Tag Archives: Rosemary Lehmberg

Perry dips into campaign coffer

This might be the only positive — or semi-positive — thing I’ll say about Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s effort to defend himself against prosecutors who’ve charged him with coercion and abuse of power.

He’s going to use campaign contributors’ money to pay for his defense.

Good going, Gov. Goodhair.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/20/questions-mount-about-perrys-legal-fees/

There. I’ve said it.

Perry says he doesn’t want to saddle taxpayers with the cost of mounting a defense. I’ll agree to that. I don’t want to pay for his defense. I’m guessing a few million other Texans don’t want to pay for it, either.

Texas campaign finance law allows candidates — or former candidates — to use surplus campaign cash any way they wish. Some of them actually pocket the dough when they leave office. Perry is going to use contributions from supporters for what he thinks is a righteous cause.

It’s fair to ask, though, whether someone who contributes to an officeholder’s campaign does so knowing the money could be spent for some reason other than helping the candidate get elected or re-elected. Then again, if you support that candidate, then it’s reasonable to believe one would support that candidate’s effort to mount a defense against charges brought against him or her.

Perry’s got a fight on his hands. A Travis County grand jury has indicted him on two felony charges relating to his veto of funds for the public integrity unit run by Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg, who pleaded guilty to drunk driving, served her time and then refused to resign after Perry demanded her to do so. The grand jury accused Perry of abusing the power of office by coercing Lehmberg to quit.

We’ll see how it plays out.

The good news for Texas taxpayers — such as yours truly — is that we aren’t paying for the governor’s hefty legal bill.

The Perry indictment does matter

Glenn Smith directs Progress Texas PAC and believes the indictment handed down by the Travis County grand jury against Gov. Rick Perry matters.

He’s explained why in the essay attached here:

http://tribtalk.org/2014/08/18/why-the-indictment-matters/

Buried in this item is an interesting tidbit that Perry’s supporters need to ponder: The grand jury was not run by a horde of Democrats out to “get” the Republican governor; furthermore, the special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, was selected precisely because he is not a Democratic official. He’s a seasoned lawyer.

That’s an important distinction that should be held up as a reason to treat the indictment seriously and dismiss notions that it’s merely a partisan witch hunt, as Perry himself has implied in his counterattack.

Smith writes: “Lost in all the mooing is the simple thought that savvy, experienced special prosecutor Michael McCrum likely agrees that Perry has the right to veto things he doesn’t like, such as appropriations for the state’s public integrity unit at the Travis County district attorney’s office. McCrum wouldn’t stand by and let the grand jury indict the Constitution. He and the grand jury clearly have something else in mind.”

As for Perry’s public response, let’s also note that the governor has actually threatened the grand jury and the prosecutor by declaring they would be “held accountable.”

The indictment, in my view, won’t result in jail time for the governor. I seriously doubt he’ll get tossed into the slammer. I’m not yet convinced that this case even will go to trial.

The indictment, though, does suggest that a governor’s veto power has its limits. Perry threatened to veto money for the Travis County district attorney’s office public integrity unit after DA Rosemary Lehmberg pleaded guilty to drunk driving. As Smith notes, Lehmberg is elected to her office by Travis County voters and is not a Perry appointee. He demanded her resignation. She declined to quit. Perry then cut the funds.

Smith writes: “Then the real fun began. Perry dispatched his agents to offer a series of enticements to Lehmberg — long after the veto was a historical fact and unavailable as possible legal cover for his actions. The law is pretty clear that a public official cannot offer things of value to another public official in return for an official action that benefits the ‘offering’ party.”

Yes, indeed. This drama is going to be fun to watch — with or without a trial.

Let's chill the Perry-should-quit talk

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilbert Hinojosa’s partisan ferocity has gotten in the way of his better judgment.

Hinojosa exhibited a too-quick trigger finger the other day after a Travis County grand jury indicted Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts of abuse of power and coercion of a public official.

http://news.msn.com/us/defiant-gov-perry-rejects-outrageous-indictment

Hinojosa called immediately for Perry’s resignation.

Whoa, Mr. Chairman! Let’s back up a bit.

The grand jury has accused Perry of threatening to veto money for the public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, who was convicted of drunk driving. Lehmberg is a Democrat. She didn’t quit her office. Perry vetoed the money. Lehmberg isn’t running for re-election; neither is Perry.

So, why call for Perry to quit? Hinojosa said the governor has “dishonored” his office. However, he hasn’t been convicted of anything.

Last time I looked, I noticed that the U.S. Constitution implies that citizens have a presumption of innocence. Perry, as of today, hasn’t even been arraigned in court on the accusation leveled against him.

It well might be that Perry would be found guilty of the charges. He might be acquitted of them. He might not ever go to trial. I’m quite certain that none of this will be determined until long after Perry leaves office at the end of this year.

So, let’s dispense with the Perry-should-quit nonsense. We have a judicial process in this country that should be allowed to do its job.

That 'coercion' thing might stick to Perry

“It appears to those on the prosecutor’s side that his funding veto and the threat that preceded it were an attempt to intimidate and coerce the office that has the job of policing corruption and ethics cases in state government.

“The threat is the thing. Had the governor simply cut the funding without saying anything — especially in public, but even in private — this would just be a strange veto. That is not unprecedented.”

So writes Ross Ramsey, in an excellent analysis for the Texas Tribune.

The more I think about it, the more I’m beginning to believe that the coercion allegation might be the one that sticks to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/15/analysis-its-not-crime-its-politics/

A Travis County grand jury indictment of Perry issued this past week accuses the governor of coercion and of abuse of power. He threatened to veto funds for the Travis County District Attorney’s Office if DA Rosemary Lehmberg didn’t resign after she pleaded guilty to a drunk-driving charge. Lehmberg served her time in the slammer, but didn’t quit. Perry cut the money for the public integrity unit run out of Lehmberg’s office.

The grand jury thinks Perry abused his power.

I’m wondering, though, if the coercion matter isn’t the more damaging part of the indictment.

As Ramsey notes, Perry made a pretty big stink about all this stuff regarding Lehmberg. I agree with Perry that the DA should have quit. I also believe the grand jury may have something on the governor regarding the manner in which he sought to pressure the prosecutor to quit.

Perry vows to fight the indictment. He calls it a political farce. He even calls the indictment itself an “abuse of power.”

We’ll see about that.

I like Ramsey’s metaphor describing the indictment: “Meanwhile, the governor and others are already haunting Iowa, the home of the first presidential primaries almost two years from now. This indictment could be to the Perry presidential campaign what a sewer leak is to the opening of a new restaurant: The food might not be the diners’ strongest memory of the meal.”

Oops … Gov. Perry indicted on coercion charges

A Texas grand jury has issued a two-count indictment that goes far beyond any definition of a run-of-the-mill accusation.

The Travis County panel today indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two counts of abuse of power relating to his threat to withhold money from a district attorney’s office if the DA didn’t resign.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/15/grand-jury-indicts-perry-abuse-authority/

One charge is of “abuse of official capacity,” the other is “coercion of a public servant.” The former is a Class A felony, the latter a Class C.

OK, I get that Perry is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Thus, he need not quit an office he is leaving voluntarily at the end of the year.

This, however, is a big political deal apart from the criminal justice aspect.

Perry got himself involved in the Travis County DA’s affairs after DA Rosemary Lehmberg was convicted of drunken driving. Perry threatened to veto money appropriated by the Legislature for Lehmberg’s office. Lehmberg also runs the state’s public integrity unit. Lehmberg is a Democrat; Perry is a Republican.

Perry wanted her moved out. Did he abuse his power to seek her ouster? The grand jury has issued an accusation, which I’m going to presume means the panel believes it has enough evidence to support an indictment.

Well, what does this mean for Perry’s believed desire to run for president in 2016? For my money, it delivers a near-mortal wound to whatever ambition he has for higher office. Whether this case gets adjudicated in time for the presidential campaign or not, the indictment becomes fodder that every Perry foe in both political parties will use to beat him senseless.

One final thought …

Let’s not accuse the grand jury of acting on political motives. The prosecutor in this case was a special counsel brought in to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

The political damage is evident. My hunch is that Gov. Perry also has a serious legal fight on his hands.

Abuse of power allegation may spell trouble

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is looking and sounding more and more like a candidate for president in 2016.

That is, unless he gets indicted by a Travis County grand jury for abusing the power of his office.

If he faces criminal charges, all bets are off for the lame-duck governor.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/25998425/grand-jury-decides-if-perry-abused-power

The panel is expected to decide soon whether Perry abused his power when he vetoed money for the Travis County district attorney’s office after DA Rosemary Lehmberg pleaded guilty to drunken driving. Perry demanded her resignation, which was justified, given that the DA lost her moral authority to prosecute drunken drivers.

Then he allegedly went a step too far by threatening to veto $7.5 million that was earmarked for the Travis County DA’s public integrity unit, which is charged with investigating charges of ethical lapses by state officials.

Oh, did I mention that Lehmberg is a Democrat and Perry is a Republican? That distinction seems to matter.

Lehmberg refused to quit and Perry pulled the money.

Now he’s being investigated for abusing his power.

So, what does this mean for his budding presidential campaign? Plenty. He cannot possibly campaign as a Mr. Clean Governor if he’s about to stand trial for a felony offense related to the performance of the office he’s occupied since The Flood.

Then again, if the grand jury no-bills the governor — which of course is a possibility — then he’s back in the presidential sweepstakes once again.

But if the indictment arrives, well, if you’ll pardon the expression: Oops.

Why not let AG defend you, governor?

State Rep. Joe Deshotel wants to know: Why is Gov. Rick Perry hiring a private lawyer at $450 per hour to defend him in a possible court case when the state attorney general, a pal of his, is available?

And why should Texas taxpayers pay for the private lawyer?

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/25/lawmaker-wants-ag-ruling-perry-legal-bill/

Why, indeed, to both questions, governor?

Deshotel is a Port Arthur Democrat — and a lawyer himself. He’s posed the question as a grand jury investigates whether Perry acted improperly in vetoing $7.5 million for the Travis County district attorney’s office and then promised to restore the money if the DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, resigned. Lehmberg had been ticketed for drunken driving this past April. She also runs the office that is charged with investigating state officials’ conduct.

Oh, and she’s also a Democrat. Perry, of course, is a Republican. Coincidence? Probably not.

Deshotel has sent Attorney General Greg Abbott a four-page letter inquiring about this matter. “What authority, if any, can the attorney general authorize hiring private counsel for the governor?” Deshotel asks. “If authority to hire private counsel exists, how would the attorney general authorize payment for such private counsel?”

One of the AG’s duties as set forth in the Texas Constitution is to defend state officials who get themselves into potential legal trouble. Perry might find himself in that position if a Travis County jury indicts him. But he’s gone outside the state legal system to hire David Botsford to represent him. He’s also paying him with state money.

There’s the rub, according to Deshotel.

Let’s get the answer.

Perry on the hot seat

Gov. Rick Perry’s backside just might catch fire if a Travis County grand jury finds wrongdoing in the governor’s office.

At issue is whether Perry acted improperly by allegedly offering to restore money to the Travis County District Attorney’s Office if the DA resigned.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/22/perry-offered-restore-vetoed-funding-if-da-would-r/

The DA is a Democrat, Rosemary Lehmberg, who was arrested on a drunken driving charge. Lehmberg also runs the public integrity office, which investigates other public officials’ conduct.

In comes the governor to supposedly promise to restore money for the office if Lehmberg resigned her office in the wake of the DUI charge. Perry had vetoed money for her office after her April 2013 arrest, but he’d make it all better if she just out of the way.

I will not predict what the grand jury will do. It is looking into whether Perry threw his weight around improperly by meddling in the affairs of the Travis County prosecutor’s office. Was it right for him to promise to restore money in that manner?

According to some observers, Perry’s tactics smack of the kind of behavior alleged against fellow Republican Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey. Christie is still in hot water over allegations his office closed the George Washington Bridge and created traffic mayhem as payback for refusal by the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., also a Democrat, to endorse Christie’s re-election effort.

Both men are now considered possible presidential candidates in 2016. Christie’s brand already has been damaged. Perry is in the middle of a makeover attempt to try to recover from his disastrous run for the GOP nomination in 2012.

If the grand jury indicts Perry, he’s going to suffer far more than another “oops” moment.