Rick Perry

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Indicted For "Coercion" of DUI DA

That's rich


A grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday for abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption — making the possible 2016 presidential hopeful his state's first indicted governor in nearly a century.

A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to nix $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit, which is run by Travis County District Rosemary Lehmberg's office. Several top aides to the Republican governor appeared before grand jurors in Austin, including his deputy chief of staff, legislative director and general counsel. Perry himself wasn't called to testify.

NEXT: Who Will Be The Independents' Top 10 Enemies of Freedom?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Things like this always amaze me. Perry on the surface seems like a good future political prospect. Speaks well, looks normal, even occasionally says the right things without coming off as full retard, like saying rape cannot cause pregnancy.

    Then he pull some weird shit like this that is so obviously ammunition for future opponents. I guess some people believe their own shit so much that they lose track of reality.

    1. Perry on the surface seems like a good future political prospect. Speaks well, looks normal, even occasionally says the right things without coming off as full retard

      You mean he’s articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy?

      1. Prezackly!

    2. I’ve never though of him as someone who speaks well. But you are right at least he doesn’t seem to be pro-rape like some of the other ex-candidates.

  2. 1. Perry is a moron. He says dumb things all the time and his political career is maxed out. He isn’t going to win a Republican primary to be president, let alone the office. And that’s a good thing.
    2. I actually don’t really care about any of this. The DA screwed up, and Perry used it as an excuse as governor to withhold budget from her politically motivated corruption unit.

  3. Could the article be more vague? How is it illegal to veto a bill or line-item veto part of a bill if those are powers delegated to the Texas governor?

    1. It isn’t. And, frankly, I have no problem with a DA who tried to use her status to get out of her arrest being screwed with. Drudge has just recently linked to her booking footage, and she’s telling/threatening the cops that if they don’t call the sheriff to tell him she’s there/get her released, they will be in trouble. She says this is their problem, not hers.

      This is someone with the power to ruin lives.

      Her own corruption office has been accused of politically motivated investigations.

      The only argument that sort of makes sense is she was an elected official answerable to the voters of her county, yet Perry didn’t force her out of office. He simply refused to give her office more money.

      1. In lefty la-la-land not giving you something is akin to using force against you.

        1. You know, I don’t really care what happens to Perry. I don’t like him, and I think he’s an idiot. I don’t think he did anything illegal in this case.

          I just can’t help but notice that this a headline story on every liberal news site. Slate, NYT etc.

          That’s fine. He’s a major political figure. But why is it that the same isn’t done for Democrats?

    2. It is the threat that makes it coercive…if you do not do this I will veto, kind of similar to the quid-pro-quo required for bribery. It is a legitimate charge, however Republicans are so overwhelmingly bereft of morality, and so awash in corruption I can see how they would mistake this for legitimate policy.

      1. Um, yes. It was coercive. The same way it’s coercive when the Feds threaten to withhold money from states that don’t follow certain policies (or Medicare money!). If you are morally outraged by that, you haven’t been following politics too long. Either that, or you are a horribly biased troll.

        On the law in question:
        (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; or

        (2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
        – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/tx…..v5dyc.dpuf

        Did Perry’s action qualify under those two applications of the law?

        Trying to influence or coerce an official to resign after they’ve committed a DUI doesn’t seem to really be the same as what’s described above. But maybe I’m just morally bankrupt for thinking that a piece of shit DA should get a taste of her own medicine.

        Notice that she didn’t resign even though a number of her staff lost their jobs.

        1. More to the point, no one in their right mind would claim this is what the law was written for (protecting or avenging the effort to force a disgraced DA to resign).

          I always forget when we are supposed to follow the letter of the law and when we are supposed to follow the spirit of it. Can anyone explain to me the rules for that?

          If it’s Obamacare, we followed the spirit. If it’s a Republican doing something we don’t like, it’s the letter of the law, or our biased interpretation of the letter of the law.

      2. You realize this is done by, well, I guess every law where the federal government “partners” with state.

        Hell, this happens in every single negotiated transaction ever. Or have you never “threatened” a business that you were going to take your business elsewhere over poor service?

        Giving something for something, the literal translation of your latin, underlies all trade, nay all civilized human interaction.

        Do you hate civilization?

  4. So let me get this straight.

    Rick Perry is guilty of abuse of his office because he vetoed additional funding for a county D.A.’s office because the D.A., who admitted to driving drunk in a court of law, refused to resign.

    If merely stating this accusation is not sufficient to refute it, then no criminal accusation can possibly be absurd enough to warrant summary dismissal.

    1. “Rick Perry is guilty of abuse of his office because he vetoed additional funding for a county D.A.’s office because the D.A., who admitted to driving drunk in a court of law, refused to resign.”

      Thank you, M.E. I had no idea WIH did what to whom prior to you posting.
      So Perry is an ignoramus in using his office for political means while the DA is an ignoramus for using her office for political means.
      Looks like a heapin’ helpin’ of politicos acting like politicos to me. Could the GJ indict a whole bunch of people starting with Obo?

  5. Perry was willing to cut a deal with the office if Lehmburg resigned:

    Sources have told the San Antonio Express-News that Perry aides offered to restore funding, allow some type of continued employment for Lehmberg in the DA’s office and pick her top lieutenant as her successor if she had been willing to resign, even after the veto.


    The idea that Perry would have replaced Lehmburg with a republican is election year theater brought to you by the Democratic Party of Texas. Getting their asses kicked by double digits in the governor’s race is way too much for them, so they need something to tarnish Perry’s legacy as a consolation prize. What a bunch of vindictive pricks.

  6. Perry couldn’t get better PR if he paid for it, and this is courtesy of the Texas Demwits, I mean Democrats.

    1. Courts make some odd decisions, but I can’t determine if that one is more dumb or scary. Some quotes:

      “The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one’s right to remain silent,” Liu wrote.

      Prosecutors said Tom’s failure to ask about the Wong family while detained showed his guilt.

      No where in the constitution does it say you have to invoke them for them to apply. They are called natural, inalienable rights we are all born with, in fact.

      I guess you have to invoke your free speech rights before using them. Or invoke your right now to be a slave.

      1. They are called natural, inalienable rights we are all born with, in fact.

        Not unless you’ve paid your Obamacare breathing tax.

  7. Perry belongs in prison. It isn’t like he did something insignificant like spend money the law didn’t allow on healthcare subsidies for people on the federal exchange, or ignoring explicit healthcare deadlines.

    Perry abused an authority he was explicitly given, not one seized, a so belongs in jail.

    1. Perry was indicted for not funding this dipshit’s Public Integrity Unit after she was pulled over for DUI, tried to pressure the cops to release her when demanded them to do so because of her public position, and then refused to resign when Perry demanded it. Is he not allowed to veto the funding?

      The grand jury that issued this indictment is out of Austin, so this smells of a political hit job.

      Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is involved in a billion dollars worth of crony capitalism and no one is saying a word.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.