Rick Perry Indicted in Texas

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been indicted in Texas on charges of abuse of power.

A grand jury indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts on Friday, charging that he abused his power last year when he tried to pressure the district attorney here, a Democrat, to step down by threatening to cut off state financing to her office.

The indictment left Mr. Perry, a Republican, the first Texas governor in nearly 100 years to face criminal charges and presented a major roadblock to his presidential ambitions at the very time that he had been showing signs of making a comeback.

Perry's lawyer calls it "partisan theatrics." I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. Shades of Tom DeLay?

< Mission Creep in Iraq? U.S. Air Strikes Against ISIS at Mosul Dam | Missouri Gov. Declares State Emergency in Ferguson >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There were actually suppoed to be 3 counts... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by unitron on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    ...but they couldn't remember the third one.

    : - )

    Oops! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "Perry's lawyer calls it "partisan theatrics." I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. Shades of Tom DeLay?"

    ... last February agreed to reconsider the three-judge panel's Sept. 2013 split decision which tossed Tom Delay's conviction on a technicality. Specifically, the majority determined that donations in the form of corporate or personal checks are not the equivalent of coins and currency for the purposes of state campaign finance law (Chapter 253, Texas Revised Statutes), and that the law only applies to cash donations. Therefore, given that rather novel interpretation, Delay's conviction could no longer be sustained by the evidence.

    Personally, and speaking as someone who's actually written campaign finance law, the notion that Sec. 253.094(a), Texas Revised Statutes, can only apply to cash donations, and not to bank drafts or in-kind contributions, rests upon some pretty specious legal reasoning, given that Sec. 253.033, TRS already expressly prohibits candidates from accepting any and all cash contributions in excess of $100 in any one reporting period.

    As you can see, state lawmakers had already specifically singled out cash contributions over a certain amount as illegal. Ergo, large campaign contributions must be specifically made by check or in-kind, so that they can be recorded and traced to their source by state regulators if necessary.

    So, it's highly probable that:

    • the Texas State Legislature originally intended Sec. 253.094(a), TRS, to prohibit corporations and labor organizations from making any and all contributions to political candidates, period, regardless of the means of conveyance; and
    • The three-judge panel's determination that this section is applicable only to cash donations likely runs directly counter to the aforementioned intent of Texas lawmakers when that particular statute was first passed.

    (Given that I do not have access to Texas legislative journals from a century ago, which rest at the State Capitol in Austin, I must hasten to qualify that my opinion is an educated guess, based upon my own professional experience as a legislative analyst.)

    The judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral arguments to that effect on June 18 of this year, and their decision whether or not to overturn the prior ruling and reinstate Delay's conviction is not expected to be rendered until early 2015.

    Given that the two judges on that original three-judge panel who ruled to overturn Delay's conviction are both GOP appointees, I'd be really careful about who you accuse of partisan behavior in this case, because you're potentially skating on some very thin ice here.


    Here's an article from the Dallas Morning News (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    I have to agree (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    Based on what I have read so far, this is an even more absurd abuse of prosecutorial power than the DeLay and Blagojevich indictments, both of which seemed political rather than genuinely criminal to me.  Not that I wouldn't relish a good scandal that would bring Perry down, but seriously, this doesn't seem like a crime to me at all.  If there there is any criminal "abuse of power" in this story, it would be the use of prosecutorial authority to indict a state official who tried to use the constitutional power of his position to de-fund the prosecutor's office, after the prosecutor had refused to resign following her conviction on a (genuine) criminal charge.

    That would be fine, were we ... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 06:39:20 PM EST
    ... talking about an appointed prosecutor, rather than an elected county district attorney. The doctrine of separation of powers is also applicable to various levels of government, not just between its executive, legislative a judicial branches.

    Gov. Perry sought to impose a remedy in a matter that's really best left to Travis County voters, and by trying to force Ms. Lehmberg out of office so that he could appoint her successor, he was effectively attempting to dictate county policy to his own political benefit.

    Perry would have been within his rights, had he instead requested that Texas lawmakers repeal the authority and jurisdiction of the Travis County DA's office over state public corruption cases, and transfer that power directly to the Texas Attorney General. He did not do that.



    You are exactly right. What hasn't been widely (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    reported is that there were several attempts to remove her from office after her arrest and they all failed. There was even a civil trial in which she prevailed. Another thing that hasn't been widely reported is that her office was investigating the Cancer Prevention Institute of Texas (CPRIT). It has been alleged that there were improper grants made, grants made without the proper scientific review, and grants made to Perry's campaign contributors, etc.  It has been alleged that he was trying to stop that investigation by denying funding.  

    Assuming you are correct about Texas (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    state constitutional law -- about which I know zilch -- you are describing possible grounds for a legislative investigation of the Governor's behavior, or possibly even for impeachment. But not a crime, so far as I can see. Way too dangerous to allow prosecutors, appointed or elected, county level, state, or federal, to pursue a political agenda with the power of prosecution by stretching the definitions and intended uses of the criminal laws. That's how it's done in Egypt; not in America. In saying this, I in no way intend to suggest that I approve of Perry's behavior, as described. I feel the same way about the Christie lane closure scandal, btw. Bullying, partisan misuse of the power of political office is not likely to constitute a crime.

    Peter, I completely agree (none / 0) (#18)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:56:29 PM EST
    I just made a similar argument in a post made a minute ago.

    But rubber stamps don't investigate. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:35:06 AM EST
    And the Texas State Legislature as presently constituted is a GOP rubber stamp. They didn't investigate when Gov. Perry sign the death warrants which allowed for the execution of what by most all accounts was an innocent man, and they didn't investigate when he shut down the commission inquiry into that matter. Therefore, why would they investigate this latest travesty?

    But for all its problems, Texas is not Egypt, so I don't consider that as much an analogy as I do hyperbole. As to whether this particular prosecution is politically motivated, that's now for a jury to decide, and not us. And were you and Jeralyn to serve as Gov. Perry's defense counsel, you would certainly be free to raise that very point, and I'd consider you delinquent in your duties if you didn't. I would further offer that most prosecutions of elected officials can be construed as politically motivated at some level.

    What I will offer is that as a practicing attorney in practice, perhaps you should look beyond the mere letter of the law to its actual rationale, which is what I have to do whenever I seek to write or amend it as a legislative analyst. The two laws under which Gov. Perry has been indicted are neither fig leafs or window dressing. Rather, they exist for a specific and very good reason.

    The threat to defund the Travis County Public Integrity Unit if Rosemary Lehmberg didn't resign her post as Travis County District Attorney would not be a crime, were it not for the fact that he didn't just threaten, he did in fact defund that office by line item veto. And by doing so, he purposely compromised Lehmberg's duties as district attorney for the remainder of her term in office, and as I noted earlier, Perry and Lehmberg are not members of the same governing body. As I read it, he violated the law.

    As I said earlier, had Gov. Perry just kept quiet about his underlying intent and not resorted to public threats, his line item veto would stand unchallenged legally, and he'd not be in his present difficulty. And as I see it, Perry grandstanded in public one too many times for his own good. It was his publicly stated intent to force Ms. Lehmberg's removal by line item veto , for which he is now alleged to have violated Secs. 36-03 and 39-02, Texas Revised Statutes.

    When politicians like Tom Delay and Rick Perry flout longstanding state laws like these with impunity, why should one be surprised if the opposition determines to use the law to bring a halt to their parade of fools? Otherwise, if public officials can feel free to simply ignore them, and nobody calls them out on it, then why not just do away with them by repealing them in toto?



    Donald (none / 0) (#28)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    Is your theory that Perry's violation is in the umbra or penumbra of the law.

    Because I don't see any black letter violation.  Maybe you could cite specifics.

    As I posted earlier:

    "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)"


    You keep citing that same case (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    You do realize that 9th circuit cases are not controlling precedent in Texas (5th Circuit), right?

    Nor, for that matter, are Fifth Circuit (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    federal appellate cases binding precedent over the state courts of Texas, either in interpreting state statutes or even in applying the U.S. Constitution.

    Federal court decisions (none / 0) (#36)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    on 1A stuff are the controlling authority on 1A stuff.  If a state law (even a Texas state law) violates 1A stuff the state law goes down.

    What you say, ragebot, is not technically true (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    as far as lines of authoritative precedent are concerned. The Texas courts and legislature are bound by the First Amendment, yes, but they are not bound by any federal court's interpretation and application of the First Amendment except that of the Supreme Court of the United States, according to the overwhelming majority of decisions on this question (which arises under the Supremacy Clause).

    The case you are citing ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    ... is most certainly not controlling precedent in Perry's case, whether he's claiming protection by virtue of "1A stuff" or anything else, for that matter.

    Are You an Expert? (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    At least Volokh stresses the point:

    though I stress that I'm not an expert on this Texas statute

    Isn't Volokh missing the problem that (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    when a public official speaks in his/her official capacity, exercising the duties of office, according to the Supreme Court, s/he is, in effect, the State for First Amendment purposes, that is, s/he cannot invoke a defense under the First Amendment, which exists to protect "the people" from the State?

    oops, sorry, here's a corrected link (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    to the Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which was interpreted and explained just this spring, by the way, in Lane v. Franks. I usually test my links in the Preview before posting; got lazy that time.

    Volokh responds to my question (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    stating that the Garcetti doctrine only negates the First Amendment rights of government workers vis a vis the state, their employer, in connection with the employer/employee relationship (reply to comment, 8/17/14, at 5:22 pm).  I don't see that in the rule as stated by the Supreme Court in the cases, but that was indeed the context.  And Eugene Volokh is a renowned professor of constitutional law, which I ain't.  So I will take him at his word that I am mistaken about this point.

    The statute is vague (none / 0) (#29)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:29:32 AM EST
    I can't imagine that it was enacted to cover a situation like this. I just looked at the indictment, which is very short. One count is for abusing funds. My guess is that this statute was enacted to prevent government officials from using government funds improperly. It wasn't enacted to prevent a governor from exercising a veto right, or threatening to exercise a veto right. The other charge relates to improperly trying to influence a public official. The only thing the veto threat tried to get the county attorney to do was to resign. The veto threat didn't try to get her to change what she was doing in her office.

    If this were the law, when could another elected official ever ask for the resignation of another elected official?

    This is another dangerous precedent. If elected officials can get charged under vague laws for doing what is often done in government and politics, and for exercising a legal right to veto, then our democracy is going to suffer.


    You need to look further than just the fact that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    he was trying to get her to resign.  You need to ask why he wanted her to resign.  I think that goes to the heart of the indictment with regard to coercion of a public official.  This is from this morning's Austin American Statesman editorial:


    Perry's authority to veto the Public Integrity Unit's budget was not in question. The question is whether he crossed legal lines when he neutered the unit's state budget to try to force Lehmberg, an elected official answerable to the voters of Travis County, to resign.

    Nonetheless, Perry's decision in June 2013 to cut the $7.5 million lawmakers had allocated for the Public Integrity Unit for 2014-15 because Lehmberg refused to resign was egregious and coercive. Perry's action put hundreds of cases and investigations in limbo and placed in doubt the jobs of 35 prosecutors, investigators and other employees.

    The Travis County district attorney's office is the most powerful in the state because the Public Integrity Unit is charged with policing the ethics of legislators and other state officeholders. While Perry's veto did not take away the unit's authority to investigate official wrongdoing, it left it without state funding. Authority without funding is no authority at all.

    You should read about the CPRIT (Cancer Prevention and Research Institute) investigation that the Travis County DA's office had undertaken.  There were ties to Perry and some allege that was the reason he wanted the current DA out of office.  


    Even if this is accurate, it is still not criminal (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    and it shouldn't be criminal. You are making policy arguments, but those policy arguments, even if valid, don't mean that the actions of the governor should be deemed to be criminal, or should be charged under a vague criminal statute, which I can't imagine was intended to cover a situation like this. There are various other ways to deal with the governor's action, other than to bring criminal charges.

    I view the decision to bring criminal charges (felonies) in this situation to be a much larger and more dangerous abuse of power, than what the governor did. In fact, to me, it's not even a close call. That doesn't mean that I think the prosecutor should be charged criminally, or that the legislature should create a statute to charge prosecutors criminally.

    My whole point does not depend on whether what the governor did was right or wrong; my point is that the criminal laws should not be used to address a situation, or dispute, like this.


    And Gov. Perry's behavior in this matter is a potentially serious ethics violation. I suppose you could argue that one could obtain a remedy for an ethics violation in civil court, even though the law provides for criminal penalties. But more to my point, if a law exists in statute and there is no will or resolve to actually enforce it when it's necessary to do so, then what good is the law, really?

    Again, you need to look to the actual intent of the law, and not just examine its letter. What was the collective intent of Texas legislators when they enacted the law? Was it to curb or deter an elected / appointed official's abuse of political power? Indeed, that law's very existence in statute is testament to that.

    I'm of the opinion that Gov. Perry's publicly expressed intent to oust DA Lehmberg from her elected post, by compromising fiscally her office's ability to perform its designated oversight duties with regards to the public conduct of state officials in Austin, constitutes an egregious abuse of authority and power on his part. This is about a citizen's right to expect good government from those who consciously seek to serve in it.

    Politically, the Texas State Legislature is ostensibly to provide oversight over the state's executive branch. But if legislators are not willing to address this matter themselves, then what remaining remedy is there for the people, save for the law itself?

    Political corruption is in my estimation always a very serious cause for concern. But the collective attempt on the part of citizens to ensure or compel ethical conduct by their public officials has of late been suffering a slow death by a thousand cuts in the courts, which speaks to the judiciary's own increasing politicization.

    And if you as an attorney choose instead to make a case about the law's supposed vagueness, not to curb or punish a public official's bad conduct, but rather as a means to render such conduct all but impossible to actually prevent, then I can only conclude that you as a legal practitioner are willfully not seeing the forest for the trees.

    You stated that you can't imagine that the law was ever intended to cover a situation such as Gov. Perry's present predicament, and that it should not be used for this particular purpose. I would argue the exact opposite, that legislators drafted the law in general terms for the very purpose of being all-encompassing, and thus covering situations exactly like this one.

    The law's rationale rests in its inherent deterrent value, as a means to curb and punish bad public conduct. But if you insist that it must further provide detailed terms to address specific instances -- an itemized laundry list of prohibited activities, as it were -- then I can only conclude that your own unstated purpose here is to render that law impotent, in part by saddling it with minutiae.

    You further state that there are other solutions than resorting to the use of the law itself. To which I respond, name one which can be hereby invoked and pursued that would otherwise prevent or deter Gov. Perry from doing what he did. The state legislature? Hardly, given that GOP majority lawmakers have long acted as though they were the governor's lapdogs.

    Again, the law exists for a reason, and that is as a possible avenue for remedy to people, when all other legally available means to gain satisfaction have since been exhausted.



    I'm simply reporting what was said in the (none / 0) (#34)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    editorial and giving you a little insight into what has transpired and what some others are saying.  I've been following this from the beginning, I live in Austin, and it's a little more complicated than he just wanted her to resign because she was arrested for drunk driving. That said, we don't know the testimony in the grand jury room, could be a smoking gun, could be nothing and these are trumped up charges.  I don't know which.  That said, it's up to the criminal court system to determine whether or not what he did was illegal.  I'll wait and see what comes out in the trial.  

    Also Curious is Why Now? (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    But Mr. Perry's supporters said the accusations amounted to an attempt to criminalize politics. Republican lawmakers had attempted for years to strip the public corruption unit of state financing, accusing it of politically motivated prosecutions.

    If simply using the line item veto to defund the Public Integrity Unit was legal, simple and well within the Governor's authority why hasn't this happened long ago? Why didn't Perry cut the funding when Ronnie Earle was going after Tom Delay?

    According to the state comptroller's website, the governor's office has paid his lawyer, Mr. Botsford, nearly $80,000 since June. Legal experts said that other state officials who have been accused of crimes relating to their duties have had to pay for their own defense, and this was one of the first times Texas taxpayers were paying the bill.


    After Tom Delay was targeted there were attempts to defund the Public Integrity Unit by sneaky legislative amendments. None have passed.

    And it seems that shady quid pro quo dealings by Perry have been in the radar of Public Integrity before. Even Dick DeGuerin said that Public Integrity should be looking closely at Perry.

    From Oct 2010:

    Quick note to Gov. Rick Perry: When even Tom DeLay's attorney is saying that the Travis County Public Integrity Unit should be investigating you, then you might want to re-think your future plans.

    I'm quite certain (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    that the prosecutors in the upcoming trial must feel that it's as close to an open & shut case as possible. I mean, they must be absolutely certain of the facts here to pursue such a dramatic road.

    First of all, the prosecutor (and, the woman at the center of this case)are Democrats, while Perry is a very popular, 16 year Republican Governor. And, for whatever reason, Texas voters don't seem to mind electing, and, reelecting, the man I feel (and, I'm certainly not alone) is, arguably, the most power hungry, and, politically corrupt Governor we have. The cronyism he has used with such wild abandonment in developing the so-called "Texas Miracle," is simply breathtaking.

    Maybe, Rick Perry (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    will find himself on a similar road that a predecessor of his found himself.   According to a NYT account August 16), Texas Governor James E.  (Pa) Ferguson, was indicted in 1917 by a Travis County grand jury on embezzlement and other charges  over a veto of entire appropriations to U of Texas because the University refused to fire faculty members he did not like. The state senate voted to impeach, but "Pa" resigned first.  

     In any event, it does seem these days like "Orange is the New Republican."    Boehner (complexion), Cruz (tea), Christie (traffic cones), and, now, maybe, Perry (jump suit).

    Perry's alleged violation rests upon ... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    ... his expressed intent to wield his line-item veto authority over the Texas state budget as a means to drive Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg from office -- never mind that such a determination and decision should rightly rest with that county's voters, and not with the state's chief executive.

    The governor should've exercised his line-item veto authority quietly. He'd have otherwise been fine, if only he had simply kept his big mouth shut. It was his publicly stated intent for zeroing out that appropriation in its entirety that was determined to be the trigger of illegality.



    Ultimately (none / 0) (#10)
    by richj25 on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:02:06 PM EST
    the legitimacy of Perry's use of the line item veto
    is a political question, not a legal one and
    Perry's political opponent is on tape, completely
    hammered and acting like a jackass. This case is a
    loser for the Texas Dems.

    You have no idea what you're talking about. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:10:23 PM EST
    But, probably a loser (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:09:54 PM EST
    for national Republicans.

    I would argue that it is an abuse (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:55:23 PM EST
    of power for the judiciary/prosecutor to bring a criminal charge for a political matter like this. If some dems don't like what the governor did, then they should use other means, such as the impeachment method or otherwise getting him out of office.

    If the parties were switched, I would argue exactly the same thing. It is an abuse of the criminal laws to use them for what appears to me to be a purely political action. What's the policy reason that would be argued to support passing a specific law to much the governor's action a criminal matter? You may be able to make various arguments, some of which have already been made in this thread, but I don't believe they rise to the level of supporting the creation of a criminal law to stop such actions--let alone using a vague statute to stop the actions.


    This is a shining example (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    of how some prosecutors are using laws, and vague laws, to criminalize politics. This has been happening more and more, and, in my view, is a horrible trend. While I don't know the specific law on this, it seems that the governor was doing what politicians do all the time. There is no question that he had the right to veto the funding bill, which he eventually did. The allegation is that it was criminal to threaten to veto it, in part to force the head of the corruption unit to resign. She had had a bad dui, had acted badly, and had served a good chunk of time in jail. I don't see this one sticking.

    Lets see if I got this right (none / 0) (#14)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:28:38 PM EST
    A DA gets arrested for DUI and threatens the cops, with sufficient profanity and longly and loudly enough that the DA is restrained and is then caught on tape abusing her power by threatening the public LEOs if they don't let her go.

    So how come the DA is not charged with abusing her power, but Perry is.

    This will be a black eye for the dems.

    Under The Influence (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 07:35:06 PM EST
    To be expected, particularly in Texas... what do you think, she has no balls? All hat and no cattle?  Apparently not...

    oh do you think she acted unladylike?

    Perry on the other hand, was not under the influence but acted in a cold rational state to commit his crime.


    Squeaky you comment is silly (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:02:52 PM EST
    What Perry did was not a violation of the law since he was threatening a legal action (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)].) and Lehmberg was threatening an illegal act, wanting a LEO to ignore her DUI and let her go.

    Just Making a Point (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:39:38 PM EST
    I think Perry is an a$$...  

    And she apparently made those threats with impaired judgement.

    If she committed a crime as you insist why was she not prosecuted for it? All the wingnut sites are pimping her DUI video?

    The story starts, oddly enough, with a DUI. In April 2013, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunk driving. She eventually pleaded guilty, apologized, and served 20 days behind bars for her first offense.

    end of that story.


    I am confused, Squeaky (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    Is "she was not prosecuted for it," where "it" refers to a DUI, then to what charge did she plead guilty and for what did she serve a 20-day sentence?

    DUI Yes, Threatening No (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:00:20 PM EST
    and Lehmberg was threatening an illegal act, wanting a LEO to ignore her DUI and let her go.

    Oh, ok, I now see what you meant by "it" (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    My answer: not every unlawful act (such as Lehmberg's alleged drunken threat to the cop that stopped her for DUI) is a criminal act, or warrants prosecution even if potentially unlawful.

    Its not a crime (none / 0) (#23)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 08:58:05 PM EST
    to be an a$$ according to squeaky.

    It is a crime for a DA to threaten a LEO with retaliation if the LEO does not ignore a DUI.  But if the DA apologizes for the threat and enters a guilty plea it is reasonable to not prosecute for the threat.

    What ever you think of Perry the speculation on legal sites is if the charges can be disposed of by either a pre-trial habeas corpus application or a pre-trial motion to quash.

    You seem to be over your head when it comes to legal analysis.


    Apparently The Judge and Prosecutor Too (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 09:02:08 PM EST
    Was she convicted of threatening a police officer?

    Oh.. I see, you are applying wishful thinking here.