we have now, Obama

 

[boedicca]

Perry used very good executive judgement to pressure her to resign. The Dems are making themselves into laughingstocks trying to defend this Drunk Loon.

Pressure like that, is illegal, even in Texas.

No, it's not, as people far smarter than you have assessed.

Let’s take a look at the actual indictment and statutes at issue, so that you will fully understand how utterly ridiculous this whole thing is. Start with the indictment. It charges two counts: Count One, Abuse of Official Capacity in violation of Texas Penal Code section 39.02; and Count Two, Coercion of a Public Servant in violation of Texas Penal Code 36.03.

Let’s start with Count Two, Coercion of a Public Servant, since the most commentary has been offered concerning this count. Here is the relevant statute: Texas Penal Code 36.03:

§ 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.

Subsection (1) is the relevant part. The indictment claims Perry attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg “in the specific performance of her official duty” to “continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected district attorney for the County of Travis through the completion of her elected term of office.”

If the statute did not contain an exception, this language would be absurdly overbroad. In Texas, “coercion” includes a threat “to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.” So, without an exception, the language of the statute would criminalize any threat by a public servant to influence a public official in the performance of their duty. To take an (unrelated) example, if someone in government told their employee: “tell the truth to the legislature or I will fire you,” someone could claim they were thereby trying to prevent a public official from doing their duty through “coercion.” (So, if such a law applied to the federal government, then Barack Obama could not threaten to fire a top official for, say, lying to Congress. It would be legally prohibited, rather than what it is: legal, but impossible to imagine.)

So the law can’t be that broad, and in fact, the statute has an exception:

(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.

Under Article 4 of the Texas Constitution, Rick Perry is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, and thus a member of the Executive Department of the State. That sounds like a “governing body” to me. Doesn’t he fall within this exception? Certainly his veto does.

The indictment appears to try to address this exception in two ways. First, this count addresses, not the veto, but rather Perry’s actions in threatening a veto. As Chait explains:

The prosecutors claim that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not. Of course the threat of the veto is an integral part of its function. The legislature can hardly negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,” the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes work.

True enough. In fact, I think such a threat falls squarely within the exception for “deliberations” by the governing body. “Deliberations” include discussions about whether an action is going to be taken, including bargaining over whether an action is going to be taken. That bargaining, as long as it is not legally bribery, includes things like logrolling, horse trading — and yes, even “threats.” (“If you don’t vote for this tax exemption, I will lobby every member of this body to kill the military base in your district, and your political career will be OVER!!!”)

Which leads us to the second problem with this count: the First Amendment. The indictment makes a point of saying that Perry and Lehmberg are “not members of the same governing body of a governmental entity.” (My emphasis.) The indictment does not make the relevance of this clear, but I’m guessing that prosecutors will argue that, while Perry could certainly influence Lehmberg to resign if he had direct authority over her, he cannot do so because he is a member of a different governing body than she is.

This is where Eugene Volokh adds value to the analysis...

Patterico's Pontifications » Jonathan Chait Is Correct: ?This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous? (With Bonus Detailed Legal Analysis!)

And Alan Dershowitz thinks the indictment is outrageous...

Dershowitz 'Outraged' by Perry Indictment

 

[Ibentoken]

Clearly, a case of perverted justice, leftist style.

 

[Kosh]

The far left could care less about laws, just like Obama and his illegal wars.

This is political move by a far left group in order to try and prevent an (R) for the possibility of running for president in 2016.

Well that and to take the eye off Obama and his failure as a president.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The indictment was brought against Perry by a drunken, bumbling witch with a Partisan chip on her shoulder. An indictment isn't a conviction. Perry is within his rights to veto bills if he feels that they might be detrimental to the State in which he serves.

There should definitely be some new abuse of power charges.

RICK PERRY KILLS IT! Thrashes TX Democrats & Junk Indictment

[ame=http://youtu.be/oJHdUEv0Mnk]RICK PERRY KILLS IT! Thrashes TX Democrats & Junk Indictment - YouTube[/ame]

Excellent presser with a man who isn't afraid to take questions UNSCRIPTED.. Say what you want, this man , unlike the sniveling bozo in the WH doesn't run but confronts this head on.. OOOOrah.. Mad respect for Rick Perry

 

[Vandalshandle]

i was there for a week and could not wait to get the hell out of there.....how can anyone live in that humidity?....

Wrong part of the state...most of Texas is a desert!

i visited Texas a year ago

it was great

you could feel freedom in the air

That wasn't freedom. Hint. What you smelled in the air was probably coming from the El Paso stockyards.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Perry used very good executive judgement to pressure her to resign. The Dems are making themselves into laughingstocks trying to defend this Drunk Loon.

Pressure like that, is illegal, even in Texas.

No, it's not, as people far smarter than you have assessed.

Let’s take a look at the actual indictment and statutes at issue, so that you will fully understand how utterly ridiculous this whole thing is. Start with the indictment. It charges two counts: Count One, Abuse of Official Capacity in violation of Texas Penal Code section 39.02; and Count Two, Coercion of a Public Servant in violation of Texas Penal Code 36.03.

Let’s start with Count Two, Coercion of a Public Servant, since the most commentary has been offered concerning this count. Here is the relevant statute: Texas Penal Code 36.03:

§ 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.

Subsection (1) is the relevant part. The indictment claims Perry attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg “in the specific performance of her official duty” to “continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected district attorney for the County of Travis through the completion of her elected term of office.”

If the statute did not contain an exception, this language would be absurdly overbroad. In Texas, “coercion” includes a threat “to take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public servant to take or withhold action.” So, without an exception, the language of the statute would criminalize any threat by a public servant to influence a public official in the performance of their duty. To take an (unrelated) example, if someone in government told their employee: “tell the truth to the legislature or I will fire you,” someone could claim they were thereby trying to prevent a public official from doing their duty through “coercion.” (So, if such a law applied to the federal government, then Barack Obama could not threaten to fire a top official for, say, lying to Congress. It would be legally prohibited, rather than what it is: legal, but impossible to imagine.)

So the law can’t be that broad, and in fact, the statute has an exception:

(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.

Under Article 4 of the Texas Constitution, Rick Perry is the Chief Executive Officer of the State, and thus a member of the Executive Department of the State. That sounds like a “governing body” to me. Doesn’t he fall within this exception? Certainly his veto does.

The indictment appears to try to address this exception in two ways. First, this count addresses, not the veto, but rather Perry’s actions in threatening a veto. As Chait explains:

The prosecutors claim that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not. Of course the threat of the veto is an integral part of its function. The legislature can hardly negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,” the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes work.

True enough. In fact, I think such a threat falls squarely within the exception for “deliberations” by the governing body. “Deliberations” include discussions about whether an action is going to be taken, including bargaining over whether an action is going to be taken. That bargaining, as long as it is not legally bribery, includes things like logrolling, horse trading — and yes, even “threats.” (“If you don’t vote for this tax exemption, I will lobby every member of this body to kill the military base in your district, and your political career will be OVER!!!”)

Which leads us to the second problem with this count: the First Amendment. The indictment makes a point of saying that Perry and Lehmberg are “not members of the same governing body of a governmental entity.” (My emphasis.) The indictment does not make the relevance of this clear, but I’m guessing that prosecutors will argue that, while Perry could certainly influence Lehmberg to resign if he had direct authority over her, he cannot do so because he is a member of a different governing body than she is.

This is where Eugene Volokh adds value to the analysis...

Patterico's Pontifications » Jonathan Chait Is Correct: ?This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous? (With Bonus Detailed Legal Analysis!)

And Alan Dershowitz thinks the indictment is outrageous...

Dershowitz 'Outraged' by Perry Indictment

Interesting, but he has two major issues to deal with. 1. He wasn't threatening a veto of a governing body, like the legislature, as in if you don't put money in for this or that, I'll veto the bill, and 2., he was withholding money from a body that investigates what his administration was doing that was illegal, which looks really bad because it is.

Resign or I'll withhold the budget for a division you manage is blackmail, nothing more. He had no way to get what he wanted legally, like firing her, so he broke the law, both the intent and the spirit, trying to get his way. Now he gets booked on felony charges and the courts figure it out. That works for Grand Jury since they believe he broke the law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The far left could care less about laws, just like Obama and his illegal wars.

This is political move by a far left group in order to try and prevent an (R) for the possibility of running for president in 2016.

Well that and to take the eye off Obama and his failure as a president.

Illegal wars? Which ones are those?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

This biatch served at the pleasure of the Governor- HE ALONE has executive veto power to decide if a DRUNK BIATCH who is the lead LAW ENFORCEMENT in her county, became violent , kicking and threatening police officers when she pulled over for drinking and driving again.. WHEN SHE REFUSED to step down, having trashed the office she serves, he WITHIN his rights, vetoed the spending bill allocating funds for that drunk violent biatch to remain in office.. IT'S CALLED ACCOUNTABILITY and something you liberal snakes despise.. TOO FUCKING BAD. He made the right call.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually, no, it is called "ABUSE OF POWER", and if the jury agrees with the grand jury, it is a felony.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Actually, no, it is called "ABUSE OF POWER", and if the jury agrees with the grand jury, it is a felony.

It’s precious that the same people who argue that Obama’s “pen and phone,” which unconstitutionally makes laws, changes laws, and uses federal bureaucracies to commit acts of tyranny against innocent U.S. citizens (see IRS, NSA, EPA, DHS, etc.), is not an abuse of power, but potential Republican 2016 presidential candidate Perry’s using his lawful veto power is somehow an abuse of power.

VIDEOS: Belligerent Drunk Democrat Rosemary Lehmberg in Charge of ?Integrity Unit? Indicts Rick Perry Over a Lawful Veto

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Check out the drunk violent biatch caught on camera.. this is what the LIBERAL KOOKS are demanding to remain in office.. LMAO




Watch the entire thing as this DINGBAT LEFTIST DRUNK gets violent with cops.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually, no, it is called "ABUSE OF POWER", and if the jury agrees with the grand jury, it is a felony.

It’s precious that the same people who argue that Obama’s “pen and phone,” which unconstitutionally makes laws, changes laws, and uses federal bureaucracies to commit acts of tyranny against innocent U.S. citizens (see IRS, NSA, EPA, DHS, etc.), is not an abuse of power, but potential Republican 2016 presidential candidate Perry’s using his lawful veto power is somehow an abuse of power.

VIDEOS: Belligerent Drunk Democrat Rosemary Lehmberg in Charge of ?Integrity Unit? Indicts Rick Perry Over a Lawful Veto

By all means, if Obama is guilty of abuse of power, bring your case before a grand jury and indict him.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow what a great opportunity for Perry. He gets to show leadership skills and standing up to corrupt Democrats. There is no doubt a President Perry would clean out the vermin infesting the Justice Dept, the IRS, the EPA, and other agencies that have become nothing more than subcontractors for the DNC.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

DRUNK SLOBBERY BIATCH on video.. and liberals scream LOL

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Watch her around the 4 min mark talk about the cop ruining her career after she falls all over the place drunk...