Gov. Goodhair Perry Indicted, Felony Abuse of Power Charged

[Grumman]

But that still doesn't excuse the head of an anti-corruption unit trying to use her position to get out of trouble with the law.

And how exactly did she do it? By pleading guilty in court?

By trying to make out that the cops were ruining her career after the arrest.

[Beowulf]

But that still doesn't excuse the head of an anti-corruption unit trying to use her position to get out of trouble with the law.

And how exactly did she do it? By pleading guilty in court?

If someone is using his position to get out of trouble with the law, it's Perry.

I believe he was talking about between when she got pulled over and when she was arraigned. With comments such as "Do you know who I am?", "Get these cuffs off me", "I'm a District Attorney", "I'm not drunk", and asking the deputies if they'd called "Greg" (which is the first name of the County Sheriff).

Nope, that's bribery. Accepting the bribe, regardless of whether he then acquits the defendant is still illegal. The legislature could make this form of using a veto illegal, but the charges as specified don't match what he's done.

Ok, but the actions matching what he is done are called 'blackmail' and last time I checked, that's illegal too. Yes, we might debate how far the veto powers can reach, but I really don't think "I'll destroy the inconvenient agency I cannot touch under checks and balances unless I can put my sock puppet in charge of it" was intended purpose of its usage.

It's not blackmail. Blackmail is threatening to reveal information in exchange for something (usually of value). It's a subtype of extortion. The Texas laws on extortion require that someone gain property or money. As such, it's not blackmail in Texas, because the demand wasn't for property or money. Furthermore, by the commonly used definition, no information was threatened to be revealed. I'll admit that it is coercion. But it's not unlawful coercion, as defined in Texas, with precedent that it is not.

Those in a public corruption unit must have the utmost integrity, even above those expected from other prosecutors. Common sense would dictate that.

As do lawmakers and law executors, like, you know, Perry. And he does something far worse than DUI.

Now, let's take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, and consider following scenario: Obama threatening to defund whole Congress once a single republican does something bad, unless he/she immediately resigns. That is ignoring the fact Obama cannot pick the replacement, meaning that would be less wrong than what Perry tries to do.

Do you agree this should happen, and if not, why?

This counterfactual requires that Obama have the capability to do so. He does not. Perry has a constitutionally conferred line-item veto that lets him remove budget items. No such capability exists for the President. The best he can do is to defund the government as a whole by not passing a budget as a whole.

Furthermore, the analogy fails in that any given Republican in Congress has little individual power (the power being invested in Congress as a whole). This is distinct from the DA, who is the top of her little pyramid, and has extensive individual power.

[Gaidin]

This counterfactual requires that Obama have the capability to do so. He does not. Perry has a constitutionally conferred line-item veto that lets him remove budget items. No such capability exists for the President. The best he can do is to defund the government as a whole by not passing a budget as a whole.

Furthermore, the analogy fails in that any given Republican in Congress has little individual power (the power being invested in Congress as a whole). This is distinct from the DA, who is the top of her little pyramid, and has extensive individual power.

Which budget bill do they actually hide the congressional funding in these days now that they're sending him budget bills again? It's not so hard as you think. Granted there'd be something taken out with it, but it could theoretically be done.

[Mr. Coffee]

I believe he was talking about between when she got pulled over and when she was arraigned.

Wait, people are actually basing that retarded opinion on shit someone said in the drunk tank... Fucking seriously?

[Gandalf]

I believe he was talking about between when she got pulled over and when she was arraigned.

Wait, people are actually basing that retarded opinion on shit someone said in the drunk tank... Fucking seriously?

Why not?

[Simon_Jester]

It's not blackmail. Blackmail is threatening to reveal information in exchange for something (usually of value). It's a subtype of extortion. The Texas laws on extortion require that someone gain property or money. As such, it's not blackmail in Texas, because the demand wasn't for property or money. Furthermore, by the commonly used definition, no information was threatened to be revealed. I'll admit that it is coercion. But it's not unlawful coercion, as defined in Texas, with precedent that it is not.

So, in the context of Texas, you are arguing that it is legally not a misuse of the veto power for the governor to use it for personal reasons?

[Beowulf]

It's not blackmail. Blackmail is threatening to reveal information in exchange for something (usually of value). It's a subtype of extortion. The Texas laws on extortion require that someone gain property or money. As such, it's not blackmail in Texas, because the demand wasn't for property or money. Furthermore, by the commonly used definition, no information was threatened to be revealed. I'll admit that it is coercion. But it's not unlawful coercion, as defined in Texas, with precedent that it is not.

So, in the context of Texas, you are arguing that it is legally not a misuse of the veto power for the governor to use it for personal reasons?

The default assumption in American law is that something is legal unless something makes it illegal. I've previously listed reasoning why use of a veto is not unlawful coercion. But there may be other cases where the use of a veto may be illegal. The use of a veto in to achieve a political aim, however, is almost certainly going to be legal.

An example of an illegal use of a veto may be a threat to veto a bill unless someone pays you cash... but that falls into bribery, and it doesn't matter that it's the veto power being used.

[Elheru Aran]

I believe he was talking about between when she got pulled over and when she was arraigned.

Wait, people are actually basing that retarded opinion on shit someone said in the drunk tank... Fucking seriously?

Why not?

Because she's drunk and literally not in her right mind. You cannot take statements like that seriously.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

But the law, to me, looks batshit. Let's say a constructor goes to a judge and tells him he'll build the judge a pool for free if his cousin is acquitted of whatever. Building someone a pool is legal, as is acquitting a defendant (despite what the Tough on Crime people would have you believe). Does this mean the constructor's actions are legal, despite the very obvious incentive? Or it's only when a civil servant threatens another civil servant?

Nope, that's bribery. Accepting the bribe, regardless of whether he then acquits the defendant is still illegal.

Is it legal for the constructor to even make this offer, much less carry through? And honestly, what's the difference? In both cases, we have someone acting legally to make someone else do something that's also legal. Is it just "well Texas allows it for the governor, so yeah"?

The legislature could make this form of using a veto illegal, but the charges as specified don't match what he's done. The legislature doing so might be iffy too as that gets into the fact that using the veto is an inherently political act, and then you're criminalizing politics... and the state constitution gives the Governor exclusive use of the veto, thus it may actually require amending the state constitution to do so.

Not sure I follow. Lots of political means are criminalized, but politics can still go on. I see a crevasse between "specific use of specific tool" and "all tools", and I don't feel like jumping.

[eyl]

I have to disagree with this bit. The DA is elected to uphold the law. Thus, it behooves the DA to uphold the law in her personal conduct. This isn't a cease of something like adultery - the DA broke the law in this case. Would you make the same argument if the person in question was the chief of police rather than the DA?

No, it is simply that... imagine there are two ways for a public official to breach public trust.

1) Use of state assets, or the powers vested in a public official by the state for personal reasons.
2) Personal crime not involving their use of state assets.

I consider cases of type (1) to be far more serious than cases of type (2).

SHOULD Lehmberg resign? All else being even remotely equal, yes. Should she be punished for her specific crimes? Yes. Should impeachment proceedings be enacted? Assuming that her conduct is deemed serious by those with the lawful power to impeach her, very probably.

But that does not mean that an outside individual who is subject to investigation by her office has grounds to threaten to abolish her office- not her position, the office itself- as a way of forcing her to do what she should, in my opinion, do.

That is an abuse of type (1), with Perry using his state-given authority (to veto funds) for a personal reason (his distaste for Lehmberg). Granted that Lehmberg is distasteful. It's still wrong to try and torpedo an organization funded to the tune of millions of dollars a year that serves a necessary public interest as a way of "getting" her.

And even that is the most charitable interpretation I can think of, given that Perry also has a clear ulterior motive in that he gets to replace Lehmberg withone of his own appointees who will no doubt be more sympathetic to any corruption cases that might take place.

I don't actually disagree with that. I'm not commenting on whether or not what Perry did was illegal, not being familiar enough with the relevant laws.

I do think, however, that it should be expected of a senior official in the legal system to be "clean", certainly of something like grossly negligent of the risk to others' lives as drunk driving.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Eyl:

Well, I'm mainly just trying to say that I think an abuse of official power is a greater violation of public trust than failure to be 'clean' in one's own life. I'd rather have Eliot Spitzer going into court and challenging large Wall Street firms on their large-scale crimes... while seeing prostitutes on the side... than have a toothless nobody not challenge those firms.

The nation can survive hypocrisy in the private life of a public official more easily than it can survive that official using their powers directly for personal gain.

---

Re: Everyone else:
In this case, the problem is:

1) Perry is using his veto power for personal reasons, because Lehmberg is not politically in his chain of command- not his employee to fire. His only justification for wanting her gone is 'righteous' indignation. It's not even a policy issue, or at least not a policy issue he has jurisdiction over.

2) Perry is using his veto power to coerce a public official, which is a crime in its own right regardless of the means by which it is done. You argue that using the veto power to coerce public officials is legal- that's what the governor would do to the legislature. The catch is that in the normal course of using the veto power one is simply vetoing spending as such. One is not vetoing spending in order to achieve some goal (such as threatening to dismantle a law enforcement organization with an elected leader so one can replace that leader with a personal crony).

3) Perry made it quite explicit that he was threatening to veto the PIU not as a matter of public policy, but as a vendetta against a single political figure. In other words, this is not something he thinks is in the public interest- it's not like he was trying to remove the PIU before the drunk driving charges came up. So basically, Perry is willing to compromise the public interest (by destroying the anti-corruption unit) in order to get Lehmberg (and, by getting Lehmberg, get the power to appoint the head of the anti-corruption unit)

This is exactly the kind of fallout of political feuding that a functioning civil service does NOT need. Part of the point of my position is to prevent veto power (and other executive powers) from being used capriciously or tyrannically. And I think that the existing laws give a fairly good basis for saying that Perry has done so, and therefore acted illegally unless there is something stupidly wrong with the way law is interpreted in Texas.

[amigocabal]

Ronnie Earle did humanity a favor when he realized that DeLay broke campaign finance laws, and he did us an even greater one when he got DeLay convicted. Whether or not "justice" was actually served against him isn't so important. The fact that he no longer holds office though? That's very important.

hUH?

In a criminal prosecution, the only things that matter are that a) the lawful process is followed and b) justice is served.

[Simon_Jester]

If a man breaks campaign finance laws after a long career of doing evil in high places, and his political career is ended... I consider that a good thing. Whether or not he is formally convicted or formally punished.

At the same time, though, the form of the law must be observed, and officials must not abuse their powers. Those powers are not given to them to wage politics, to protect political friends or harm political enemies. They are given to them for the good of the people.

[Ralin]

Because she's drunk and literally not in her right mind. You cannot take statements like that seriously.

By that logic we shouldn't be able to charge her with anything for the drunk driving either.

I'd be very surprised if I could shout veiled threats at cops while drunk and avoid consequences on the grounds that I was clearly not in my right mind.

[Kon_El]

2) Perry is using his veto power to coerce a public official, which is a crime in its own right regardless of the means by which it is done.

I think the distinction is that resigning doesn't fit the criteria below because it isn't a part of her official duties

A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he … 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

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Re: Everyone else:
In this case, the problem is:

<snip>

The funny thing, of course, is that Texan law is full of bullshit here. The veto is legal, says the law, resigning is also legal, says the law, therefore it's all okay.

"Don't trust the gub'mint" combined with "ridiculous abuse is legal"? Oh the land of opposites.

[Beowulf]

1) Perry is using his veto power for personal reasons, because Lehmberg is not politically in his chain of command- not his employee to fire. His only justification for wanting her gone is 'righteous' indignation. It's not even a policy issue, or at least not a policy issue he has jurisdiction over.

2) Perry is using his veto power to coerce a public official, which is a crime in its own right regardless of the means by which it is done. You argue that using the veto power to coerce public officials is legal- that's what the governor would do to the legislature. The catch is that in the normal course of using the veto power one is simply vetoing spending as such. One is not vetoing spending in order to achieve some goal (such as threatening to dismantle a law enforcement organization with an elected leader so one can replace that leader with a personal crony).

3) Perry made it quite explicit that he was threatening to veto the PIU not as a matter of public policy, but as a vendetta against a single political figure. In other words, this is not something he thinks is in the public interest- it's not like he was trying to remove the PIU before the drunk driving charges came up. So basically, Perry is willing to compromise the public interest (by destroying the anti-corruption unit) in order to get Lehmberg (and, by getting Lehmberg, get the power to appoint the head of the anti-corruption unit)

This is exactly the kind of fallout of political feuding that a functioning civil service does NOT need. Part of the point of my position is to prevent veto power (and other executive powers) from being used capriciously or tyrannically. And I think that the existing laws give a fairly good basis for saying that Perry has done so, and therefore acted illegally unless there is something stupidly wrong with the way law is interpreted in Texas.

Perry's use of the veto was undoubtedly coercion. It possibly was wrong. But just because something is wrong does not mean it should be criminal. It's use was a political act. The proper method to take care of it would be to use political means to punish him, not to send him to jail for 2-109 years.

Beyond that, if you want to make this criminal, the law as written, as you would like it to be interpreted, would not distinguish between coercing a DA to resign through the use of the veto power and coercing the legislature to do something through the use of the veto power. Therefore, the law, as written, would be too vague to be enforceable if read as you wished it to be. Which is why State v. Hanson narrowed it to requiring that the act be unlawful.

[Mr Bean]

Beyond that, if you want to make this criminal, the law as written, as you would like it to be interpreted, would not distinguish between coercing a DA to resign through the use of the veto power and coercing the legislature to do something through the use of the veto power. Therefore, the law, as written, would be too vague to be enforceable if read as you wished it to be. Which is why State v. Hanson narrowed it to requiring that the act be unlawful.

When the Governor of Texas has the ability to fire the Congress via cutting funding let me know

[Patroklos]

He does (against the Texas legislature), by the exact same means he used on the DA.

[Elheru Aran]

Because she's drunk and literally not in her right mind. You cannot take statements like that seriously.

By that logic we shouldn't be able to charge her with anything for the drunk driving either.

I'd be very surprised if I could shout veiled threats at cops while drunk and avoid consequences on the grounds that I was clearly not in my right mind.

Read the context of my quote. Coffee was saying that people basing their opinions of her, regardless of her current state, upon what she had said when drunk, was ridiculous. That was what I was agreeing with. What a person is saying when they are impaired by alcohol cannot be taken seriously as evidence of a person's competence or personality, given the many ways that alcohol affects brain chemistry. You get the most accurate picture of a person when they are sober.

And the drunk driving is different from her words, as the driving is a honest crime that can get other people hurt. Just spouting off when she's intoxicated isn't, unless she was giving away state secrets or some such. Note that she apologized and accepted guilt for her actions afterwards, which indicates that in her right mind she would not have said anything like that.

[Simon_Jester]

2) Perry is using his veto power to coerce a public official, which is a crime in its own right regardless of the means by which it is done.

I think the distinction is that resigning doesn't fit the criteria below because it isn't a part of her official duties

A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he … 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

I would argue that it is, because one cannot carry out one's official duties if one is in the middle of resigning one's office.

Perry's use of the veto was undoubtedly coercion. It possibly was wrong. But just because something is wrong does not mean it should be criminal. It's use was a political act. The proper method to take care of it would be to use political means to punish him, not to send him to jail for 2-109 years.

I am not sure, myself. I can see the argument that Perry shouldn't be sent to jail over this, but at the same time I think the charges are reasonable and that this sort of conduct should certainly be investigated and punished. It's bad for the system as a whole to tolerate this kind of feuding.

Beyond that, if you want to make this criminal, the law as written, as you would like it to be interpreted, would not distinguish between coercing a DA to resign through the use of the veto power and coercing the legislature to do something through the use of the veto power. Therefore, the law, as written, would be too vague to be enforceable if read as you wished it to be. Which is why State v. Hanson narrowed it to requiring that the act be unlawful.

I think it could reasonably be interpreted differently. Basically, the issue is that vetoing legislation is a normal use of the veto- but vetoing the normal function of a state office in order to secure the resignation of an official who isn't supposed to be taking your orders in the first place is not.

Otherwise, the predictable next step is for Perry to de facto take over the PIU by using the veto threat to punish them for anything they do that he doesn't like.

[Rogue 9]

A drunk driving charge has nothing to do with anti-corruption.

No, it's to do with attempted murder. We're not talking about some minor misdemeanor; to get behind the wheel intoxicated is to deliberately set out to end the life of everyone else in the general vicinity of the road. Someone that incomprehensibly reckless should not hold public office.

Which isn't to say Perry isn't a douchebag, but come on, drunk drivers should be chucked in the nearest holding cell, not hailed as martyrs.

[The Romulan Republic]

Do you really think every drunk driver intends to kill people? If you do, you're a fucking imbecile. And if you don't, you're a liar.

They may be risking killing people, but doing something reckless is not the same as intending to kill.

[Beowulf]

Again, the law as written doesn't specify that it must be an unlawful act that influences or attempts to influence, but if read as written, then any act that influences or attempts to influence a public servant is criminal coercion. Declaring you will veto a bill that doesn't have spending to replace a bridge (for example) would be criminal coercion. So State v. Hanson set a sensible precedent that the act that attempts to influence must be unlawful. So the act itself must not be legal to do, regardless of whether it's coercive or not.

The Constitution of Texas does not list any restriction on why a veto can be used, just that the Governor has to explicitly use it within a set period of time (no pocket vetos), and the legislature can over-ride the veto by a 2/3rd majority after it's used. The reasoning why it was used may not be normal, but no reasoning is necessary in the use of the power. All that is required is that the governor object to an item of appropriation, and to state that he objects to that item. The counterchecks to capricious use of the veto power as designed in the constitution are to over-ride it, or to remove the governor via impeachment.

If you want to claim that the laws of Texas support his conviction for coercion of a public servant, you must prove that the use of the veto, in and of itself, was illegal. Not just abnormal, or morally wrong. The veto itself is illegal. You are unlikely in the extreme to be able to do so. Laws that would do so are almost certainly unconstitutional, as they would strip power from the governor in favor of the legislature.

The attempt to remove the DA is a political act. It may be that the governor saw the DA as no longer fit to head an anti-corruption unit, or maybe he's cynically using her conviction to take her out. It's obvious that quite a few members of the public see her as unfit for office. Hell, my wife instantly flip-flopped from abuse of power by Perry to righteous action when she read far enough into the article to see that the DA had been convicted of a DUI.

[Gaidin]

Well that's what makes this subject interesting. We've got people in this very thread that think she should be gone, but we've also got those same people that think Perry abused the veto. But then, that would be the purpose of appointing the special prosecutor, the grand jury, and the indictment, as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand, correct?