The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Willie Tomg posted:

The DA, after being picked up for drunk driving, admitted on camera to her participation in local corruption in the county of Travis and you for some reason feel this is irrelevant and are getting pissy about it, which is very funny to people who live in town and have been following this story for longer than the last 24 hours. This indictment might end Perry's career, and its probably the one thing in the last five years where Rick Perry kinda has a point, actually. Rick Perry being Rick Perry, he's of course going to do this in a way that also causes maximum benefit to Rick Perry and Friends of Rick Perry, and now the schweeny ineffectual Austin liberal bloc is trying to oppose him with procedural political games of their own, but because of their tragic Austinite handicap they're doing it in the stupidest way at the least effectual time.

Again, this all very, very funny to people familiar with the story and the tender mercies of the Travis County DA's office, which you clearly are not.

I am fine with Perry being indicted for this because Perry is a huge piece of poo poo, but it's a goddamn mystery to me how a grand jury could indict Perry on this set of facts but no-bill Lehmberg (which they did two weeks ago IIRC).

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 04:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 01:24

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

hobbesmaster posted:

She didn't actually do anything to abuse the power of her office. Perry actually did.

What the gently caress? Watch that booking video and tell me she's not at least as guilty of official misconduct and coercion as Perry is.

ReindeerF posted:

Anyway, GlyphGryph aside, IANAL but my reading of the charges is that they're linked - as in, if the first count doesn't stick then the second count doesn't either and vice versa. It is an interesting use of the law, is this pretty standard or what? The first count basically says he misused state property, period. That's the entire first count. In order for that to be true, the second count also has to be true. If they don't find that the second count is true then he didn't misuse state property. Sounds like a shaky case. I mean it sounds like it's entirely possible that the just would come back and say yes on count two but no on count one because vetoing funding is a normal part of his job.

I might as well not be a lawyer when it comes to state criminal law, I haven't touched it since 1L year, but that's my impression as well. The first count of this indictment reads like some weak-rear end poo poo to me.

Elotana fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Aug 17, 2014

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 05:08

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

MrBims posted:

She had a .23 BAC. You're, uh, kinda not 100% accountable for everything you say while under the influence of mind-altering drugs.

TPC 8.04(a) says you kinda are.

My Imaginary GF posted:

No, I did watch the video. She has not commited an illegal act of misconduct in the video. You are allowed to imply that you will use your official powers for political purposes. It is illegal to directly use your official powers for political purposes. She did not use her official powers, nor did she say directly that she would use her official powers, for political/personal gain. Meanwhile, Perry used his official power (veto) for a political purpose (force Lehmberg to resign). That was Perry's public statement.

You've got it exactly backwards. Look at the actual coercion statute:

quote:

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;
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(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.

Note that the (c) exception I bolded seems to apply to Perry more so than to Lehmberg.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 05:26

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Seriously, I would like nothing more than for Rick Perry to go to jail for a century, but ever since this story broke and I looked up the actual statute I have asked every Texas Dem I know (most of them through law school!) to explain to me how 36.03(c) doesn't 100% apply to Perry's veto and nobody can. Maybe the judicial precedent is some abstruse interpretation that's totally at odds with the text, but I can't bill Westlaw research to "idle curiosity" :v:

Elotana fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Aug 17, 2014

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 05:42

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

My Imaginary GF posted:

The way my campaign lawyer explained it to me was, you can make any political statements you want as long as you don't attach a political statement to an official act. I expect Perry's appeal to rely upon (c). However, by combining an official act (veto) with a political act (demand to step down), the act of veto becomes a political use of official power.

From the text of the statute, if the criteria of (c) are met, which they appear to be, they would prevent the application of (a)(1) entirely, so we wouldn't even get to the statement if the action was official. Like, assuming there's no drastically skewed precedent (and I don't really think there would be, this seems like a specific enough set of facts that it would turn on the text of the statute), and this indictment is as thin as it seems at first glance, Perry has a good shot at a directed verdict, which would really get people steamed who aren't following the case except on a partisan level. He's almost certainly in no real danger of conviction.

I'm genuinely not trying to be That Contrarian Guy here, I hadn't followed the Lehmberg/Perry affair at all and was stoked when I heard he was indicted out of the blue the other day. But the more I learn about it the less impressed I am.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 06:04

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

My Imaginary GF posted:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is that Perry is under indictment for the threat to use his veto power, not for the use of the veto in and of itself. Would you happen to know what the precident is for what defines a deliberation on the use of official power?

No idea, but judging by the phrasing of count II of the indictment, my guess is the relevant precedent is probably that Perry and Lehmberg aren't members of the same "governing body of a governmental entity" (state vs county). Since the indictment went out of its way to state that specifically despite it not being mentioned as a requirement in the statute text, that's my best inference as to how they're getting around (c) without driving to Thurgood Marshall Law Library.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 06:13

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

foot posted:

The Governor is not the governing officer of the Travis County District Attorney's office.

That's not a distinction made in the statute. It just says "a governmental entity," not "the governmental entity governing the public servant." I'm assuming they are going to argue it's in case law somewhere because the indictment makes a point of it, but who knows how explicitly that case law words the distinction.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2014 08:51

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Why bring these weak-sauce charges, though? He's only had the special grand jury for 11 months now. You can keep a normal grand jury impaneled for 18 months, and I think a special grand jury for 36 months.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2014 21:05

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Trabisnikof posted:

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

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, when he switched from the US Attorney's office to the criminal defense bar. Republicans not liking you is less a hindrance than a prerequisite in those circles.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2014 20:17

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

McCrum's motives in this don't necessarily need to be partisan. A fishing expedition as a special prosecutor against a sitting governor is pretty high risk-reward ratio from his perspective in terms of the notoriety and profile it brings. If his indictment is dismissed or Perry is found not guilty then what happens to him? Nothing. He goes back to lawyering in Bexar. But there's always the off chance he gets an extremely friendly petit jury, or one of Perry's associates slips up, or something new comes to light before the special grand jury expires. Then you're the guy who took down Rick Perry. Why the hell not?

# ¿ Aug 21, 2014 05:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 01:24

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Kocurek is part and parcel of the Travis machine, I wouldn't pay her much mind.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2014 17:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The State of Texas vs. Rick Perry - A Discussion Thread