Rick Perry indicted on two felony charges

[C-dub]

He was indicted under 39.02 and 36.03

I can see this one.

Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (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;

I can see this in his actions, but does this exempt him?

(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.

If it does, then I was wrong and I have learned something today.

I'm not so sure even about the first part there. He didn't try to get her to do something within her official capacity or to violate her known legal duty. I would think this usually means that one person tried to get another to do them a favor by using their official position. That's not what happened here.

And the second might exempt him from the first part anyway, but not sure about that either.

[Charles L. Cotton]

He was indicted under 39.02 and 36.03

39.02 --- Ok I don't see it.
Sec. 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (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

Subsection 2 is the only one with a felony attached to it, and I don't see how what he did violated 39.02.

You're right, §39.02 does not apply so the indictment is garbage.

I can see this one.

Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (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;

I can see this in his actions, but does this exempt him?

(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.

If it does, then I was wrong and I have learned something today.

§36.03 does not apply because Gov. Perry was not trying to get her to do something within her official duties, nor was he trying "influence a public servant to violate [her] known legal duty." He was trying to get her to resign so a criminal wouldn't be running the State's public integrity unit. Her resignation would not be a violation of her "known legal duty," so trying to get her to do so does not violate §36.03. Any public official can resign their position at any time without violating a "known legal duty." An example of something violating this Section would be an elected official trying to get her not to turn over exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial, thus violating a duty imposed by law. (This is precisely what she is accused of doing in the whistle-blower lawsuit filed by an ADA she fired.)

The indictment was for alleged violations of two sections that clearly do not apply to Perry's actions. This is purely political and Lemberg, the convicted criminal and menace to drivers everywhere, is behind it.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't like the borderline personal attacks against you either.

Your statement about Perry is wrong on at least two levels. First, what is did is not "wrong" either legally or morally. Have you looked at the two statutes he allegedly violated? If so, please tell us which specific provisions you feel he violated.

Secondly, you imply that Perry should have simply vetoed the funding bill without first trying to get the convicted criminal to resign. While he could have done just that, he took the high road by trying to avoid having the PIU shut down. Some think that's a laudable goal, but I don't because it shouldn't be in any county DA's office; it should be under the direction of the AG.

The only thing political about this is the despicable conduct of everyone involved in the indictment. Absolutely no person, entity or media outlet that I have seen has supported the indictment, but many all over the country have condemned it as a political assassination attempt by the Democrats. The Texas Democratic Party on one occasion called for Perry to resign, but when it quickly became obvious that Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, were condemning the indictments, even the Texas Democratic Party wisely shut up.

You imply that Lemberg has done everything an elected DA should do under the circumstances; i.e. plead guilty and "server her time." I doubt anyone other than Lemberg herself would agree that it's okay for a sitting DA to drive drunk, then not only stay in office, but also head the State's public integrity unit. If driving drunk and risking the lives of innocent people isn't enough to call her integrity into question, refusing to resign as DA simply because a Republican Governor would appoint a Republican to replace her most certainly does.

The fact that Democrats and liberals haven't been screaming for her resignation since the day she was arrested speaks volumes their character and integrity. This applies also to the Travis County Commissioners Court that could have and should have removed her from office.

Chas.

What I see is Perry supporters trying to make this all about Lemberg. Focusing on why he did instead of what he did. I think it's misdirection. The focus should be what he did.

I am focusing on what he did, but you are not. As noted in my other post about the Code sections on which the indictment was based, Perry's actions weren't even close to being unlawful. The only misdirection going on is on your part. At least twice now, you have pointed to a Williamson County Judge who appointed a so-called special prosecutor. I don't care who appointed whom. When the indictment is clearly bogus because the acts of the defendant do not violate the cited code provisions, it's time to look to the person who started the witch hunt.

If the allegations against the special prosecutor are accurate, then he tried to get a witness under subpoena not to appear in court to testify. Apparently, the trial judge was going to have a contempt hearing, but he was successful in getting it stayed until a later date. I know nothing more than what I've read, but, if true, it's ironic that his actions are not only unlawful, they would violate the very sections on which the Perry indictment was issued, if he had been a public servant. So much for his credibility, in my view.

Chas.

[Jim Beaux]

Good article

Perry was indicted last week for the offense of vetoing an appropriations bill. Not vetoing an appropriations bill in exchange for a bribe. Not vetoing an appropriations bill as a favor to a donor. Not vetoing an appropriations bill in excess of his lawful authority. But simply vetoing an appropriations bill.

Lehmberg exercised her power to stay in her position, and Perry exercised his power to veto funding for her Public Integrity Office as long as she did. You can disagree with one or both of them, but no one was committing a crime.

As for the second count, Volokh points to an appeals-court decision that held that “coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... rich-lowry

[C-dub]

I got one right. I better quit while I'm ahead. All this internet lawyering is wearing me out. Ooo, dinner.

[baldeagle]

So, per Charles' analysis, a grand jury indicted the Governor for the violation of two laws that do not apply to his actions. That means the special prosecutor had to have misled the grand jury in order to convince them there was a potential violation of the law. One wonders why, since it's claimed that he's a Republican. This may provide some answers. http://patterico.com/2014/08/17/three-t ... -politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; To any impartial observer, including numerous high profile Democrats (Alan Dershowitz and David Axelrod, for example) have unequivocally stated that this is a nakedly partisan move. Nationally prominent Democrats are warning others to stay far, far away from this, and Rick Perry is reaping political hay over it.
[youtube][/youtube]
For Texas Democrats, who are usually quite good at manipulating facts to make Republicans look bad, this is an astoundingly dumb move. In fact it makes me wonder if they don't secretly hope that Perry will be nominated by the GOP.

[ELB]

Here's a story angle I would like to see pursued:

I can see why some national Dems would think this stunt would be a good idea, since they figured the MSM is in the bag for them and will forever label Rick Perry, "once indicted for political corruption" or some such regardless of the eventual legal result.

I can see the state Dems thinking this was a good idea also -- after all, they are running Wendy Davis for governor. And neither the national nor state Dems will really be hurt much in the long run when this fizzles out.

I have a harder time seeing why the actual actors, Lehmberg and McCrum thought this would be good for them.

I could see Lehmberg being mad enough and having poor enough judgement to want to strike back at Gov Perry to do something stupid like this. She's provided ample evidence of impaired judgment, in more ways than one.

McCrum is a little harder to figure, unless he thinks his career is about to tank because the Senate would not move on his US Attorney nomination, plus the pending contempt charges.

I'm wondering if someone somewhere promised them safe harbor once this blows over. Will be interesting to see where they both land in a year or two...

Another story angle:

Gov Perry did in fact veto the funding for the PIU. There has been no legislative session since to restore it. Travis County coughed up its own money to keep the PIU in operations. Izzat legal? Normally I would think the voters would be miffed about this, but they elected Lehmberg and the Dem county officials who approved the money transfer, so that's probably a dead end. Does Travis County think it will get reimbursed for this down the road? That's a reimbursement I'd like to see get squelched. I think that issue could use some airing...

[n5wd]

To her credit, though, she never became physically confrontational, as many DUI do.

The police had to put a mask on her because she kept spitting on the officers and everyone else at the PD.

Chas.

Yep, I re-watched the whole thing and saw that. I sit corrected.

[Redneck_Buddha]

I have a scary feeling that this may be stickier than anyone is thinking. Austin venue is a railroad yard for Republicans on trial.

[Cedar Park Dad]

ON the positive, it will be entertaining.

[baldeagle]

Here's something else to think about. In the 2013 session of the Texas Legislature, a bill was introduced to move the PIU under the AG's office. Strauss and his lieutenants killed it. Just one more reason to remove the gavel from that jerk.

[baldeagle]

This is interesting. Perry Grand Juror Was An Active Democratic Party Delegate During Jury Proceedings How does that happen? There's a foul odor coming out of Austin, and it's not the bat guano.

[The Marshal]

This is interesting. Perry Grand Juror Was An Active Democratic Party Delegate During Jury Proceedings How does that happen? There's a foul odor coming out of Austin, and it's not the bat guano.

Wow. That is unbelievable.

[SQLGeek]

This is interesting. Perry Grand Juror Was An Active Democratic Party Delegate During Jury Proceedings How does that happen? There's a foul odor coming out of Austin, and it's not the bat guano.

Something is rotten in the State of Texas.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If true, I wonder if that is sufficient to get the GJ charge invalidated (??? I don't know what the actual term would be called).