Adar posted:

Grand juries hear no exculpatory evidence and will indict a hand sandwich. Indictments are paperwork to go through (unless there's a cop involved lol) before getting to the important part. For a Texas jury to convict on these facts is going to take a minor miracle.

Also, you got your standard of proof significantly wrong ("probable cause")

Tab8715 posted:

The defense and prosecutors picked the Grand Jurors. Given their experience, I doubt they picked anyone undesirable. As I said earlier - I'm not an expert but my analogy is essentially the same.

Trabisnikof posted:

However, any Republican-appointed prosecutor that brings such bombshell charges knows what will happen if they can't back them up.

Elotana posted:

He'll shrug and go right back to his lucrative white-collar criminal defense practice?

McCrum is a "Republican-appointed prosecutor" in the sense that a Republican-appointed judge appointed him as a special prosecutor. He hasn't held a political office himself for 15 years.

Trabisnikof posted:

The defense doesn't have a say in selection of a grand jury (http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/grand-jury-where-community-meets-law) and grand juries are easily led to whatever conclusion prosecutors want (http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/27/the-kaley-forfeiture-decision-what-it-looks-like-when-the-feds-make-their-ham-sandwich/).

However, any Republican-appointed prosecutor that brings such bombshell charges knows what will happen if they can't back them up.

Omi-Polari posted:

Michael McCrum looks bulletproof. I'm not finding charges of partisanship very convincing either, only because everything I've read about McCrum shows him on the straight and narrow. But that doesn't mean his case isn't full of holes.

Count me in the pro-Perry camp on this one. I'm no legal expert but the legal experts I'm reading are skeptical (and that's an understatement) this indictment will stick. I'm in Travis County and most of my friends are convinced -- ecstatic really -- that Perry is going down on this. But I rarely see them discussing any actual laws or whether Perry violated them.

Instead of discussing the actual laws, they point to McCrum and the fact that he was appointed by a Republican as proof of the case's validity. Sure, this suggests there was no partisan motive in pursuing the indictment. But that, by itself, doesn't convince me whether McCrum has a case or not. It really comes down to whether a crime was actually committed. And you can play the opposite game: The only people I'm seeing who are really for this case are the most partisan yellow-dog Democrats ... and McCrum. A lot of other Dems are pouring on the cold water.

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm sure Perry will win on appeal. But can anyone point to other instances of a Texas governor using a line item veto as a threat in a blatant tit-for-tat? The only example I can think of is Pa Ferguson.

For those that imagine that saying "resign or I veto funding to your office" is a legal political tactic, what would be an illegal use of the veto power or are all uses of the veto power legal?

quote:

The state alleged that [County Judge Regina Hanson] intentionally and knowingly threatened to terminate the county’s funding of the salaries of a deputy district clerk and an assistant district attorney in an attempt to coerce the district judge into firing the county auditor and the county attorney into revoking a misdemeanant’s probation.

[...]

Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression. See [Wurtz v. Risley, 719 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir.1983)]. Could Judge Hanson threaten to use her lawful authority and prerogatives of office to coerce other public officials into taking lawful actions which she or the commissioners’ court deemed expedient or desirable, or should she refrain from doing so out of fear of prosecution? What is and what is not lawful conduct cannot be left to such conjecture. Section 36.01(1)(F) was not drawn with the narrowness and precision required when legislating within the realm of the First Amendment.

A preeminent purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee free and unfettered political discussion within government and among the citizenry. Consequently, those who enter the political arena are fair game for sharp attacks inflicted by both the electorate and the elected. The hurly-burly world of courthouse politics is an arena where robust debate, often accompanied by blunt, caustic and even intemperate and vituperative language, is the by-product of public officials clashing over divisive issues. However, as long as the means are peaceful and their actions lawful, the boundaries of their political debate cannot be measured for constitutional protection by conventional standards of acceptability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...coercion-count/

Omi-Polari posted:

It's a good question. And no, I can't answer the first question. But to answer the second, one argument is that the threat of a veto is necessarily part of the veto process -- that's what gives the veto its power. There's also a distinction between lawful threats and unlawful threats. So if the governor ordered a legislator to do something demonstrably illegal (like killing someone or offering a bribe), lest the governor vetoes a bill, that would be an unlawful threat. But threatening to veto a bill unless Lehmberg resigns would arguably fall under a lawful threat and be protected under the First Amendment -- he's not coercing her into committing a crime.

It's politically risky, arguably skeezy. But not illegal, if I'm reading these arguments correctly. There are other ways of stopping the governor, like having the legislature override the veto.

Also see State v. Hanson (Tex. Ct. App. 1990), which involved a similar dispute in Bosque County a lower level, here:

The Texas Court of Appeals said the problem here is that the law was vague/overbroad. So it's possible that Perry's actions could be illegal under the law while the law is also totally nebulous and vague. Meaning it won't survive a First Amendment challenge.

The other thing that Democrats are pounding is that Perry vetoed funding to the PIU in order to block investigation into his own misdeeds with CIPRIT. But there are two problems with this. (1) That's not what Perry is being indicted for. (2) PIU wasn't investigating Perry over CIPRIT or any Perry-appointed officials. (PIU was investigating staff.)

Finally, there's the assertion that Perry wants Lehmberg out so he can replace her with a political ally. Wouldn't be surprised by that. But Perry also has a decent case (!) for wanting Lehmberg out. It puts Dems in a bad position because it makes them look like this is all about keeping an abusive, corrupt drunk in power.

hobbesmaster posted:

While a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich they didn't return a true bill against Lehmburg?

Trabisnikof posted:

Wait, how on earth did we make it a removable offense for all those people to be intoxicated off-duty? Even in 1987 I thought Texas was pretty pro-booze.

GamingHyena posted:

A grand jury didn't return a true bill against Lehmburg because her case never went in front of a grand jury. Trials to remove public officials in Texas are civil cases (see Subchapter B in Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code).

GamingHyena posted:

Edited for clarity:

If you're talking about her removal, the grand jury didn't return a true bill against Lehmburg because her case never went in front of a grand jury. Trials to remove public officials in Texas are civil cases (see Subchapter B in Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code).

If you're talking about her allegation of official misconduct, I believe that was reviewed by a grand jury but remember that grand juries only get to listen to whatever evidence and recommendations are given to them by a prosecutor. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to use grand juries as political cover to dismiss cases by only showing them evidence to support that view.

Trabisnikof posted:

Wait, how on earth did we make it a removable offense for all those people to be intoxicated off-duty? Even in 1987 I thought Texas was pretty pro-booze.

Omi-Polari posted:

I'm in Travis County and most of my friends are convinced -- ecstatic really -- that Perry is going down on this.

thrakkorzog posted:

Texas really historically hasn't been all that pro-booze, with plenty of dry counties throughout the state. It's easier to spot the county line in some places by the liquor stores on the county line, rather than any sign that you passed through a county.

ReindeerF posted:

Wouldn't be the first thing he's been down on.

quote:

A state district judge in Austin said Thursday that she intends to protect members of the grand jury that indicted Gov. Rick Perry from any threats — veiled or direct — from the governor or anyone else.

Judge Julie Kocurek of the 390th District Court, a Democrat, said Perry’s Saturday statement, issued a day after the indictment, could be construed as a threat and possible violation of the law. Kocurek, as the administrative presiding judge of all criminal courts in the county, said that “no one is above the law,” and the public needs to know that grand jurors are legally protected from any threat.

“I have a duty to make sure that our members of the grand jury are protected,” Kocurek said. “I am defending the integrity of our grand jury system.”

The judge said that Perry might have made a veiled threat when he said: “I am confident we will ultimately prevail, that this farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and that those responsible will be held to account.”

The only people that Perry could be referring to as being accountable are the grand jurors, judge and prosecutor, Kocurek said.

The Texas Penal Code that outlaws obstruction and retaliation says that anyone who “intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm” a grand juror faces a second degree felony, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:

The statement Perry made Saturday after being indicted could be construed as a threat, according to a district judge.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/judge-warns-against-perry-grand-jury-threats/ng6zb/

HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:

The statement Perry made Saturday after being indicted could be construed as a threat, according to a district judge.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/judge-warns-against-perry-grand-jury-threats/ng6zb/

ReindeerF posted:

Business up front, libel in the back.

Omi-Polari posted:

RickPAC is really owning it. They're selling these t-shirts:

TARDISman posted:

Political mullet, gotta love it!

Omi-Polari posted:

Omi-Polari posted:

If you think that's bad...

Omi-Polari posted:

If you think that's bad...

Tab8715 posted:

Who's the guy in the middle?

Austin American Statesman posted:

Forget that it could ruin his presidential aspirations. Look beyond the possibility he could spend about a century in prison explaining to fellow inmates (with names like Mad Dog and Widowmaker) the intricacies of constitutional law and vetoes.

Those of you who wish ill upon Gov. Rick Perry (and shame on you for doing so) perhaps will find delight in the fact that his indictment already has hit him where it hurts. It’s right there in federal law, specifically the federal law known as 18 USC 922(n), and I quote:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”

Thanks to last week’s indictment, your fun-with-guns governor is now in that category.

quote:

What’s more, Perry continued to pressure Lehmberg to resign even after the veto. Official sources cited in media accounts confirm that Perry’s representatives continued to try to induce Lehmberg to resign by promising her a high-paying junior position in her office. That behavior is a potential bribery felony in Texas.

Nonsense posted:

Politico is GOP swill.

quote:

Craig McDonald is director and Andrew Wheat is research director of Texans for Public Justice.

Trabisnikof posted:

Politico is. But that article wasn't written by politico, it was written by the people who filed the complaint against Perry.