Texas Rick Perry Indicted On Abuse of Power Charges

225px-rick_perry_photo_portrait_august_28_2004Late yesterday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was indicted by a grand jury in Austin on charges of abuse of power. The charges stem from Perry carrying out a threat to veto funding the budget for the Travis County Public Integrity Unit, which handles political corruption investigations.

District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had been arrested for drunk driving and was widely criticized for her conduct while in custody. She refused to resign even after been sentenced to jail and Perry carried out his threat. I have been critical of Perry in the past and I believe that his veto was wrongheaded. However, I view the indictment as very troubling on a separation of powers basis and the result of the extension of criminal provisions with tangential applicability to this type of dispute.

This controversy began with the arrest of Lehmberg. Here are the videos from the arrest to booking to holding. Police say that she had to be restrained (the mask was put on her allegedly to protect her identity):

She eventually pleaded guilty and received a 45-day jail sentence under the plea agreement. She served half of that time before being released and then she resumed her work in office.

Perry (and, in fairness, various state groups) called for her to resign. Lehmberg refused. The conflict had, at the outset, obvious political dimensions. Lehmberg is located in the very liberal and very Democratic city of Austin. The governor hails from an extremely conservative part of the state and Lehmberg is one of the few Democratic officials in a major position in the state.

Perry ratcheted up the conflict by giving Lehmberg an ultimatum to resign or he would veto the budget for the office. When the budget came through, he made good on the threat and cut $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County Public Integrity Unit.

Perry was then made the subject of a complaint filed by Texans for Public Justice, a liberal watchdog group. That led to San Antonio lawyer Michael McCrum being appointed the special prosecutor and investigating the matter for months with numerous witnesses called before a grand jury.

The indictment (which can be seen here) is based on two state provisions.

The first (§ 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY) is a statute prohibiting public servants from “intentionally or knowingly . . . misus[ing] 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.” That statute is extraordinarily vague and ambiguous. It is also not clearly intended for this type of conflict where a governor uses his right to veto a budgetary provision, even if his motives are viewed as an effort to replace one of the last Democrats holding a statewide office.

The second (Section 36.03: COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER) law criminalizes the use of coercion to “influence[] or attempt[] to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influence[] or attempt[] to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty.” Once again, the use of this provision is highly problematic in this circumstance. The “specific exercise of his official power or . . . specific performance” in this case would be the resignation from office. That is not likely the intent or purpose of this law. Perry made this threat publicly and openly. He was using (in my view unwisely) the threat of a budget cut to deal with someone that he viewed as a disgrace to her office.

From what I can see, these provisions are rarely used and prosecutors have waited for the strongest possible grounds for such charges. Indeed, such laws are written broadly in reliance on prosecutorial discretion. In this case, the special prosecutor seemed to pound hard to get these square facts into these round holes. A bit too hard for such a case.

Article 4, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution states:

Sec. 14. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF BILLS; RETURN AND RECONSIDERATION; FAILURE TO RETURN; DISAPPROVAL OF ITEMS OF APPROPRIATION. Every bill which shall have passed both houses of the Legislature shall be presented to the Governor for his approval. . . . If any bill presented to the Governor contains several items of appropriation he may object to one or more of such items, and approve the other portion of the bill. In such case he shall append to the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he objects, and no item so objected to shall take effect. If the Legislature be in session, he shall transmit to the House in which the bill originated a copy of such statement and the items objected to shall be separately considered. If, on reconsideration, one or more of such items be approved by two-thirds of the members present of each House, the same shall be part of the law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor.

That is precisely what he did. However, it appears to be the fact that Perry made the threat before the veto that is the basis for the charges. Had he simply vetoed the budget, he presumably could not be accused for coercion since there was no threat. It is the fact that he used the threat of a veto that is being cited as the basis for the charges. If you look at the indictment, the entire office of Lehmberg is being treated as property worth “more than $200,000” and treated as misused given Perry’s oath as governor. The indictment is very short and sheds little light on how or where to draw the line for criminal as opposed to political actions. The case has some disturbing similarities to the trial of Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich who was given a 14-year sentence in a case that I viewed as questionable. It is a cautionary tale for Perry. Blagojevich was hurt by witness testimony and recordings with vulgar and raw exchanges between politicians. It reaffirmed the view of many of politicians are distrustful and a bit sleazy. However, I felt the indictment of Blagojevich dangerously blurred the line between the political and the criminal realms.

In fairness to the prosecutor, we have not seen the evidence, including witness testimony. This includes testimony from the state senator who first went with the message to resign to Lehmberg. That type of testimony can color a case and distract from what may seem abstract arguments based on inherent executive authority. Yet, I view this type of dispute is more appropriately a matter for an impeachment rather than an indictment controversy. I would have serious qualms about an impeachment on this basis alone, but that would be a more obvious route than a criminal charge. Putting aside the partisan passions on both sides, the jailing of a top prosecutor raises a legitimate question of her competence to continue in office. Perry decided to use the one means that he could to try to push her to resign. I think he was wrong given the public integrity role of the office and jurisdiction over state officials like Perry himself. Perry had every right to call for her resignation but to threaten to effectively kill the office was unwise. Yet, none of this supports the indictment in my view. This was not an effort by Perry to coerce a favor for a friend or force an official to drop an investigation. It was not a secret communication made between politicians. It was a public commitment made in response to a public scandal.

I recognize that the threat can be viewed as seeking to force Lehmberg to take an official action — i.e., her resignation — however that seems materially different from what the law was primarily designed to achieve. In the very least, this would seem an area for prosecutorial discretion that the charge in this individual case does not advance the purposes of the provision. As for the first charge, I view it as hopelessly ambiguous and facially unsuitable in this case.

There are significant constitutional concerns raised by this type of indictment. Perry is essentially being indicted for his use of constitutional power to veto an appropriations item. Most people seem to recognize that he could have done this if he had not threatened to do it in advance. That seems to be the determinative factor: that he announced what he would do in advance if Lehmberg did not resign. That does not make for a particularly compelling criminal charge.

In fairness to McCrum, one could foresee such an effort that was based on trumped up charges or no charges at all. If a governor were to announce that an official from an opposing party would have to resign or face defunding of the office, it would present a far more serious issue. From McCrum’s perspective, the difference between that circumstance and the current controversy is dangerously subjective. Perry gave an official a ultimatum: resign or face defunding. Once again, however, that sounds like an impeachment rather than an indictment question. The Constitution gives the Governor the right to strike out an appropriations item and the right of the legislature to overcome that veto. What if a governor objected to an office being used to investigate and prosecute particularly areas of business or society? So long as governors are not engaging in obstruction of justice or seeking to influence a particular case, there is clearly authority to seek defunding of state programs or offices through the budget process. This was not an executive order but an executive veto that is part of the legislative and appropriations process. (Even with what I consider to be executive orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, I still do not believe that they have risen to the point to warrant impeachment)

The U.S. Congress recently took such a step over an official who was denounced by conservatives as an advocate for undocumented persons. Congress passed a bill containing a bar on the use of federal funds to support the work of the “Public Advocate” at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The ban on funding of the controversial positions passed both houses and was signed into law by President Obama. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2013 stated clearly that “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide funding for the position for the position of Public Advocate within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” However, the Administration simply gave the same official a new title and continued the same work, unimpeded by the congressional action. There is now an effort to again seek to defund the entire office.

Governors and presidents routinely seek to defund or cut the funding of offices that they view as unnecessary or abusive. It becomes a matter of legislative and executive debate. Ironically, the greatest concern in Perry’s action would be the effective nullification of the underlying laws enforcing public integrity. However, the legislature can cut such budgets and, under the Texas Constitution, governors are allowed to do so as well (while subject to a veto override). Nullification controversies (like the one involving President Obama in areas like immigration) arise when agencies retain both the authority and budgets to enforce the laws. These are difficult questions to be sure but this dispute occurred in the context of the legislative-executive budgetary process.

In the end, I have great reservations over the use of a criminal indictment in a case of this kind. In the very least, this should have been a matter for the use of prosecutorial discretion in declining a criminal case given the vague or inapposite character of the underlying provisions.

What do you think?

549 thoughts on “Texas Rick Perry Indicted On Abuse of Power Charges

  1. It’s abuse of power by the prosecutor plain and simple. It’s repugnant. A governor with legal veto power threatens to use it to get his way. Like every single president and governor does. Then gets indicted for following through.
    It’s not hyperbole to say this is a threat to the foundation government. If an opposing party prosecutor can prosecute someone for political decisions, this country doomed.

  2. Would Perry have wanted her out of office had she not been investigating political donations from cancer-prevention researchers he favored?

  3. Well, the Republican presidential candidate hopefuls are hitting the canvas one by one, first Scott Walker, now Rick Perry.

  4. People not appalled by this better reexamine themselves, and consider what this means if/when the political parties become reversed.

  5. Since I am a Texan, I think I need to say that Lehmberg is not a state official. She would never be elected statewide. She does have power of running that office that Perry axed, and that does have statewide jurisdiction. The fact is that we have a one party state that has unbounded power and as one Democrat who fought against one party state when Dems were in power, said,, it took nearly one hundred years for the Democrats to become as corrupt as the Republicans have become in a decade.

    The fact is that if Perry cannot be indicted, then any laws against corruption are basically void when one party has such unbounded power. That is the practical effect of exempting Perry. I guess that you must have also felt DeLay should not have been indicted too. How about Justice Thomas committing perjury for a number of years and not disclosing over half a million dollars his wife earned? Will you support impeachment charges against him? If you are concerned about fitness for office, it would seem to be a far more substantial case since Thomas admitted his crime. Then he also refused to recuse himself when he ruled on the Citizens united case despite his wife having a financial interest in that case. I guess that Thomas is above the laws while a lowly DA is not for a simple DUI. By the way, my Rep. Brady, had a DUI, was found guilty, but he is still in office and has been re-elected despite that. So if getting a DUI is indicative of not having the public trust and office, then he should also be asked to leave.

    Of course, Prof Turley did not mention the reason Perry wanted the office gone. Perry has violated the law on awarding millions of dollars from the Cancer Research Fund without proper vetting by others on the board. Those millions have disappeared to some political cronies of his. If this case shines a bigger spotlight on Perry’s corruption, so much the better, but critics like Prof Turley do us a disservice by refusing to give the WHOLE story.

  6. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20140815-editorial-perrys-indictment-damages-governor-and-the-state.ece

    “For a long time, Gov. Rick Perry walked too fine a line between politics and policy. It caught up with him Friday.

    For months, a grand jury has investigated charges that Perry abused his power by going too far in trying to get Travis County’s Democratic district attorney removed from office.

    The DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, pleaded guilty to drunken driving last year, served 45 days in jail and went into treatment. But she refused to resign.

    That wasn’t good enough for the governor. He wanted her out, and when she wouldn’t leave, Perry just couldn’t let it go. Instead, he used his veto power to withhold millions of dollars from the state’s public integrity unit, which Lehmberg oversees and which investigates misdeeds of state agencies and officials. Travis County had to stitch together funds to keep the crucial agency operating on a shoestring.

    It was a terrible policy decision on Perry’s part, smelling of pettiness and partisanship. Now a Travis County grand jury has decided his action might be a crime.

    Of course, an indictment is a long way from a conviction. A judge and jury will have the final say on that.

    Whatever the outcome, the indictment is a dark mark at the end of a gubernatorial tenure that probably went on too long.

    In recent years, Perry has been focused less on governing Texas than on making sure his base understands just how conservative he is. If he had done more governing and less politicking, ousting Lehmberg would not have been a priority and he wouldn’t be where he is today.

    As it is, a special prosecutor and former assistant U.S. attorney from San Antonio brought a case strong enough to get an indictment handed up.

    No one can say what the outcome of this case will be.

    But it’s certain this won’t help Perry’s presidential ambitions.

    The governor has been working overtime to burnish his national image and recast himself as someone other than the guy who answered “oops” to a question during a national debate.

    Now he’s the guy under indictment for abuse of power. That’s even worse.”

  7. The Dallas Morning News is a conservative newspaper. The Cruz campaign was celebrating last night. With Perry out of the way,they expect him to move to numero uno.

  8. As I understand this, he was threatening to defund the office if she didn’t resign and he does have the constitutional authority of line item veto to defund. As for Section 36.03; isn’t this statute to prevent the use of coercion to influence the misuse of official power of office? The Governor’s actions would appear to be to prevent that misuse. He wasn’t coercing her to act to violate the powers of her office but rather to prevent her from that possibility.

  9. RDBrewer there is a threat to veto, which is the right of the Pres and governor, and there is the threat to veto unless you do something I want you to do that is not a part of the bill, or the vote and veto process. That is called blackmail

  10. Governor Andrew Cuomo certainly comes to mind as a comparative case not yet indicted but certainly much more pressure from a public integrity stand point especially concerning personal involvement and quashing investigations.

  11. I have finally seen the videos and while it is obvious that she is drunk on her field test, she in NO possible way could have had that amount of blood alcohol and performed as well as she did in that field test. I think somebody did a little helping on the test of her blood. Then I notice that none of the videos shows her doing what they say she did and the tapes were extensively edited. This is simply a police set up. Then her attorney notes that she got the most sever sentence in the history of Travis County for a first time DUI. So the FACT is that while she was wrong, and guilty, this has been a set up from the get go.

  12. I think I have invented a new term for the Democratic party hacks and shills, here. The “value system impaired ” or VSIs. For them, there is no right or wrong in an independant sense. It all comes down to the political side a person is on.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  13. Leejcaroll, but that “something I want you to do” does not fall under this definition: “or attempt[] to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty.”

    What violation of duty was Perry attempting to obtain?

    In fact, would all of the Partisanship First crowd please answer that question?

  14. The Rick Perry Texas drama reminds me of “Mutiny On The Bounty”. Captain Bligh starts making sense after awhile.

  15. More Randyjet: “while it is obvious that she is drunk on her field test, she in NO possible way could have had that amount of blood alcohol and performed as well as she did in that field test. I think somebody did a little helping on the test of her blood.”

    Randyjet: he can determine BAC at a glance.

    Randy, there’s a point where someone can be so blindly partisan they’re not t adding much to the discussion.

  16. Randy jet, you are aware that all of the invented charges against Tom Delay were dismissed by the appeals court, aren’t you? So to recap, you are either too ignorant to comment on the issues you addressed, or you are a liar.

  17. Randy, she was convicted and sentenced. And that’s not material to her act of political retribution.

    Does the governor have veto authority granted by the state constitution?
    Is the withholding of funds a valid method of exerting control over an agency or department?
    Did Perry act as many other governors act in publicly stating a veto threat?
    Can you still state this prosecution is grounded in law?

    If Perry were a democratic governor, would you still support this action?

  18. After 9/11 I was part of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance which was formed to arm pilots at the airlines. We finally got legislation passed to that effect, but made an error in not specifying HOW to do that. We left it up to the TSA which was a major mistake. The first head of the TSA told our people that we may have gotten the bill passed, but that they would make DAMN sure no pilot would ever want to apply.. They effectively gutted the bill by obstruction and making absurd requirements. That was how W Bush destroyed the bill he did not like or want. I guess that was OK for the Republicans here. So Obama has every right to do as he did in the case brought up in this post.

  19. RD give me money or I will shoot you, Hire me or I will publish those photos you want hidden, resign or I will veto the budget. They sound similar to me,.
    Bailers yes if it was a dem governor and he behaved in way that looks like Blackmail I would support it.
    The partisanship here is astounding and the name calling always at least begins with the right on this site (See Squeeky’s comment, second comment posted on this thread).
    You can be partisan and not nasty and calling names, etc.

  20. Hold the press…. A special Prosecutor was appointed…. They are/were Republican…… If a Republican Special Prosecutor can get an indictment against the sitting governor other things might be going on…..

    Like trying to get him to not run for a presidential bid…. It’s GOP on GOP why should we care?

  21. Randyjet, so when Obama got into office he immediately undid all of the TSA obstructions that kept pilots from being armed? What? Obama didn’t? So why did you vote for him the second time? It must have been the “D” after his name…..

  22. Arizona had a case kinda like this. The guy was convicted for abusing his authority but the appeals court overturned the conviction. However, he had already served his sentence by the time they did it.

  23. leejcaroll, those examples involve a crime. Perry has plenary power to veto.

    “If you don’t fire that person, you will not get my business.” “I will quit this job, if you do not promote me.”

    Those examples might be more apt.

    As far as partisanship goes, I think people who, say, filter information so thoroughly they can estimate BAC by watching a video… well, they need to be told, because it may not have occurred to them.

  24. (can’t recall which post turned into a thread about Ferguson and the Micheal Bronw Killing:
    ACLU has brought 2 suits against the police department:

    The first lawsuit, seeking the Ferguson Police Department’s full report on the police shooting, claims the department’s refusal to release the officer’s name right away and other details of the event violates Missouri’s Sunshine Law, a state law designed to promote transparency and accountability in government affairs.

    The second lawsuit asks the court to block the Ferguson Police Department’s policy of demanding and ordering members of the media and the public to stop recording the police acting in their official duty on public streets and sidewalks, specifically in response to community protests following Brown’s death. According to the complaint, “[D]efendants’ response to the demonstrations has been controversial, including using force, ordering peaceful protestors to disband and evacuate the streets and sidewalks, and ordering protestors and observers to stop documenting and videotaping the demonstrations.” The complaint continues, “[T]here is widespread interest in Defendants’ tactics, which raise questions about whether a military response to the protest is consistent with the values of the United States.”

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/08/15/aclu-missouri-files-two-lawsuits-ferguson-police-department/ )

  25. @leecarrol

    I call them like I see them. The question here is not whether you like or dislike Perry, or whether you are a Democrat or Republican. It is whether or not criminal laws should be used in this circumstance.

    I think HE// NO! and the reason it was is partisan politics.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  26. Dogbert, it is you who has been proven to be ignorant since DeLay WAS charged and found guilty. The conviction was overturned by the partisan judges who found that the statute only applied to cash, not checks. So this hairsplitting voids the entire law against corporations giving cash to political candidates since it makes it virtually impossible to prove violations of the law. I am glad to see you support political corruption. It goes well in your party.

  27. Bailers, I see that you did not read my previous posts. The answer is yes since I quoted Gammage who was instrumental in breaking the power of the Democratic majority in the state to cover up things.

  28. RD I think threatening to withhold monies necessary to the functioning of the government unless you do what I want, not a change in the bill or legislative, but firing someone is on a higher scale then I wont work here unless you fire that person. The person threatening can just walk away find another job so he has options if the action isn’t taken. Perry was willing to hold te cotizens of his state hostage who would benefit from the budget being implemented.

    Squeeky, I am talking about statements like the ‘left and idea of shame is so passé.’, Calling the other side “cultists: etc. It is, to my mind, unnecessary. And I have a feeling you, and I am not singling you out: ,I did your comment because it was immediate,
    Not my pace to decide what is considered civil or not, just pointing it out.

  29. Perry was then made the subject of a complaint filed by Texans for Public Justice, a liberal watchdog group. That led to San Antonio lawyer Michael McCrum being appointed the special prosecutor and investigating the matter for months with numerous witnesses called before a grand jury.” – JT

    What you left out is that the original judge recused herself, so another judge was appointed to the case by the chief judge.

    That judge who heard the complaint is now running for a judgeship on the Court of Criminal appeals as a republican

    Yes, a Republican Judge heard the charges, then appointed McCrum as special prosecutor.

    McCrum has worked for both republican and democratic administrations in Texas.

    KVUE

  30. The Special Prosecuter in the John Doe/ Scott Walker investigation, Francis Schmidt is a Republican, yet accusations of extreme partisanship also came up.

  31. Alright then. We can’t impeach Obama, but I suppose now the template and precedent have both been set. Obama has proudly threatened to use his pen and phone and act alone if congress doesn’t give him what he wants. He wantonly abuses the power of his office. The most bothersome thing is that the GOP always tries to “take the high road” while the left perpetually wallows in muck, without honor, and without care for harm to the public. Time to apply Magruder’s law of warfare.

  32. Randy jet, you had me at “The conviction was overturned”. So I’m right and your demonstration of knowledge about the facts of the case shows that you were attempting to lie (mislead) in your first post. When lying liars lie…..
    Bwah-haw-haw-haw! Loser!

  33. @leecarrol

    I don ‘t mind if you single me out. You ought to say what you think, and if you think I am wrong, then say so. I ‘m certainly not perfect.

    Now as to why I think the left is shameless, that is what I see. I see little honor, and a lot of spin. For example, Obama ‘s alleged excessive power is addressed by counting the number of executive orders. That ‘s shameless spinning. The Hobby Lobby decision was attacked on numerous spurious grounds as a War on Women. Shameless.

    Now look at this thread. Perry is criminally indicted for publically threatening to defund the office of a DWI lawyer? ?? No way that should have gone this route. It would be wrong if it was a Democratic governor. Yet, here comes the “hip hip hooray ” Democratic crowd who miss the whole point. IMHO.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  34. Finally (for a short time being) I find the Professor to be biased righty tighty.

    It is good to see reasonable charges brought (especially when we all know impeac processess arr political).

    We,ve got 100 times worse stuff on CEO Bain Cap Romney; and I , fir one, gsin hope judtice may come – when Untouchables – start being touched.

    How about tbe Moreland Commisdion n Cuomo?

  35. This is an excellent article by Jonathan Turley. We should all condemn the politicization of the criminal process. Democrats who celebrate this should know they could well be on the other side of such a bogus prosecution the next time.

  36. The drunk woman in jail should have been removed from office, and people should have wanted her removed from office. Political party affiliation should not have been taken into consideration. As she was not removed, Perry was right to defund her office. That would have brought pressure to bear on her, she would finally have been forced out as should have happened while she was in jail, and Perry would have immediately sought to have the funding restored. What is happening now is pure politics of personal destruction intended to further weaken civil society. His statement that he would carry out the veto was not a crime, it was an attempt to get her drunken, dangerous DWI self out of office, which was the right thing to do. Had he not followed through on the statement he would have condoned having a drunk DWI danger remain in office after getting out of jail.

  37. I’m amazed anyone could doubt that Lehmberg was seriously intoxicated. In one video she fails a basic sobriety test, proving unable to track a flashlight with her eyes despite repeated attempts. Later she is seen kicking at the door of her detention room, eventually prompting the police to strap her down. She belligerently tells the officers they’re in trouble because her friend the sheriff will take her side. All this stuff is on YouTube; it’s not hard to find. Lehmberg later issued an apology for her conduct and pleaded guilty to DWI. The severity of her sentence reflects her very high blood alcohol content, almost four times the legal limit.

  38. Squeeky I don’t see if from the non rights, at least in this thread. In fact I and I believe someone else said yes I believe it is the right thing even if it was a dem gov.
    To me when you say the dems miss the point that is a problem You cannot have debate when one side (and this happens on both for sure) cannot see past their own viewpoint and therefore the other side is wrong completely, misses the point, etc.
    Debate requires at least a modicum of willingness to see the point of the other guy.

  39. @leecarroll

    If this was Obama being charged for abuse of power, the same people who are cheering for a Perry Perp Walk, would be hollering to high heaven about the criminalization of politics. That is why I say the things I do. It is wrong to use that power against Perry and it would be wrong to use it against Obama for similar situations.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  40. There is nothing criminal about what the pres has done. The right and some of the left do not approve of all he has done, I don’t, many on the ‘left” here has said the same thing but that gets lost in the name calling and to go to the earlier posts you wrote about Muslims, and the refusal to see past the group and what is actually being said and written.

    Obviously a grand jury found there was in Perry’s case. So there is a there there.

  41. Leej, what about when Squeekers here called northern Jews stupid? An across the board condemnation, yet she calls for Honor. I suppose she sees nothing at all wrong in her broad brush condemnation, we shall see her spin shortly.

  42. I suspect that if we held all in positions of political power; be it at the School Board, City, County, State and Federal levels, to the standard that if they promised (threatened) to do or not do something unless something else was done or not done they would face the appointment of a special prosecutor we would have trouble finding enough special prosecutors to handle the workload. All one has to do is pay even cursory attention to the news flow and ample examples present themselves. Saying something is political is absurd on it’s face. Hell, everything that impacts elected officials is political. Such is our current political environment. Some here have called what Perry did blackmail while others might classify it as a promise, which by the way he fulfilled. The difference I suspect depends on ones own views and quite probably would be reversed if the political positions of the person in question were reversed..

  43. Squeeky, just to be clear, as far as responding to you, some of the things you say here on this blog are so outlandish that they just aren’t worth a response.

  44. Danny, DeLay DID break the law against corporations giving donations to political candidates. There is NO question about his guilt at all. The appeals court overturned his conviction since they ruled that a check is NOT cash, and thus he cannot have been guilty of taking money from them since it was a check. Of course, this makes the law void since there is no possible way to enforce such a law without a paper trail which cash precludes for all practical purposes. So thanks for showing all of us you endorse corporate corruption.

  45. JohnO. You get bogged down in Constitutional “preaching”, you’re another commenter that it is sometimes a waste of time to respond to. Some people treat the Consitution like a Holy Writ. It’s pointless to engage such people.

  46. Perry the pretty boy may have other issues to think about….. There are some here that do not want him interfering in another national election….. They blame him for the tea party insurgents….

  47. I have to laugh at all the self righteous GOPers here who think that she should have been removed from office for one DUI. They ALL forget that BOTH W Bush and Cheney had TWO DUIs on their criminal record, but this FACT does not seem to bother them too much. She even got jail time which neither of them did despite them having TWO DUIs. Then Cheney gets drunk and shoots a fellow hunter in the face, and again, NO charges. So why did the GOPers not demand Bush and Cheney leave? Then my congresscritter, Rep Brady, got a DUI while in office, and he was of good enough moral character to keep his job, AND get re-elected. Once again PROVING the GOP only wants the Democrats to be charged and not themselves.

  48. Hey AY;

    Dont let rotten apples spoil the quest. There are others out thete (like you, I, Otteray, Annie etc) who met here and will meet more Non indoctrinated here.

    Stand firm (At least until my briefing scedule at 9th Cir in Haas v Romney – runs it course).

    No matter how ppl spin it, the very fact a Governor was indicted (with merits worthy of jury review)

    Is HUGE!

  49. @annie

    Treating the Constitution like Holy Writ??? Well here in America it kinda of is. And John was right. You hardly ever address any point raised to you, outlandish or not. You seem to state the latest Democratic Party spiel, and then repeat it some more. Like I said before, you seem to be stuck in arguing “symbols”. But rather than castigate you, why don’t we try something positive. Why don’t you tell us, without any anti-Christian nonsense, what your opinion is of interpreting a law criminalizing a governor’s, or President’s, use of his lawful powers. Elucidate for us a principle here that you believe in, regardless of party..

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  50. @Anonymouly Yours

    “If this site is going to be turning to a right wing parlor it might be time to move on…”

    Yes, we sure wouldn’t want you to have retrain your axons to fire in new paths, or for you to have to think new thoughts, would we??? And those echo chambers are sooo comforting, where you can repeat what everybody else is saying, and calling the same names they are calling. Plus, you might get cooties from being on a website with people who disagree with you!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  51. JohnO,
    Who said the Consitution should not be allowed? Why not treat it as what it is, a legal blueprint on how to govern this country? No need to inject theocratic beliefs in it. The judge in the other thread treated it as a legal guide, good for him.

  52. The dictatorship of the proletariat will lie, cheat and steal to dominate.

    The ends justify the means.

    THERE IS RIGHT and there is LIBERAL.

    THERE IS RIGHT and there is WRONG.

    THERE IS FREEDOM and there is SLAVERY.

    THERE IS SELF RELIANCE and there is GOVERNMENTAL DOMINATION.

  53. She shouldn’t be removed for one DUI. That wasn’t the problem. The problem was that she tried to use her position and connections to abuse the power of her office. Watch the video, she keeps asking for Greg (the sheriff), in an attempt to get away with the DUI. Do you really want someone who would abuse the power of their office to be a DA? Obviously, Perry didn’t, and that’s why he wanted her out of office, in my opinion.

  54. If the standard of law is Obama’s actions in office, the Perry’s charges must be dropped.

    See how that works…

  55. sauropod You cannot do math at all. Her BAC was .239 and that is not even close to FOUR TIMES the limit. She only appears to have about around .15 bac according to charts on the effect of various bac levels. I looked at all the videos and NONE of them showed her kicking anything, nor did it show any of the allegations the cops made, plus those videos were extensively edited. So given the fact that her blood level suddenly went sky high after the testing, it is more than likely the cops boosted the test results. I did hear her ask to call the Sheriff, but no threats. Then the excuse they used to put the face mask on is so funny that it is absurd. They said it was to protect her ID. So from all the facts, this was a set up to say the least. So since you had no problem electing and supporting TWO two time losers on DUI charges, Bush and Cheney, you have damn little room to cry.

  56. Another waste of taxpayer money for frivolous political vendettas.
    Nothing in this incident rises to the level of criminal intent or action.
    If arrogance or forceful “persuasion” were crimes, there wouldn’t
    be a politician walking free. The determinative factor should be whether Perry was acting in the best interest of the state (yes) or
    for personal gain (no). In light of the severe illegal activity at the
    border (drugs, MS-13 gangs, human smuggling, etc.) which threatens national security and safety, the government should have
    used its “prosecutorial discretion” to dismiss the flimsy Perry case.
    The fact that this case is being brought at all is more an abuse of
    power than what Perry is accused of.

  57. John Oliver;

    I,m the wrong person to ask such a question. In my suing Romney, Bain Cap. and Goldman Sachs, the laws in our Constitution Never apply.

    3Rd. Circuit stipulated the FRAP dont apply. Bankruptcy chief justice said lying under oath to her (intentionally) 33 times was really no big deal. And the public corruption task force in Los Angeles was shut down and career federal sgents threatened when i found out the U.S. Attorney (Colm Connolly) was actuslly a Romney/GSachs law firm partner. (See L. A. Times”Shake-up roils federal prosecutors).

    The lae doesnt apply in my case of a nobody vs. A wannabe POTUS,

    Thats why i happy to see a corrupt person facing justice.

    Perry is corrupt.

    Cameron Todd Willingham Cass

  58. http://www.leagle.com/decision/19901063793SW2d270_11042.xml/STATE%20v.%20HANSON

    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.

    Id. at § 36.03(a)(1) (emphasis added). Finally, subsection (c) was added to section 36.03:
    (c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence a 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.

    Id. at § 36.03(c).

    An unconstitutional statute can be amended to thereafter make it constitutional. Ex parte Hensley, 285 S.W.2d 720, 722 (Tex.Crim.App.1956). However, the legal effect of these amendments is not now an issue before this court.

    The court acted correctly when it quashed and dismissed the indictments. All points of error are overruled, and the order is affirmed. Because the penal provisions were unconstitutionally vague when applied to Judge Hanson’s alleged conduct, the question of their facial vagueness will not be addressed. Likewise, any question about the penal provisions being overly broad, either facially or as applied to Judge Hanson’s alleged conduct, is not reached.

    MEANS, J., not participating.

  59. She served her time for her personal, not job related, DUI. She is an elected DA and the voters, not the governor, are the ones to decide if she should continue in office. Using the budget to cripple her office in order to force her resignation sounds like coercion to me. It seems that the people of the state are better off with a fully funded office that looks into official corruption, even if it is run by someone who had too many drinks one night. Considering that the special prosecutor and the judge are both Republicans, I don’t see the indictment as political.

  60. If Perry had said nothing and then vetoed the funding, there would be no argument. But since Perry opened his big yap and demanded her resignation OR ELSE, then he appears to have drifted into abuse of power. Unfortunately, I think the prosecution will have an uphill chance of success here.

  61. Too many DA’s think they are above the law, most have violated their Oath of Office on tax payer dollar. A District Attorney must be held to higher standards and must be kept in check by the Grand Jury and the Trial Jury. The prosecutors have changed definitions and have over charged cases to make sure that they get a conviction and they do not care what kind of conviction as long as they do not loose (politics). This is where a lot of bad judges come from. Eyewitness to two trials where the prosecutor had no evidence offered a much lesser charge to get a conviction that the accused took because he could not afford to pay his attorney anymore. Question: If the prosecutor was not convinced of the original charge, why did they proceed?

  62. Incidental needs clarification: Walker in WI, was Dem DA with Grand Jury on fishing expedition went on for 2 years that finally ended up with 2 judges shutting it down and now looking at prosecutorial misconduct by the DA. This is just an extension of the current Fed high level use of govt. to punish political enemies. It is what referent power is all about. The king triggers and the low levels jump to carry it out, curry favor( jobs in/out of administration; grants/funding; favors, sometimes inaction on own problems)…court jester herd mentality abounds with Progs…after all they are collectivists so marching along is SOP. What all of the Obama “phony scandals” are premised on: use of partisans within govt to carry the political dirty water. It’s just the latest means to ends…and precipitated by court decisions or actions that are opposed by Obama administration. Holder’s DOJ/IRS/FBI used IRS, whistleblower spies, deleting emails…all SOP. Right now Holder is claiming Ferguson video of the robbery of shooting victim should not have been released on FOIA request…sound familiar? Most transparent administration from top to bottom. The R Govs were stars of party and bench for upcoming POTUS…these actions by DA’s taint them, bell is rung and damage done. Bottom line: D in front=phony scandal; R in front=DA prosecute must resign demands.

  63. @Annie, an extremist is someone with a strong opinion with which a progressive liberal disagrees, so yes, John is an extremist. Labeling is such an agreeable way to classify someone whom you wish to dismiss. It’s also infantile.

  64. bettykath, seriously, not job related? It’d be my guess she said she’d never been convicted on her employment application. And it would only not be related based on some ridiculous UNION rule. Of course it relates when any employee is convicted of a serious crime. Let’s see, Nixon had a file removed from a file cabinet and it related to his job.

    Newspeak of the Brave New World.

    This country needs to be fundamentally transformed to the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, those which the Founders wrote about and LIVED. This racist/sexist/biased, irrational and incoherent communism/socialism/collectivism/liberalism has got to be fundamentally transformed to the dust bin of history.

  65. leejcaroll – remember there is no defense with a grand jury. Only the prosecutor puts forward their case. A decent prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted by the grand jury if they are half trying.

  66. Steve H, one of your comments have been deleted. After making substantive points, you turn to a personal attack on another poster in violation of our civility rule.

  67. David Gregory was CURRIED as in Ann Curry.
    Rick Perry was DELAYED as in Tom Delay.
    That is what I think.
    Rick Perry is a great governor especially compared to Obama

  68. METRO | Lamar W. Hankins : Rick Perry investigation may have legs
    Posted on May 1, 2014 by Thorne Dreyer
    Did Governor Perry try to strong-arm Rosemary Lehmberg into resigning? Upon reflection,  some of the criminal complaints against Perry may have a legitimate basis.
    By Lamar W. Hankins | The Rag Blog | May 1, 2014
    AUSTIN — When they were first announced, I was skeptical of the criminal complaints lodged against Rick Perry by Texans For Public Justice. I began to get more interested when Perry hired, at taxpayer expense, a $450-an-hour attorney to represent him. When Thorne Dreyer asked me to examine the allegations closely, I agreed to do so. Looking at the four criminal charges made me realize that some of the charges may be reasonable.
    Last summer, Governor Perry threatened to veto funding for the Public Integrity Unit (PIU) of the Travis County District Attorney’s office unless District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg resigned from office. Perry “believed” she had lost the confidence of the people after she behaved atrociously immediately after her arrest and while being booked, pled guilty to DWI, served a 45-day jail sentence, and paid a fine.
    Of course, vetoing legislation and line items in the budget is among the things governors do. Such actions in and of themselves do not constitute criminal conduct. But circumstances can turn otherwise legal behavior into violations of the law.
    The PIU has statewide jurisdiction over crimes involving many state officials who engage in misconduct. When Lehmberg did not resign her elected position, Perry made good on his threat and vetoed the $3.7 million appropriation. After the appropriations veto, the Travis County Commissioners Court provided some funds to keep the PIU operating at a reduced level, and that money was supplemented with some discretionary funds from forfeitures that are controlled by the District Attorney.
    As many newspapers around the state noted at the time, the PIU was investigating misconduct involving one of Perry’s pet projects — the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas — which could have influenced his unhappiness with Lehmberg, along with the fact that she is a Democrat and he is a Republican.
    Texans For Public Justice accused Perry of four criminal offenses provided in Texas statutes: Official Oppression, Abuse of Official Capacity, Coercion of a Public Servant, and Bribery. To understand these accusations, it is not enough to read the plain words of the statutes because the definitions of key words used are different from the common meanings of those words. A third level of inquiry is to look at how the statutes and the words have been interpreted or understood by the appellate courts and the attorney general.
    Official Oppression occurs when a “public servant acting under color of his office,” that is, acting in some official capacity, “intentionally…impedes another in the exercise…of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful.” To be “unlawful,” the conduct must be criminal or tortious (civil wrong-doing) or both.
    It is difficult to understand how Perry’s conduct could be tortious, but it could be criminal. A key to this aspect of the charge would be proving that Perry had been advised by a legal confidant that the conduct was criminal, otherwise he could claim he didn’t “know” his conduct was unlawful.
    Abuse of Official Capacity can be a crime if a “public servant (such as the governor) intentionally or knowingly violates a law relating to the public servant’s office” with the “intent to obtain a benefit.” In this case, “benefit” appears to refer to something that can be measured in pecuniary terms, that is, as an amount of money. I doubt Perry stood to gain money from Lehmberg’s resignation, but even that is possible.
    Coercion of a Public Servant can occur when a person, using coercion (like threatening to withhold nearly $4 million from a public official’s budget), “attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty…or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty.” There is an exception to this conduct if the the person attempting to do the influencing is a member of a governing body. “Governing body” refers to a legislative body, which does not apply to the governor since he is not a member of any governing body.
    Bribery, in one of its forms, occurs when a person “intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another…any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision…or other exercise of discretion as a public servant… .”
    A 39-year old Attorney General opinion issued by John Hill makes clear that a similar bribery statute requires a showing that there was “a representation or understanding that (the public servant) would be influenced in a specific exercise of his official duties.” This became relevant when it was revealed recently that Gov. Perry was willing to make sure that Rosemary Lehmberg would have another position in the Travis County DA’s office if she would resign as District Attorney.
    A 1989 case, Kaisner v. State, applies the bribery statute to a situation closely parallel to this one. The Denton County Sheriff was forced into a runoff in the 1988 Republican primary. An intermediary of the sheriff offered the runoff challenger the position of Chief Deputy in the sheriff’s department if the challenger would withdraw from the race. The sheriff, at his trial for prosecution for bribery, denied having made the offer of a job for his opponent’s withdrawal from the ballot. Nevertheless, the appellate court found that “[t]he decision to withdraw from the runoff would have been the exercise of discretion as a public servant. Under [the bribery statute], the offer of the job was the offer of a benefit.”
    If this report of Perry’s offer of another job to Lehmberg is accurate, it may fit the definition of bribery discussed in the Denton County case. If a grand jury believes it does and Perry is indicted and then convicted of the charge, he might also be found guilty of Abuse of Official Capacity, and (as noted earlier) if Perry knew that his conduct was unlawful, he could be guilty of Official Oppression.
    When the allegations were made, they were referred to San Antonio Senior Judge Robert C. Richardson, who named attorney Michael McCrum as a special prosecutor to investigate whether Perry tried to strong-arm District Attorney Lehmberg into resigning. After concluding his investigation into the matters, McCrum had a grand jury impaneled to hear the evidence against Perry. We are now awaiting the outcome of that grand jury’s assessment of the evidence, which may take several months.
    While I am not saying that Perry is guilty of any of the allegations made by Texans For Public Justice, I am now less skeptical of the charges. McCrum’s investigation could have found sufficient evidence to secure an indictment of Perry and perhaps enough evidence to convict him of bribery and more.

  69. Oh, and for all the supporters of King Obama, this from the Leftist Bible, the NY Times: “[Maliki’s] decision to step aside came after heavy pressure from the United States, which has deployed warplanes in Iraq to target Sunni Islamist militants and suggested that more military support would be forthcoming if Mr. Maliki was removed from power.”

    I’m thinking of asking the Dallas County DA to indict King Obama on charges of abuse of power.

    Mespo, please hurry to post the White House talking points; I want to go to bed early tonight and I need 5 minutes to refute your (Oops! I mean your handlers) spin.

  70. Annie – again you attack the commentor because you cannot adequately respond to their questions. Typical.

  71. AY – it is sad when people think it should be my way or the highway, but if things are getting too far right for you, so long.

  72. randyjet – Bush had quit drinking long before he became President. Cheney was never charged with drinking and shooting, which is an offense and most people do not go hunting with people who are not cold sober.

  73. ARE – a DUI is not a disqualification for running for office, but it is usually a disqualification when in office.

  74. I am a Texan, born and raised. I’ve practiced law for 35 years. I confess I am no fan of the Governor, who is all hat and no cowboy. I believe that his efforts toward the public corruption unit went deeper than the District Attorney’s drinking and confinement. Should she have resigned? Texas law does not require it. She did her time. Now move on. If the people do not believe she is fit, they will take care of that. Similarly, the people, having heard a lot of evidence, decided that a different bunch of people should decide whether the facts warrant a conviction. A trial judge, and likely several afterward, will decide whether under the law, even given those facts, there is a violation. Isn’t that the way our system is supposed to work? Why is a mere indictment a failure of the system? Should we have some tribunal decide first what should be considered by a grand jury and what not? That is the start of a slippery slope. If the Governor is not guilty, or there is not a chargeable offense, the system will take care of that. Until then, the system seems to be working fine. I do not think that the Governor should resign at this point from the indictment (though Lord knows there is over a decade of stuff to warrant that he go). He should honor the system he was elected to protect and deal with his day in court like everyone else.

  75. Local Texas News – Austin

    The judge who appointed the special prosecutor is a republican.

    That same judge is currently running for a seat on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

    The special prosecutor was once made a U.S. Attorney by George H.W. Bush.

    The Grand Jury was convened according to Texas Law.

    What is “political” about this in the sense the “war on whites” mentality of the right-wing troll infestation suggests?

  76. Paul, You don’t think Cheney had enough pull in TX to have the sheriff look the other way? From what I’ve heard about bird hunting, the only way you shoot someone in the face is because you’re drunk or because you intended to shoot him in the face, or both.

  77. Paul C. Schulte

    ARE – a DUI is not a disqualification for running for office, but it is usually a disqualification when in office.
    ==============================
    Not so” “Perry can continue to serve as governor while under indictment. He can also continue as governor if convicted, but he could be stripped of office through a separate legislative removal process.”

    (see my link to Local Texas News – Austin in my last comment).

    The same goes for any elected Texas Official., including the DA who got Perry’s knickers in a knot.

  78. Dredd,
    The Texas grand jury system has been well documented as corrupted. That a prosecutor was able to induct a ham sandwich for being a turkey sandwich doesn’t indicate a crime actual occurred.

  79. Bailers

    Dredd,
    The Texas grand jury system has been well documented as corrupted. That a prosecutor was able to induct a ham sandwich for being a turkey sandwich doesn’t indicate a crime actual occurred.
    ==========================
    The Earth was once flat but librul scientists of the devil made it into a globe.

    Thanks for your detailed information that clears everything up.

  80. Max

    I am a Texan, born and raised. I’ve practiced law for 35 years. I confess I am no fan of the Governor, who is all hat and no cowboy. I believe that his efforts toward the public corruption unit went deeper than the District Attorney’s drinking and confinement. Should she have resigned? Texas law does not require it. She did her time. Now move on. If the people do not believe she is fit, they will take care of that. Similarly, the people, having heard a lot of evidence, decided that a different bunch of people should decide whether the facts warrant a conviction. A trial judge, and likely several afterward, will decide whether under the law, even given those facts, there is a violation. Isn’t that the way our system is supposed to work? Why is a mere indictment a failure of the system? Should we have some tribunal decide first what should be considered by a grand jury and what not? That is the start of a slippery slope. If the Governor is not guilty, or there is not a chargeable offense, the system will take care of that. Until then, the system seems to be working fine. I do not think that the Governor should resign at this point from the indictment (though Lord knows there is over a decade of stuff to warrant that he go). He should honor the system he was elected to protect and deal with his day in court like everyone else.
    ============================
    Bingo.

  81. Your poor jokes and attempts marginalize my comments aside, the grand jury system in Texas is flawed, and extremely one sided.

  82. squeeky – I stay away from small typewriters.:) Thought it was a new Jewish term I had not heard before. Or Yiddish.

  83. The governor doesn’t need to be found guilty. Even the rabid anti republicans here have to know he won’t be found guilty. But the goal of damaging his chances in the presidential election had been achieved. Good job dems, you won.

    I’ll say it again. A governor was just indicted for exercising the legal power of his office. Spin it anyway you want, the prosecutor injected the court system into a political dispute.

  84. bettykath – I come from hunting country, where there a gun accidents frequently enough to know something about them. All it takes is the smallest inattention and you walk into the line of fire. No one I ever hunted with took alcohol with them. That was a serious no-no.

  85. Dredd – this is going to come as a major shock to you, but Vatican scientists knew the earth was a globe long before Columbus. And it was sailors who probably discovered it was a globe rather than scientists since they were familiar with the curvature of the Earth when they were sailing.

  86. Max n Dredd,

    I double down on that Bingo!

    It is amazing that the Prof can remain obtuse (wilfully so) to true issues of verifiable corruption (Haas v Romney or Missouri); and then dare to banter that this (even the lord admits there,s prima facie “technically”) jury worthy case is abuse of discretion.

    Sheeesssh – “I’m supposef to be the unlearned one here!

    Publlleeeaaaasssseee get real. JT!

  87. Bailers

    Your poor jokes and attempts marginalize my comments aside, the grand jury system in Texas is flawed, and extremely one sided.
    ====================
    Yep.

    The 254 Counties that have Grand Juries all All ALL always Always ALWAYS indict “a prosecutor was able to induct a ham sandwich for being a turkey sandwich” in all 254 counties is all they proof you need.

    Who needs evidence in your grand jury inside your mind that is being projected into 254 counties in a rip roaring hilarious fantasy.

    Thanks again for your detailed clarity.

  88. Texas has 254 counties and 254 county grand jury processes.

    Most of them are red-wing.

    Are they only flawed in blue-wing counties or in red-wing counties instead?

    Stop bloviating..

  89. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – this is going to come as a major shock to you, but Vatican scientists knew the earth was a globe long before Columbus. And it was sailors who probably discovered it was a globe rather than scientists since they were familiar with the curvature of the Earth when they were sailing.
    =======================
    I am shocked I tells ya …

  90. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – I was sure that new information was going to interrupt the blood flow in your brain.
    =================
    Ok then, you are not always wrong.

    It was astounding to find out from you that religion is the true science.

    Cheney is not worthy.

  91. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – so, I was right.
    ====================
    You usually type that as “I was so right.”

    That little Jewish Yiddish typewronger got you again.

    If you want to do a question, it goes like this: “Dredd – so, I was right?”

    Whatever, I have to remember you have access to the oldest words on the Flat Earth.

  92. Chuck Norris first put Texas on the map for me, but that all changed with the YFZ raid, when social workers took more than 500 kids away from their parents, with blessings all the way to the governor’s office.   So what if the parents were cohabitating, no differently than some of the social workers?  The YFZ parents, like their children, are trim and healthy from a diet of garden food, not fat slobs like all the social workers who invaded the ranch, subsisting on fast food three times a day.  The YFZ children got sick from the junk food the social workers fed them while in custody.  Texas is a haven for bigots.  They don’t want even Amish, Mennonites or Hutterites in their state, let alone Mormons. Then there is the Texas judicial system, infested with judges like the one who was charged with judicial misconduct, for refusing to keep open past five o’clock a clerk’s office in order to allow a last-minute petition from a man who was executed later that night. One wonders if the judge felt she’d be late for dinner reservations, something obviously carrying higher priority than any human being’s life. And there’s the case of the innocent father who was executed because arson investigators, high school dropouts, didn’t know their arse from arson. And now this fiasco today. Texas is quickly going down the sewer like Washington and so many other states already have. A lot of good has to come out of that state before people will ever see Texas in a positive light again. A good start would be to build a 10,000 person prison to lock up corrupt politicians, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats and social workers.

    Trial by Fire
    Did Texas execute an innocent man?
    by David Grann
    September 7, 2009
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

  93. Dredd,
    I give you credit for having the ability for being insulting and condescending without resorting to sophomoric language.

    Grand juries in Texas, and maybe elsewhere, invite jurors on ride alongs, pr days where they can see SWAT demonstrations, in some cases, have police officers the very departments investigating crimes jury members.

    Please don’t give me more patronizing lines about always and all. The grand jury system is set up to only get the perspective the prosecutor. That’s how Mike Nifong was so successful, that’s how other prosecutors can get indictments that don’t always translate into convictions. I can’t believe your defending the grand jury system as incorruptible.

    And I havent seen you address the substance of my earlier criticism.injecting the courts into a political dispute about the actions taken by power legally granted to the governor. Who’s abusing their power again?

  94. Thanks Samantha;

    CTW,s case sizes up Perry succinctly.

    If you Google Dailykos laserhaas and Willi.gham; you should find other germane links.

    It,s criminal – what they did – to go yhrough e ecuting Willingham.

  95. Oxa
    Well, the Republican presidential candidate hopefuls are hitting the canvas one by one, first Scott Walker, now Rick Perry.
    = = =

  96. Max-1 – Hillary is fading as well. Her book tour was not a tour de force, so to speak. More a tour de horrors.

  97. Max-1 – the question is: is it illegal to do what Perry did, which is clearly within the powers of his office.

  98. I don’t often disagree with Professor Turley, but this issue is an exception. And I admit that my position is based more upon equity and justice than on pure legal analysis.
    Essentially, Rick Perry has held Texans in a vice grip since the turn of the century. He has been the master of crony capitalism and has used his power in especially heinous ways which have invariably rewarded his friends and campaign contributors at the expense of ordinary Texans.
    However, the most abhorrent example of the governor’s repeated manipulation of the system for his own personal benefit involves a gentleman by the name of Cameron Todd Willingham. Mr. Willingham was the defendant who was convicted of murdering his three children by setting his home ablaze, notwithstanding the fact that the prosecutor’s entire case rested on the shifting sands of junk science testimony.
    Mr. Willingham’s post-conviction defense team assembled a cadre of arson experts from all over the country to explain the deficiencies and outright erroneous conclusions of the prosecution’s arson expert’s trial testimony and was prepared to present this evidence to a panel of commissioners who had been appointed for the express purpose of considering his claim.
    So what did Governor Perry do? He fired the commission’s chairman and replaced him with a crony who happened to be an especially malicious and punitive prosecutor. The new chairman in turn dissolved the commission so Mr. Willingham’s new evidence was never heard or ruled upon.
    He was executed shortly thereafter and remains, to this day, the primary example cited by people who urge abolition of the death penalty because of the almost certain probability that an innocent person will be executed some day.
    So I can’t feel too badly for Rick Perry now that his nonstop gamesmanship has finally caught up with him and left him staring straight ahead at two serious felony charges and a possible prison sentence in triple digits.
    During my many years of practicing criminal law, I have often seen criminals get away with committing one serious crime after another only to finally slip up and get convicted of some ticky tack offense that results in as long a sentence, if not longer, than they would have received for the far more serious crimes that they actually did commit.
    I suppose one of the earliest and most illustrative examples of this trend was Al Capone going down for tax evasion and spending the rest of his life in prison after “beating the rap” on God knows how many murders that he was good for.
    Call this phenomenon what you will. Nature stepping in and evening the playing field is probably as good a description as any. Or perhaps the tendency of a gambler’s luck to eventually even out if he stays in the game long enough.
    But I wouldn’t pretend to describe this universal proclivity more eloquently than Dr. King’s unparalleled metaphor,”The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
    So, to summarize, this is one instance where I will leave the fine points of legal analysis and fine tuning to experts like Professor Turley and merely point out that Rick Perry’s arc just took a sudden and severe U-turn towards justice, a turn that was uncommonly and richly deserved.

  99. Nothing says “Great District Attorney” quite like being in a restraint chair with a spit mask on your face.

  100. Samaxe;

    Well put!

    And G-d bless all who cry for justice in the Willingham saga! I concur – much – with the premise that the Governor abused his position too many times. And that this (by the Prof’s own words) potentially valid case could be the Capone-esque deserved end of Mr.Perry!

    (Btw – in my “Haas v. Romney” case, how quaint is it that Civil RICO was signex into Law by Nixon ?

    And {more to the point}

    How apropos is tax evasion to Pitten,s?)

  101. Max-1;

    US Attorney Christie gave his former boss John Ashcroft (who was assisting me at one time)a. $50 million no bid contract.

    Then all the statements by Ashcroft (of corruption in US Bankruptcy courts) began to be redacted from the web.

    Romney = Bain Cap. = Clear Channel Communications = Red McCombs = Blackwater (renamed Academi) who John Ashcroft now works for.

    Christie is rewarded with Governor; where he continues the highest level of RICO corupption known to man.

    In a Hague court, we could put a stol to all this venality.

  102. Bailers

    Dredd,

    Grand juries in Texas, and maybe elsewhere, invite jurors on ride alongs, pr days where they can see SWAT demonstrations, in some cases, have police officers the very departments investigating crimes jury members.

    ….

    And I havent seen you address the substance of my earlier criticism.injecting the courts into a political dispute about the actions taken by power legally granted to the governor. Who’s abusing their power again?
    =============================
    Because you haven’t seen it with those specialized filtering glasses on does not mean it didn’t happen.

    The substance was not there for me to peruse.

    Everyone knows the deck is stacked in Grand Jury proceedings, yet they do not always indict.

    Grand juries have actually indicted the prosecutor upon occasion, instead of the accused.

    But you painted with a brush so wide, implying that all 254 Texas counties have politically corrupt grand juries, it was useless, fact free, bias bloviated hype.

    That is the typical ideological cognition.

  103. Dredd,
    Our it could be the trappings of discussion held on the internet and language choices better suited to short discussion sites rather than a courtroom where one must be precise or risk the opposition focusing on the dirt rather than the forest. But I also suffer from the character flaw that doesn’t allow me to automatically assume malice and ill intent without significantly more evidence than present here. So I guess my bad fir not specifying the exact number of countries or public officials I was referring to.

    I’ll assume however that you’re not prepared to debate the merits of an indictment for exercise of a legally granted power. And the folly of turning a prosecution on an arcane interpretation that a governor is not a legislative body, thus qualifying for immunity from the charges brought in this case.
    Enjoy your Sunday.

  104. samaxe,

    Rick Perry’s deadly “charm”: May have executed innocent man … but dopey press loves his new glasses!
    The evidence keeps building that Texas covered up its execution of an innocent man. Oh well! Isn’t he dreamy?
    JIM NEWELL
    8/5/14
    http://www.salon.com/2014/08/05/rick_perrys_deadly_charm_may_have_executed_innocent_man_but_dopey_press_loves_his_new_glasses/

    Excerpt:
    The Willingham case — which is not mentioned once in Cottle’s lengthy Perry profile — has not aged well. Forensic experts have settled around the conclusion that the fire was not arson and more likely the result of an accident. When Perry was governor, he dismissed last-minute appeals to stay Willingham’s execution. He’s also fired members from and gutted the Texas Forensic Science Commission who’ve cast doubt and tried to hold hearings on the matter.

  105. Darren, I see that you did not view the videos by the TV station in which her lawyer points out the cops said spit mask was supposedly there to protect her identity. The other videos had nothing on them that required her to be restrained. Another problem is that the videos were heavily edited, and even with that. nothing showed up to justify what they were doing.

    As an observer on the outside, my take is that either the cops were being overcautious or were seeking to make propaganda. From what I saw, and from the actions of the cops, I think it is more about propaganda. The initial arrest showed she was obviously drunk, but hardly resisting. Then when they found out who they had, they simply made hay while the sun was shining.

  106. samaxe

    Thanks for articulating so well what I’ve been too tired to articulate (due to a long work week). In the universe of political figures, Perry stands out as someone who is particularly unfit to hold any further political offices other than dogcatcher (and I would feel sorry for the dogs).

    While I’m uncomfortable with the nature of the charges against Perry and don’t disagree with Prof Turley in a legal sense, Perry has earned every minute of trouble he is now going through, in a karma sense.

  107. Elaine – the Supreme Court of the United States has held that being innocent of the crime is not a bar to execution. I am not sure why you are upset with Perry except that Salon is one of the sites you read regularly. If you read Brietbart you would be upset at Harry Reid.

  108. randyjet – if the tapes are heavily edited (as you allege) then you have no idea how much of her abusive behavior was left out. They may have edited for time.

  109. mespo – sessionionism is not a felony, nor is advocating it. Texas has been under 6 flags to begin with, what is one more.

  110. What do I think? Well. It is Texas. There is a Jerry Jeff Walker song called Rednecks:

    We’re Rednecks! We’re Rednecks!
    We don’t know our arse from a hole in the ground!
    We’re Redneck, Rednecks!
    We are keeping the n guys down.

  111. As much bashing as this blog does on politicians; why isn’t there a critique of the people providing legal advice? For instance, did Governor Perry decide to threaten the veto without any legal analysis? I don’t care what side of the debate you prefer; someone’s advising them.

  112. John Oliver

    You question is valid. And Perry might have a valid defense based on advice of counsel. But I am betting that he won’t raise that as a defense if , under Texas law, the assertion of such a defense waives the attorney client privilege as to ALL advice received on that particular matter.

    I think that legal advisors who give “bad” advice when they know or should know that the advice is “bad” deserve strong punishment.

    But at the end of the day, advice is normally not given in a way that requires the client to take one particular course of action. The client exercises discretion and makes a decision. That decision can be criticized based on the manner in which discretion is exercised. Even when criminal charges are not warranted.

  113. BarkinDog – you are aware that the original ‘rednecks’ were union workers who identified themselves by wearing red neckerchiefs.

  114. John wronte “THERE IS RIGHT and there is LIBERAL.
    THERE IS RIGHT and there is WRONG. ” therefore equating ‘liberal’ with wrong.
    As long as you (or anyone) refuse to even think about the other side and that there is room to accept some of their precepts or at least entertain them what is the point of your debate? It is no longer debate and engaging the other person the other side
    You are only talking to others who share your belief. This is why the country is so divided. It has lost it’s ability to debate reasonably and logically or consider that there might be opinions, ideas, actions, different then their own that are legitimate and worth entertaining and discussing, as opposed to “I’m right, you;re wrong and I will keep pressing my opinion. I willrefuse to look at other information presented that might cause me to rethink where I stand or at least understand your position.
    Just occurred to me it is kind of like ISIS. I am right and everyone has to believe as I do.

  115. Paul C. Schulte

    John Oliver – I understand that Texas allows line-item vetoes. He can always threaten a veto.
    ===========================
    If your wife does not nave sex with me I will veto that line item” should alert even you that crime is more nuanced and complicated than “Thu Lahw” of simpletons.

    Texas law defined the crime way back when Perry was still thinking about lynchings.

    The republican judge appointed a prosecutor who was previous appointed federal prosecutor by George H.W. Bush, and who obeyed the federal judge by convening a Grand Jury.

    Now another court will determine the law, and the jury of that court will determine the facts.

    No matter at what school or where you taught hysterical.

  116. correction …

    Paul C. Schulte

    John Oliver – I understand that Texas allows line-item vetoes. He can always threaten a veto.
    ===========================
    If your wife does not nave sex with me I will veto that line item” should alert even you that a crime is more nuanced and complicated than “Thuh Lahw” of simpletons.

    Texas law defined the crime way back when Perry was still thinking about lynchings.

    The republican judge appointed a prosecutor who was previously appointed as a federal prosecutor by George H.W. Bush.

    That prosecutor obeyed the state republican judge and convened a Grand Jury.

    Now, another court will determine the law, and the jury of that court will determine the facts.

    No matter at what school or where you taught hysterical.

  117. leejcarroll,

    “I am right and everyone has to believe as I do.”

    *****

    It’s the same mentality as that of folks who claim that people who disagree with their viewpoint are cultists!!!!!

  118. Bailers

    Dredd,
    Our it could be the trappings of discussion held on the internet and language choices better suited to short discussion sites rather than a courtroom where one must be precise or risk the opposition focusing on the dirt rather than the forest. But I also suffer from the character flaw that doesn’t allow me to automatically assume malice and ill intent without significantly more evidence than present here. So I guess my bad fir not specifying the exact number of countries or public officials I was referring to.

    I’ll assume however that you’re not prepared to debate the merits of an indictment for exercise of a legally granted power. And the folly of turning a prosecution on an arcane interpretation that a governor is not a legislative body, thus qualifying for immunity from the charges brought in this case.
    Enjoy your Sunday.
    ============================
    Debate this:

    If your wife does not nave sex with me and distrubute $50,000 to my bank account I will veto that line item.”

    Is that legal just because a line item veto is legal or is there a line in the sand around the line item veto?

    Can a crime can be committed in concert with the legal use of a line item veto?

    Obviously the coercion is the crime, not the line item veto.

    It is the duty of the jury to determine if the line was crossed.

  119. Sitting in on Hysterical 101 might be an interesting experience Dredd, lol, but nothing one might actually want to learn.

  120. I don ‘t see the “cultist ” tag getting thrown around lightly. It only seems to get used when a person continually makes comments based on their partisan leanings instead of reason and common sense. Like when certain persons use “the war on women” to describe the Hobby Lobby decision, or cheer when Perry gets hit with a criminal charge for abuse of power but holler racism and everything else at the very thought that Obama abuses his power.

    Those of you with good will, and honest hearts, ought to ask yourselves whether you might actually be a cultist. It is never too late to change.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  121. The Texas Constitution clearly and unambiguously gives the governor line item veto authority. No sane reasonable person can possibly construe a line item veto threat as criminal coercion.

    The special prosecutor needs to be shamed and drummed out of public life. People defending the indictment are defending the indefensible. That makes them blindly loyal partisan hacks who don’t care about anything except their team. The only good that can come from this travesty is that the public will see and take note of who the hacks are. Their opinions can then appropriately be discounted to zero in future debates. They will have demonstrated they are in favor of abusing the criminal justice system to destroy a political opponent on trumped up bogus charges. They are not serious people. Their opinions can not be trusted.

  122. @dredd

    Well dredd, Perry didn ‘t hreaten to cut off funding if somebody didn ‘t have sex with him, now did he. The whole point here is the underlying nature of the threat vis a vis the nature of what wss sought.

    You using a threat for PERSONAL gain as an example therefore is both not germane and a little hysterical.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  123. The word “cultist” was being thrown around here by people who could rightfully be seen as cultists themselves, which made it all the more ridiculous. There are certain blind followers of Hillary Clinton called PUMAs. Never did understand that kind of allegiance.

  124. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20140816-perrys-prosecutor-isnt-prone-to-partisanship-say-those-who-know-him.ece “AUSTIN — It didn’t take long for Michael McCrum to become a bull’s-eye for Republicans outraged by the felony charges against Gov. Rick Perry.

    But those who know the 57-year-old McCrum say the sweeping partisan attacks against him won’t stick.

    As the special prosecutor in the Perry case, McCrum is a veteran attorney — and former cop in Dallas and Arlington — who’s been on both sides in legal skirmishes.

    He’s got plenty of fans, both Democrats and Republicans. And his political leanings largely are muted.

    As a federal prosecutor in San Antonio, he oversaw the unit that focused on money laundering, public corruption and criminal tax fraud cases. After 14 years as a private attorney, he’s on the short list of highly sought criminal defense attorneys.

    Among his recent cases: working on the defense team for former Dallas Cowboy Sam Hurd, who pleaded guilty last year to a federal drug charge.

    Solomon Wisenberg, a Washington lawyer who has known McCrum since 1989, when they worked together as assistant U.S. attorneys, said his friend is not partisan.

    Referring to Perry’s indictment, Wisenberg said: “There are people who are politically motivated who are probably happy about it. There are people on the other side who think it must be politically motivated.

    “I know Mike well and I don’t think he would be that way. He is not readily identifiable as a Republican or a Democrat.”

    Gerald Reamey, a professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio, taught McCrum criminal law and procedure.

    “In his personal life and his professional life, there is some evidence that he is a fairly conservative person,” Reamey said. “He was prosecuting high-profile drug offenses. At the same time, he fits well into the criminal defense role.’

  125. samaxe,

    Rick Perry’s deadly “charm”: May have executed innocent man … but dopey press loves his new glasses!
    The evidence keeps building that Texas covered up its execution of an innocent man. Oh well! Isn’t he dreamy?

    But that’s legal. Scalia said so,

    ” But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum”
    (Bet that insignificant person or two didn’t find it insignificant.)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1170.ZC.html

    “This court,” Scalia pointed out, “has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/08/18/scalias-death-row-lunacy.html

  126. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    Well dredd, Perry didn ‘t hreaten to cut off funding if somebody didn ‘t have sex with him, now did he. The whole point here is the underlying nature of the threat vis a vis the nature of what wss sought.

    You using a threat for PERSONAL gain as an example therefore is both not germane and a little hysterical.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
    =================================
    The issue is did he coerce an elected official, which would be an abuse of his power, under Texas law?

    The method of coercion does not have to be illegal.

    The fulcrum is not the lever, this is probably why there are two words to describe them.

    Like coercion and veto.

    Neither an illegal fulcrum nor a legal fulcrum is a lever.

    Like I said, nuance is difficult for some folk.

    Stick to the Irish poetry.

    Or quote some cases.

  127. Squeeky, get it right, I’m rabid anti-fundamental of any stripe. I have nothing at all against run of the milll Christians, Jews or Muslims.

  128. Dredd,
    We’re you still asleep when you wrote that? I’m not even sure where to begin pointing out the flawed logic employed here.I’ve had more reasoned arguments with my kindergartener.

    I can’t imagine a situation where any state executive would have the ability to use his office for personal gain like you so amusingly suggest. Perry however does have the legal authority to veto funding line items. Your scenario would never be legal.

    Would you also suggest that police officers can be tried for coercion by threatening arrest if a drug dealer doesn’t become informant or give cooperation? You sure seem to be.

    Your hatred for Perry is coloring your legal and logical analysis.

  129. Annie, I’m glad you understand nuance so much better than the rest off us, now let’s work on plain language.

    (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.

    Not seeing much nuance here, unless you don’t believe the governor a member of a governing body.

  130. @dredd

    Sooo, you are arguing that “coercion” is of the free-floating cosmic sort??? My goodness, under that analysis any state supervisor who tells an employee “Start getting your @ss to work on time or you’re fired!” is guilty under the same law. Not to mention, any issue of constitutional vagueness.

    Once again, that is the whole point here. It is the nature of the coercion. The coercion and its nature go hand in hand, which is why people are looking fish-eyed at the Perry indictment, (except for the cultists, who can’t see past “Yea, they got Perry! Maybe they’ll get Walker next!” etc.)

    That is why your example stank. You substituted an object of personal gain into the example which would clearly be against the law. If you wish to argue cosmic coercion, then pick better examples that relate to Perry.

    And, since you asked for an Irish Poem

    Dredd Locks???
    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    There once was a poster named Dredd.
    Whose example left lots to be said.
    He used quid pro quo.
    He shouldn’t have though,
    When sine non qua is better instead.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  131. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    Sooo, you are arguing that “coercion” is of the free-floating cosmic sort??? My goodness, under that analysis any state supervisor who tells an employee “Start getting your @ss to work on time or you’re fired!” is guilty under the same law. Not to mention, any issue of constitutional vagueness.

    ==================================
    Not really squeeky, coercion is defined as:

    Coercion

    The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.” (Legal Dictionary)

    1. psychological pressure (yes, psychological pressure was used)
    2. physical force (no, physical force was not used)
    3. threats (yes, threat was used).

    The three methods do not have to be illegal in and of themselves. There is legal psychological pressure, legal physical force, and legal threat.

    It is just that none of them, even though legal alone, can be done “to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will” that the individual did not have to do.

  132. @dredd

    Well, legal dictionaries are nice, but let’s look at the specific Texas law from the link in the article:

    (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.
    – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/36/36.03#sthash.yBTXKu4M.vyQZD6QM.dpuf

    Now, under this statute, if read in a cosmic sense, if a voter calls up the mayor and says “if you don’t quit euthanizing animals at the shelter, I am never voting for you again!”, then the voter is guilty.

    Sooo, you are kind of left with a choice. Read the “coercion” as cosmic coercion and you have plenty of potentially bad results. Therefore, I submit, that the object of the coercion, and the means, are of tantamount importance and part of the essential nature of the definition. Not to mention, once again, issues of constitutional vagueness. You can not reasonably just separate “coercion” from the mix.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  133. Bailers

    ME: Debate this:

    “If your wife does not nave sex with me and distrubute $50,000 to my bank account I will veto that line item.”

    Is that legal just because a line item veto is legal or is there a line in the sand around the line item veto?

    Can a crime can be committed in concert with the legal use of a line item veto?

    Obviously the coercion is the crime, not the line item veto.

    It is the duty of the jury to determine if the line was crossed.
    ————————————————————–
    YOU: Dredd,
    We’re you still asleep when you wrote that? I’m not even sure where to begin pointing out the flawed logic employed here.I’ve had more reasoned arguments with my kindergartener.

    I can’t imagine a situation where any state executive would have the ability to use his office for personal gain like you so amusingly suggest. Perry however does have the legal authority to veto funding line items. Your scenario would never be legal.

    Would you also suggest that police officers can be tried for coercion by threatening arrest if a drug dealer doesn’t become informant or give cooperation? You sure seem to be.

    Your hatred for Perry is coloring your legal and logical analysis.
    ==================================
    Wow, from kindergartener to hatred in one textual blast of nonsense.

    Now that we have debated one count, let’s focus on the other.

    It has nothing to do with a line item veto.

    The first count of the two count indictment is his illegal use of funds that had not been vetoed.

    Specifically, $200,000 had been approved by the legislature and signed by the governor prior to the next budget where the whole shebang was line item vetoed.

    Those funds by law were already appropriated to the Public Integrity Unit before the budget that got the line item veto had arisen.

    That count charges him for absconding with those funds and using them for something else.

    The charge is that Gov. Perry “intentionally or knowingly misused government property by dealing with such property contrary ot an agreement under which defendant [Perry] held such property or contrary ot the oath of office he took as a public servant, such government property being monies having a value of in excess of $200,000 which were approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to fund the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, and which had come into defendant’s [Perry’s] custody or possession by virtue of the defendant’s office as a public servant, namely, Governor of the State of Texas.” (Indictment, Count I).

    In other words, that budget money was from an previous time, and was not the monies involved in the line item veto.

  134. Oh, and something else. Since a weekend blogger was nice enough to do an article about prior alleged bad police acts in Ferguson, Mo., could a weekend blogger here do a similar article about the indictments against Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom DeLay???

    Because if the Ferguson, Mo. article is relevant, wouldn’t prior politicized indictments in Texas be relevant, too???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  135. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    Well, legal dictionaries are nice, but let’s look at the specific Texas law from the link in the article:

    (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;

    ===============================
    It has nothing to do with voters, so I ignore your Irish poem on that part of it.

    I gave you the definition of “coercion” because the law requires “means of coercion,” as the operative dynamic.

    Thus, one can’t grasp the meaning of that law if one does not understand what “coercion” is.

    Along with that goes:

    “… attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power …” (that includes coerced resignation, which would leave the elected office vacant, mandating an expensive special election process, or the Governor benefiting himself by replacing her)

    or

    “… attempts to influence a public servant in… 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 …”

    How that is done is irrelevant.

    Two methods were used, line item veto, and absconding with $200,000 still remaining from the previous budget and not subject to line item veto.

  136. Blindly partisan political hacks won’t care, but former law professor and Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz – who describes himself as a “liberal Democrat who would never vote for Rick Perry” – has joined the ranks of the sane in denouncing this grotesque abuse of prosecutorial power. Dershowitz says, “Everybody, liberal or conservative, should stand against this indictment.” He also correctly uses words like “dangerous” and “outrageous” in denouncing it.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dershowitz-perry-indictment-outraged/2014/08/16/id/589179/

  137. @dredd

    I have given you two examples, and an Irish Poem, of how the law could be logically misread, and how any INTELLIGENT reading of the law requires an examination into both the object and means. You persist in reading coercion in the “cosmic” sense. Oh well, to each his own. Fortunately, many people have the ability to make better choice, such as Alan Dershowitz:

    —————

    “This is another example of the criminalization of party differences,” said Dershowitz, a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law who writes the “Legally Speaking” column for Newsmax. “This idea of an indictment is an extremely dangerous trend in America, whether directed at [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay or [former President] Bill Clinton.”

    Further, Dershowitz said, such indictments are something that’s done in totalitarian countries and should not be done in the United States.

    In such countries, “if you don’t like them, you indict,” Dershowitz said. “In America, you vote against them…this should be up to the voters. There is no room in America for abuse of office charges, and this has to stop once and for all. This is a serious problem.”

    Dershowitz also told Newsmax Perry was well within his rights when he vetoed the money for Lehmberg’s office, as he “saw a drunk serving as DA” who “shouldn’t be enforcing criminal law.”

    Dershowitz believes Perry will be acquitted, and the indictment will become an embarrassment to those involved.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dershowitz-perry-indictment-outraged/2014/08/16/id/589179/

    ————

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  138. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    … Since a weekend blogger was nice enough to do an article about prior alleged bad police acts in Ferguson, Mo., could a weekend blogger here do a similar article about the indictments against Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom DeLay???

    =============================
    Suffice it to say that a jury of DeLay’s peers convicted him of crimes.

    Judges subordinate to his ideology (activist conservative judges) un-convicted him by saying the jury was not as savvy as them.

    Activist judges trump juries some times, singing “We don’t need no stinkin’ juries.”

  139. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    I have given you two examples, and an Irish Poem, of how the law could be logically misread, and how any INTELLIGENT reading of the law requires an examination into both the object and means. You persist in reading coercion in the “cosmic” sense.
    ==============================
    You have not addressed Count I.

    Count II is the only one where coercion is part of the statute.

    You be a cosmic comic.

    And really full of it.

  140. Alan Dershowitz wrote an essay advocating that U.S. courts should give torture warrants that allow police to torture suspects.

    His constitutional wisdom soured, rotted, and then puked on us.

  141. @dredd

    Prof. Turley adequately disposed of Count I, above. I saw no reason to supplement his response, which was:

    “That statute is extraordinarily vague and ambiguous. It is also not clearly intended for this type of conflict where a governor uses his right to veto a budgetary provision, even if his motives are viewed as an effort to replace one of the last Democrats holding a statewide office.”

    Also, your Dershowitz Response is rather puerile. The “I dismiss X as a source, because he/she/it once said “fill in the blank” is sophomoric and laughable. Like Dershowitz, or not, he has paid his dues, and should be given some credit for opinion. If you disagree with his conclusion, then you should say so. If, in opposition, you believe the following:

    This idea of an indictment is NOT an extremely dangerous trend in America, whether directed at [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay or [former President] Bill Clinton.

    then just say so.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  142. Newsmax is right wing biased (Why Dershowitz writes for them loses him credibility points in my mind)
    and he advocates for torture:
    “Moreover the rights of the suspect would be better protected with a warrant requirement. He would be granted immunity, told that he was now compelled to testify, threatened with imprisonment if he refuses to do so and given the option of providing the requested information. Only if he refused to do what he was legally compelled to do – – provide necessary information which could not incriminate him because of the immunity – – would he be threatened with torture. Knowing that such a threat was authorized by the law, he might well provide the information. IF HE STILL RUFUSED TO, HE WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO JUDICAILLY MONITORED PHYSICAL MEASURES DESIGNED TO CAUSE EXCRUCIATING PAIN WITHOUT LEAVING ANY LASTING DAMAGE (caps mine) A sterilized needle underneath the nail might be one such approved method. This may sound brutal, but it does not compare in brutality with the prospect of thousands of preventable deaths at the hands of fellow terrorists. ”

    Ah yes cause excruciating pain but leave no lasting damage. Obviously he luckily has never experienced excruciating pain. I have, and continue to, and even though a major part of the pain has been resolved I fear every day, 16 years after it stopped, that it will come back. It may have been someone else causing the pain but it never leaves you. (I know a victim of spousal abuse torture (her doctors called it such) She has had bad psychiatric problems ever since.

    Dershowitz used to be a trustworthy go to guy. Now, not so much

  143. Dredd,
    “It has nothing to do with a line item veto.
    The first count of the two count indictment is his illegal use of funds that had not been vetoed.”

    I have seen no one else claim that count one is unrelated to the line item veto. Count one is related to the actual veto. Count two is for the threat to do so. I don’t know where you are getting the information otherwise.

    Count one is claiming that since the legislature appropriated in excess of $200,000, and the governor vetoed it, he “stole” it. A very difficult claim to make in light of the legal line item power, and that the governor hardly had control over the money.

    I really, really don’t understand how you are reading that to say the governor took money from a previous budget, and spent it on something else. And that the veto is completely unrelated. Because that’s not what the indictment says at all.

  144. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    Prof. Turley adequately disposed of Count I, above. I saw no reason to supplement his response, which was:

    “That statute is extraordinarily vague and ambiguous. It is also not clearly intended for this type of conflict where a governor uses his right to veto a budgetary provision, even if his motives are viewed as an effort to replace one of the last Democrats holding a statewide office.”
    ==============================
    Show me where Count I has anything to do with a line item veto.

    Count one sets the date of offense as June 14, 2013.

    Lehmberg’s arrest was on April 12, 2013.

    It says he redirected funds that had been appropriated and were in his possession and control, but were for The Public Integrity department of the county.

    If it involved a line item veto there would be no money appropriated, so perhaps we need to take another look at that one.

    Any guesses?

  145. Bailers

    Dredd,
    “It has nothing to do with a line item veto.
    The first count of the two count indictment is his illegal use of funds that had not been vetoed.”

    I have seen no one else claim that count one is unrelated to the line item veto. Count one is related to the actual veto. Count two is for the threat to do so. I don’t know where you are getting the information otherwise.

    Count one is claiming that since the legislature appropriated in excess of $200,000, and the governor vetoed it, he “stole” it. A very difficult claim to make in light of the legal line item power, and that the governor hardly had control over the money.

    I really, really don’t understand how you are reading that to say the governor took money from a previous budget, and spent it on something else. And that the veto is completely unrelated. Because that’s not what the indictment says at all.
    =================================
    The line item veto of the department’s budget was over $7,000,000 …

    Count one mentions $200,000 of government property, money.

    The $200,000 was in his possession and control, therefore not vetoed or it would not exist.

    A line item veto of a budget item means that the money is not appropriated, thus non-existent, and therefore not in anyone’s possession.

  146. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    Prof. Turley adequately disposed of Count I, above. I saw no reason to supplement his response, which was:

    “That statute is extraordinarily vague and ambiguous. It is also not clearly intended for this type of conflict where a governor uses his right to veto a budgetary provision, even if his motives are viewed as an effort to replace one of the last Democrats holding a statewide office.”

    Also, your Dershowitz Response is rather puerile. The “I dismiss X as a source, because he/she/it once said “fill in the blank” is sophomoric and laughable. Like Dershowitz, or not, he has paid his dues, and should be given some credit for opinion. If you disagree with his conclusion, then you should say so. If, in opposition, you believe the following:

    This idea of an indictment is NOT an extremely dangerous trend in America, whether directed at [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay or [former President] Bill Clinton.

    then just say so.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
    ============================
    Ok, ok.

    Without addressing your apologetic and diversion away from his diseased mind in general, let me say: Dershowitz is wrong on the Gov. Perry Indictment.

    It is Texas statutory law, not federal constitutional law that applies here..

    P.S. At this time he also really, really sucks at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment U.S. Constitutional law (Why Trial By Jury?).

  147. Dredd, money appropriated by the legislature are never in possession of the Governor. But since you asked:

    Count 1 of the indictment lists the harm as occurring on or about June 14, 2013. From a press release from the Governor’s office dated June 14, 2013:

    Article IV – The Judiciary

    Judiciary Section, Comptroller’s Department

    D.1.4 Strategy: PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT, $3,742,829 $3,830,597
    TRAVIS CO & UB
    Public Integrity Unit, 53rd Judicial District.

    Despite the otherwise good work the Public Integrity Unit’s employees, I cannot in good conscience support continued State funding for an office with statewide jurisdiction at a time when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public’s confidence. This unit is in no other way held accountable to state taxpayers, except through the State budgetary process. I therefore object to and disapprove of this appropriation.

    http://governor.state.tx.us/news/veto/18674/

  148. Texas Governor Perry had the power to VETO and to inform any and all of his intent to veto. Clearly, criminals convicted of DUI should not hold positions of public trust and a request to resign would be submitted by all elected officials at all levels and must be considered standard policy and protocol.

    Perry should declare Marshall Law and incarcerate the DA and Grand Jury for abuse of power and perpetrating an egregious perversion and travesty of justice. Marshall Law may be declared in response to an “act of God” which this usurpation by the radical democrat party is. Exercising his power under Marshall Law, Perry should declare this indictment a criminal act and null, void and entirely without force.

    Further, a Special Prosecutor should be enacted by Congress to investigate a conspiracy to falsely incriminate Governor Perry involving Travis County, the Justice Department and the White House.

    This usurpation of power is not tenable.

    This preposterous act will NOT stand.

  149. Can’t say whether impeachment or indictment is warranted. However, Turley apparently has ignored a salient fact worthy of consideration. Regardless of her DWI conviction, Lehmberg does not work for Perry, but is an elected official in Travis County. Perry, or any Texas governor, does not have any legitimate or constitutional right to fire Lehmberg, or any other elected official, from her job. Clearly his threats to withhold funding were a form of coersion to remove Lehmberg from office, where Perry otherwise did not legally have that power. Therefore, it appears Perry has attempted to unlawfully coerce or force Lehmberg to resign under threat of withholding funding. Perry’s alleged crime occurred even before the veto was ever executed and attempts to cloud the issue by focusing on the veto itself miss the point of the indictment completely. This attempt at coercion by Perry and threat is the subject of the indictment and we shall see how the courts handle that.

  150. @dredd

    I don’t give a flip whether you “like” Dershowitz or not. If you think he is wrong on this, then say so, don’t just skirt around the issue by dissing Dershowitz. So, here is a direct question for you.

    Do you think that criminalizing uses of executive power, such as the instant example of Perry, is a good thing, or a bad thing?

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  151. Bailers

    Dredd, money appropriated by the legislature are never in possession of the Governor. But since you asked:

    Count 1 of the indictment lists the harm as occurring on or about June 14, 2013. From a press release from the Governor’s office dated June 14, 2013:

    ======================================
    Like I wrote upthread, quoting the indicment text, not the news media, it says:

    The charge is that Gov. Perry “intentionally or knowingly misused government property by dealing with such property contrary ot an agreement under which defendant [Perry] held such property or contrary ot the oath of office he took as a public servant, such government property being monies having a value of in excess of $200,000 which were approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to fund the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, and which had come into defendant’s [Perry’s] custody or possession by virtue of the defendant’s office as a public servant, namely, Governor of the State of Texas.” (Indictment, Count I).

    Go figure.

  152. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    I don’t give a flip whether you “like” Dershowitz or not. If you think he is wrong on this, then say so, don’t just skirt around the issue by dissing Dershowitz. So, here is a direct question for you.

    Do you think that criminalizing uses of executive power, such as the instant example of Perry, is a good thing, or a bad thing?

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
    =====================================
    Dershowitz and Perry are cut from the same cloth.

    Their concept of justice and the constitution is based on partisan wrong-wing culture.

    Fully explained up-thread in comment after comment.

  153. Perry VETOED, therefore he had the power to veto.

    Perry informed and suggested.

    There are consequences to being convicted of a felony.

    Political reality may intimidate, the bearer of bad news does not.

    Case dismissed.

    Charges filed: Egregious abuse of power by Travis County DA and Grand Jury.

  154. John, I like your contribution since it shows the ignorance and stupidity of those who are defending Perry. First off, I see that you have no problem with supporting and voting for W Bush and Cheney who are TWICE convicted DIUs which in some states makes them felons. Then my GOP Congresscritter, Brady, was arrested for a DUI, and was re-elected despite this. Of course we all understand that you mean this rule should only apply to those you hate.

    Then I get a laugh out of your use of MARSHALL LAW. The correct term is martial law. I know of no provision in the US Constitution which allows the Governor or President to declare martial law except in cases of invasion or civil insurrection. Maybe you could show me where in the Texas Constitution the Guv can declare himself dictator, which is exactly what you and the other supporters of Perry would like to see.

    Then you do not know that it was a GOP judge and a GOP special prosecutor who came up with the indictment, NOT the Travis County DA. I think you need to demand that these people be expelled and jailed by the GOP for treason to your party. Maybe you can convince them to have them shot too. Stalin and Hitler would be proud of you.

  155. John

    Perry VETOED, therefore he had the power to veto.

    =====================
    He also did not VETO, therefore he had the power not to veto.

    Pull up your pants now and move on.

  156. “we have not seen the evidence, including witness testimony”

    Its disappointing to see so many superficial stories re Perry’s indictment
    The guv was indicted by a grand jury who heard evidence by a special prosecutor.
    My hard drinking DA, had nothing to do w/ perrys indictment
    unless she was in fact offered a >well paying job as a condition of her resigning.
    & u might remember the expression
    “its not the crimes, its the coverups”
    from the TexasObserver.org

    the Public Integrity Unit was in the process of conducting an investigation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. CPRIT received a ton of money from the Legislature to award grants to high-level medical research projects. The problem: a lot of that money was going to people who shouldn’t have gotten it. And some of those folks had close ties to Perry. Just a few months ago, Lehmberg’s office indicted CPRIT’s former director over his allegedly improper disbursement of an $11 million grant. But when Lehmberg got pulled over (she’d already stopped in a church parking lot after hearing sirens) with the potato juice (vodka) in her car (open bottle on the front passenger seat) last spring, the investigation was just underway.

    The best news is that Perry wants a ‘speedy trial’ so he can run for el presidente

  157. Paul,

    Turkey has blasted Obama for use if the Executive Order. Obama does not have line item veto. Perry as governor has line item veto. He used his office as an effort to extort a favor for a misdemeanor. It was not his call. This is another one of those separation of power issues. The executive stuck it’s nose in a pure judicial role.

    That’s the hypocritcy I see. Turley is turning extreme right.

  158. I see JT threw the beleaguered liberal cultists a bone w/ some red meat on it. It won’t stop the whining.

  159. Dredd –

    The republican judge appointed a prosecutor who was previous appointed federal prosecutor by George H.W. Bush, and who obeyed the federal judge by convening a Grand Jury.

    This is not a federal case.

  160. Dredd – I did not call you on this before but since you used it again, I will.

    “If your wife does not nave sex with me and distrubute $50,000 to my bank account I will veto that line item.”

    This is known as the reductio ad absurbum fallacy. It really would be nice to see you argue without using a fallacy.

  161. Dredd – using your analysis of the law, Janet Napolitano would be in jail in Arizona and would be buried so deep she would be sucking sunshine through a straw. Janet swept the funds of various organizations to make up the budget shortfall when the recession hit. She really did not have the authority to do it and still doesn’t (although she is Chancellor of the Univ of Calif. which is punishment enough).

  162. Horny Black,

    Marshall Law was good enough for Marshall Dillon. It’s good enough for me.

    The head felon in Travis County falsely and conspiratorially indicted the

    opposition governor. To what degree is that erroneous?

    Looks like everybody’s firing from the hip.

    Congress should investigate Travis County, the Attorney General and the

    President for involvement in the conspiracy to falsely implicate Gov. Perry.

    Oh yeah. Put that DUI on my resume – a resume enhancer.

    I know! Let’s ask MADD what it thinks of a convicted felon, public endangering

    drunk driver as DA of Travis County, Texas.

    The inmates have taken over the asylum.

  163. Still no takers on this question?

    “Will any of you attempt to explain why withholding IRS tax credits for the “non-state” ACA exchange enrollees or the individual mandate ARE NOT coercion but Perry’s actions ARE?”

    There must be a reasonable explanation among available among this group of legal contributors.

    Anyone?

  164. Jonathan, I always have thought you were fair, but your bias is showing. The reason she had the face mask is because she was spitting or biting. Also, I have read that her law license was suspended for 180 days. Austin attorneys have abused their powers several times. Tom Delay, Kay Bailey Hutchins. I think Perry was not going to let an irresponsible person in charge of 8 million.

  165. Let me try this a different way:
    Is the “incentive” for IRS tax credits meant to COERCE or BRIBE, the States into setting up an exchange.

  166. Dredd – Alan Dershowitz has forgotten more about Constitutional Law than you will every learn if you live to be 100. Painting with a broad brush there to put Dershowitz and Perry together.

  167. Jayne, Since I am a Texan, I need to respond. If you look at the videos she is not shown doing any of those things, and the cops said it was to try and hide her identity, so even the cops did NOT say that was the reason. From what I understand her license was unaffected since she plead guilty to a misdemeanor. If you think getting a DUI shows a person unfit for public office, then explain why TWO guys who got a total of FOUR DUIs between them, Bush and Cheney were entrusted with the powers of office. Bush even managed to get arrested in New Haven for drunk and disorderly too. Cheney even shot a fellow hunter in Texas after having a liquid lunch and was not charged while he was in office. My Congresscritter Rep Brady got a DUI and was re-elected in spite of that. So how about YOUR bias and hypocrisy?

    As for DeLay, he was convicted on the evidence, and his conviction was overturned by a bought and paid for Appeals court. Their rational was that a check is not considered cash, so he was not laundering money even though he clearly violated the Texas law against corporate political contributions. Such an opinion effectively voids the law since corporations can now pay politicians by check and not violate the law according to this court. I am glad to see that you support good government and are validating the old saying that we have the best politicians money can buy. So to have you complain of people not being fit to serve because of DUIs is a bit much.

  168. John I will make is simple for you. Remember the speed limit legislation and the drinking age law? Remember how this was accomplished? They coerced the states by saying that highway funds will be withheld unless the states pass the required legislation. Think that was also illegal coercion? By the way, this was not vetoed as a threat by the President. Now if he had said, I will withhold highway funds from this one state unless they elect the person I want, then THAT would qualify as being an illegal act.

  169. You’re right randyjet, that was fairly simple. Thx

    So (hypothetically speaking) when the Feds say they will withhold tax credits for any State that declines to setup an Exchange but they will make them available for States that agree to setup an Exchange, then that would be illegal?

  170. randyjet – how is it that you know the appeals court that overturned the Delay convictions was bought and paid for? How do you know it was not the original judge, jury and prosecutor?

  171. John Oliver

    I’m not going to discuss Rick Perry’s actions in any detail, mainly because I am not familiar with Texas law. But I will discuss the IRS regulations. Those regulations were promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. That act requires that certain procedures be followed, including publishing proposed regulations in the federal Register and allowing public comments. The regulations, once finalized, can be judicially challenged in federal court. I’m fairly certain you can learn a lot about the APA using Google.

    Lots of people in IRS and Treasury are involved in proposing and finalizing regulations.

    I’ve been involved in high stakes litigation where my client was challenging the validity of IRS regulations, both because of what we believed were procedural violations of the APA and because we believed that the regulations were in conflict with the statute. So I’m familiar with the APA. (The case settled. These types of cases are difficult for plaintiffs to win. I’m not going to comment on the current split in the Circuits regarding the ACA credits. )

    I suspect that that the process by which Perry took the actions which have landed him in legal peril is not at all like the process set forth in the APA. For whatever that is worth. The ACA regs may or may not be valid, and Perry’s actions may or may not have been legal.

    But I’m going to get a large bowl of popcorn and sit back to watch the entertainment in Texas. It probably won’t be as exciting as watching Blago self- destruct in Illinois but you never know.

  172. –‘She couldn’t have that BAC because she is standing up and intelligible’

    Someone obviously knows nothing about advanced alcoholism where an alcoholic can seem nearly sober with a high BAC.

    –‘Perry can veto, but he can’t threaten to veto’

    Yeah, that makes eminent legal sense.

    See the section of Texas law which covers negotiations and ‘politicking’ not being considered threats and extortion.

  173. Don de Drain,
    Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will certainly follow your recommendation. Somehow I’m certain to find myself frustrated by what the APA’s intentions were and how it’s reconciled with 2000 page pieces of legislation and the regulations to follow.

    I hear a lot from people that want to simply describe this as how the sausage is made. I doubt the sausage in 1946 was anywhere near the size they’re cooking up today.

  174. —-From what I understand her license was unaffected since she plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

    How about being honest about this?

    Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg has been sentenced to jail for 45 days, and her license will be suspended for 180 days, after pleading guilty to driving while intoxicated and an open container violation.

    http://www.khou.com/story/local/2014/08/17/12020760/

    and in the videotapes she drunkenly acknowledges that this is a career ending offense.

  175. Red,How about being intelligent? The article stated her DRIVERS LICENSE was suspended for 180 days. Then you lie about the fact that the cops said they placed the mask on to protect her ID. If she had hit the officers, or kicked them, she would not be facing just a DUI. So you fail all the tests for credibility.

  176. […] District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had been arrested for drunk driving and was widely criticized for her conduct while in custody. She refused to resign even after been sentenced to jail and Perry carried out his threat. I have been critical of Perry in the past and I believe that his veto was wrongheaded. However, I view the indictment as very troubling on a separation of powers basis and the result of the extension of criminal provisions with tangential applicability to this type of dispute. […]

  177. Can we have some input from MADD?

    //////////////////////////////// Amicus Curiae MADD ///////////////////////////

    DUI is a heinous and destructive crime that demands prosecution and sentencing to the fullest extent of the law. The maximum penalty should be paid by, and no societal benefit should accrue to the perpetrator.

    /////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////

    I’m just sayin’.

  178. Is it conceivable that the judiciary in Texas will allow this to persist?

    It would be surprising if the judicial hierarchy, up to the SCOT did not nip this in

    the bud.

    A convicted and compromised felon, whimsically and profoundly maligns the

    Governor of Texas.

  179. This is as stupid as anyone trying to defend that drunken whore of a DA.
    She should have been fired right after her conviction, and her pet program defunded and dissolved along with her sorry ass. I don’t like Perry at all, but he’s right on this.

  180. John, just who do you think MADD folks voted for? I’ll bet damn near everyone of them voted for the TWO time DUI losers, Bush and cheney. So they are not worth bothering about, like you.

  181. John, it is YOU who slanders Lehmberg by LYING about her being a felon. She is not like Bush and Cheney who would have been felons when they racked up their DUIs. Bush even got arrested in New Haven for drunk and disorderly too. Then Cheney shot a fellow hunter after liquid lunch.

  182. Perhaps you should look into the precedent regarding how Gov. Perry responded to other DA’s who had drunk driving convictions in TX?

    You might change your view, Professor . .

  183. Couldn’t a case be made that the DA was trying to coerce a public official every time she said “call Mike” or “did you call Mike?” It appeared to me, in all the videos I have seen, she tried to apply a little influence to avoid the charges.

  184. One of a handful of liberal counties in Texas elects an alcoholic, psychotic, battleax for DA. Perfect. The AG in Wi. a decade or so ago was a woman of this ilk named Peg Laurtenschlager. A dash mounted police video of her DUI arrest and saying to the cop condescendingly, “Here’s the deal, I’m the AG” ended her career.

  185. susan, that is silly. I hardly call that influence pedaling. I guess that if I have a buddy on the police force and ask to see him/her I will be charged too? Now if she asked him to dismiss charges, THAT would be influence pedaling. Then we have the fact, that cops use their badge all the time to avoid DUIs or other minor crimes. In FACT we had a blog on this site that showed a female officer was harassed and driven off the force because she arrested a fellow officer for going 120mph on a highway.

  186. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd –

    The republican judge appointed a prosecutor who was previous appointed federal prosecutor by George H.W. Bush, and who obeyed the federal judge by convening a Grand Jury.

    This is not a federal case.
    ==========================
    You are aware that I corrected the typo in another comment to you:

    “If your wife does not nave sex with me I will veto that line item” should alert even you that a crime is more nuanced and complicated than “Thuh Lahw” of simpletons.

    Texas law defined the crime way back when Perry was still thinking about lynchings.

    The republican judge appointed a prosecutor who was previously appointed as a federal prosecutor by George H.W. Bush.

    That prosecutor obeyed the state republican judge and convened a Grand Jury.

    Now, another court will determine the law, and the jury of that court will determine the facts.

    No matter at what school or where you taught hysterical.

    Your ignoring of that is selective ad hominem of the Twinkie Defense type.

  187. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – Alan Dershowitz has forgotten more about Constitutional Law than you will every learn if you live to be 100.

    ======================
    Yes, he has forgotten the constitution.

    He has constitutional Alzheimer dementia.

    That is why he advocates for torture warrants as I explained up-thread.

  188. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – using your analysis of the law, Janet Napolitano would be in jail in Arizona and would be buried so deep she would be sucking sunshine through a straw. Janet swept the funds of various organizations to make up the budget shortfall when the recession hit. She really did not have the authority to do it and still doesn’t (although she is Chancellor of the Univ of Calif. which is punishment enough).
    =====================
    Arizona is not Texas.

    Throw away the old geography book.

  189. […] Law Professor Jonathan Turley has a legal analysis of the indictment. Short version, it’s hard to understand how there is a crime here, unless one considers the “threat” of a veto to be the crime, since exercising the veto clearly was lawful. Turley writes: […]

  190. Paul C. Schulte,

    here is my comment you willfully ignored to imply a false notion:
    ————————————————————-
    correction …

    Paul C. Schulte

    John Oliver – I understand that Texas allows line-item vetoes. He can always threaten a veto.
    ===========================
    “If your wife does not nave sex with me I will veto that line item” should alert even you that a crime is more nuanced and complicated than “Thuh Lahw” of simpletons.

    Texas law defined the crime way back when Perry was still thinking about lynchings.

    The republican judge appointed a prosecutor who was previously appointed as a federal prosecutor by George H.W. Bush.

    That prosecutor obeyed the state republican judge and convened a Grand Jury.

    Now, another court will determine the law, and the jury of that court will determine the facts.

    No matter at what school or where you taught hysterical.
    ———————————————–
    Willful misrepresentation is a sign of a waning conscience.

  191. No one has replied to the Count I text ($200,000) that has noting to do with line item veto of ~$7 million.

    Why the crickets?

    Here is the comment from up-thread:

    The charge is that Gov. Perry “intentionally or knowingly misused government property by dealing with such property contrary ot an agreement under which defendant [Perry] held such property or contrary ot the oath of office he took as a public servant, such government property being monies having a value of in excess of $200,000 which were approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to fund the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, and which had come into defendant’s [Perry’s] custody or possession by virtue of the defendant’s office as a public servant, namely, Governor of the State of Texas.”

    (Indictment, Count I).

  192. Dredd – your correction of what was still an ad hominem attack does not make it any better.
    And I think we ALL (expect you and the Democrats in Texas) agree that Turley dealt with count 1 very well.

  193. I did, but you ignored it. You are reading count one incorrectly.

    You are also ignoring that a Governor’s office never has custody of of funds appropriated for another office outside their control. What the indictment is saying is impossible in the world of government finance. If your reading was correct, it would be the State Treasurer, not the governor, who would likely be charged.

    Government finance – Legislature appropriates through spending bill, governor veto or approval follows. Money then goes from state treasury to department. Not to the Governor personally. The indictment would only work if Perry had a check shoved into the bottom of his desk and refused to turn it over.

  194. Dredd – Dershowitz has a procedure by which one would have to be a major idiot before torture would become an option, but would then come on the table. First, he gives them full immunity, so there is no reason not to tell the truth. Only after they refuse then does torture become an option. That is very reasoned.

  195. Dredd – you sleep through grade school civics class didn’t you? I cannot believe you do not know this stuff. My 7th grade grand-nephew knows more about state government than you do.

  196. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – Dershowitz has a procedure by which one would have to be a major idiot before torture would become an option, but would then come on the table. First, he gives them full immunity, so there is no reason not to tell the truth. Only after they refuse then does torture become an option. That is very reasoned.
    ===========================
    Ninety-Eight percent of reason is subconscious, 2% conscious.

    Apologizing for criminal torture is not a defense.

    Criminal insanity of the torture type is tortured reasoning (The Toxic Bridge To Everywhere).

  197. Dredd – quit citing your own stuff. It is bad form.
    You have no concept of civics do you? If one legalizes something, i.e., torture, it cannot be criminal, therefore there is nothing to apologize for.

    Ninety-Eight percent of reason is subconscious, 2% conscious.

    Got anything to back this up? Are you speaking for everyone or just yourself?

  198. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – your correction of what was still an ad hominem attack does not make it any better.
    And I think we ALL (expect you and the Democrats in Texas) agree that Turley dealt with count 1 very well.
    ———————————————————–
    Bailers

    I did, but you ignored it. You are reading count one incorrectly.

    You are also ignoring that a Governor’s office never has custody of of funds appropriated for another office outside their control. What the indictment is saying is impossible in the world of government finance. If your reading was correct, it would be the State Treasurer, not the governor, who would likely be charged.

    Government finance – Legislature appropriates through spending bill, governor veto or approval follows. Money then goes from state treasury to department. Not to the Governor personally. The indictment would only work if Perry had a check shoved into the bottom of his desk and refused to turn it over.
    =============================
    It is not my reading of it you are ignoring.

    You are ignoring the text itself … a matter of writing not reading.

    What the text says is the beginning of a reasonable person’s discussion of any text.

    If your biases won’t let you read what the text of Count I of the indictment says, then you certainly can’t be reasonable about what it means.

    Are you saying I did not copy what it says.

    If so, provide the correct text of Count I or stop being intellectually dishonest.

  199. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – quit citing your own stuff. It is bad form.
    You have no concept of civics do you? If one legalizes something, i.e., torture, it cannot be criminal, therefore there is nothing to apologize for.

    Ninety-Eight percent of reason is subconscious, 2% conscious.

    Got anything to back this up? Are you speaking for everyone or just yourself?
    ==========================
    The link provided in my comment which quotes a Professor who teaches “brain science.”

    There are no quotes of holy-roller ministers to satisfy your belief that religion is the one true science.

    So, move along to another attempt at deception.

  200. Dredd – you are intellectually dishonest by trying to say we have not dealt with Count I. We have, you just do not like our answer.

  201. Dredd – I do not care who you cite. Your material is so fuzzy I would not trust it. And another ad hominem attack to make my day. You never disappoint.

  202. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – you are intellectually dishonest by trying to say we have not dealt with Count I. We have, you just do not like our answer.
    =========================
    Bunk.

    I said you will not post the text you allege is in Count I to show that I did not copy it correctly.

    Crickets.

    You can’t deal with the text unless you show the text you are talking about as I did.

    You can’t handle the truth about what the text actually says, so you use deception to infer that it says something else without displaying the text you allege is written in Count I.

    Your fear is not good for you or anyone else.

  203. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – you sleep through grade school civics class didn’t you? I cannot believe you do not know this stuff. My 7th grade grand-nephew knows more about state government than you do.
    ———————————————————–
    Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – I do not care who you cite. Your material is so fuzzy I would not trust it. And another ad hominem attack to make my day. You never disappoint.
    ————————————————————
    Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – quit citing your own stuff. It is bad form.
    You have no concept of civics do you? If one legalizes something, i.e., torture, it cannot be criminal, therefore there is nothing to apologize for.

    Ninety-Eight percent of reason is subconscious, 2% conscious.

    Got anything to back this up? Are you speaking for everyone or just yourself?
    ======================
    So why did you ask for a cite?

    You make everything up as you go.

    And what you make up is nonsense.

    Dershowitz advocates torture and should not be used in place of the actual text of Count I.

    Your not posting the text shows that I correctly posted it to wit:

    The charge is that Gov. Perry “intentionally or knowingly misused government property by dealing with such property contrary ot an agreement under which defendant [Perry] held such property or contrary ot the oath of office he took as a public servant, such government property being monies having a value of in excess of $200,000 which were approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to fund the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, and which had come into defendant’s [Perry’s] custody or possession by virtue of the defendant’s office as a public servant, namely, Governor of the State of Texas.”

    (Indictment, Count I).

  204. Dredd – you are intellectually dishonest because you continually twist what everyone says. Dude, no one said you cited it wrong, just that it was all ready handled by Turley. Civics is not your strong suit is it? I am not a lawyer and I could beat Count I in court.

  205. Gov. Perry has previously announced that he will not run for reelection, and will leave office soon, in January.

    To those who say that a prosecution for misappropriating funds is “politically motivated” (even though the special prosecutor and judge are republicans) what do the republican judge and republican prosecutor gain politically by indicting him?

  206. I guess that Alan has forgotten about the 8th amendment. It is telling that he refuses to even address that problem which shows his utter contempt for the Constitution and our legal system. In short, when it suits him, he “forgets” about the law. That is not a real lawyer speaking, but a partisan hack and he deserves the contempt of all who value the Constitution.

  207. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – you are intellectually dishonest because you continually twist what everyone says. Dude, no one said you cited it wrong, just that it was all ready handled by Turley. Civics is not your strong suit is it? I am not a lawyer and I could beat Count I in court.
    ======================
    That is a misrepresentation of this thread.

    So now you are immune from a criminal charge of misappropriating funds, a felony, because you are not a lawyer so you can win by your criminal defense savvy?

    But Perry hired a top gun defense lawyer … why … he is not as caperable as you the caper meister?

    You should have called him and coached him then reported anecdotally as much of the text of the conversation as you could.

    So we could all grasp your astute repute.

  208. Dredd – since the state is picking up the tab, I would get the best money could buy. No sense taking a chance. However, his hiring an attorney has nothing to do with your intellectual dishonesty.

  209. Paul;

    Your remark that “President’s threaten to veto all the time” is disingenuous.

    Governor Perry personally desired that the person resign;
    and threatened to yank funding if “that” person didn’t do so.

    The person in question is an elected official who was brought to justice; and paid the proper penalty for her civil disobedience.

    Can we have any Governor – next week – engage a task force to go after “certain” elected (or even appointed officials); because their opinion is that particular person is not fit for the position?

    Doesn’t anyone here remember Karl Rove/Gonzales firing of 8 USAs; all of who were REFUSING to utilize their office as a political hatchet?

  210. Laser – as I said waaaaaay upthread, we had an issue like this in Arizona many years ago and the official was convicted but the appeals courts eventually said threats were just part of politics. Sadly, he had already served his sentence by that time.
    Janet Napolitano pressured people on the Landmarks committee to quit so she could get a new name for Squaw Peak. Was that illegal? Under this view of the law, yes.

  211. The first (§ 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY) is a statute prohibiting public servants from “intentionally or knowingly . . . misus[ing] 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.” That statute is extraordinarily vague and ambiguous. It is also not clearly intended for this type of conflict where a governor uses his right to veto a budgetary provision, even if his motives are viewed as an effort to replace one of the last Democrats holding a statewide office.” – JT

    Count I has nothing to do with any line item veto of anything.

    Count II of the indictment is the only count that mentions the threat of veto and the subsequent line item veto:

    Beginning on or about June 10, 2013, and continuing through June 14, 2013, in the County of Travis, Texas, by means of coercion, to-wit: threatening to veto legislation that had been approved and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to provide funding for the continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit o the Travis County District Attorney’s Office unless Travid County District Attorney Roesmary Lehmberg resigned from her official position as elected District Attorney, James Richard “Rick” Perry, intentionally or knowingly influenced or attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg, a public servant, namely, the elected District Attorney for Travis County, Texas, in the specific performance of her official duty …

    (Count II)

  212. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – since the state is picking up the tab, I would get the best money could buy. No sense taking a chance. However, his hiring an attorney has nothing to do with your intellectual dishonesty.
    ======================
    Correct, it is all about your BSd in intellectual dishonesty.

  213. Paul C. Schulte

    … I am not a lawyer and I could beat Count I in court.
    ————————-
    Paul C. Schulte

    … since the state is picking up the tab, I would get the best money could buy. No sense taking a chance.

    =========================
    That is intellectually dishonest on its face.

    You would soil yourself and could not beat your way out of a wet paper bag in such premises.

    Hence the walking back your false assertions.

    Nice try.

  214. Dredd – I actually got parking tickets overturned in the entire state of Arizona. Had to do it on appeal, but I got it done. They had to redesign the way they give parking tickets.

    I could do it, but if I could have someone else pay for a top flight attorney, I would jump at the chance.

  215. Gotta disagree with Turley. Of course it was the threat of the veto that makes this a crime. That makes perfect sense. Think about it in terms of leaving feedback on ebay. I am perfectly allowed to leave negative feedback for a transaction I’m not happy with. But I am NOT allowed to threaten a Seller with negative feedback, unless he gives me a refund. That is called Feedback Manipulation and is against the rules. What Rick Perry did was the legal equivalent of Feedback Manipulation. If he wanted to do the veto, he should have done it without the threat. Perry is guilty and should go to prison for 20-25 years.

  216. Bailers

    Dredd,
    You are quite literally the only person I have seen argue that Count 1 is not related to the veto.
    ==================
    That I am the only one on a thread that sees them as being different is surely not a coherent argument against what the two different texts of the two different counts and the two different texts of the two different statutes say.

    Show me anywhere in the text of Count I that “veto” is mentioned.

    I have shown you where it is mentioned in Count II.

    I have shown you it is not mentioned in Count I.

    Two separate and distinct statutes are used in each count.

    The two charges are utterly unrelated in the sense that Count II has to do with a line item veto ($7 million dollars), while Count I has to do with misappropriation of government property ($200,000) already in Perry’s possession or control.

    I await your argument that $200,000 is the same as $7,000,000 and that “misappropriation of funds” without coercion is the same as “coercion … by veto.”

  217. Keith

    Gotta disagree with Turley. Of course it was the threat of the veto that makes this a crime. That makes perfect sense. Think about it in terms of leaving feedback on ebay. I am perfectly allowed to leave negative feedback for a transaction I’m not happy with. But I am NOT allowed to threaten a Seller with negative feedback, unless he gives me a refund. That is called Feedback Manipulation and is against the rules. What Rick Perry did was the legal equivalent of Feedback Manipulation. If he wanted to do the veto, he should have done it without the threat. Perry is guilty and should go to prison for 20-25 years.
    =========================
    What about the other charge?

    A lawyer has to deal with the facts and law in each count separately.

  218. Paul;

    As I’m one living an actual saga of many courts/including Circuits, engaging in “Color of Law” deprivation of Civil Rights; providing me an individual case (even though you failed to “actually” cite it) – to prove a perverted point

    is far from dispositive.

    You simply ignore the well documented case I speak of, where 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired – for not “playing {corrupt} ball”.

    An even worse case, is that of Rick Convertino, the AUSA who put away the first terrorists after 9/11. When he publicly spoke out about the abject failures of his boss (USAG Ashcroft); the venal powers that be actually released the terrorists in their bogus attempt to imprison Convertino. That prosecutor (Morford) is the one and same man who deported an exonerating witness (Okolo) and suborned Perjury by witness Detore (who confessed such before Congress {on CSPAN}) in the James Traficant case.

    If not for the dedicated works of an American Patriot (Mo Hurley/Eliot Ness on web), we would have had a Craig Morford USAG after Gonzales.

    We simply can’t have anyone in political office bartering to get another out. (Which is what the Governor of ILL. was convicted for).

    Our nation suffers GREATLY from corruption (which is more norm – rather than exception). As I pointed {way up thread} and was joined by others, Governor Perry (and many others) needed to be prosecuted for the Willingham affair. This prosecution is long overdue and is a Capone-Tax Evasion type method of nailing a criminal mastermind. (A subject I’m well versed upon).

    It is encouraging that such a step has been taken and it instills hope in me that such powerful (above the law) persons can actually face justice.

    Here’s the link to 18 U.S.C. 242 “Color of Law” (a prosecutor’s tool that is almost never utilized – like RICO; but has razor sharp teeth in these instances.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

    And – before you argue to the contrary – take a look at what the FBI stipulates about Civil Rights violations via “Color of Law” per Title 42 Section(s) 1997 and 14141;

    Civil Applications

    Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:

    Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions;

    Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;

    Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and

    Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.

    Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic deprivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.

    Governor Perry should negotiate a resignation as a “No Contest” plea;
    but will (instead) believe his above the law status will prevail.

    Currently, the FBI is depriving me of my Civil Right to have them address the organized crimes within the U.S. Trustee program protecting the RICO violations of those I’m suing in “Haas v Romney”.

    Corruption is as corruption does.

  219. I think the root problem is that government employees have no accountability. When they do wrong, they cannot be fired. In this case, a DA had been convicted of a DUI and then behaved badly during her arrest. How will this affect her prosecution of DUI cases? But she was able to figuratively thumb her nose at anyone calling for a consequence for her actions.

    If we’re going to indict politicians for threatening a veto, then every single governor and president ever would be indicted. It sounds like Gov Perry followed the law. He has not threatened everyone of opposing political views; he just used the powers available to him to remove a DA who broke the law. Because you know who abused their position? The DA, when she tried to use her authority to fight the booking in the video above. Why is that OK?

    He was not using his congressional authority to obstruct justice; he was trying to get justice. Since she comes from a Liberal area of Austin, she will likely be replaced by another Liberal.

    Why are government employees immune from the consequences of breaking the law?

  220. Perry is as big of an embarrassment as Bush. You condem Obama for the use of executive order.

    In texas the comptroller certifies the budget the legislature passes. The treasure signs the checks. The governor unless they have vetoed an item is obligated to administer the budget as passed.

    If any of you knew how it really worked, you’d be as upset with perry doing this as Obama and the executive order.

    I used to work for the majority leader….

  221. BTW – Dredd & Paul;

    It would seem to me – that (instead of the debates of not liking each other), this thread would be better served if we delve where the Professor neglected to traverse.

    Each crime alleged has requisites, beyond the mere remarks of what the Statute(s) are about – to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – in order for a guilty verdict to ever become a reality.

    Such a discussion will be much more apropos.

  222. That said, I disagree with unfunding her entire office, and I would feel very differently if Perry used this tactic to simply remove anyone he disagreed with. But I also do not expect him to look the other way when a DA abuses her authority in this way. She clearly feels she’s above the law, which is a serious problem given her position.

    I have a question for the lawyers here – how can a district attorney lose his or her job? Are there any means to remove one for cause?

  223. Paul C. Schulte

    … I am not a lawyer and I could beat Count I in court.
    ———————————————–
    Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – I actually got parking tickets overturned in the entire state of Arizona.

    ———————————————-
    Paul C. Schulte

    Bailers – that is because literally Dredd is OCD.
    ===========================
    Count I is not a parking ticket and the “entire state of Arizona” is not in Texas.

    BSd: “Yo honna … I want this Count I thinky dismissed before I finish my cup of coffee cause I beat a parking ticket rap in MyZona.”

    Judge: “I want a psychological exam done on Mr. Schulte prior to proceeding in this matter. So ordered.”

  224. WOW – AY, I was already impressed by your candor & knowledge;
    but this one launches you even further.

    Cool

    ———————————————————

    BTW – where’s our buddy Otteray?

  225. “If one legalizes something, i.e., torture, it cannot be criminal, therefore there is nothing to apologize for.”

    Paul,
    I understand your point but this is a bad assumption to make. I’m sure the Executive and Legislative branches would endorse your opinion. SCOTUS might get kind of lonely.

    Every thread in JT’s blog exposes the weakness of the constitution and more importantly, it demonstrates how vulnerable natural rights are to the designs of unscrupulous politicians under the color of law? Well, I can just imagine Law schools giving every first year student a bucket of gray paint and over the next 3 years teaching them how to paint over “the rule of law”. Ultimately, what’s left is some attorney’s masterpiece that has the appearance of law but in effect infringes the natural rights of our citizens. Mix in a little red paint and the left objects; mix in some blue and the right objects.

    What I respect about Professor Turley’s approach is he “seems” to be painting his opinions with respect for both the constitution AND rights. What follows in the thread is simply an effort to paint the picture into a left or right masterpiece. It’s interesting to watch you all at work.

  226. randyjet:

    1) If you oppose a one-party state, then I suppose you also have a problem with the Democratic stronghold in CA? It has been a one-party state for quite a while, with limitless power. In fact, Gov Brown is illegally raiding Cap & Trade funds to build a pork vacation train to the tune of $65 billion to San Francisco, which will do zero to improve the gridlock and potholes in our LA roads. But it will benefit his union donors. In one section alone, they will seize 582 properties by eminent domain. The meetings I’ve attended were packed to overflowing with citizens who fiercely opposed the project, but they were told they would not be allowed to ask any questions. They had to submit questions in writing as “feedback” which would not be answered. I spoke with several officials privately who said that they were aware most people hated the project, and they assumed a movie will be made the first time this thing crashes or there’s an earthquake. Talk about abuse of power!

    2) What’s the difference between a representative and a DA who get convicted of DUI? Well, the DA actually PROSECUTES DUIs. Do you not see a conflict? What about if a DA was convicted of battering his wife, would that make it difficult for him to do his job prosecuting other wife beaters? Plus, she tried to use her position to fight the booking in the video above. If any government official tried to abuse their authority to avoid prosecution, including your rep, then they should also be fired. But if they cooperate, and are not in a position where it is a conflict of interest, then, no, they should not lose their job.

  227. John Oliver;

    A lengthy comment on discussions of “Color of Law” vanished (when I posted the link thereto). I believe the Civil Rights violations under Color of Law are almost never addressed; but – more often than not – in need of being done so!

  228. Texas $39.02 stipulates that the “Abuse of Office” goes from Misdemeanor to 1st Degree felony when;

    (7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the
    use of the thing misused is $200,000 or more.

  229. Is it not an abuse of power for a Liberal group to indict a conservative on purely political grounds? Because he clearly used his constitutional authority.

    Sounds like political blackmail to me. The threat of criminal action for using a veto is pure politics.

    It sounds like Liberals think a DA can try to abuse her position with absolute impunity. It’s political abuse of the court system. It took 2 grand juries to indict him.

    Given what I saw in the video of the DA’s abuse of power, it makes we wonder if she had a similar attitude in her office to investigate public corruption. If Liberals would threaten a conservative with criminal action for purely political reasons, would they operate the same in an investigative office into pubic corruption?

    The public corruption unit is still operating under county funding. It is my understanding that the Cancer Research fund was one of Perry’s initiatives, and that an official is under investigation for the handling of a grant. I have not heard of any evidence that Perry himself was in any trouble.

    I can tell you that fraud in grants is rife in the government. In fact, every public grant program should probably be investigated, or have oversight, to avoid fraud and waste. There’s just something about spending “other people’s money” that invites mismanagement, corruption, and waste. That’s actually one of the reasons why people become fiscal conservatives, like me. So that’s no bombshell news.

  230. Lee:

    “RDBrewer there is a threat to veto, which is the right of the Pres and governor, and there is the threat to veto unless you do something I want you to do that is not a part of the bill, or the vote and veto process. That is called blackmail”

    According to your definition, Obama used blackmail when he threatened to veto any House funding bill that would fund the National Institute of Health during the government shutdown so that sick kids would be able to get care. He also threatened to veto any funding bill that did not fund Obamacare. He abused his office to get Conservatives to do his bidding, completely against the constitution and the separation of powers.

    So, to be fair, you must agree that Obama should be getting a mug shot right now, too. Otherwise, it’s “one way for thee, another for me.”

    Of course, Perry was not trying to influence another government official to abuse their power, he was trying to prevent it.

  231. randyjet:

    “After 9/11 I was part of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance which was formed to arm pilots at the airlines. We finally got legislation passed to that effect, but made an error in not specifying HOW to do that. We left it up to the TSA which was a major mistake. The first head of the TSA told our people that we may have gotten the bill passed, but that they would make DAMN sure no pilot would ever want to apply.. They effectively gutted the bill by obstruction and making absurd requirements. That was how W Bush destroyed the bill he did not like or want. I guess that was OK for the Republicans here.”

    I think arming pilots is an excellent idea. What is the TSA afraid of? They ALREAY FLY THE PLANE! Plus many pilots come from the military.

    You stated that the TSA destroyed the bill, but then you blamed Bush. Why do you blame Bush for what the TSA did?

    I’ve posted before that the TSA is a waste. They’re terribly run, and they fail almost every time they’re tested for detecting security threats. I’d rather they rotate the military through on short tours. We’re already paying them anyway, they’re highly trained, and short tours in airports will prevent brain fog. I’d also like to learn how they do it in Israel. When you’re surrounded by countries that chant for your death every morning, you get pretty good at security, and pretty much don’t care about PC. I’ve read that some of their methods involve detecting guilty mannerisms, regardless of ethnicity.

    Many airports I’ve flown through have armed soldiers.

  232. Lee:

    “RD give me money or I will shoot you, Hire me or I will publish those photos you want hidden, resign or I will veto the budget. They sound similar to me,.”

    Well, no. One threatens murder. One threatens blackmail. And the resignation was for CAUSE when someone refused to do the right thing.

  233. LaserDLiquidator

    Texas $39.02 stipulates that the “Abuse of Office” goes from Misdemeanor to 1st Degree felony when;

    (7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the
    use of the thing misused is $200,000 or more.
    =================================
    That addressed the sentencing phase.

    First comes the indictment, arraignment, and trial phase which are addressed by:

    “(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.” (Texas Statutes – Section 39.02: ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY).

    Ink stating that $7,000,000 is appropriated for a certain state department on a budget bill delivered to the Governor is not “government property.”

    It has to first be appropriated and funded to be property (money, funds).

    If Count I is claiming that proposed funding in a budget line is “government property” in the “custody or possession” of any government official before that bill is signed into law, then that charge is invalid IMO.

    Vetoing the bill is not doing anything to “government property” because the veto stops it from becoming property.

    Vetoing it is simply a proposal that has not been realized yet.

    Count I does not mention the veto.

    If it relates to the veto, then it is not a valid charge IMO.

    Count II specifically says the veto was used to realize a threat that was being used to coerce another official’s activity.

    That is a valid charge so long as the threat is proven and the purpose of the threat was toward an improper action.

  234. Dredd – according to your definition, vetoes are illegal and will land every politician in jail.

    How is exercising the constitutional right to veto “misusing government property?” He had cause to want her to resign.

  235. randyjet:

    Our discussion about arming pilots reminded me of this recent news story:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/17/florida-homeowners-child-survive-shootout-with-intruder/?intcmp=latestnews

    Someone broke into a house at night, and the 50 year old homeowners was beaten with a blunt object. He and his wife retrieved their guns and they both shot the intruder. Luckily, a child sleeping in the house was unharmed. At least they didn’t have to just sit there and be murdered.

    I know we disagree in some areas, but not the 2nd Amendment.:)

  236. Dredd;

    This is WHY – we need the requisites to prove the violation.

    Here’s an analysis by Michael C. Dorf’s Blog;

    http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2014/08/rick-perrys-indictment.html

    Stating a cool conclusion of premise (legal defense) inept – because;

    Michael McCrum. He is not charging Perry with making a poor or even foolish decision by vetoing the public corruption unit’s budget. The indictment charges that Perry used what would otherwise be a perfectly legal tool for an illegal purpose, and thus committed unlawful acts. Once one thinks this through, one realizes that the defense Perry has thus far publicly mounted is inadequate. It would be as though someone who was charged with committing murder by deliberately running over his victim with his car protested:

    “But I have a license to operate a motor vehicle.”

  237. Unlikely Allies Rise in the Defense of Rick Perry | TCOT Report

    […] Law Professor Jonathan Turley has a legal analysis of the indictment. Short version, it’s hard to understand how there is a crime here, unless one considers the “threat” of a veto to be the crime, since exercising the veto clearly was lawful. Turley writes: […]
    ==========================
    Possessing a gun on one’s person in Texas is also legal.

    Threatening to use it to murder someone (or any other criminal offense) is not.

    The legality of the threat is entirely separate from the legality of possessing the gun.

    The legality of the gun does not make the murder threat legal.

    How is the Governor’s threat any different in principle?

  238. Karen;

    Puhhllleaasseee “every veto illegal”

    Governor Perry had NO authority to make her resign (without due process).

    He blew it (and long ago deserved to be indicted).

    This (as mentioned above) is the Capone-Tax Evasion way to “get him”!

  239. LaserDLiquidator

    Dredd;

    This is WHY – we need the requisites to prove the violation.

    Here’s an analysis by Michael C. Dorf’s Blog;

    http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2014/08/rick-perrys-indictment.html

    Stating a cool conclusion of premise (legal defense) inept – because;

    Michael McCrum. He is not charging Perry with making a poor or even foolish decision by vetoing the public corruption unit’s budget. The indictment charges that Perry used what would otherwise be a perfectly legal tool for an illegal purpose, and thus committed unlawful acts. Once one thinks this through, one realizes that the defense Perry has thus far publicly mounted is inadequate. It would be as though someone who was charged with committing murder by deliberately running over his victim with his car protested:

    “But I have a license to operate a motor vehicle.”
    ==============================
    Yep.

    I don’t have a problem with Count II.

    If Count I is a charge stemming from the veto, then I think it is an invalid charge.

    Theoretical money in a proposed budget line item is not “government property” in the “control or possession” of the governor yet.

    That statute is designed for existing government property that can be possessed and controlled … something already realized.

    It is like not being able to steal a car that does not yet exist.

  240. Rosemary “Rosie” Lehmberg will be the Acting Attorney General in the Wendy Davis administration. You heard it here first.

  241. Karen S

    Dredd – according to your definition, vetoes are illegal and will land every politician in jail.

    How is exercising the constitutional right to veto “misusing government property?” He had cause to want her to resign.
    ==================================
    Which Count of the Indictment are you in reference to?

    They are different charges from different statutes and require different analysis.

    If they were the same there would only be one count.

  242. How do you figure that the governor has the ability to appoint the AG when it’s a separate office? Even if taking what you say as true she’d still need legislative approval. And they are both tanked with GOP.

  243. curmudgeoninchief

    Rosemary “Rosie” Lehmberg will be the Acting Attorney General in the Wendy Davis administration. You heard it here first.
    =====================
    And last, thankfully.

  244. Anonymously Yours

    Do you see any difference between Count I and Count II in the sense that Count I does not mention the veto while Count II does?

    There are no general facts alleged that would apply to all counts.

    Each count has its own factual allegations.

  245. What if the Executive threatened to veto a bill (that had bipartisan support) that would amend a law to fulfill a promise the Executive had said the law would provide? While that would demonstrate an untrustworthy and utterly contemptible character that would be within that Executive’s authority right? Now what if that Executive instead chose to bypass the Legislative and amend the law himself? Is that within that Executive’s authority?

  246. LaserDLiquidator

    BTW – Dredd & Paul;

    It would seem to me – that (instead of the debates of not liking each other), this thread would be better served if we delve where the Professor neglected to traverse.

    Each crime alleged has requisites, beyond the mere remarks of what the Statute(s) are about – to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – in order for a guilty verdict to ever become a reality.

    Such a discussion will be much more apropos.
    ====================================
    Gov. Perry has previously announced that he will not run for reelection, and will leave office soon, in January.

    To those who say that a prosecution for misappropriating funds is “politically motivated” (even though the special prosecutor and judge are both republicans) what do the republican judge and republican prosecutor gain politically by indicting him?

    What is their political motivation?

  247. Dredd – since you cannot give it up, neither will I.
    killing someone is generally not legal, threatening to kill them is legal. We do it all the time. For example, “If you do that one more time, I swear I am going to kill you.” I am sure that over the course of your lifetime you have threatened people many times. The problem here is that Perry is threatening to do a legal act (not veto or veto) for someone to do a legal act (resign or not resign from office).

  248. Laser – would you like to elucidate on the ‘due process’ necessary for someone to resign? I got an A in civics and that did not come up.

  249. Paul;

    You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said due process to resign. There’s always a process – for the people (and/or state) – to remove an undesirable.

    It’s NOT Governor’s Perry’s duty to override that due process with an willy nilly threat of “if you don’t – I will yank funding” (for prosecutor programs that are possibly investigating Perry and others).

    It smacks of corruption – no matter how you shake it up in the bag!

  250. AY – I am aware of what extortion is, however, I am not sure that this situation fits. Perry benefits how? What is the actual monetary trade? Can you extort someone to do the right thing?

  251. Laser – US Attys serve at the will of the President. Janet Napolitano became US Atty in Arizona because Clinton became President and he wanted to pay off the firm of Lewis and Roca who are huge Democratic fund-raisers in Arizona. She was chief research attorney for the firm.

  252. Dredd – the theory of law is the same. Janet goes to jail. Just saying it is a different state doesn’t satisfy as an answer. Answer the question. Does she go to jail or not?

  253. Laser – you said ‘due process’ which is why I asked. However, it is never wrong to ask people to resign. Was it wrong for Goldwater to tell Nixon to resign or he would be impeached? Is that extortion?

  254. LaserDLiquidator

    Dredd;

    I’m must have become skitzo for a moment;
    where did I mention this case is politico?
    =================================
    That comment was made earlier to those who did think it was political.

    Crickets.

    So, since that has been the basis of a lot of comments on this thread, I thought we should revisit it.

    Your comments in that light requested.

  255. Anonymously Yours

    Why the crickets to my question up-thread which I would really like to hear from you:

    Do you see any difference between Count I and Count II in the sense that Count I does not mention the veto while Count II does?

    There are no general facts alleged that would apply to all counts.

    Each count has its own factual allegations.

    Just Askin’ …

  256. As a person outside the legal profession, what I see you all are painting here is pure garbage. The fact both sides can argue they are correct says far more about the clusterfudge you’ve designed than the people elected to govern by it. Maybe this is just job security; it’s ingenious really. You’ve created a system so convoluted that it can be used both FOR and AGAINST someone. Nicely done!

  257. Anonymously Yours

    Dredd,

    Alternative pleading is permissible….
    =============================
    Ok.

    Do the facts alleged in one count apply to the other without specific inclusion?

    The veto allegations only show up in Count II.

    That is why I anticipated that Count I was for activity not associated with the veto.

    I noticed:

    Art. 21.03. WHAT SHOULD BE STATED. Everything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to be proved.

    Acts 1965, 59th Leg., p. 317, ch. 722, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.

    Art. 21.04. THE CERTAINTY REQUIRED. The certainty required in an indictment is such as will enable the accused to plead the judgment that may be given upon it in bar of any prosecution for the same offense.

    If Count I does not relate to the veto I can’t see how the defendant can know what Count I is about.

    Is the $200,000 is merely a pleading requirement to show a felony is charged rather than a misdemeanor, still, one must know if it is related to the veto, or whether it is separate property not associated with the $7 million that was vetoed.

    … continued …

  258. continued …

    Anonymously Yours

    Dredd,

    Alternative pleading is permissible…

    Otherwise the property requirements are foggy:

    Art. 21.08. ALLEGATION OF OWNERSHIP. Where one person owns the property, and another person has the possession of the same, the ownership thereof may be alleged to be in either. Where property is owned in common, or jointly, by two or more persons, the ownership may be alleged to be in all or either of them. When the property belongs to the estate of a deceased person, the ownership may be alleged to be in the executor, administrator or heirs of such deceased person, or in any one of such heirs. Where the ownership of the property is unknown to the grand jury, it shall be sufficient to allege that fact.

    Acts 1965, 59th Leg., p. 317, ch. 722, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1966. Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1738, ch. 659, Sec. 16, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.

    Art. 21.09. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. If known, personal property alleged in an indictment shall be identified by name, kind, number, and ownership. When such is unknown, that fact shall be stated, and a general classification, describing and identifying the property as near as may be, shall suffice. If the property be real estate, its general locality in the county, and the name of the owner, occupant or claimant thereof, shall be a sufficient description of the same.

  259. Seems to me that all these pro Perry comments is missing one thing. This is a Texas Statue. We had two Republican judges hear the complaint and assigned a Republican prosecutor who took testimony from 40 people and then asked a grand jury to indict. Turley has no idea what all that testimony was about. This statue has been amended twice once to say the coercive action had to be otherwise unlawful and then to remove that language in 1994 making it clear that the action that is otherwise lawful cannot be used to coerce a public official in her duty. There are also reports that Perry had offered the DA another position which would allow him to control a position that was ultimately investigating him over misuse of funds. Now seems to me there is lots of smoke in this case of Republicans indicting Republicans. And a bit of smoke on this blog as well; that being whatever Turley is smoking.

  260. @dredd

    Why do you have to “anticipate” what Count I is about??? Shouldn’t a well written indictment be cogent enough for someone to understand exactly what it is that they did wrong???

    What you have with this indictment is some crap put on paper. Most indictments I have read say stuff like:

    JCount I – ohn Doe did violate the provisions of Code Section 13-13, an unauthorized exertion of control of a motor vehicle, TO WIT that John Doe did take a 1984 Dodge Omni, not belonging to him, and drove said vehicle to his own residence.

    Here, in the Perry indictment, you got bumpkis. Just recitations of the Code.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  261. Concerning Court I and Count II, the reasons I inquire into the “veto” factual scenario is whether there is one or more criminal eposodes:

    CHAPTER 3. MULTIPLE PROSECUTIONS

    Sec. 3.01. DEFINITION. In this chapter, “criminal episode” means the commission of two or more offenses, regardless of whether the harm is directed toward or inflicted upon more than one person or item of property, under the following circumstances:

    (1) the offenses are committed pursuant to the same transaction or pursuant to two or more transactions that are connected or constitute a common scheme or plan; or

    (2) the offenses are the repeated commission of the same or similar offenses.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 387, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    The veto factual allegations in both counts would do that, but the absence of veto allegations in Count I fog it up.

  262. nsm – I concur!

    —————————

    Paul;

    In both recent comments, you seek to obfuscate the issues with hyperbole and items not spplicable.

    The issue wasn,t a request to resign. It was an ultimatium with consequences. As the old addage goes; point your finger st me but heed the favtor you have 3 pointing back at you.

    In a similar manner your US Att. banter is also disingenuous. The isdue apropos on the USA,s – is that they werr fired for not playing corruption ball. No USAG and/or Administration has any right to corrupt the DOJ for veiled gains.

  263. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    @dredd

    Why do you have to “anticipate” what Count I is about??? Shouldn’t a well written indictment be cogent enough for someone to understand exactly what it is that they did wrong???

    What you have with this indictment is some crap put on paper. Most indictments I have read say stuff like:

    JCount I – ohn Doe did violate the provisions of Code Section 13-13, an unauthorized exertion of control of a motor vehicle, TO WIT that John Doe did take a 1984 Dodge Omni, not belonging to him, and drove said vehicle to his own residence.

    Here, in the Perry indictment, you got bumpkis. Just recitations of the Code.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
    ========================
    If I can’t tell whether Count I and Count II arise from the same set of facts or whether they relate to two “bags of money.”

    One reason is because “veto” is not mentioned in Count I, but is mentioned in Count II.

    So, how can the defendant determine that?

    In criminal charges there must be an indictment sufficient to alert the defendant to all charges so a defense can be properly prepared.

    If the two counts are based on the one line item veto then the indictment is defective to that degree.

    But as AY alluded to, Count II would still allow the prosecution to go forward without Count I, it having been dismissed.

  264. Call Me Tex – any have decent prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted by a grand jury. Always remember that in a grand jury the defense NEVER gets a bite at the apple.

  265. The Governor did not ORDER her to resign, he suggested it. The Governor has the VETO. To inform of an intent to execute a VETO is not an ultimatum or any other form of coercion. It is a public statement of fact. Coercion occurs furtively. The correct and appropriate action is for a convicted felon to resign a position of public trust. The Governor is not restricted by criteria in the execution of his VETO. No entity orders the Governor how to execute his VETO.

  266. I totally understand. But the point is these are Republican judges and prosecutor serving up the sandwich. Democrats really played no role here. So now that the prosecutor has interviewed 40 witnesses and thinks that Perry crossed the line, is he suppose to just ignore the Texas statue? We have served this same menu at least twice before and in one of those entrees sitting Governor Pa Ferguson was not only indicted but convicted.

    On the other hand we have had two other DAs in Texas convicted of DUI. One was a double offender. But Perry didn’t have squat to say about them. But he went after this DA whose current investigation could be pointing back at him. Even offered her another position that would then allow him authority to appoint the next person. I have to say that while the statue may well be defective, I don’t see any reason to suppose that it was not breached by Rick Perry. I think it more likely that it was breached and Perry’s salvation will be at the hands of what he would normally call an activist judge.

  267. Paul,

    Are you ok? Your meds working? I see logical fallacy by you, are you taking too much? Not enough? Schedule a Dr appointment to see what’s wrong. Other than that leave LDL alone…

  268. AY – As a stroke suffer myself I am very concerned when someone who types well, suddenly type poorly. It can be the sign of a stroke. My concern is genuine.

  269. laser – glad you are okay. I have complained several times about the typos in Turley’s blogs (threads). Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I am not concerned about your health. I like you as a person.

  270. Karen, the reason I blame Bush is that he appointed the head of the TSA who was his Secret Service detail man and he and Bush hated the idea of pilots being armed. We had a common sense and cheap approach that any pilot who had military or law enforcement background could be armed immediately, and have six months to get trained by authorized agencies for certification. We proposed that pilots buy their weapons from the government who would decide which ones would be acceptable. There was another proposal to have pilots who had magnetic badges have their ID number encoded on their airline badges and put in scanners like even hot dogs stands have to take plastic credit cards. That way, pilots would not have to submit to the strip searches I had to go through every day at work. But of course, common sense was secondary to this project and they preferred making pilots a propaganda tool for themselves to show Bush was doing something.

    I was outraged at ALPA for not blasting Bush when he said he did not much care what happened to Bin Laden. That alone should have resulted in his defeat, but he got re-elected any way.

  271. Karen, You missed the point of the article which stated that Bush OPPOSED THE PROGRAM, and he only changed his position because CONGRESS MADE him do it. He then gutted the whole idea by only allowing 2% of the pilots to be armed. THAT is not arming pilots at all. It is like saying only 2% of Army troops can have weapons. GET REAL!

  272. It seems strange to me that some people seem to be unable to comprehend the difficulty of a governor funding a Public Integrity Unit that is led by a person who has displayed publicly a great lack of integrity. Is it really that strange that Perry expects people of integrity to run that unit if he is going to approve funding it? It seems kind of fair on Perry’s part to tell the leader of the unit to practice some integrity or lose your funding. Maybe the animus here is actually because the district attorney is gay? I suspect that gay advocates would not want to lose a gay district attorney, but they surely can’t say that so they ramble on about Perry’s alleged abuse of power.

  273. randyjet – I think Bush did what progressive call ‘evolved.’ Didn’t both Clinton and Obama do that?

  274. david – it does seem strange that the head of the public integrity unit should have integrity, but I guess in Texas, not so much.

  275. Paul;

    I appreciate the concern. Usually I’m at Starbucks on my laptop. These last few days have been burdensome (including theft of my Blackberry). Therefore I’mon an LG antiquated phone, real small.

    I will try to proof read henceforthe.

    ——-_—————__-

    As for your liking me as a person – thanks.

    If you were to argue less biased, and beore receptive to facts, you might see (as you are open minded in Haas v Romney) that. Governor Perry deserves a prosecution.

    Je,s a real baf guy!

  276. Wow, first I heard that she was gay. I suspect that bringing up her sexual identity serves several purposes in this argument.

  277. Dredd and others, the reason so many of the old timers on this blog have not been seen much is that the quality of posts and debate has gone so far down with trolls and paid bloggers, that they feel it is a waste of time. Basically we have seen such simpletons say things like Lehmberg will be AG under Wendy Davis, not even knowing or caring about the FACT that the AG is an elective office, not an appointed one. Then we have libelous things said about Lehmberg being a felon. Then the lack of intellect is so gross and the ignorance so outlandish that the blog has degenerated to a kindergarten level. This is highlighted by the fact that they also refuse to understand or don’t care that Lehmberg had NOTHING to do with Perry being indicted. It is impossible to have a reasoned discourse with a chair which is what most of these people are in terms of intellect and knowledge.

  278. DavidM,

    She did show integrity. She is one of 3 DAs convicted of DUI. One was a 2 time loser and both the others are Republican. This DA said she would not run again. She served her jail time. She was adjudicated for fitness by people who are given that duty and it isn’t King Perry.

    What she didn’t do is take Perry’s bribe that he would get her another job if she would just quite and let him pick the head of the unit that was investigating a $3B operation know as Cancer Research and Prevention Institute (CPRIT) where the scientist have quite in protest over grants to Perry cronies. Nor did she quite when he cut funding and said he would restore it if she resigned.

    No… Perry is going to have to suffer the investigation anyway. She isn’t going quite. Because she has integrity.

  279. randyjet – in Texas being a felon is no bar to being anything, at least it wasn’t.. John Wesley Hardin who is thought to have killed at least 40 people (admitted to killing 34) learned law during his 16 year prison sentence and became a lawyer in Texas when he got out. He was later shot and killed in El Paso.

  280. Paul C,, you lawyers must have fewer ethics than CPAs. It sure is a bar to being a CPA. It is called “acts discreditable”.

  281. Gay Dist Attorney… First of I heard of this one…. More smoke I guess….. Speaking of smoke…. Integrity…. Legislature created a special panel to investigate the circumstances of Todd Willingham…. Convicted for Arson…. 1) Perry was asked to stop the execution; 2) fired the governors members of the task force the day before they were to release the results of the investigation… That’s integrity….. Maybe some folks have a bone for Perry, including the GOP, since as David has stated the district attorney is gay and has no use for one….

    The last part is tongue in cheek….

  282. I think Richard Nixon had more integrity. At least he resigned for the good of the country.

    Lehmberg clearly has put herself above her office and the people she serves. Maybe you want criminals heading up your Public Integrity Unit, but I wouldn’t and I don’t think most people do. I can certainly appreciate Lehmberg’s apology and remorse for the way she acted, and her responsibility to seek out professional help for her alcohol problem, but that does not mean she is to be trusted in office. She should not trust herself given the facts of her case.

  283. You clowns including Turley have missed the key here…. This is a state wide office…. It’s like cutting off funding to the AG or Treasure or Public University’s.

    Perry should have resigned for the wrongful death of Todd Willingham…. Results have proved he did not commit arson. Perry on the other hand burnt the governors mansion down… Asked for the resignation if the governors reps on the specially created task force by the legislature to on the day set to release it’s report…. Speaking of integrity….

  284. David,

    Once elected to office, even if disbarred is not a disqualification to hold the office. You talk about things you know about and leave the rest to others…. Calling her gay was one of your famous defamation of women…. I get it, unless you can control them you have no use for them. They forget their place.

  285. david, I am disappointed since you usually make better points than this. if getting a DUI is an indication of a lack of integrity, then how the hell could you support Bush and Cheney who each had DOUBLE the number of DUIs Lehmberg now has. Bush even got arrested in New Haven, CT for drunk and disorderly. Cheney had a liquid lunch and shot a fellow hunter in Texas and was never charged or even reported to the police! Of course, given their conduct in office, one has to see that they totally lacked integrity, so maybe getting not one but TWO is the dividing line here. My Congresscritter,Rep Brady, got a DUI and even got re-elected and thought that his integrity was still intact.

    Perry is not known for his integrity at all, yet he has so far avoided being arrested for DUI, but one never knows. If he moves to CA, he better watch out since the cops there won’t look after him as they do here in Texas.

  286. Annie;

    It serves to show how desperate the fiends are. Like in Trayvon Martin case (pointing out misteps of youth to justify GZ killing him) and the Ferguson deal showing a still (ancient pic) to justify the shooting an unarmed youth in the head.

    Attack the character of the victim is GOP Playbook 101.

  287. Davidm, I hope this doesn’t post twice.

    So you think running a burglary ring is worse? And you think Richard Nixon resigned for the good of the country? Ah.. I will let you rethink that.

    Lehmberg has no choice here. If she quits, she gives Perry control over the unit and he gets to appoint one of his cronies. James Moore’s article puts his finger directly on the point.

    “Perry is arguing he eliminated the $7.5 million dollar budget that Lehmberg managed for the Public Integrity Unit (PIU) because she was no longer responsible enough to run the operation. But the governor probably had another motive.

    The PIU had been investigating the Cancer Research and Prevention Institute (CPRIT), a $3 billion dollar taxpayer funded project that awarded research and investment grants to startups targeting cancer cures. The entire scientific review team, including Nobel Laureate scientists, resigned because they said millions were handed out through political favoritism. Investigations by Texas newspapers indicated much of the money was ending up in projects proposed by campaign donors and supporters of Governor Perry. In fact, one of the executives of CPRIT was indicted in the PIU investigation for awarding an $11 million dollar grant to a company without the proposal undergoing any type of review.

    Perry might have been the next target.

    The same cronyism appeared to be at work in two other large taxpayer accounts called the Emerging Technology Fund (ETF), and the Texas Enterprise Fund, (TEF), which were supposed to be used to help technology startups and assist companies wanting to move to Texas. In total, the governor and his appointees had purview over about $19 billion and where they wanted it invested.

    Why not make sure your contributors get some of that sweetness?”

    So Lehmberg will retire. And we will get someone new. But we sure as hell are not going to let Rick Perry control that. Nor should we.

    In the meantime, a lot of Republicans have put in place this indictment. Rick Perry did try to coerce Lehmberg in the performance of her duties and that isn’t disputed. Special Prosecutor Mike McCrum at the bequest of Republican judges (including one appointed by Rick Perry) took testimony from 40 witnesses. Let’s hear what they have to say, shall we? We will see who has integrity. But if you are still defending Nixon, well…..

  288. Integrity…. Oh yeah.. The governor getting involved in a shooting up in Justin. It seems his uncle has a nice house there. People were on the golf course and a couple of balls hit his house. Oh yeah, he shot one…. He made a call to the sheriffs office… Got involved…. No charges ever filed…. I wonder why?

  289. Anonymously said:

    “Once elected to office, even if disbarred is not a disqualification to hold the office. You talk about things you know about and leave the rest to others…. Calling her gay was one of your famous defamation of women…. I get it, unless you can control them you have no use for them. They forget their place.”

    Well said.

  290. It amazes me how the (purported) Christian righteous are so unwilling to gorgive a prosecutor – who paid her debt to society “righteously” (and its bogus to argue what a drunken person did to require restraints).

    And yet the GOP hardliners are willing to be totally obtuse to how Perry assisted the state to murder an innocent (Willingham); while also (corruptively) shelving the investigation into Cameron Todd’s saga.

    It is, as if, there’s some secret part if the Bible that syipulates all things liberal are the devil; and there’s justification for any GOP/ RELIGIOUS malfeasance

    If a liberal can be blamed for it all.

    Ssshhheessshhh!

  291. Liberals are showing their homophobia equating being identified as gay as being defamed. Liberal Anti-Semitism, homophobia and white guilt is epidemic here during the waning days of a failed Presidency and the death knell of the philosophy that govt. is the answer to our problems. The party of big govt. has been an abject failure and the true colors of their hatred and bigotry are showing.

  292. I suspect the Hillary plan is to have all GOP prez candidates indicted, as well as any possible primary challengers like Cuomo.

  293. For all those commenters who sooo miss the good old days here on this blog, and have to put up with a bunch of unintelligent people who disagree with them, here is a very special poem!

    The Echo Chambers of Yesteryear
    A Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    The Echo Chambers of Yesteryear
    Are calling to me now.
    The comforting sounds of my own voice
    To soothe my weary brow.

    Echoing voices of my own thoughts
    Reverberate around.
    I lay my head upon my hands
    And listen to the sound.

    And nary one dischordant note
    Is plucked within this womb.
    No flats, no sharps, unless in key
    Are heard within this room.

    And here, my mind in safe repose
    In silken threads is twirled
    The Echo Chambers of Yesteryear
    Cocoon me from the World.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  294. Squeeky! Did you hear what Spinelli said about your candidate, Hillary? He’s blaming this all on your Hillary!

  295. Nick,

    Cuomo should be indicted (Moreland Commission debacle).

    I,m for Hillary (Bill part deux) before any Biden – Romney or Bush.

    The moment you begin with “liberals are -“; you throw all claims of credibility out the window.

  296. Everyone active here is well aware that I’m living proof big gov conspiracies flourish long n strong. All my evidence against corrupt federal agents and agencies, assisting Romney’s RICO gang is irrefutable.

    The only way we defeat such -is UNITY.

    From my vast experience as a retail specialists; I understand the ole yidfish eise men saying

    “We need ganef’s”

    Because they document the fact the retail entity is being successful.
    ——————–____——–

    In a similar manner, progressiveness needs trolls, indoctrinated and psid nausays.

    They are proof if validity in the quests.

    —————————-

    I, too, use to be a hardline righty; swallowing up anti liberal banter with glee. Then, when the tea party types sought to recruit me to the fold (specifically – I was offered a chance to take a bribe and become a partner of Romney’s

    I changed when I turned down the bribe.

    ——————–

    To get someone to free their mind, you have to show them there’s goodness outside of religion and church.

    Actions speak louder than words;

    ALWAYS!

  297. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/nobody-died-and-made-rick-perry-king-110131.html?ml=m_t2_2h#.U_KpXUjNBz9 “Rick Perry does not need to worry that orange is the new black in Red State fashion, but not because his indictment is, as he claims, a “farce.” As much as the Texas governor would like to blame the two felony counts on a drunken prosecutor, he’s got serious questions to answer that could lead to his conviction. But, like Tom DeLay before him, Perry will never see the inside of a prison cell because Republicans have stacked the appellate courts in the Lone Star State. Politics won’t be his undoing but his salvation.

  298. “The skullduggery of this is reminiscent of the (thankfully aborted) “John Doe” criminal investigation of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. That such an unscrupulous stunt could happen in Texas—the biggest and most influential Red State—shows that partisan rancor has swept aside legal ethics. This lack of respect for the rule of law threatens us all.”

    Shocking, simply shocking!

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/18/the-rick-perry-indictment-is-textbook-malicious-prosecution/#disqus_thread

  299. Well John. You might want to tell those guys at the Federalist that if this be a crime, it is Republican on Republican crime. There are no Democratic fingerprints at this crime scene.

    You guys sure get a lot of oddjobs on this blog. For some reason, I thought it would be different than the rest of the internet world.

  300. “shows that partisan rancor has swept aside legal ethics. This lack of respect for the rule of law threatens us all.”

    Well Tex, this has been my theme for today. If I’m taking a stand, it’s against an industry that finds our “rule of law” a toy for them to play with. I used to think our only problem was an ignorant, apathetic and dependent electorate; it’s far worse than that. We not only have questionable characters running this country, they’re doing so with our money and paying an army of legal “experts” in the process.

    If you want to read things that fit your political, oops, your legal opinion then just look up-thread; something will strike your fancy.

  301. AY wrote: “This is a state wide office…. It’s like cutting off funding to the AG or Treasure or Public University’s.”

    It is a county office which assumed statewide influence because it is located in the capital and was able to receive State funding. Once it received State funding, it was expected to have State wide influence. This is part of the problem because the person who heads it up was not elected by the State but by the county. Therefore, it is not fairly representing the State because most people in the State did not elect her. If the State wants a Public Integrity Unit, then the legislature should establish one under the AG and then you might have a valid point.

  302. AY wrote: “Once elected to office, even if disbarred is not a disqualification to hold the office.”

    I never claimed there was anything illegal in her staying in office. Integrity goes way beyond the requirements of law. If I held public office and saw myself on video doing what she did, and my governor asked me to resign to restore public trust in the Public Integrity Unit, I would do so immediately.

  303. randyjet wrote: “if getting a DUI is an indication of a lack of integrity, then how the hell could you support Bush and Cheney who each had DOUBLE the number of DUIs Lehmberg now has.”

    No doubt these were stains upon these men. It made me very hesitant to vote for Bush. However, these were not recent stains. If they did these things while in office, then they also should step down for the sake of the country. If Lehmberg’s DWI was twenty years ago and she had reformed herself, then I would have little problem at all with it.

    I should point out that it was not just her DWI, but the fact that she was spending $60 a week on Vodka and displayed such an atrocious attitude toward the system she leads on publicly released film. The attitude she displayed was that all she cared about was herself and her precious career. She had an uppity attitude toward everyone else. That revealed the kind of person that she is. You guys trust that kind of person. I do not.

  304. David, Bubba changed everything. He taught Dems to hang on to power no matter what. Demonize your opponents and never resign.

  305. Laser wrote: “Attack the character of the victim is GOP Playbook 101.”

    Yes, character is very important and should be examined. Apparently since Bill Clinton, Democrats no longer care about a person’s character.

  306. At David, that’s because you lack integrity You only concern seems to be power – anyway you can get it. Typical Republican.

  307. The NYT just came out w/ an editorial calling this an overzealous prosecution!! For chrissake, the NYT!

  308. Nick, the NYT doesn’t say anything about overreach. It says we have not seen the case yet. If it is overreach, it is Republican overreach because Democrats are not involved in bringing this case. All the officials are Republicans. The NYT also analogizes to other Governors and the President. As has been pointed out, other Governors and the Federal code don’t have anything that mirrors the Texas statue.

    Let’s see the case. I have trouble myself seeing how he meets the elements for count 1. But count 2? Let’s see.

  309. If it is overreach, it is Republican overreach because Democrats are not involved in bringing this case.
    —————————

    That’s some pretty tortured logic there Tex.

  310. You call the American newspapers unbiased? And that they are capable of responsible reporting? Do you need remedial education….

    Just like Turley selling out to the highest bidder Faux news….

    The games rigged…

    SWM excellent addition….

  311. Bailers, I don’t see how stating a fact is tortured logic. What Democratic official is involved in bringing an indictment against Rick Perry?

  312. @anonymously yourss

    Do you actually watch Fox News??? They have some idealogues here and there, but they also have some great hosts, like Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Shep Smith, Greg Gutfield, etc. I trust them more than the other mouthpieces of big government.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  313. John, Bernie Sanders was not appointed by Rick Perry or George Bush. Nor does he carry endorsements from Texas Senators. I ask again, what Democratic official is bringing an indictment against Rick Perry.

  314. “Just like Turley selling out to the highest bidder Faux news….”

    What’s more likely, Turley selling out to anyone or him expressing legal opinions that are based in, I don’t know, “just law”? The fact you see it as the former speaks volumes of your objectivity on the latter.

  315. I have no idea about Turley. He shows up at Pete Sessions congressional hearing saying we should sue Barack Obama rather than impeach because some don’t like how Obama is implementing ACA. Then he argues that we should impeach but not go to court with Rick Perry before seeing the evidence. Sometimes he wants a judge to intervene with the executive branch and sometimes he doesn’t.

  316. John,

    Read the Dulles brothers book before you comment any further… Your ignorance is in full bloom… I just though it was rag weed…. You show me different….

    Squirmy,

    I trust unbiased news…. It’s hard to find here in the alledged land of the free….

    Call me…. You see they can’t blame some democrat…. So they still try and blame one…

    David…. Did you read the legislation that created the public integrity unit…. Until then I’ll consider your ignorance as uninformed….

    Just think, before you speak…. I am a male… I am not subservient to you male dominance… If your wife wants to play that game… Fine with me…. But don’t call someone a lesbian without proof… And even if she is…. What does it matter to you….

    Based upon your denigration of her drunk driving… Bush nor Cheney should have ever run for office…. Is this your male dominance double standard?

  317. Main stream is lame stream.

    I have email, after email, of reporters asking for facts in my “Haas v Romney” case. Then asking for proofs (easy to do when you have confessions). Then they all bark its not possible, or it isn’t a story – or no one cares.

    All lame duck babbling banter obfuscating.

    Such as the fact that, in the Tom Petters Ponzi case, Marty Lackner was involved in a feeder fund of Lancelot/ Sky Bell (with David Bell). But you don’t see no arrests, prosecutions and indictments of the billion dollar fraud guy.

    That’s because he’s DEAD!

    Reportedly, by suicide, Marty Lackner bailed out in mid 2009 (almost a year after the FBI raided and arrested a dozen in the Tom Petters Ponzi). As melodramatic as that is, it’s not the biggest issue. The Wall Street Journal, Star Tribune and Chicago biggie papers, the US Today, NY Times, Bostons, WaPo and NBC all passed on reporting THE most important issue. Because – if you ask, how did Petters and/or Madoff get away with it for decades; isn’t it germane that a participant in the Billions of dollars of Ponzi schemes –

    Is brother to an Assistant U.S. Attorney/head of Criminal Division?

    http://www.twincities.com/alllistings/ci_12969455?source=rss

    A TRAGIC TURN

    The Bell case took a tragic turn in June with revelations that a Bell associate named Martin Lackner had committed suicide. Sources say Lackner, 48, had helped bring investors to Lancelot earlier in the fund’s genesis. There’s no record he was charged with any crime. His wife, Diana, and three children survived him.

    Martin Lackner is also the brother of Jim Lackner, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Minneapolis office. Jim Lackner declined comment. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office said Jim Lackner never worked on the Petters or Bell cases. When the U.S. attorney’s office learned about Martin Lackner and his relationship to Jim, it notified defense attorneys for both Petters and Bell, he said.

  318. LDL,
    What difference does it make what news source you use if you’re interested in the truth? Anyone with the ability for critical-thinking would know you need to independently verify the validity of what you read and hear.

  319. Talk about babbling BS obfuscating – how about that line;

    “A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office said Jim Lackner never worked on the Petters or Bell cases”.

    That’s just one of hundreds of questions that beg – such as;

    Did Marty & his AUSA brother – EVER talk about the case?
    Are there emails, phone conversations, letters, memos?
    “Were” there communications (destroyed)?
    When did the MN U.S. Attorney’s office – KNOW?
    Highly specious no arrest of Marty – EVER!
    What about his personal gains (tragic as it is – belongs to victims)!
    AUTOMATICALLY disqualifies MN – U.S. Attorney’s office – Correct!
    Why did Marty Lackner kill himself (where did pressure come from)?
    NOTE: – There was NO suicide note to Wife & 3 Kids
    SPECIAL NOTE – I know, because we were “supposed” to meet.
    Even I (at 1st) didn’t believe Marty (thought they were setting me up).
    Romney’s Bain Cap/Goldman Sachs involved in Tom Petters Ponzi
    They made Petters attorney to be the Petters Ponzi fed Receiver.
    Larry Reynolds laundered $12 Billion for Ponzi – While IN WISTEC!
    If the feds did tell Petters attorney – it’s a breach not to seek VENUEs!
    and the REAL Biggie – DID Marty Kill himself?

    Main stream – Lame Stream – including JT turning a blind eye to the stories!

    I’m just sayin……….

  320. http://tribtalk.org/2014/08/18/why-the-indictment-matters/ “Lost in all the mooing is the simple thought that savvy, experienced special prosecutor Michael McCrum likely agrees that Perry has the right to veto things he doesn’t like, such as appropriations for the state’s public integrity unit at the Travis County district attorney’s office. McCrum wouldn’t stand by and let the grand jury indict the Constitution. He and the grand jury clearly have something else in mind.

    My suspicion is that all this jumping over the moon with indignation took place before the jumpers considered just who was behind the Perry indictment. It was not Austin liberals or Democrats. Not a single Democratic official was involved at any point in the process, except to recuse him or herself. That’s what the victim of Perry’s “offers,” Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, did. So did District Judge Julie Kocurek.

    Kocurek referred the criminal complaint to Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, a Republican and Perry appointee. Stubblefield could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he assigned it to Judge Bert Richardson, also a Republican. He, too, could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he appointed conservative, well-respected former federal prosecutor McCrum as special prosecutor. Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison once recommended McCrum for the job of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas. McCrum could have dismissed the complaint. Instead, he took it to a grand jury.

    The hatred for the public integrity unit among Perry and his right-wing allies is well known. At the time of Perry’s alleged threats and attempts to entice Lehmberg, her office was investigating the notorious scandal at the state’s Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Perry himself was promising CPRIT money to a contributor before the agency was even established. Attorney General Greg Abbott, a fellow Republican, was on CPRIT’s oversight board when the scandal occurred. Ouch.

    The integrity unit is currently investigating University of Texas System Regent Wallace Hall, a Perry apointee, and a complaint has been filed with the unit against GOP attorney general nominee Ken Paxton. Surely Perry must have suspected that there were cabinets full of files on him and his friends in that office. How he must have wanted to take over the district attorney’s office and get control of all this. The motive behind his mission is not hard to spot.

    So when Lehmberg was convicted of drunken driving, Perry took the opportunity. He threatened to kill the integrity unit unless Lehmberg — who was elected by the citizens of Travis County, not appointed by Perry — resigned. When she resisted, he vetoed the funds.

  321. “Read the Dulles brothers book before you comment any further… Your ignorance is in full bloom… I just though it was rag weed.”

    Beggin’ yer pardin AY, but I gotta rispond. First, I guess my ignorance is like ragweed and you have serious allergies; got it. Second, I’m still working on the connection between you thinking Turley is a sellout and the Dulles brother’s book. Maybe you can enlighten me on that as well.

  322. Oliver;

    PUHHLLLEEAASSEEE…!

    Interested in the truth. Would you like to come again? Do you want the truth that Romney’s a Racketeer? He, himself, bragged (often) about getting many millions each year from Bain Capital. I’ve got federal agents, agencies, Chief Justice’s, all bending over backwards to keep the official story from making it into court docket records for review.

    SPECIFICALLY;

    Romney’s Bain Capital law firm in Delaware, has confessed supplication of over 15 erroneous Bankruptcy Rule 2014/2016 Affidavits in the Delaware case of In re: eToys (01-706). Where the Debtor’s counsel and creditors counsel both worked for Romney and/or Bain interests (prior & during) the eToys case. They then inserted (AFTER the US Trustee’s office forewarned them NOT to do such a thing) – another Romney affiliated party into eToys as post-bankruptcy petition President/CEO. They then offered me a bribe; which was turned down and reported.

    Then (reportedly) Mitt “retroactively” resigns in August 2001.

    Guess what else happens in August 2001? Romney/Bain Cap (secret) law firm partner (CC) is promoted out of the firm to the position of U.S. Attorney in “DEAL”aware!

    Funny how Mitt seeks to be “retroactive” from August 2001; back to February 1999 and this person who was partners in his law firm – was a partner from 1999 to August 2, 2001.

    eToys was sold (by me – the court approved party) to Bain/Kay Bee – for tens of millions of dollars. Then, the (unlawfully) inserted post-bankruptcy petition filing CEO (Barry Gold – who worked as Stage Stores director’s assistant to Michael Glazer {also CEO of Kay Bee Toys at the time}). Where the Debtor’s counsel and creditors counsel both lied and Continue to Not reveal their serious/obvious Conflict of Interest. And retaliated against me for blowing the whistle and turning down the bribe. As Bain/Kay Bee tell WSJ they purchased eToys for $5.4 million (I sold them the domain name alone for $10 million).

    ————————————-

    It obviously matters WHO/what media entity reports this story. PoliticusUSA.com has, along with Liberal Unite and Addicting Info (getting over 2 million web views and more than 200,000 FB likes/Twitter Tweets).

    How many millions would go nuts and viral the story – if it were main stream?

    Bet you never will tell the tale of corruption and woe!
    (Because it is “we v them” – a GOP does its okay – Correct – just business)!

    Here’s a question I beg;

    Are you, Nick, David, PS, in the same room together;
    or – do you utilize Free Conference Call dot com – to do your campaigns?

  323. swarthmoremom, that’s a good article. And I have thought along the same lines. I still don’t see how Michael McCrum can fit count 1 to the elements of the statue. Count 2 is coercion and that is easier for me to see. However, the indictment is sketchy alluding only to the veto and not the other items of coercion that your article mentions. How closely does the actual case have to align with the indictment? I don’t know that.

  324. Oh – yeah – I wanted to leave links out of the comment there;
    to make sure it wouldn’t go into the bot censor twilight zone.

    Here’s the proof that MNAT is Bain Capital law firm in the $18 million that Glazer paid himself and $83 million he paid Bain Capital before filing bankruptcy of Kay Bee.

    Could you or I, pay ourselves $100 million and then file bankruptcy;
    never to be (properly) held accountable for the crimes?

    Helps when the one representing Bain is MNAT;
    and the one asking to be prosecutor is Paul Traub.

    That’s Paul Traub of Traub Bonacquist & Fox who worked for Romney/ Glazer/ Barry Gold at Stage Stores in 2000/2001 – who then became Creditors counsel of eToys that was sold to Romney/ Bain/ Glazer/ Kay Bee – while Traub inserted his secret partner (Barry Gold) into eToys as post-bankruptcy petition CEO

    Whilst MNAT partner Colm Connolly became the Delaware US Attorney;
    who buried the case from investigation/prosecution for 7 years.

    MNAT – representing Bain in the $83 million – LINK

    http://petters-fraud.com/Proof_MNAT_Represents_Bain_DelawareKB_case.pdf

  325. @laserd

    I tried to read through some of your legal issues, and even I am not entirely sure what your claim is about. The MSM is not very good on financial reporting. A Bernie Madoff is easy to explain, while picking the asset base for a Derivative, betting against it, without disclosure is over most people ‘s head. Even most lawyers, who have no idea what debits and credits are all about.

    A clear, cogent, and easily understood narrative is essential. Unfortunately, we live in a sound bite world.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  326. “The FAA had already prohibited flight operations over Crimea beginning in April. After Flight 17 was shot down July 17 in a separatist-controlled area of Ukraine, the FAA expanded the prohibited area to encompass the eastern part of the country. [The Washington Post, 7/22/14]”

    LJC,
    Even we ignorant folk were able to verify the inaccuracy of that statement. I did think it was curious the administration would take action before a crisis. And then I realized if Hamas, even accidentally, shot down an airline, then they would completely turn public sentiment against them and for Israel. FAA did the right thing. Too bad they had to wait until after a plane was shot down to take action in eastern Ukraine.

  327. LDL,
    Why are you pressing your Romney case so hard in this thread? If you have a case then make it in court; otherwise it just comes off as desperate and appears you believe it’s weak. But then what do I know; I’m just too ignorant to know better.

  328. John the point isn’t that even you could verify the inaccuracy. she presents it as news, not as opinion or commentary. Squeeky says this is one of the people on whom she relies for accurate news. On the contrary Kelly et al are renowned for their lies and absolute spin to turn almost anything into anti administration, antiObama.
    You may not like MSNBC but they don’t become contortionists to change facts to fit their bias.

  329. @leecarroll

    They may be “renowned ” for whatever in your circles. But maybe you need to step outside your circles and just watch for youself. I used to watch MSNBC for several hours per day, but it got to be so partisan, and so oblivious to any problems with Obama that I stopped. Be brave! Try watching Megyn for a few weeks.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  330. Here’s another example of main stream (even purported – on the good side) being biased to/ nixing the story/facts.

    I’m THE motivating source for Taibbi’s Rolling Stone “Greed n Debt” story (have the email correspondence and registered delivery proofs documented).

    But – the story skipped over eToys part of the saga;
    only naming Stage Stores and Kay Bee.

    By nixing our phone call – Taibbi missed simple facts;
    such as Michael Glazer was also at Stage Stores.

    The real title should be “Greed and Debt” PART of the True Story About Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

  331. David, first Bush’s last DUI was not so far in the past since as I recall he was about 45 at the time. Then he had a lot more moral failings in business when he was given a pass by the SEC for insider trading when his father was President. Then, as Governor, he appointed the guy who gave him a sweetheart deal on buying his share of the Rangers to the U of Texas board of regents where he took millions in commissions by using his own firm for trading in U of Texas endowment fund. As I recall the Texas legislature after this made it illegal for any future regents to do the same.

    As for supporting Lehmberg, I could not vote for her, nor would I support her for office now. She even admitted she will not be running again. Then you try and indicate she had something to do with the indictment which is an outright lie. It shows a serious lack of knowledge of the facts since it was a GOP judge from Bexar County, who appointed the special prosecutor who was supported for office of US Attorney by Bush. THAT is NOT partisan criminal witch hunting.

  332. Here’s one for you –

    Romney = Bain Cap = MNAT law firm = partner of MNAT Colm Connolly.

    Connolly partners MNAT from 1999 to August 2001 (becoming US Attorney)

    Romney claims to be retroactively retired August 2001; back to Feb 1999.

    John (Jack) Wheeler walks into the Nemours Bldg New Year’s Eve 2010.

    Winds up dead in a dump.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-1Awheeler22_CV_N.htm

    Guess who’s office is in the Nemours building?

    ————————————————————–

    I’m giving – REAL TIME – reporting on one of the biggest cases of all time;
    and everyone’s yawning – because I’m telling me own story.

    That’s the point (answer to Ollie’s remark “what does it matter who reports”)

    If JT, WaPo and/or Taibbi reported any of these DOCUMENTED facts;

    what would happen then?

  333. LJC,
    If you’re watching any news channel expecting to find one that does all your critical-thinking for you then by all means, just pick one and settle in. It really won’t matter which way they lean, you’ll deserve what you get.

    The reason I enjoy this blog is the same reason I watch FoxNews. JT will provide a story and then we get opinions from both sides of the political spectrum. There are some very smart people in this blog but it’s easy to determine those blinded by their ideology. This is the same with FoxNews; since I don’t align with either “side” I listen (or read) and when some point seems illogical or unreasonable then I start fact-checking.

    This is precisely why I don’t support any political party. This is why it’s so disappointing to see how politicized the legal profession is. I realize you all are human and will have certain beliefs. But when you allow that to determine “how” you will twist the law to suit your beliefs, well that’s unacceptable to me. I know, I’m a bit naïve but I can hope JT will inspire others to think differently. At least Reagan could make a joke about hoping his surgeon was a Republican.

  334. leecaroll, I think it is a futile exercise since folks who watch FAUX do not concern themselves with nasty things like FACTS or even thinking. That is why Faux viewers have such poor scores on tests about current events and knowledge of most anything. They will simply blow the errors off as not big deals. I rather like it when Kelly said that a lie would be a great talking point if it were true, but truth has been shown repeatedly to be the last concern of FAUX.

  335. I know that there’s near ZERO chance that they will let this go to trial.

    My daughter was abducted on my birthday – in 2004 – when I submitted the proofs of crimes to the Delaware bankruptcy court and my own attorney emailed me a threat to “back off” OR ELSE.

    I reported all this corruption to the Public Corruption Task Force on December 7, 2007 (and got each page Time Stamped -as instructed by a federal justice who was assisting); and the result was (12 weeks later) the Public Corruption Task Force was SHUT DOWN and career federal agents were Threatened to keep their mouths closed – Or Else!
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/20/local/me-shakeup20

    And your yawning – because I’m telling my own tale.

    but – if I don’t tell it – They get away with it all.

    What will happen – when they “get me” and Mitt gets elected in 2016?

  336. “Cognitive dissonance works well with GOP playbook 101”

    LDL,
    Are you even aware how childish that statement is? You might as well say “I know you are but what am I?” You have demonstrated an ability to be better than that; your frustration seems to be clouding your debate skills.

  337. @randyjet

    Oh, how easily you dismiss people who watch FOX as having no regard for facts, and how easily you ignore Megyn ripping the people who said the Hobby Lobby Court’s 4 contraceptives weren’t abortifacients with those inconvenient facts from the FDA.

    Yeah.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  338. ““That is why Faux viewers have such poor scores on tests about current events and knowledge of most anything.””

    Always laugh when I see something like this. It reminds me of when Jay Leno would interview kids as they walked off the stage from getting their diploma from places like UCLA and USC about how little they knew of current events and knowledge of most anything.

  339. leejcaroll wrote: “she [Megyn Kelly] presents it as news, not as opinion or commentary.”

    The name of Megyn Kelly’s program is “The Kelly File.” That should give you a clue that it is not a hard news reporting program, but rather it is a news analysis program. Her entire program is opinion and commentary, contrary to your assertion otherwise.

    Media Matters is not to be trusted. They spend their time fabricating so-called lies being told by conservatives. Well, in this case, they botched this so-called lie. If you follow the trail to the FAA alert, it is one given out in April that expired on June 30th, before the timeframe alluded to by Megyn Kelly. It expired before the Malaysian plane was shot down in July. Furthermore, the FAA alert did not cover all of Ukraine. Here is the direct link to the actual alert from Media Matters. If you actually read it, the alert proves that Media Matters lied instead of Megyn Kelly:

    http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ifim/us_restrictions/media/2014_04-03_fdc_notam_4-2816_ukraine.pdf

    The truth is that all public speakers make mistakes and often represent issues inaccurately. Anyone who has ever been featured on the news knows this very well first hand. It would be child’s play to watch for them and then spin a story of lying and dishonesty. An honest news person will admit mistakes and correct themselves. Media Matters does not give them the chance to do that. If Media Matters was interested in the truth, they would routinely ask for comment from the people they regularly crucify and allow them to publish their response on their website. The reason they don’t do that is because it would foist their goal of creating a climate of hatred against conservatives.

    leejcaroll wrote: “You may not like MSNBC but they don’t become contortionists to change facts to fit their bias.”

    This assertion is HIGHLY debateable.

  340. randyjet wrote: “… Bush’s last DUI was not so far in the past since as I recall he was about 45 at the time.”

    Bush’s DUI was in 1976. He was 30 years old. It was 24 years before the 2000 election. Bush gave up drinking completely in 1986. Cheney was only 20 & 21 back in the 1960’s when he was convicted.

  341. randyjet wrote: “Then you try and indicate she had something to do with the indictment which is an outright lie. … THAT is NOT partisan criminal witch hunting.”

    I do not know how you got that impression. In politics, people stick up for each other for various reasons. I do not personally know all the players here; therefore, I will not deny partisanship might be involved. However, you will not see me leading the charge about that. I raised the question of whether some of Lehmberg’s supporters might be due to her being a lesbian. So if you think about it, I was actually steering away from Democrat-Republican partisanship.

  342. The primary way I see Lehmberg involved is that Perry considers her unfit to keep serving over the Public Integrity Unit, and so he basically said if you stay on leading this unit, I will be forced (apparently through his internal sense of integrity) to veto the State funding for it. I consider that a reasonable and fair action on his part.

  343. David Axelrod tweeted that the indictment against Perry seems sketchy. Axelrod basically supports Perry if the reasons Perry gave for the veto are true and Perry was not just trying to eliminate the unit entirely for other reasons.

  344. It doesn’t seem logical to conclude he vetoed the funding to shut down potential investigations. If she resigned then the investigations still continue. He would gain nothing other than to get someone out of office that had lost the public trust. If she doesn’t, then the funding provided by the county would allow her to continue those “pressing” investigations.

  345. leejcaroll wrote: “Not in my circles but provably thru the internet from legit sources.”

    Except Politifact and Media Matters are unreliable sources! They are in your circles. Who would go to such internet sites for truth when time and time again they lead you on a wild goose chase. Most people who read these sites just read the punchlines. They do not dig down to the original sources to see if what is being said is true.

    Take this one case for Politifact found on your link: “O’Reilly denies accusing WH of political motives in early Benghazi response.”

    What is their conclusion?

    “O’Reilly said he didn’t tell viewers that the Obama campaign hid news about the motives behind the attack in Benghazi because he was running for re-election. While O’Reilly did not use those exact words, he consistently said that someone was trying to mislead the American public.”

    So they rate this statement as “mostly false” even though they admit that O’Reilly told the truth. O’Reilly raised questions about it and believed there was more to the story, but he constantly refused to speculate that the White House was the source of the lies. This evaluation of his statement should have been rated as mostly true, but that wouldn’t bring readers to them who only like reading how much O’Reilly supposedly lies.

  346. John Oliver, all one needs to do is give a current events test made by NPR to conservative people who do not listen to NPR. Now you have a basis for claiming how uninformed they are. Can you imagine how the NPR viewers would fair on a test given by the O’Reilly Factor? People who use their own bias as a standard will be deceived easily by the results.

  347. Iam astonished by the lack of knowledege of basic facts here in the case of Tom Delay and Rick Perry. FoOr the uninformed that stated Delay’s conviction was overturned because the funds were transferred by check, you aren’t even in the ballpark. The check thing is something to do with ethics rules written by democrats concerning donations accepted while a legislative body is in session. Delay’s conviction was overturned because, in the words of the Court of Appeals, “The fundamental problem with the State’s case was its failure to prove proceeds of criminal activity.” The state never proved a crime was comitted, let alone that Delay commiited it. The court ruled that with no underlying criminal activity, the crime of money laundering cannot exist, therefore, Delay was not guilty of money laundering.
    For the uninformed that were arguing about coercion in TX law, here is what the the Cort of Appeals has ruled. “Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression”. So unless it was unlawful for Perry to say the DA should resign, or her resignation itself would be unlawful, then no crime has taken place.

  348. Governor Perry has had a lifetime appointment to the governorship sustained mostly through Texas-sized, legalized electoral fraud by comming up with new identification and redistricting laws before each of his “elections”, and massive petroleum interests. A blatant display of pirmitive Civic Public Administration from an equally primitive state, i.e. human rights police abuses and rank corruption. If he gets any more power, may the almighty creator help us, we’ll all be in the hole for another 100 years, and the world will catch hell again. Get your popcorn ready, here we go again, the petroleum cartel is on the way again ready to be the true highjackers of the once beautiful US of A. Perry has acted like a god destroying lives and not granting clemency, he made this bed, now he needs to sleep in it and enjoy it. He’s a white collar political thug, lets start cleaning up and putting them away, lets get corruption under control!

  349. Swartmoremom;

    It would be a gross underestimate to presume they will pnly try every “legal” move under the sun.

    Be assured there are many discussions in the venal backroom, on how to scuttle this issue.

    (That is – of course – if it’s not the super right wing thayt be behind this to begin with

    N’est-ce pas!

  350. Rubguy;

    Delay is a perfect example of a convicted putz getting off ‘Scot Free’! If you want the real skinny on what Delay n Abramoff did; then look at Alex Gibney’s “Casino Jack” documentary (instead of the Hollywood bomb stsrfing Kevin Spacey).

  351. David;

    Of course they’re after the gelt;
    That’s ehat “selling out” means.

    _____:::_________:::__________

    Ollie;

    I’m. Not a debator I’m a VICTIM!

    And the way you stay obtuse to the fscts about Romney, Bain Cap., and Perry’s corfuption in the Willingham and other affairs; clearly demonstrates that I’m ‘Spot On’ about the dissonance.

    (That is – if course – unless you are outright duplicitous with an agenda to assault tbe Truth).

    __________:::__________:::___________

    Squeeky;

    It is (of course) possible that AY and others such as I are biased against faux news; but given the empirical evidence abundant – its odds on favorite that it’s justifiable {in spite of any probability your case/gal in point may be a legitimate anomally aberrant}.

    TEST

    Would you consider writing the “Haas v. Romney” saga?

  352. AY;

    This blog,s goal is to the veil. Be that as it may, we met here and others.like U.S. shall pass this way too. Hence our efforts are not in vane (lest JT totally dive off and redact the bulk of our remarks entirely).

    Until.that time, I’ve learned that the simple solution to ignirance -Is to ignore ( they – the veiked/ trolls n paid assassins) feed on the arguing and are hell bent to find thi.gs contrary, even if G-d hkmself were to provide facts via Moses Stones.

    BTW – had a wonderful conversation with Otteray today
    (In between his interviewing of officers)

  353. Oh boy, cocktail hour (or two) LDL?

    In less than 10 minutes I discovered I’m obtuse, duplicitous, suffer from cognitive dissonance, assault the truth and may or may not be a paid troll. I’m sure to be more things you haven’t thought of yet so I’ll save you the trouble and just agree right now. Oh, the good ole days when everyone simply agreed, right? I hope that helps you. Thanks.

  354. J.O. (yo);

    You are the one who begins eith the snide whilst remaing hands- off from.the crux. Your folly is blantant in your less than slick sidestep of the apropos most important and serious questions.

    Are Romney &/ or Perry – corrupt?

    Just answer the bloody floghon questions!

  355. rubguy, Then the Court of appeals threw out the Texas law that bars corporations giving political contributions to candidates for office. That is judicial activism gone wild. The only contributions that can be outlawed are those from criminal activity according to your rule. DeLay illegally tranfered funds to the GOP National committee to avoid the Texas law, and then directed it BACK to Texas candidates. The jurors took the common sense rule that it was money laundering in the intent and wording of the law. As I said, the Court basically threw out the Texas law and made it moot.

  356. david, You might have a point IF Perry was not under investigation by that same unit he wanted to get rid of. Only a fool would think that Perry acted out of concern for integrity of anything. He simply saw a chance to gut a unit that was threatening his activities, and could care less about how many drinks she had while driving. He also offered her other jobs if she would quit. She certainly had enough “integrity” for Perry to offer them to her.

    As for Axelrod’s comment, he doesn’t know Texas or its laws or the circumstances. As for Lehmberg’s sexual activities, I have no idea of them, nor do I care or think it is even relevant. I do not support her, and think that she needs to go next election. She is not operating the DAs office in the interest of the people of Travis County since she has been backing the police to the hilt in many matters where they are very much in the wrong.. We need a new DA who will go after crooked cops who lie and abuse the public..Maybe this incident will change her views.

  357. John, The point of getting rid of her and being able to appoint her successor would shut down the investigation of his cronies. Restoring the funds and having her gone would KILL any investigation going on.

  358. Randyjet;

    They don’t care how logical n sound your reasonings are. A liberal didn’t leave office when a GOP’r demanded it. As far as they are concerned, Perry is allowed to abuse power.

    Governer Siegelman went to jail for far less an infraction; and you don’t ses multiple state AG’s snding letters in on Perry’s behalf.

    (Btw – the corrupt judge fuller who locked Governer Siegalman up;

    Was removed from all his cases due to his wife beating.

  359. randyjet wrote: “You might have a point IF Perry was not under investigation by that same unit he wanted to get rid of.”

    As someone else pointed out previously, it is illogical to think that should the DA resign, it would get rid of the Public Integrity Unit. If she had resigned, the funding would have continued and the unit would continue. The truth is that even without the funding, the unit still continues.

    It seems really strange to me that you agree with Perry that Lehmberg is unfit for that office and needs to go, yet still somehow you divine alternative evil motivations on the part of Perry. How would you go about proving your accusation in a court of law?

  360. David,

    Your tea party bias underwater is showing…. You can be for both of the propositions and still be logical….

    How does a governor restore funding after a veto? Seems like an art 2 issue…. Plus he would have to call a special session to do what you propose at a present day cost of more than 5 million…

    Make the taxpayers pay again for political games….. Good point…. Ted Cruz is in his camp….

  361. Perry = Cameron Todd Willingham CORRUPTION; an execution of an innocent and investigation buried. CRIME of Murder!

    And then, the “independent” investigation was obliterated by Perry.

    Crime and Cover Up = Corruption of highest order.

    Here’s Gov Perry lying threw his teeth;
    also erroneously stipulating the [forensic] science was proper.

  362. Per Wikipedia on Perry/Willingham;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

    The Texas Forensic Science Commission was scheduled to discuss the report by Beyler at a meeting on October 2, 2009, but two days before the meeting Texas Governor Rick Perry replaced the chair of the commission and two other members.

    The new chair canceled the meeting – sparking accusations that Perry was interfering with the investigation and using it for his own political advantage.

    emphasis in bold/underline – mine

    Perry – Out Right Lied – in the interview.
    (Stipulating CTW wife testified CTW confessed)

    This is – proof irrefutable – that Perry “rigs” what he controls;
    and could’ve done the same with the Public Integrity Section.

  363. david, The fact is that the unit only kept operating because Travis County came up with the money. Had she resigned, Perry’s appointee would have ORDERED the unit to stop investigating the Cancer fund disbursements. This would have been the same way Perry disposed of the investigation of the miscarriage of justice in the Willingham case where they executed an innocent man. The easy way out for Lehmberg would have been to play ball with Perry and get a new job that he would get for her.

    So far neither you or any other Perry defender has shown ANY FACT that this is a political prosecution given that ALL the players involved in this indictment are Republicans,with the exception of the grand jury whose ID we don’t know. In order to PROVE your case about political involvement, you have so far shown NO FACTS at all.

  364. Proof that Governor Perry lied;

    Stacy (Cameron Todd Willingham) had this to say – to the New Yorker;
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

    Willingham had often not treated her [wife Stacy] well, she recalled, and after his incarceration she had left him for a man who did. But she [Stacy] didn’t think that her former husband should be on death row.

    “I don’t think he did it,” she said, crying.

    Cameron’s wife NEVER stated Cameron confessed!

    If you read the entire New Yorker story and do not come away with a heart saddened on how a youthful offender was slaughtered by state sponsored murder;

    than you likely don’t have a heart!

    I still weep to this very day – about the obvious injustice;
    and remain enraged at the corrupt Governor Perry!

  365. re diff between what dems do and repubs, Senate candidate John Walsh was forced out of his senate race because of allegations of plagiarism while Rand Paul, a proven plagiarizer remains in the senate.

  366. randyjet wrote: “Had she resigned, Perry’s appointee would have ORDERED the unit to stop investigating the Cancer fund disbursements.”

    This is a totally unsubstantiated assumption on your part. It also assumes that the office investigation is politically motivated, an assumption that you have previously denied.

    randyjet wrote: “In order to PROVE your case about political involvement, you have so far shown NO FACTS at all.”

    This is a strawman because as I stated before when you raised this point, I have never attempted to prove political motivation. Nevertheless, to merely assume that no politics is involved, especially when the person bringing the indictment is not a Republican and the office has a history of political motivations (e.g., Hutchison, DeLay, etc.), is at best exposing your own naivety about how politics works.

  367. As a person that exists outside of the legal system, I read all of the outrage in this thread and elsewhere and it just makes me want to spit. I’ll believe you’re truly interested in ending political corruption when a) you recognize and admit that behind every corrupt politician is a lawyer advising them b) you can for a nanosecond pry yourself away from whatever ideology drives your opinion and represent THE LAW that USED TO have a noble purpose.

  368. John Oliver;

    If you hold to that professed ideology; then apply it!

    In our banter on the “Haas v Romney” debacle, you’ve not once offered any genuine debate upon the merits of the allegations.

    I agree that THE LAW is noble

    —————– it’s those doing the adjudicating that are the problem.

    It’s called “Color of Law” and its a Civil Rights violation for judges, prosecutors, officers and lawyers to engage in such “pretending” to apply the law.

    A crime under 18 U.S.C. $ 242

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law

    By studying the law online, case cites, Opinions -etc;
    (especially the DOJ website & U.S. Attorney Manual)
    I’ve become an apprentice very knowledgeable
    (in bankruptcy ethics/law violations and Civil RICO)

  369. david, Once again you simply lie. The Travis County DA did NOT bring the indictment. It shows that you are now incapable of acknowledging simple facts. it is either willful or not, but it is pointless to argue with such types. The special prosecutor was appointed by GHW Bush as a US attorney with endorsements from BOTH Texas Senators. I do not know how much more Republican you can get! So to say he is somehow NOT a Republican is beyond rational debate.

    Then to state that Perry would not interfere with the investigation of his actions in disbursing millions of dollars is absurd since he has done that in the past. It is true that nobody can predict the future. but given Perry’s past actions, it is a safe bet that he would have done just as I said. It is not political to investigate corruption either, unless you are in the GOP. Ronnie Earl who was the past Travis county DA for decades prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans in his terms of office. His one regret was that he could not nail Lt. Governor Bob Bullock who was a Democrat. and he tried many times to nail him. I don’t call that being partisan. At his retirement, Bullock gloated that he escaped from Earl’s clutches, and admitted he was guilty. It was not for lack of trying on Earl’s part. I was rather disappointed that he did not win election after he had left the DA’s office. He is an honest man, but that does not seem to matter too much in current politics.

    DeLay was found guilty at trial, but his conviction was overturned in a rather bizzare ruling that invalidated the Texas law on campaign contributions from corporations. It is now OK for corporations to contribute to a candidates political campaign as long as it is laundered through the National Party. Of course, most folks don’t think that is the intent of the law, but when one has judges on the Appeals Court who can come up with novel way of getting around the law, who cares?

  370. randyjet, do you believe that Gov. Perry committed a crime deserving 99 years in prison? That is the maximum sentence that might be given for this indictment.

    From my perspective, Perry did nothing wrong. He saw the Public Integrity Unit being headed up by a drunk DA convicted of a crime while in public office. He gave sufficient warning that he would veto funding if she did not resign her office. He even offered to help her find a position where her criminal failing would not be so detrimental to the government. The DA is the one who chose to keep her position and lose the funding, even though she had announced prior to this whole fiasco that she would not seek another term as DA. So why not simply resign early? She was certainly in a position to negotiate with Perry who her replacement would be if she did resign. I think we all know the answer to that question by watching the video of her playing hardball with the officers who arrested her for DWI.

  371. David now you change the direction of your comments. it is not that it was political or that you are wrong in saying “especially when the person bringing the indictment is not a Republican ” (and you march in step with Perry; he says it is “political” the implication being it is democrats who have orchestrated this)
    And using the penultimate sentence, 99 years is also silly. even murderers rarely get the maximum.

  372. randyjet wrote: “david, Once again you simply lie. The Travis County DA did NOT bring the indictment.”

    I never said that she did. I was talking about the Special Prosecutor Michael McCrum. He is not a Republican and has enjoyed Democratic Party support just like he has enjoyed Republican support. In any case, being appointed or supported by Republicans doesn’t mean anything because Republicans are fair and balanced.:-)

  373. “This realm should be free from worry; and simply just doing progressive business!

    But we can’t; because there are bad faith rotten apples among U.S. who are trying their best to ruin any conversation they don’t approve of. And that ain’t right. We should be able to debate Hillary, Kerry or Obama’s policy and programs free from worry of being ganged up on.

    After all – we are all adults – and should be able to be free of RWNJ Playbook tactics!

    I’m just sayin………”

    Are these your words LDL?

    If you are finding it difficult to convince people such as myself why this is nothing other than a partisan witchhunt then look no further than YOUR OWN words. If that’s the reputation you’ve built for yourself then you only have yourself to blame. You also make a considerable effort to convince people that:

    “In the past I’ve worked real, Real, hard at trying not to be one of those phony glory hounds. It is super frustrating to talk about something going on and work with each and every sentence to try to say “we”, they, our or them; and stay away from saying me and/or I. Fighting the mindset about narcissistic trends is a daunting task. Even when I did, the hating gang go “who is this we”.”

    And you say that AFTER you said:

    “I’ve paid the filing fee, thrown stones at some of the most important people and corporations in our country; and I’ve sworn to my allegations Under Penalty of Perjury.

    That’s all the qualification needed to make this a huge reality show.”

    You’ve created your “huge reality show” and now you don’t like the reality. Go figure.

  374. leejcaroll wrote: “And using the penultimate sentence, 99 years is also silly. even murderers rarely get the maximum.”

    Not exactly silly at all. Lehmberg got the maximum sentence for her DWI. Harsh sentences are expected of public officers because they know better. Besides, I want to know where he stands on this supposed criminal action by Perry.

    We know now where you stand on the maximum sentence, but what about the minimum sentence? The minimum sentence for Perry if convicted of the first count is five years in prison. Do you think Perry deserves at minimum five years in prison for allegedly abusing his official capacity?

  375. I’ll leave you to yourself (ish) world of ignoring the big picture.

    Proof of corruption!

    Issues of homicide connected!

    All you do is skip, dance and prance upon the victim.

    Enjoy your day – Sir NaySay!

  376. “I’ll leave you to yourself (ish) world of ignoring the big picture.”

    Isn’t that special; I’m accused of ignoring the big picture because I’m not focusing on your big picture. You must be historically uninstructed not to know that electing people to positions of power is both necessary and inherently ripe for corruption. I’m spit-balling here but I’m guessing the corruption was far easier to prove BEFORE the legal profession started their paint job.

    If you’re really interested in the big picture then climb out of your progressive (your word) stovepipe and get back to the law as it was originally intended. And for God’s sake, cease with the partisan attacks; it’s unbecoming from someone in your profession.

    And you enjoy your day as well.

  377. Personally I see the better debate as what should happen to McCrum when this thing gets dismissed. Count I? Misuse. How does one misuse vetoed funds? Count II coercion and the statute has an exception seemingly contemplating this act. On a motion to dismiss, judge should grant, tell Gov Perry he’s free to go and then turn to McCrum and say, “You’re not” — he should get smacked out of court for this.

  378. david, Perry should get the same sentence as the Sheriff got for doing the same thing, only a bit longer since he is the Guv.

  379. “Had he simply vetoed the budget, he presumably could not be accused for coercion since there was no threat.”

    There appears to be an implication that this means the case against Perry is weak. That seems specious to me.

    Suppose a private citizen gives another private citizen a gift. Perfectly legal. Let’s say it’s a campaign contribution to a Governor. Still perfectly legal. The Governor then veto’s a bill. Perfectly legal.

    Then a recorded phone conversation that occurred before the veto pops up in which the Governor agrees to veto the bill in exchange for the contribution. Big Problem.

    Let’s make it a bit more analogous to the Perry incident. There is no recorded phone conversation. Rather, the Governor is to pathetically stupid that he sees nothing wrong with accepting a legal campaign contribution in exchange for a legal veto. So he simply announces what he is going to do at a press conference. “I have received $500,000 from Mr. Donor in exchange for a veto.” Then he vetoes the bill.

    Had he simply vetoed the bill, he presumably could not be accused of bribery.

    Well, yeah. Because the statement, like the phone conversation, is the evidence. Without the statement, you don’t have the evidence.

    So what?

  380. stevej, As you will notice, GOP crooks get a pass on their bribery here. Your simple examples say it all. That is why a GOP judge, GOP prosecutor, all agreed that Perry has done something that warrants trial. OF course, GOP hacks here will dismiss such folks as being blatantly partisan, and the charges specious.

Comments are closed.