On-Topic Tex Gov. Perry Indicted on Felony Counts

[Vitamin]

Constitutions are the supreme law of the state. The legislature cannot enact a valid statute amending or decreasing a power granted by the constitution.

So you think the statute supports the Prosecution in this case, Ben?

 

[Vitamin]

In an attempt to continue the conversation with actual intelligent people, I don't see the statute as favoring the Prosecution, unless they're holding back more evidence which might be the case.

The statute makes it clear that the State needs to show "intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another" per section a. So far no one is accusing Perry of anything more than using his veto for his political benefit. That's a rather large stretch in my view. Threatening to veto a budget to get your way is just political hardball. It happens all time, and hardly an abuse.

On the other hand Think Progress is reporting that this might be deeper than partisan bickering.

this indictment arises out of a dispute over who will hold one of the few Texas offices with statewide power that is still controlled by a Democrat. Rosemary Lehmberg is that Democrat, and she is the District Attorney for Travis County, Texas. Because Travis County includes Austin, the state capital, her office controls a Public Integrity Unit that investigates alleged ethical breaches by state-level politicians. Among other things, that unit investigated the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, which is accused of improperly distributing grant money — including some grant money that was given to people with close ties to Governor Perry.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...out-texas-governor-rick-perry-being-indicted/

So if the Prosecution has evidence that the veto was more about trying to cover up improper distribution of grant money, that could be seen as Perry using his veto to aide in the commiting of fraud, which would certainly fall under section a.

So basically wait and see what happens. If they have nothing more than what they have already shared the State should really be ashamed themselves for wasting taxpayer time and money.

Now watch as Ben declares Perry has the right to aide in the committing of fraud in 3,2,1...

 

[Benvolio]

So you think the statute supports the Prosecution in this case, Ben?

No. The statute cannot constitutionally be applied to a Governor exercising a specific power granted by the constitution, I.e. the veto power in this case. The legislature cannot amend the constitution.

 

[Vitamin]

No. The statute cannot constitutionally be applied to a Governor exercising a specific power granted by the constitution, I.e. the veto power in this case. The legislature cannot amend the constitution.

Right on que, I see.

 

[cm98059]

The statute makes it clear that the State needs to show "intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another" per section a. So far no one is accusing Perry of anything more than using his veto for his political benefit. That's a rather large stretch in my view.

The intent to harm it appears, is the fact that Perry told Lehmberg to resign or else he was going to cut the department's budget. She refused to resign, and he cut the entire department's budget. I am having to wonder, if the fact that that department investigating misuse of grant money, and recipients of that grant money being "persons close to Perry", didn't also figure into the equation. It would seem that cutting the entire budget for a department that is investigating fraud with close ties to your office wouldn't also fall under intent to harm.

 

[Vitamin]

The intent to harm it appears, is the fact that Perry told Lehmberg to resign or else he was going to cut the department's budget. She refused to resign, and he cut the entire department's budget. I am having to wonder, if the fact that that department investigating misuse of grant money, and recipients of that grant money being "persons close to Perry", didn't also figure into the equation. It would seem that cutting the entire budget for a department that is investigating fraud with close ties to your office wouldn't also fall under intent to harm.

There's no proof of any intent to harm, and there doesn't need to be. Read section a again. It says benefit, harm, or defraud. Anyone of those can get you a conviction.

The idea that Ms Lehmnberg was "harmed" is laughable. So Perry tried to strongarm her resignation, so what? There's nothing illegal about trying to turn a political office into a bully pulpit.

If however, Perry's buds were misusing government funds, there would likely be fraud somewhere on their application process for these grants. If Perry knew that the evidence was there, and was trying to cover it up than he is just as guiltly of defrauding the State as his buddies.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is not Perry simply using a veto, he didn't veto the budget for fiscal reasons, he tried to use the budget veto to to compel the DA to do what he wanted with the explicit understanding that there would be no veto if they capitulated, which is indeed illegal and what he wanted had nothing to do with the scope of the program.

This is the same commission that got Hot Tub Tom, so you can imagine there was some political payback involved. Of course it might now bite Perry on the ass.

Big fucking deal, he's out this year anyway and I agree an indictment is not a conviction.

LOL Republican Governors HATE Austin.

Yes. I think the individual he threatened should have resigned, but making threats of use of government power, and then carrying them out, for personal reasons, is corrupt. If you have a personal issue with someone, using government power to fight with isn't just corrupt, though -- it's immature and irresponsible.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Texas Constitution allows the governor to veto anything he wants.

Were that true, there would be no laws about misusing the powers of office.

 

[Kulindahr]

For the record, this is the statue Perry is being charged under.


http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/texas/tx-codes/texas_penal_code_39-02

It's not clear that abuse of a veto is covered.

This should get interesting.

 

[Benvolio]

It's not clear that abuse of a veto is covered.

This should get interesting.

Probably not. Perry should move for dismissal, and the court should dismiss. But it won't happen if the judge is democrat.

 

[Vitamin]

It's not clear that abuse of a veto is covered.

This should get interesting.

What makes you think it doesn't cover vetos? They didn't specify a particular power of any office in the statute. I take that to mean it applies to all powers of all offices.

 

[MisterB]

Any other examples of Texas officials with dui offenses? Were they asked to resign the the governor's office?

 

[chrisrobin]

.
FEARLESS PREDICTION:
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but Gov. Perry, even if convicted will not serve one nanosecond in prison. Tom Delay, another Texas favorite son was convicted of criminal of charges of conspiracy to violate election laws but will never serve his sentence.

The fact that he is governor of Texas makes him ideal presidential material.

I tried to read his tome, Fed Up. IMHO, which seemed to be geared to the reading level of the average fourth or fifth grader. When he asserted that "Social Security is a ponzi scheme", it was then that I decided to return it to the library.

 

[Benvolio]

Were that true, there would be no laws about misusing the powers of office.

The constitution is the supreme law of the state. If statutes are inconsistent, the constitution trumps the statutes. But the abuse statutes apply to other state officers and probably to the governor in the exercise of statute-created duties and powers. But the veto is a specific power granted by the constitution as a limitation on the legislature. It only comes into play when the governor disagrees with the legislature, and limits the power of the legislature. That is the purpose of it. The constitutional purpose would be defeated if the legislature could terminate, or limit, or criminalize the governors use of the veto. Worse, what happened here is that a local prosecutor disagreed with the governors veto, so she is abusing her power by prosecuting his exercise of constitutional power. Governors would be prevented from using the veto if a prosecutor from the other party could send him to jail if she disagrees.

 

[TX-Beau]

He's not being accused of exercising a line item veto genius. He's being accused of coercion of a a public official - the official by the way in charge of the office that oversees corruption prosecutions for ALL OF THE POLITICIANS IN THE STATE!

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. He THREATENED to kill the budget of the anti-corruption office UNLESS she resigned. THERE WAS NO VETO AT ALL UNTIL SHE REFUSED! He hates that office anyway, he hates her, win win for him, except oops, that whole illegal thing.

What's criminal is his attempt to oust a political enemy through the use of his official capacity as governor.

HE DID NOT USE A VETO AND THEN GET INTO TROUBLE!

Perhaps you should remove your head from locations south before you post.

- - - Updated - - -

Yelling at Ben is so cathartic.

 

[Benvolio]

Presidents and governors routinely threaten the veto to influence legislatures ad officials. It is part of the function and of the veto. I wonder haw many times Obama has threatened the veto to influence Senators and Congressmen?
[Text: Removed]

 

[TX-Beau]

They threaten to veto legislation genius, not staffers.

 

[TX-Beau]

They threaten to veto legislation genius, not staffers.

Making funding for an office you hate, contingent on fucking over a Lawyer you hate is NOT SOMETHING OBAMA HAS EVER DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Suck it up Ben, defending corrupt and venal former Democrats is not going well for you. It makes you look like you'll defend ANYONE who you think is a conservative.

Just because of your own, ah, integrity(?) YOU should be the most wary of this guy.

 

[Kulindahr]

What makes you think it doesn't cover vetos? They didn't specify a particular power of any office in the statute. I take that to mean it applies to all powers of all offices.

It focused on things of value -- material value, specifically as in material things that belong to the state.

 

[Kulindahr]

Any other examples of Texas officials with dui offenses? Were they asked to resign the the governor's office?

Very pertinent question!