So... Rick Perry Indicted...

[Black Aeronaut]

Personally, I'm all for it.  The man is an arrogant pig and deserves to be taken down several notches.  And that's just my opinion of him 'as a person'.
What I worry about, though, is that this will play right into his hands if the DA isn't mindful.  Really, if it goes anywhere beyond 'professional procedure' it'll quickly turn into a red meat topic.
But honestly... I really do hope for the long-shot victory.  It would be appropriate if Rick Perry was made into an example for what he did.  Oh, and I really wish they'd get rid of the line-item veto power.  That practically puts the power to rewrite bills into the hands of a single man.  Not cool.

[khagler]

Considering why he was indicted, it almost certainly will help him. The Travis County District Attorney (Travis is where Austin, the capital of Texas, is located) was arrested for drunk driving and pleaded guilty. However, she refused to resign after her conviction. At the time she was head of some sort of "public integrity" office, and Perry (who is the Governor of Texas) used the his veto power on that organization's state funding in an effort to force her to resign (which was unsuccessful).

Perry and DA Lemberg are currently members of different political team, which is certainly a factor both in the veto and the indictment, but the specific of the case mean that Team Blue is making themselves look really ridiculous with this.

[Logan Darklighter]

From Business Insider: 

Although some Democrats are calling for Texas Gov. Rick Perry's (R) resignation after he was indicted by a grand jury on Friday, a number of left-leaning observers immediately panned the allegations as unimpressive.
Perry, an expected presidential candidate in 2016, is accused of "abuse of official capacity" and "coercion of [a] public servant" by publicly threatening to zero out a state prosecutor's funding and then actually doing it. Several pundits, including former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, Clinton and Obama administration alum Jonathan Prince, Vox's Matt Yglesias, and New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait, wrote on Twitter they couldn't see what the big deal was.
"Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason," Axelrod argued, "Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy."
"Have to say Perry indictment seems nuts. Gov has constitutional power to veto. Gov uses power. Grand jury indicts bc they don't like reason?" Prince asked. 
"Hard for me to imagine these Rick Perry charges sticking," Yglesias wrote, adding, "Does anyone think this Perry indictment makes sense?"
"My *very* preliminary reaction to the Rick Perry news: I don't understand what law he broke," Chait opined.
ThinkProgress, the liberal-oriented news site, reported that Perry's own attorneys "may have a point" when they argued his veto of the prosecutor funding "was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution."
"The Texas Constitution gives the governor discretion to decide when to sign and when to veto a bill, as well as discretion to veto individual line-items in an appropriation bill. Though the state legislature probably could limit this veto power in extreme cases — if a state governor literally sold his veto to wealthy interest groups, for example, the legislature could almost certainly make that a crime — a law that cuts too deep into the governor’s veto power raises serious separation of powers concerns," ThinkProgress wrote. "Such laws would rework the balance of power between the executive and the legislature established by the state constitution, and they would almost certainly be unconstitutional."
The Lawyers, Guns & Money blog appeared to agree.
"I’m as contemptuous of Perry as anyone, but this seems really thin," the site said in a post reacting to the indictment. "To the extent that the statute reaches Perry’s behavior, itself kind of a stretch, it’s hard to see how the statute is consistent with the separation of powers established by the state constitution."

From The Houston Chronicle:

The media narrative is quickly hardening in Perry's favor. Legal experts and attorneys are telling reporter after reporter that prosecutors face an uphill battle in making the indictment stick. The humiliating video taken shortly after Lehmberg's arrest is on loop on cable news. Pundits who otherwise wouldn't be caught dead supporting Perry are coming to his defense, including David Axelrod, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama, and Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz. 

Alan Dershowitz - not exactly a fan of Perry is actually coming to his defense in this case as well: 

"Everybody, liberal or conservative, should stand against this indictment," Dershowitz said. "If you don't like how Rick Perry uses his office, don't vote for him."

He went further:

"This is another example of the criminalization of party differences," said Dershowitz, a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law. "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."
And indicting a politician, rather than fighting back through a ballot box, "is so un-American."

Professor Eugene Volokh thinks this theory is highly suspect:

To begin with, the law applies to a public servant’s misusing property that is in his “custody or possession.” What property was in the governor’s custody or possession? The $7.5 million, if it had been appropriated, would have been in the custody or possession of the district attorney, not the governor.
But, more important, this money was never appropriated, precisely because of the governor’s veto.

[Logan Darklighter]

In case you're wondering exactly why Rick Perry would not want that particular Department funded under that particular official. Well - video or it didn't happen. 
Well here's the video - and it definitely happened. 
She was driving in the bike lane, and then weaving into oncoming traffic, according to a phoned-in tip.
She eventually stopped and parked in a church driveway. This is when the cops found her.

[Logan Darklighter]

Here's some more fun facts about Lehmberg's DWI. 
Blood Alcohol level of 0.238 - that's 3 times the legal limit. 
To put it another way - 0.238 BAC is midway between "Fraternity Hazing Drunk" and "Drinking to Forget It All Drunk"
A more serious issue is attempting to use her office and position (and powerful connections) to pressure police into releasing her, despite being out-of-control, kick-the-door and stamp-the-floor drunk. Watch the videos again. You'll see her do all of that, plus say the following: 
"Did you call Greg [a local sheriff, and presumably a friend and ally]? Did you tell him you had the DA in jail?"
Later she insists she isn't drunk. The policewoman patiently explains that be this as it may (and it isn't -- she's plainly drunk), she still has been arrested.
In what can easily be perceived as a rank-pulling threat, Lehmberg answers, "That's y'all's problem, not mine."
So - she was drunk-driving, dangerously over the limit, swerving into oncoming traffic, driving in the bike lane. During her arrest, she continuously pulled rank on cops just doing their jobs as officers and kept demanding they call "Greg" the Sheriff and see what Greg the Sheriff would have to say about it.
Drunk driving is one thing. Bullying lawfully-acting cops into committing an unlawful act by pulling political rank is quite another thing.
So this woman should be in charge of prosecuting citizens, and also investigating public integrity questions, eh?
I don't think so - apparently neither did Rick Perry. People in her own party asked her to resign as well as Governor Perry. She refused. So Perry defunded her department and made sure that she didn't have the resources to continue misusing her position.
And he didn't step one jot out of his legal authority to do so. 
That's why all those Democratic Pundits and Law Professors are trying to caution their more excitable fellows to re-consider this thing. They know it's going to backfire.

[ECSNorway]

So. Removing a person who has demonstrated that they have no political ethics from a position of authority over the state's political ethics body is "abuse of power"?

"This is another example of the criminalization of party differences," said Dershowitz, a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law. "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."

So very much this.

Clinton once confessed to having smoked pot. Should we arrest him on drug charges?

Hell no.

I may dislike the man, but that's a serious dick move.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Logan Darklighter]

I've never liked Dershowitz's politics - but he's earned my respect time and again for being a straight-shooter when it comes to the law. 

[Dartz]

You see, that's the problem with politics these days - it's only dirty tactics if the other side's doing it. I'm not saying it's not dirty tactics but everyone does it. It's a ritual part of the process. The fornication of the rodent, or something.

Edit: I probably shouldn't post while....ahem... take my car keys happy.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Black Aeronaut]

Honestly, I just wish they had something better on him other than this.  It really is grasping at straws in an attempt to make him look bad.  I just hope they don't push too hard with this or else it will blow up in the face of the Democratic Party.

Dartz wrote:

---

Edit: I probably shouldn't post while....ahem... take my car keys happy.

The irony of this statement given recent subject matter is utterly hilarious. 

[Logan Darklighter]

BTW - did anyone else notice that Perry turned that mugshot that the left was dying for into something they'll never want to use? 
He's wearing a suit and tie and smiling broadly and looks like a GQ cover plate or an official governor's portrait. 
I'm sure his political opponents wanted him to look hang-dog and worried, like 99% of all mugshots. But they'll never be able to use that mugshot to their political advantage against him - it looks too good! 
Meanwhile it throws Rosemary Lehmberg's own mugshot into VERY sharp relief!!!

And to think - she could've just resigned, slunk quietly away and never had that video footage and mugshot of herself go completely viral. But her power hunger and desire for political revenge at all costs got the better of her.
Like him or despise him, you have to give credit to Perry for pulling a master political jujitsu move in this situation.

[chibipoe]

The issue I've been seeing on this can be summed up thus. Yes. Rick Perry, as governor, has the power to veto funding. That isn't in question.

The issue is that the Governor of Texas' position does not include the power to remove someone from office. I'm not disputing that the woman made a mess of her career and should be removed/quit, but the fact is, Rick Perry doesn't have the power to do so and using one of the powers he does have in a manner it isn't intended for, is what constitutes 'abuse of power'. He can call for her removal, which he did, but

As I dig in a bit further, there was an effort to remove her from office but it didn't go through. Something about a statute in texas involving state official can(or can't? The reference I saw didn't make sense as can) be removed from office for intoxication.

Anyway, I'm not looking to explode into arguments about it, since I know it can get heated here sometimes, but it comes back(from what I see) to the fact that Perry can veto, which is true, but he cannot remove people from office(that she's a disgrace isn't an issue, she is and should resign or whatever department handles removal should have done so). He used a power he does have to try and force an action he doesn't have the power to mandate. I can see where people have an issue with this.

(Ultimately, it's all political theater and I find it a bit humorous that if he had just vetoed the funding and kept his mouth shut, we wouldn't be seeing this entire spectacle right now
"This hand of mine glows with an awesome power. Its burning grip tells me to defeat you....
Shining FINGER!" -Domon Kashuu, Mobile Fighter G Gundam

[Logan Darklighter]

The Texas grand jury that indicted Rick Perry for threatening to issue a line-item veto want everyone to know that they are offended at the notion that this indictment is in any way political. “[We] “really tried to keep an open mind and come to a fair decision given all the testimony that we heard,” one juror told the Houston Chronicle. “I think if and when the facts come out, [public perception will] change,” said another. A third seemed to dance around her involvement in the proceedings while still defending them:

Rho Chalmers, who name matches that of a grand juror but would only confirm her service on a jury that ended last week, said grand juries involve careful consideration of facts.
“For me, it’s not a political decision,” Chalmers said. “That’s what a grand jury is about – take the emotion out of it and look at the facts and make your best decision based on your life experience.”

But did they? MediaTrackers took a close look at Chalmers and discovered that she may have some “emotion” that she didn’t bother to disclose to the Chronicle — and some politics in her “life experience” as well:

Rho Chalmers, who disclosed to the Houston Chronicle yesterday that she was a member of the grand jury that indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was an active delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention during grand jury proceedings. Chalmers’ active participation in Democratic state politics is important because she claimed yesterday to the Houston Chronicle that her decision to indict Perry, a Republican, was not based on politics.

They also discovered evidence that Chalmers attended a political event for politician who was at the same time providing testimony to the grand jury:

More troubling, however, is the fact that Chalmers attended, photographed, and commented on an event with Democratic state Sen. Kirk Watson while grand jury proceedings were ongoing.

Watson was a witness in front of the grand jury. On June 27, 2014, Chalmers shared a photo of the Watson event on a community Facebook page she started called Developer’s Dungeon. “Senator Kirk Watson telling the story of the Wendy Davis fillibuster (sic),” she wrote in a comment accompanying the picture. …
Numerous posts from both of Chalmers’ Facebook pages — her personal page, which she shares with her husband, Davis [David, apparently, from the screen caps -- Ed], and her “Developer’s Dungeon” page — make clear that she is a partisan Democratic activist, and that she was an active participant in the Texas Democratic Party’s state convention in June while grand jury proceedings were ongoing.

It’s possible that there are two completely different people of the same name in Travis County, but Rho Chalmers seems like an unusual name to chalk up to coincidence. If it’s the same Rho Chalmers and she sat on the grand jury that produced this indictment, then it makes the action against Perry look even more like a political hit job — which may be why Chalmers played a little coy about her connection to the indictment with the Houston Chronicle.

Sounds to me more and more like Perry is going to have an easy time getting the proceedings moved out of Travis County. If that happens, the odds of the charges being dismissed outright get a lot better. 

[Dartz]

I don't know about the US, but here that's the sort of thing that's supposed to be weedled out by the accused' solicitor before anything sees the inside of the courtroom. It's the solicitor's fault for not objecting to that juror. That said, finding someone who isn't either insanely pro-democrat, or insanely pro-republican and able to actually try a case like that would be a trick.

Kinda feel sorry for an ordinary person getting dragged into the political circus like that.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Morganite]

The issue I've been seeing on this can be summed up thus. Yes. Rick Perry, as governor, has the power to veto funding. That isn't in question.

The issue is that the Governor of Texas' position does not include the power to remove someone from office. I'm not disputing that the woman made a mess of her career and should be removed/quit, but the fact is, Rick Perry doesn't have the power to do so and using one of the powers he does have in a manner it isn't intended for, is what constitutes 'abuse of power'. He can call for her removal, which he did, but

Was there supposed to be more to this sentence? It just cuts off.

As I dig in a bit further, there was an effort to remove her from office but it didn't go through. Something about a statute in texas involving state official can(or can't? The reference I saw didn't make sense as can) be removed from office for intoxication.

Isn't it not really the intoxication that's the problem, but the part where she tried to pressure the cops into letting her go?

I'm just not seeing how the abuse of power thing can really fly, because under Texas law, the power used has no limits - the veto can be used for any reason or no reason at all.

-Morgan. Also, discussions here tend to be about the least heated of anywhere I've ever seen political discussions...

[khagler]

Dartz wrote:

---

I don't know about the US, but here that's the sort of thing that's supposed to be weedled out by the accused' solicitor before anything sees the inside of the courtroom. 

In theory this function is served in the US by "grand juries." However, like much of the US legal system, they have long since stopped serving their intended purpose and now act as rubber stamps for prosecutors. There's a famous saying here that "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich."

[chibipoe]

Morganite wrote:

---

chibipoe wrote:

---

The issue I've been seeing on this can be summed up thus. Yes. Rick Perry, as governor, has the power to veto funding. That isn't in question.

The issue is that the Governor of Texas' position does not include the power to remove someone from office. I'm not disputing that the woman made a mess of her career and should be removed/quit, but the fact is, Rick Perry doesn't have the power to do so and using one of the powers he does have in a manner it isn't intended for, is what constitutes 'abuse of power'. He can call for her removal, which he did, but

Was there supposed to be more to this sentence? It just cuts off.

As I dig in a bit further, there was an effort to remove her from office but it didn't go through. Something about a statute in texas involving state official can(or can't? The reference I saw didn't make sense as can) be removed from office for intoxication.

Isn't it not really the intoxication that's the problem, but the part where she tried to pressure the cops into letting her go?

I'm just not seeing how the abuse of power thing can really fly, because under Texas law, the power used has no limits - the veto can be used for any reason or no reason at all.

-Morgan. Also, discussions here tend to be about the least heated of anywhere I've ever seen political discussions...

There might have been more intended for that sentence, but I don't remember what it was. I covered most of the things I wanted to bring up. 
And I'm not denying or defending her actions, those are bad and she should have been removed from her office. Like I said, that isn't in dispute to me.
As to the abuse thing, like I said, that's the approach I've seen it taken. Using a veto is within his power, yes. But he doesn't have the authority to force someone from office. He can appoint, but not remove. So making use of a power he does have, to attempt to accomplish something he doesn't have the power to do, is how I best saw it explained. 

Like I said, the fact that he went out and said, "Resign or your department gets no funding" is what creates the problem. Because he has no authority to force(or attempt to force) someone to resign under the state constitution. It isn't the strongest ground, no, but what he tried to use the veto to do is the abuse, as I understand it, not the veto itself. 

I try to avoid political discussion in general. It  usually makes me angry.
"This hand of mine glows with an awesome power. Its burning grip tells me to defeat you....
Shining FINGER!" -Domon Kashuu, Mobile Fighter G Gundam

[Black Aeronaut]

The one thing that bugs me the most, and other Texans in particular, is that the Governor's line item veto power doesn't really seem to have any checks to hold the Governor accountable. Really, what recourse does the Legislature have? I know that the courts can always overturn a bad law, but... *Shrugs*

[khagler]

Black Aeronaut wrote:

---

The one thing that bugs me the most, and other Texans in particular, is that the Governor's line item veto power doesn't really seem to have any checks to hold the Governor accountable. Really, what recourse does the Legislature have? I know that the courts can always overturn a bad law, but... *Shrugs*

They can override the veto with a two-thirds majority.

[nemonowan]

For what it´s worth, here's a link to an article analyzing the issue: salon.com (ignore the attention-grabbing headline, the content has little to do with it)

It seems that from the ground, things are neither so partisan nor so clear-cut as most media were hollering.

[Black Aeronaut]

This.... Is everything that I was hoping for.

[Werehawk]

Given salon.com's editorial political leanings I'd advise taking it with a large grain of salt.
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."

[Logan Darklighter]

Frankly I was literally laughing as I read that Salon article - everyone they interviewed, quoted or referenced was on the hard-core political left. I checked up on each one either checking the source directly or via google later just to confirm it. 
I could've wasted more of my time with a rebuttal. But frankly - it's such a piece of literary fluffing that I didn't think it was even worth it. 

[Black Aeronaut]

Maybe left of where you stand, Logan. I know that the Texas Tribune is non-partisan and the quote used by Salon is simply stating the facts... which are quite telling.

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.

So, while I get that the material might be leftist (IYA! IYA! DEMOCRAT FTAGHN!) it seems like they're just presenting the facts. Unless one of those Republicans directly involved with the prosecution has gone on record saying that the charges are BS, I don't think they're putting a lot of spin on this.

[ordnance11]

Black Aeronaut wrote:

---

Maybe left of where you stand, Logan. I know that the Texas Tribune is non-partisan and the quote used by Salon is simply stating the facts... which are quite telling.

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.

So, while I get that the material might be leftist (IYA! IYA! DEMOCRAT FTAGHN!) it seems like they're just presenting the facts. Unless one of those Republicans directly involved with the prosecution has gone on record saying that the charges are BS, I don't think they're putting a lot of spin on this.

I've read it as well. And if the prosecutors (everyone of them a republican) are saying there is fire underneath the smoke and what the locals are saying is different from the national echo chamber (be it left or right), well who are you going to believe.?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell