Texas Gov. Perry indicted ...

a reply to: FarleyWayne

Just some facts to consider

The Judge who convened the Grand Jury..

The Special Prosecutor that was tasked with investigating this...

2 of the 3 members of the panel that decided to move forward with the charges...

Were ALL REPUBLICANS...

What he did violates bribery and corruption laws.

The difference between this woman and Rick Perry is that she has faced the full legal consequences of her drunk driving charge...

While Perry has not acknowledged he did anything wrong..

Whether she is guilty (which she is) of drunk driving or idiotic behavior is not relevant to Rick Perry cutting off funding for an entire agency of their government. It is not his prerogative...It is not his decision to make...That itself is corrupt, defunding an agency solely because he doesn't approve of it's director.

AND that is what a REPUBLICAN Judge, A REPUBLICAN Special Prosecutor and a REPUBLICAN Panel decided...

The Texas Public Integrity Office dates back to the 1980s and watches state politicians to make sure they don't violate election and anti-corruption laws.

"No politician in the prosecutor's office or the judicial system in Travis County has laid a hand on this. Our complaint went to the chief Republican judge, head of this judicial district, a Republican appointee of Governor Perry's. He turned it over and appointed a special judge, again, a Republican from San Antonio to oversee the matter. That Republican judge appointed a special prosecutor because he thought the case had that merit. That special prosecutor is a Republican as well who served under George W. Bush. No Democrat has had a finger on this. So, for the governor to say this is merely a partisan witch hunt just doesn't stand in the face of the facts," McDonald said on CNN's "State of the Union."

He says that it's not Perry's actual veto that is a problem, but rather the fact that he used the threat of a veto to try to coerce Lehmberg to step down from her position.

www.cbsnews.com...

Rick Perry turned himself in for his mugshot today.


Rick Perry Mugshot: Oops!!!

Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, turned himself in Tuesday afternoon to be booked and have his mug shot taken at the Travis County Justice Center. The governor was indicted last Friday on two felony counts of abuse of power, which he called "baseless political charges."

"I'm here today because I believe in the rule of law. And I'm here today because I did the right thing," he said as he entered the courthouse.

Rick Perry turns himself in for mug shot

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

Excellent picture for the cover of a campaign brochure.

a reply to: Indigo5

Whether she is guilty (which she is) of drunk driving or idiotic behavior is not relevant to Rick Perry cutting off funding for an entire agency of their government. It is not his prerogative...It is not his decision to make...That itself is corrupt, defunding an agency solely because he doesn't approve of it's director.

It is not his decision to make? Pardon me? It was on his desk for his signature or his veto. Exactly how the F do you claim it is not his decision? It was every bit of his decision or it would not have been sitting on his desk awaiting approval or veto.

Sheesh

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy

Unlike the DA.. he didn't stick his tongue out or have to be tied down for the photo.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Indigo5

Whether she is guilty (which she is) of drunk driving or idiotic behavior is not relevant to Rick Perry cutting off funding for an entire agency of their government. It is not his prerogative...It is not his decision to make...That itself is corrupt, defunding an agency solely because he doesn't approve of it's director.

It is not his decision to make? Pardon me? It was on his desk for his signature or his veto. Exactly how the F do you claim it is not his decision? It was every bit of his decision or it would not have been sitting on his desk awaiting approval or veto.

Sheesh

You are confusing the Veto prerogative with dictatorial power. His mistake was publicly announcing that he used the Line Item Veto to defund the Texas State Public Integrity Office because he had demanded it's Director resign and she had refused. That is "Coercion and Bribery".. offering/refusing money to influence a public official. ...And THAT was the conclusion of two REPUBLICAN JUDGES and a REPUBLICAN Special Prosecutor.

The Veto power is given great liberality and Rick Perry would have been on better grounds if he had provided no reason at all for the Veto, but to publicly declare that he did it to coerce a public official squarely put him in the legal cross-hairs. The veto power is not limitless...lest a President sell his Veto Power to the highest bidder and publicly announce his motivations.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Indigo5

Whether she is guilty (which she is) of drunk driving or idiotic behavior is not relevant to Rick Perry cutting off funding for an entire agency of their government. It is not his prerogative...It is not his decision to make...That itself is corrupt, defunding an agency solely because he doesn't approve of it's director.

It is not his decision to make? Pardon me? It was on his desk for his signature or his veto.

To be succinct. The Veto decision was his...whether or not the Director of the Public Integrity Unit steps down was NOT. Once he publicly declared that he vetoed the money in order to get her to step down, he indicted himself under Texas Law.

"The indictment stemmed from a complaint by Texans for Public Justice, a liberal-leaning public watchdog group, which alleged that Perry’s veto threat to force the resignation of a public official constituted an abuse of power. The grand jury indicted Perry on felony counts of abuse of official capacity, which carries five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant, punishable by two to 10 years. Perry stood firmly behind his actions, saying Lehmberg, who remains in office, behaved in "an incredibly inappropriate way” after her arrest, was "abusive to law enforcement” and had to be restrained. Lehmburg, who was shown in a video kicking the door of her cell and sticking her tongue out, had a blood alcohol level almost three times the legal limit, Perry said."
www.star-telegram.com...



Texans for Public Justice is funded by the following.


The Piper Foundation
The Open Society Foundations
The Sunlight Foundation
The Winkler Foundation
Good Jobs First
Contributions from individual Texas donors.


info.tpj.org...


The Open Society Foundations and The Sunlight Foundation are funded by George Soros. Good Jobs First is an organization founded by The Rockefeller Foundation, The Ford Foundation, and works with the Industrial Areas Foundation (founded by Saul Alinsky.)


Not politically motivated. LOL.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Regardless, their complaint is not without merit; otherwise the Republican judge, Republican special prosecutor and Republican panel would not have decided to move forward with an indictment. Bottom line is that a criminal is a criminal no matter who files the complaint.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
"The indictment stemmed from a complaint by Texans for Public Justice, a liberal-leaning public watchdog group, which alleged that Perry’s veto threat to force the resignation of a public official constituted an abuse of power.

Hmm "Stemmed from"??....how many complaints do you think are filed each year against public officials?

This is like blaming the crime on the nosey neighbor who called the police.

Two REPUBLICAN JUDGES, one after another found the charges valid..Then A REPUBLICAN Special Prosecutor, followed by and independent grand jury.

But it's political because a "liberal leaning" public watchdog group spotted the impropriety?

That does not hold water.

a reply to: Indigo5
Thanks for the info!

Judging Lehmberg on her actions, I think she should resign. I suppose she doesn't have to.

Rick Perry: We Settle Political Differences At The Ballot Box, Not With Indictments
Shannon Bream says:

The grand jury indictment alleges this, that you, quote, "With the intent to harm another, intentionally or knowingly misused government property, and by means of coercion, intentionally or knowingly influenced or attempted to influence Rosemary Lehmberg, a public servant." She is the D.A. in Travis County.

So, Lehmberg is a public servant - a D.A. who was elected to that position.

Gov. Perry says:

"This is not the way that we settle differences, political differences, in this country. You don't do it with indictments. We settle our political differences at the ballot box."

...didn't he just try to force her to resign by threatening (and then affirming his threats) to veto funding? Why does he now say that it should be done through the ballot box?

a reply to: Greven

Well made point, but if you want to get technical, the DA in question was not indicted for anything political, but rather a crime that many regular people have had to deal with, as well as the consequences of. In her case, there did not seem to be any consequences with regards to her professional career, one which should not continue after being found guilty of such a crime. Must we wait for a fatal accident at her hand to take care of her career?

Whether or not that veto could be a crime is a difficult case to make, and would depend on whether the governor was trying to obstruct a specific investigation into himself or his administration, said David Kwok, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. "This is not clear from the indictment, so I don't have any insight into what the grand jury heard," he said. "This is not a slam dunk case against Gov. Perry."

I agree with his (Perry's) actions, provided the office was not investigating wrong-doing by Perry himself. That is the question, in my mind, as to whether this indictment is bogus or not.

a reply to: bbracken677
But there's a way to do this politically, ain't there?
Say... a recall petition?
Laws governing recall in Texas

Austin seems to be one of these areas that allows recall:
Petitions | AustinTexas.gov

Wouldn't this apply to her, as she is locally-elected?

a reply to: Greven

Yep, except the area is primarily democrat and the dems had already shown their support for her remaining in office.

I am sure Perry is wishing he had taken a different tact, lol.

Personally, if there is no other agenda on Perry's part, I support his stand. I do not understand those who support her... There is enough crap like that in politics already and here you have someone who was tried and convicted. Her own constituents should have been raising hell about her return.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Indigo5

Whether she is guilty (which she is) of drunk driving or idiotic behavior is not relevant to Rick Perry cutting off funding for an entire agency of their government. It is not his prerogative...It is not his decision to make...That itself is corrupt, defunding an agency solely because he doesn't approve of it's director.

It is not his decision to make? Pardon me? It was on his desk for his signature or his veto.

To be succinct. The Veto decision was his...whether or not the Director of the Public Integrity Unit steps down was NOT. Once he publicly declared that he vetoed the money in order to get her to step down, he indicted himself under Texas Law.

I disagree. I see it as him saying he has no faith in the office's ability to do it's job and will defund it. If she steps down then what causes him to have no faith will disappear.

If he did not have a valid reason, I am with you 100%, but she is clearly corrupt, and with her there, the position she has is a joke.

It's like letting a convicted pedophile be in charge of watching children.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I see it as him saying he has no faith in the office's ability to do it's job

Perhaps, but I don''t think so. Here are a few other instances where Texas public servants were arrested for DWI. Not only were they not asked to resign, in one instance, they were promoted.

In 2011, Republican and former State Representative Jim Stick was arrested for drunk driving. He has since been appointed as chief legal counsel for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, earning an annual salary of $162,000.

In 2009, Kaufman County District Attorney Rick Harrison was found guilty of drunk driving after driving the wrong way in traffic.

In 2003, Swisher County D.A. Terry McEachern was found guilty of a DWI.

Source

What's the difference between these District Attorneys and the Travis County District Attorney? It could be that they are Republicans. More likely, it's that these district attorneys were not overseeing investigations of the governor’s signature project – the Cancer Research Fund – which has since resulted in a felony indictment.

Had the Travis County D.A. heeded the governor's call and resigned, it would have conveniently been up to Rick Perry to appoint her successor, the person who would – or more likely would not – continue investigations into his projects.

The bottom line is that Rick Perry saw Lehmberg's drunk driving charge as an opportunity to get rid of her and her active investigation into the Cancer Research Fund scandal.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Greven

Well made point, but if you want to get technical, the DA in question was not indicted for anything political, but rather a crime that many regular people have had to deal with, as well as the consequences of.

Correct. She had legal consequences, not political...and the laws in Texas are clearly designed to spate the two. Political consequences are doled out at the ballot box. The Governor is not a judge, nor are judges politicians. Separate branches of Government for a reason.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Greven
In her case, there did not seem to be any consequences with regards to her professional career, one which should not continue after being found guilty of such a crime.

I think she should step down. I also believe that a Governor using money to subvert the people's right at the ballot box to decide the same is corruption.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Greven
I agree with his (Perry's) actions, provided the office was not investigating wrong-doing by Perry himself. That is the question, in my mind, as to whether this indictment is bogus or not.

The office he defunded is by definition a State Watchdog Agency against political corruption. Whether the Governor is currently under investigation by that group seems irrelevant when you take that in full context. He eliminated the funding for the entire agency. I think I read that 18 people already were forced to accept early retirement or were otherwise laid off....with more to follow.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Greven

[On recall]
Yep, except the area is primarily democrat and the dems had already shown their support for her remaining in office.

Wow...So if a district leans politically where the outcome of a vote is likely not to align with the Governors view, he should be allowed to over-ride the people's will? that seems crazy corrupt whatever side of the fence you are sitting on.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
]

I disagree. I see it as him saying he has no faith in the office's ability to do it's job and will defund it. If she steps down then what causes him to have no faith will disappear.

Again...She was appointed through elections, may be recalled through the same methods, the Governor is not entitled to offer or with-hold money to override the people's prerogative to vote.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

It's like letting a convicted pedophile be in charge of watching children.

How is driving under the influence the same as Pedophilia?

a reply to: LeatherNLace

All I have to say is that it is horrible that these people continue in office, if they are still in office (since one example dates back to 2003).

On the other hand, the Lehmberg case was very public and very demeaning to the office, regarding her behavior caught on video. Have no idea if any of the others reached that level of... disgusting behavior.

I am all for holding our elected officials feet to the fire when it comes to ethics and other legal violations. I am barely a step away from being an avowed anarchist lol.

If it turns out the Perry is guilty of some malfeasance other than the veto, then I am all for sticking it to him as well. Hopefully we will find out as this proceeds.