On-Topic Tex Gov. Perry Indicted on Felony Counts

[T-Rexx]

There are two charges against Perry: 1) Abuse of official capacity and 2) Coercion of a public official.

In my view, the more serious charge against Perry is his attempted bribery of Lehmberg, to coerce her to resign. After the veto, Perry continued to try to coerce Lehmberg to resign, by offering her a high-paying position in the district attorney's office. Obviously, Perry didn't think Lehmberg unfit for public office as he stated - he offered her an even better public office if she would resign from the Public Integrity Unit!

That's a rather blatant attempt at bribery of a public official.

These are serious charges that Perry is facing, and the evidence against him seems compelling.

 

[Benvolio]

Bribery or the offer of a different position are not mentioned in the indictment and are not a part of the prosecution. Since he is the governor and chief executive, offering a job to induce a resignation would just be part of the job.

 

[Benvolio]

I expect the defense will quickly file a motion to dismiss, but they will soon ask the Texas Supreme Court to intervene get involved. The prosecution will drag its feet for political effect.

 

[mightbe]

I haven't seen or heard of the full lawsuit being online. Does anybody have a link to it?

 

[Benvolio]

I haven't seen or heard of the full lawsuit being online. Does anybody have a link to it?

At this point there is only the indictment itself, linked below by opinterph in #119. As you will see, it is deviously worded to avoid mentioning the veto, while accusing Perry of withholding funds,which is, no doubt, a reference to the vetoed funds. This will, I think force the defense to file a Motion For A Bill Of Particulars, requiring the prosecution to be less obscure.

 

[TX-Beau]

Bribery or the offer of a different position are not mentioned in the indictment and are not a part of the prosecution. Since he is the governor and chief executive, offering a job to induce a resignation would just be part of the job.

I see we woke up still willfully believing silly, imaginary things. There is no "Executive" in the country who's job is to interfere with the choice of voters in other elected offices. That is what got him in trouble in the first place. That you would say such a thing, once again calls into question this "legal expertise" you claim to posses.

Cough up some credentials!

- - - Updated - - -

At this point there is only the indictment itself, linked below by opinterph in #119. As you will see, it is deviously worded to avoid mentioning the veto, while accusing Perry of withholding funds,which is, no doubt, a reference to the vetoed funds. This will, I think force the defense to file a Motion For A Bill Of Particulars, requiring the prosecution to be less obscure.

Remind me again who deviously wrote the indictment?

 

[Benvolio]

It's not that simple. The democrat Public. Integrity Unit which she heads is a state unit, attaced to the District Attorneys office and getting many millions in funding from the state. The governor is entitled to veto the funding and to negotiate the veto or not.
The indictment is virtually always drafted by the Prosecutor's office. This one clearly was drafted by a lawyer.

 

[Kulindahr]

At this point there is only the indictment itself, linked below by opinterph in #119. As you will see, it is deviously worded to avoid mentioning the veto, while accusing Perry of withholding funds,which is, no doubt, a reference to the vetoed funds. This will, I think force the defense to file a Motion For A Bill Of Particulars, requiring the prosecution to be less obscure.

The veto isn't mentioned because it wasn't part of the complaint. The corruption came before the veto; the veto isn't even essential to it.

 

[mightbe]

The veto isn't mentioned because it wasn't part of the complaint. The corruption came before the veto; the veto isn't even essential to it.

Or even the threat. The indictment stems from the prior corruption.

 

[Benvolio]

The veto isn't mentioned because it wasn't part of the complaint. The corruption came before the veto; the veto isn't even essential to it.

But what he did was use or abuse the veto. The prosecution will, I think, find it impossible to prover its case without tying it to the veto. Before then the defense will force the prosecution to the specificity which will cause it to be dismissed. The failure to allege the veto shows that the prosecutor is painfully aware that a prosecution based on the veto or threaten to veto will be constitutionally defective. It also demonstrates that the prosecution is political and intended to embarrass the governor even if it is very unlikely to succeed.

 

[mightbe]

But what he did was use or abuse the veto. The prosecution will, I think, find it impossible to prover its case without tying it to the veto. Before then the defense will force the prosecution to the specificity which will cause it to be dismissed. The failure to allege the veto shows that the prosecutor is painfully aware that a prosecution based on the veto or threaten to veto will be constitutionally defective. It also demonstrates that the prosecution is political and intended to embarrass the governor even if it is very unlikely to succeed.

If they were absolutely positive that the veto was extricably related to earlier corruption they wouldn't have run with it. The point is, the indictment, with the exact same wording could've been issued before even the threat of the veto. It's not about her forced resignation, it's about the bigger picture. Corruption.

The legal team is well aware that if this were about the resignation they'd have little chance. However, the office was in the process of investigation corruption in the governors office and likely had evidence. As long as the evidence was from before the threat the two are not related.

 

[hotatlboi]

Still trash.

One of the grand jurors was apparently a delegate to the Texas Democratic Convention.

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/2...of-witness-during-the-grand-jury-proceedings/

Whether or not there was improper bias, that does not look good for the prosecution's efforts at getting this indictment to stick.

 

[TX-Beau]

Still trash.

One of the grand jurors was apparently a delegate to the Texas Democratic Convention.

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/2...of-witness-during-the-grand-jury-proceedings/

Whether or not there was improper bias, that does not look good for the prosecution's efforts at getting this indictment to stick.

So this woman who didn't have anything to do with the investigation, the Republican special prosecutor or his staff, or the Republican presiding Justice, who was just one of HOW MANY jurors? HOW MANY JURORS were conservatives do ya think? Yet the indictment is suspect because of little ole her?

MY MY, how very special she must be.

Weak.

Seriously. Even your own link says she didn't do anything wrong - just that the blogger who doesn't like the Indictment anyway thinks it "doesn't look good." Fine, it doesn't look good that Republicans are in charge of the whole shebang, FUCKING REPLACE THEM with people who don't have an axe to grind!!!! I claim the arguments of your link for justification!!! REMOVE ALL PUBS FROM ANY POSITION OF AUTHORITY IN THE TRIAL!!! It doesn't look good having them judge Perry!

LOL

 

[hotatlboi]

the blogger who doesn't like the Indictment anyway

No one with a serious legal background (such as Turley) likes this indictment. It's trash. Like I've been saying from the top.

 

[Benvolio]

So this woman who didn't have anything to do with the investigation, the Republican special prosecutor or his staff, or the Republican presiding Justice, who was just one of HOW MANY jurors? HOW MANY JURORS were conservatives do ya think? Yet the indictment is suspect because of little ole her?

MY MY, how very special she must be.

Weak.

Seriously. Even your own link says she didn't do anything wrong - just that the blogger who doesn't like the Indictment anyway thinks it "doesn't look good." Fine, it doesn't look good that Republicans are in charge of the whole shebang, FUCKING REPLACE THEM with people who don't have an axe to grind!!!! I claim the arguments of your link for justification!!! REMOVE ALL PUBS FROM ANY POSITION OF AUTHORITY IN THE TRIAL!!! It doesn't look good having them judge Perry!

LOL

Actually I agree. A Republican prosecutor was chosen, knowing he would have to bend over backward to avoid looking political. He was on the spot. If he did not get an indictment he would be accused of partisanship.The bazaar indictment, accusing him of misusing the funds he vetoed, is exactly that--bending over backward to accuse Perry.

 

[Kulindahr]

No one with a serious legal background (such as Turley) likes this indictment. It's trash. Like I've been saying from the top.

To be accurate, Turley didn't say that (here's his column on it). What he said was that without knowing the particulars the prosecutor is working with, it looks like "All hat, no cattle", a reference to someone wearing a cowboy hat but with no clue what a cowboy really is. Since the prosecutor is hardly going to put any evidence into the indictment, whether it really is "All hat, no cattle" is so far unknown -- which Turley notes -- so we're left looking at a case with a cowboy hat and wondering where the herd is.

 

[Benvolio]

To be accurate, Turley didn't say that (here's his column on it). What he said was that without knowing the particulars the prosecutor is working with, it looks like "All hat, no cattle", a reference to someone wearing a cowboy hat but with no clue what a cowboy really is. Since the prosecutor is hardly going to put any evidence into the indictment, whether it really is "All hat, no cattle" is so far unknown -- which Turley notes -- so we're left looking at a case with a cowboy hat and wondering where the herd is.

The first count of the indictment is intentionally obscure because if it said what the prosecutor meant, it would soon be dismissed.

 

[hotatlboi]

To be accurate, Turley didn't say that (here's his column on it). What he said was that without knowing the particulars the prosecutor is working with, it looks like "All hat, no cattle", a reference to someone wearing a cowboy hat but with no clue what a cowboy really is. Since the prosecutor is hardly going to put any evidence into the indictment, whether it really is "All hat, no cattle" is so far unknown -- which Turley notes -- so we're left looking at a case with a cowboy hat and wondering where the herd is.

IMO, the only evidence they could have that would make it stick is if Perry was involved in some other criminal activity and so took this action to try and shut off inquiry into it. However, if that were the case, it would have made more sense to charge him with whatever other violation of the law he had committed rather than a veto threat/veto to try and cover it up.

 

[Benvolio]

Part of the background of the case is the bogus Public Integrity Unit. Whatever it's original intent, although funded by the state, it was attached to the Office of the District attorney in Austin,elected in the overwhelmingly democrat area in a Republican state. It was inevitable that it would be staffed by democrats and become an instrument for political harassment of the opposing party, including prosecutions of Hutchinson and DeLay, with Perry in the crosshairs as any Republican governor would be.