Skip

Public Corruption Unit
August 15, 2014 5:17 PM   Subscribe


 
HELL YEAH!!
posted by Ryvar at 5:19 PM on August 15 [5 favorites]


Man, every time The Daily Show goes on hiatus, I swear.
posted by New Old User at 5:20 PM on August 15 [34 favorites]


Oops.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:20 PM on August 15 [11 favorites]


This is my schadenfreude face.
posted by eriko at 5:22 PM on August 15 [11 favorites]


If charged he could face up to 109 years.

Doubtful that this will happen. He has the money to buy the best lawyers.
posted by Fizz at 5:22 PM on August 15


It was weird—the jury forgot the third charge.
posted by goethean at 5:25 PM on August 15 [27 favorites]


Oh good, this proves the gay wizatds I know in Austin can occasionally grant wishes
posted by The Whelk at 5:26 PM on August 15 [28 favorites]


The three charges were related to his handling of a local district attorney’s drunken driving arrest, the state financing for a public corruption unit under the lawyer’s control, and, uh...

(Dammit, goethean. I just plagiarized that text for nothing. Oops.)
posted by uosuaq at 5:26 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]


But I thought grand juries give free passes to governors with glasses.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 5:30 PM on August 15 [6 favorites]


That article weirdly never tells us what the charges are.
posted by Jahaza at 5:31 PM on August 15


I will admit--I cackled. Gleefully.

(but I will outright guffaw, and then get really really drunk, if he gets convicted. Stupid, kissing-strangers drunk.)

(this will probably not happen)

My favorite part of the NYT story is that the last time a Texas governor was indicted was in 1917, when "Pa" Ferguson vetoed funding for the University of Texas when they wouldn't fire some professors he disliked.

After his conviction, his wife, "Ma" Ferguson, ran and became Texas' first female governor.

A common campaign slogan was, "Me for Ma, and I Ain't Got a Durned Thing Against Pa."

Texas, everyone!
posted by emjaybee at 5:32 PM on August 15 [22 favorites]


Ironically, Edwin Edwards, another famous gubernatorial felon, was just in town! COINCIDENCE?!
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 5:35 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


This is my schadenfreude face.

Ooh, it has glasses; that must be very smart schadenfreude.
posted by yoink at 5:37 PM on August 15 [8 favorites]


Dallas News says the charges are "abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant"

"Abuse of official capacity is a first-degree felony with punishment ranging from five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant is a third-degree felony with a penalty of two to 10 years."
posted by Jahaza at 5:38 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


indicted was in 1917, when "Pa" Ferguson vetoed funding for the University of Texas when they wouldn't fire some professors he disliked.

Somewhat related: The current UT President Bill Powers recently announced his resignation as president after years of strained relations with Perry-appointed Regents.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:40 PM on August 15


The only problem I see here is that if this sticks we won't get to be entertained by Perry's antics in his presidential stab.

But I could live with that.
posted by item at 5:41 PM on August 15 [4 favorites]


There is some hope yet.
posted by xingcat at 5:41 PM on August 15


Pffft.

If nothing happened to DeLay, nothing's going to happen to Perry. Talk to me when he's convicted and there's an actual prison term - and it sticks.
posted by droplet at 5:47 PM on August 15 [12 favorites]


Read about the DA's DUI and that is definitely not someone that should be a DA anymore, but I'm still going to enjoy laughing at Perry over this.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:49 PM on August 15 [4 favorites]


From twitter

@LeChased: Rick Perry is going to be so mad when he finds out what "indicted" means.
posted by The Whelk at 5:52 PM on August 15 [69 favorites]


From Juanita Jean's place:
Rick Perry knows the GOP has some ethics problems. For example, their current candidate for Attorney General is being investigated for a violation of a state securities law. So, Rick would love to put a safe Republican in that office.

Soooooo, Perry threatens to veto funds for the public corruption office if Rosemary doesn’t resign. She calls his bluff. Rumor has it that he even offered her another state job if she would just step down and let him appoint her replacement.

That’s called abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant. Both are felonies.
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:53 PM on August 15 [13 favorites]


The DA was sentenced to 45 days for DUI? I feel like Perry could have left nature (politics) to take it's course on this one. How much longer would she have lasted? Plus, how is she going to prosecute anyone with that hanging over her head? Dude, what a waste of your misuse of power.
posted by double bubble at 5:54 PM on August 15


The Austin American-Statesman has a more comprehensible article than the NYT one.

Dallas Morning News.

They both list two felony counts, not three.

"Oh good, this proves the gay wizatds I know in Austin can occasionally grant wishes"

Thanks gay wizards!

posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:54 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


"Abuse of official capacity is a first-degree felony with punishment ranging from five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant is a third-degree felony with a penalty of two to 10 years."

It is Texas; he might get executed. Well, if he was poor.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:56 PM on August 15 [9 favorites]


I expect a lotta boasting on the local Radio show tonight.

They talked about Rosemary Lehmburg over a year ago - in case people are wondering how slowly the wheels of justice grind.

The stream for ROL should be found here.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:56 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Perry's got a lot to learn. Remember when an investigation by the Alaskan state legislature officially published a report saying that Governor Palin had violated state ethics laws? And the Governor's office then immediately came out with a press report saying it was glad that the legislature's report said that she had not violated any laws?

Now that's, as Michelle Bachmann would say, "choot-spa".
posted by Flunkie at 5:58 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]


> Ooh, it has glasses; that must be very smart schadenfreude

Either that, or it's sunny out: shadesnfreude.
posted by scruss at 6:04 PM on August 15 [13 favorites]


Indictment appears to be here (.pdf), per Juanita Jean.

“AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS”
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:07 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


There is thwarting cancer research as part of the chain leading up to today per the live ROL show where they are walking thru it.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:10 PM on August 15


They both list two felony counts, not three.

You know who else listed two things instead of three?
posted by Sys Rq at 6:11 PM on August 15 [14 favorites]


I'm not sure I have time to pay attention to this because of all the time I'm spending reading the live blog of the McDonnell trial at the Washington Post.
posted by OmieWise at 6:12 PM on August 15


Now that's, as Michelle Bachmann would say, "choot-spa".

She didn't, did she? Seriously? Please tell me this is true.
posted by nevercalm at 6:16 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


Wish granted!
posted by Sys Rq at 6:20 PM on August 15 [11 favorites]


This is why we need image tags. Because this absolutely requires the pic of Nelson pointing and saying HAH HAH!
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on August 15 [7 favorites]


Wish granted!
posted by Sys Rq


Does that make you a genie or one of them thar wizards spoken of upthread?

(And by the way folks - go read your State Statutes. Because in Texas, if you know of a crime of a public official you have a duty to report. Many States prevent you from taking your own criminal complaints to the Grand Jury due to some Supreme Court Justices getting busted in NY but my memory is in California anyone can present. In Texas the wording is something like 'in any matter it may become known to the Grand Jury'. What was done here to Perry *YOU* might be able to do the same in your own State.)
posted by rough ashlar at 6:26 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


One the one hand, I'd really rather DA's be the sober and law abiding type. I mean, no-one much kicked up a fuss when the Toronto city council made the mayorship a ceremonial office because of Rob Ford...

...on the other hand, there are ways to do this that aren't political stunt driving. How dumb do you have to be to do the exact same thing that got the last Texas governor to be indicted in hot water?

Here's a campaign bumper sticker for the upcoming Silly Season in '16 -

Perry: Dumber'n Bush.

posted by Slap*Happy at 6:27 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


How the hell did I miss choot-spa??? This is literally part of my job. Sigha.

That is total, absolute gold. She worships Israel and can't even employ Yiddish?
posted by nevercalm at 6:27 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


I think you folks writing "wizards" mean "wizatds," who are like wizards but are from Texas.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:28 PM on August 15 [11 favorites]


"AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS”

I would totally buy that t-shirt.

Also, seriously fuck Rick Perry.
posted by hap_hazard at 6:29 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


I think you folks writing "wizards" mean "wizatds," who are like wizards but are from Texas.

Can confirm, been drunk in Austin once with Reverend Bart of the Church of the Apocalypse.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:32 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]


Flunkie -

That's a serious misrepresentation of what occurred in Sarah Palin's term of office. You can love Palin or hate her (I do neither) but the report you refer to was released -- but not endorsed -- by the Alaska Legislative Council, and was later strongly repudiated by the Alaska Personnel Board. I just checked, and the Wikipedia article explains it pretty well.

To keep this on topic -- I know the words RICK PERRY INDICTED are like WIN FREE SEX to the MeFi crowd, but it seems like at least of few of you would admit that this feels pretty weird. The DA seems like a corrupt drunk who absolutely deserves to be fired (check out the arrest videos on Youtube), and no one is arguing that Perry can't veto the funding; the DA convinced the grand jury that while the governor can veto, he can't THREATEN to veto.

Not taking sides here -- I don't care about Rick Perry either. But, I mean, c'mon -- this whole case seems pretty sketchy.
posted by Alaska Jack at 6:32 PM on August 15 [9 favorites]


I do hope this sticks, I don't like a drunk DA, but serious abuse of gubernatorial power needs to be punished.
posted by arcticseal at 6:34 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Alaska Jack: Now that the PURE JOYFUL SCHADENFREUDE has passed I must admit this is not the most heinous act of political corruption of which a politician has ever been accused.
posted by Justinian at 6:38 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]


the governor can veto, he can't THREATEN to veto.

Many crimes are like that. If you make a criminal complaint against say a policeman, you might strongly suspect retaliation, might get such retaliation but when someone with a gun and a badge comes by and suggests the complaint is a bad thing and something might happen to you - that last part is a crime even if it it was Captain Obvious who came by with a clue-by-four to tell 'ya and everyone else the same thing.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:39 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]


rough ashlar -

Well, sure, except in this case the retaliation, presumably, is an actual crime. Vetoing funding is not.
posted by Alaska Jack at 6:46 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


One indicted, 49 to go.... Then we start on Congress, right?
posted by tzikeh at 6:46 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Why do people think that a governor or president is just a king with a limited term?
posted by benito.strauss at 6:48 PM on August 15 [4 favorites]


Not taking sides here -- I don't care about Rick Perry either. But, I mean, c'mon -- this whole case seems pretty sketchy.

Well, no. There's the formal public complaint from a political watchdog group. It's probably partisan, but that's OK. It needs to go to a judge next. The judge found the complaint had merit, and appointed a special prosecutor, who's an experienced prosecuting attorney with a lot of experience. He looked at the case law, and, well, shit - the last Texas governor to get dragged before the court did the exact same thing.

But that's not enough. There needs to be more checks and balances, so the special prosecutor empanels a grand jury, just everyday schmoes off the street, some of whom probably voted for Perry, and lays out the case for them. They weigh the evidence, call for more investigation, and then consider whether the special prosecutor is full of Grade A Corn-Fed Bullshit or not.

They decided that charges should be filed. Not a special prosecutor on a witch hunt, or a judge who wants to undo elections, or a partisan watchdog group who wants to punish their political enemies. A buncha folks off the street.

If Perry is five layers deep in political enemies, one of them random people too dumb to get out of jury duty, he deserves what's comin' to him.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:48 PM on August 15 [42 favorites]


Actually the threat can be the crime. Carrying through with the threat can be a separate crime. Its like bill collecting or a lawsuit. If I say "pay this bill" - not a crime. "pay this bill or I'll turn you in for fraud" - crime. "pay the bill" and when they don't you turn 'em in - still not a crime because you didn't open your mouth. Same with a lawsuit - telling the other side about the 'legal equivalent of a proctological exam' gets you in trouble. Just giving them that exam - no problem.

The "don't talk to the Cops" position is there for a reason.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:53 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


This is my unsurprised face. Perry's section of the right believes in imperial leaders. Might makes right, and chest thumping is what good and righteous leaders do. You have to be above the law to enforce law and order the way God and the flag demand.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:57 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


A little bit of background on Gov. James "Pa" Ferguson, via the Texas State Historical Association:
Early in his second term the governor became involved in a serious quarrel with the University of Texas. The controversy grew out of the refusal of the board of regents to remove certain faculty members whom the governor found objectionable. When Ferguson found that he could not have his way, he vetoed practically the entire appropriation for the university. The excitement that greeted the veto was soon overshadowed by the greater excitement that surrounded the impeachment trial. While the campaign of 1916 was in progress, the Ferguson administration had been charged with a number of irregularities. Preliminary investigations failed to uncover any charge that would merit impeachment, and for a time the incident seemed closed. The Ferguson controversy with the university brought renewed interest in the old charges, however, and at about the same time a number of new charges were made. On July 21, 1917, in the midst of the excitement, Ferguson appeared before the Travis County grand jury, and several days later it was announced that he had been indicted on nine charges. Seven of the charges related to misapplication of public funds, one to embezzlement, and one to the diversion of a special fund.
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:59 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Thats a pretty ridiculous indictment. It's crazy that use of plenary power - whatever the reason - could be criminal. I'd be shocked if anything more comes of this.
posted by jpe at 7:07 PM on August 15


Flunkie -

That's a serious misrepresentation of what occurred in Sarah Palin's term of office.
What? It's what happened.
Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in Section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
Followed three days later by Palin claiming:
The truth was revealed there in that report that showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.
Some other board, investigating at Palin's request, later disagreed. That's fantastic. I hardly see how it affects my claim that Palin responded to an official investigation's conclusion that she violated the law with her own claim that that report concluded that she did not violate the law, though.
posted by Flunkie at 7:21 PM on August 15 [4 favorites]


Thats a pretty ridiculous indictment. It's crazy that use of plenary power - whatever the reason - could be criminal. I'd be shocked if anything more comes of this.

Now I ain't no legal scholar (hawks into spittoon, pushes back hat), but friend, I do know that the Texas state constitution and many of our laws in general are all kinds of weird.

The Texas Constitution had approximately 23,500 words in 1876 before any amendments. With amendments, it is today the second longest of the fifty state constitutions...

The level of detail can be excruciating. For example, coverage of ad valorem taxes in the original constitution and its numerous amendments span fourteen subsections and several pages of text. Other details cover administration of water boards, water bond sales, parks administration, municipal retirement systems, road construction, interest rates on bonds, elections for sheriff, the sale of school lands, creation of hospital districts, operation of railroads, seawalls, and dueling.

The high level of detail is accompanied by confusing organization. Coverage of individual subject areas, like local government, is found in several different parts of the Constitution. Also, in its current form the Constitution contains gaps where whole sections have been repealed. Indeed, an entire article (Article XIII – Spanish and Mexican Land Titles) was repealed in 1969, leaving only the title but no text.


(emphases added)
posted by emjaybee at 7:21 PM on August 15 [4 favorites]


"One indicted, 49 to go.... Then we start on Congress, right?"

Hey hey hey -- Illinois has sent FOUR of its last SEVEN governors to prison, we can't help it if the rest of you states never turn your indictment homework in on time. Don't penalize us for your late work!

And we are clearly working on indicting both gubernatorial candidates, one for corrupt political spending and patronage as governor, the other for lax oversight of nursing homes that led to deaths and/or tax fraud as a corporate exec.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:24 PM on August 15 [30 favorites]


Illinois has sent FOUR of its last SEVEN governors to prison, we can't help it if the rest of you states never turn your indictment homework in on time. Don't penalize us for your late work

Meh, there arn't function grand juries and if you take a 968.01 criminal complaint for the Judge to sign he'll just wave you off.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:32 PM on August 15


To break it down again:

1. Rick Perry is the governor
2. Rosemary Lehmberg is an elected district attorney in charge of investigating public corruption
3. Perry has veto power over legislation that would fund Lehmberg's office
4. Perry says either you resign (so I can get someone I like in there) or I defund your office

Are we seriously claiming that the executive branch can use their veto power as a lever to undo election results in the judicial branch, on threat of defunding that same office that he intends to fill with someone he prefers?

Presumably we held a district attorney election in Texas because we wanted the person in that position to be democratically selected, not so that the governor could use his veto power as extortion to oust the person selected by that election. What's the point otherwise? Let's just let Rick Perry appoint every office in the state. Elections are expensive.
posted by 0xFCAF at 7:32 PM on August 15 [40 favorites]


I hope this ruffles his hair but good.
posted by TwoStride at 7:36 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Are we seriously claiming that the executive branch can use their veto power as a lever to undo election results in the judicial branch, on threat of defunding that same office that he intends to fill with someone he prefers?

The do this or I will do that as a form of retaliation and the treat of retaliation is what is not blessed.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:37 PM on August 15


Let's just let Rick Perry appoint every office in the state. Elections are expensive.

Please don't give the Texas Repubs any ideas. Besides, with the rampant gerrymandering in this state it's almost like this is already happening.
posted by item at 7:39 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


I have loved following every moment of this thing, because you can usually tell whose side the article's writer/publication is on based on how disheveled a picture of Rosemary Lehmberg they've published alongside it. Supporters use her campaign pictures generally, while detractors have her passed out with things drawn on her face in marker.

Happy as I may be to see him discomfited though, is this really going to do anything to Perry? He's out as Gov and I can't imagine it will hurt his national campaigs, given that it's a hard to explain scandal and no sex is involved.
posted by theweasel at 7:46 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Thats a pretty ridiculous indictment. It's crazy that use of plenary power - whatever the reason - could be criminal.

I am unclear as to the extent to which this comment is intended to carry any content, at all, other than 'suck it libruls.'

If you're- as it appears - literally saying that there is no such thing as criminal abuse of power, Texas law disagrees with you, here's a link to the 'abuse of power' statute from the state's own website.

Or are you, rather than disputing the existence of the law, arguing that the relevant prosecutor, judge, and grand jury are mistaken as to its application here? Because that's another point entirely, and the tenor of your comment leaves me dubious as to your qualifications to make it.
posted by hap_hazard at 7:50 PM on August 15 [11 favorites]


Now we know who will be Bob McDonnell's running mate!
posted by 4ster at 7:53 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


and I can't imagine it will hurt his national campaigs, given that it's a hard to explain scandal and no sex is involved.

Please tell me he doesn't have a viable national campaign. I comfort myself with the thought that he's made too big of a fool of himself on the wider stage to ever be a real threat.
posted by double bubble at 7:56 PM on August 15


Seconding double bubble. I put him right up there with Palin and Bachmann in terms of credible national campaigns.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 7:59 PM on August 15


You know who else listed two things instead of three?

It was Meat Loaf, wasn't it?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:00 PM on August 15 [28 favorites]


Throw the book boot at him!
posted by octobersurprise at 8:01 PM on August 15


I'm so conflicted over this- I can't stand Rick Perry, but I also hate drunk drivers.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:09 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


Are the grand jury also drunk drivers? Because they're the ones who decided to indict.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:11 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


Well, her drunk driving doesn't justify his abuse of power.
posted by double bubble at 8:17 PM on August 15 [13 favorites]


No matter what the Texas Constitution or legal code says, I don't understand why threatening a veto isn't protected by the First Amendment. Doesn't he have "freedom of speech" just like the rest of us?

Veto threats are a normal part of politics and always have been. How many times has Obama threatened to veto a bill, for instance?

IMO this isn't a matter for the courts. It's a matter for the voters. If you don't like it, make it an issue in the next election!
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:26 PM on August 15


No, I've got no problem with indicting Rick Perry for what appears to be a clear abuse of power, and the grand jury doesn't enter in to it at all- they're just doing their jobs.

I'm just disappointed that an elected official being caught and appropriately punished for drunk driving may now be overshadowed by Rick Perry's idiocy.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:27 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]


Is it because this particular veto threat was to get someone to resign?
posted by double bubble at 8:29 PM on August 15


Vetoing the entire office should be disconnected from whether or not the person running that office is an a-hole. Right?

My mom taught me that two wrongs do not make a right but then she is not from Texas
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:31 PM on August 15


How many times has Obama threatened to veto a bill, for instance?

There's a difference between "I'd veto this piece of legislation if it came across my desk" and "Quit or I'll veto all funding for your office."
posted by hwyengr at 8:36 PM on August 15 [23 favorites]


I'm not being clear- I would like officials who drink and drive to resign. I would also like Rick Perry to be indicted for any corrupt act he might have committed, including taking advantage of other officials' drinking and driving and forcing them to resign for his own benefit. I would also like Rick Perry to resign on principle (that principle being that he is a shitbird).

I'm also kind of drunk, but at least I walked home tonight.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:42 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


Will Andrew Cuomo be next?
posted by Marky at 8:46 PM on August 15


I'm completely in favour of Rob Ford being stripped of any executive powers for being a hopelessly ill-equipped to hold his position due to his substance abuse issues. I'm having a hard time squaring that with my general dislike of Perry in this case.

I'm forced to assume that life is slightly more complicated that the good guys vs. right-wing psychos heuristic I typically use to evaluate the world, and Perry probably wasn't wholly in the wrong here. He may be a corrupt monster in many other ways, but an impulse to remove a drunk driver from a position of power isn't completely contemptible. He may have been doing it for entirely partisan reasons, but frankly so were quite a few of Rob Ford's detractors.
posted by figurant at 8:57 PM on August 15


I loathe Rick Perry for lots of reasons, but I will be utterly shocked if he ever serves a day for this. On the off chance that he is convicted I would expect this to be in appeal for the subsequent decade.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 9:02 PM on August 15


Now that's, as Michelle Bachmann would say, "choot-spa".

Oy fuckin' vey.
posted by zarq at 9:04 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


My hour is almost come,
When I to sulphurous and tormenting flames
Must render up myself.

posted by Wallace Shawn at 9:06 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


> I don't understand why threatening a veto isn't protected by the First Amendment. Doesn't he have "freedom of speech" just like the rest of us?
> Veto threats are a normal part of politics and always have been. How many times has Obama threatened to veto a bill, for instance?


You're not even trying, are you?
posted by benito.strauss at 9:16 PM on August 15 [13 favorites]


Certainly, no Texas politician with a drunk driving conviction should ever hold public office again. Why, such a person should have the deep personal integrity to recuse themselves from all further public service.

Now, who does that remind me of... hrm. Maybe it will come to me.
posted by underflow at 9:47 PM on August 15 [10 favorites]


Many Texans I know would sincerely vote him into the White House just to get him out of Texas.
posted by Monkey0nCrack at 9:51 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]


the report you refer to was released -- but not endorsed -- by the Alaska Legislative Council, and was later strongly repudiated by the Alaska Personnel Board.

Surely Alaska Jack, and I say this with the most disappointment that I'm the first one in the thread to say it, you mean refudiate.
posted by Carillon at 10:00 PM on August 15 [10 favorites]


Alaska Jack: "Well, sure, except in this case the retaliation, presumably, is an actual crime. Vetoing funding is not."

There is a parallel with blackmail. It's illegal to blackmail someone by threatening to release specific knowledge even if the data doesn't implicate them in a crime. EG: Threatening to tell the world that someone dyes their hair unless that someone pays you money is illegal even though hair dying isn't illegal.

Chocolate Pickle: "No matter what the Texas Constitution or legal code says, I don't understand why threatening a veto isn't protected by the First Amendment. Doesn't he have "freedom of speech" just like the rest of us?"

Does freedom of speech really protect people uttering threats? I thought assault is illegal in the US.
posted by Mitheral at 10:26 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]


Monkey0nCrack -- my mother (east Texan) says that's exactly what happened with GWB. On behalf of the rest of the country: please not again.
posted by sldownard at 11:29 PM on August 15


Carillon FTW.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:49 PM on August 15


It's crazy that use of plenary power - whatever the reason - could be criminal.

Eh? You can't very well abuse a power you don't have.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 2:20 AM on August 16 [3 favorites]


Does freedom of speech really protect people uttering threats?

Yes, actually, most of the time. An extreme threat that makes the recipient fear imminently for life and health isn't protected, but lesser threats are definitely protected speech.

One time after I did fingernails-on-chalkboard (which doesn't bother me) my boss told me, in all seriousness, "If you ever do that again, I will fire you." That was protected speech.

"If you don't pay your bill, we'll foreclose." That's protected speech, too.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:29 AM on August 16


I am unclear as to the extent to which this comment is intended to carry any content, at all, other than 'suck it libruls.

I usually assume some basic legal literacy which appears to be unwarranted here. When a power of one of the branches is plenary, separation of powers precludes a court from second guessing its use. That's exactly what will happen here: this is a "political question," and the appellate courts will find that it is non-justiciable and will dismiss the charges accordingly.

Ancillary point: You seem to view everything like you're a host of Crossfire, where every Democrat has to cheer this indictment, which is a pretty poor way of assessing legal questions.
posted by jpe at 4:11 AM on August 16 [3 favorites]


You'd think that some things wouldn't automatically fall on partisan lines. A governor thinking he can just tell elected officials to step down and using the power of his offices to force them out should be one of those. But, not surprisingly, some people want to twist themselves up into knots and pretend not to understand the obvious to defend the odious behavior of their "team".
posted by stavrogin at 4:29 AM on August 16 [2 favorites]


One time after I did fingernails-on-chalkboard (which doesn't bother me) my boss told me, in all seriousness, "If you ever do that again, I will fire you." That was protected speech.

Which is totally the same as telling an elected official to vacate their office for a hand-picked appointee or have funding to their office cut off.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:33 AM on August 16 [11 favorites]


And I move to Texas today!
posted by lownote at 4:48 AM on August 16


But Mr. Perry’s supporters said the accusations amounted to an attempt to criminalize politics.

If that's their goal, I'd say they're way too late.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:00 AM on August 16 [1 favorite]


A governor thinking he can just tell elected officials to step down and using the power of his offices to force them out should be one of those

I'm a democrat that thinks politics shouldn't be criminalized. So I agree this shouldn't be a partisan football, but think you get the legal merits wrong. This is a political question and any remedy needs to be political in turn.

There's some smug dismissal of the first amendment implications upthread. Eugene Volokh points to a case strongly supporting a first amendment defense here.
posted by jpe at 5:03 AM on August 16


"If you don't pay your bill, we'll foreclose." That's protected speech, too.

Nope. Bill collectors need to be very careful with the language and methods they use, or they get into a lot of legal hot water. So it's a good example, just not in the way you had hoped.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:03 AM on August 16 [1 favorite]


The key holding of the case discussed:

Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression
posted by jpe at 5:05 AM on August 16 [2 favorites]


There is a parallel with blackmail. It's illegal to blackmail someone by threatening to release specific knowledge even if the data doesn't implicate them in a crime. EG: Threatening to tell the world that someone dyes their hair unless that someone pays you money is illegal even though hair dying isn't illegal.

Actually the parallel is that telling the world someone dyed their hair isn't illegal.
posted by srboisvert at 6:30 AM on August 16


Veto threats are a normal part of politics and always have been.

Given that the veto in question was to cut funding to the Public Integrity Office, which is designed to be free of official influence so as to investigate political corruption and was actively investigating one of Rick Perry's pet projects, I'm okay with calling that veto and his threats to use it abuse of power.
posted by Etrigan at 7:00 AM on August 16 [10 favorites]


Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression

Per the blackmail example, this seems wrong on its face. The more general notion of "a legal act made contingent on the performance of another legal act" describes a whole host of crimes: bribery and prostitution come immediately to mind.
posted by bjrubble at 7:20 AM on August 16 [3 favorites]




I wonder if wearing glasses will help Rick?
posted by rmmcclay at 8:06 AM on August 16 [1 favorite]


I just laughed an enormous Vincent-Price-at-the-end-of-Thriller laugh.
posted by elizardbits at 8:32 AM on August 16 [7 favorites]




Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression

Per the blackmail example, this seems wrong on its face. The more general notion of "a legal act made contingent on the performance of another legal act" describes a whole host of crimes: bribery and prostitution come immediately to mind.


It's because of the power imbalance involved. "I will use my veto power to destroy your office if you don't quit (so I can install a non-elected official)" is similar to "I will fire you if you don't give me a blowjob."

None of the things involved (vetos, quitting, firing, blowjobs) are inherently illegal. Coercion is illegal (under abusive circumstances)
posted by rifflesby at 9:45 AM on August 16 [7 favorites]


I love how all the photos of him surrounding this make him look like a dumber John Hoynes.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:24 AM on August 16 [2 favorites]


I'm scratching my head at the Perry apologists here.

So, in order to try and get rid of a government official who was involved in drunk driving (yes, very bad- don't drink and drive kids) the top executive official threatens the entire government office where she works. A government office that has some measure of oversight over even the governors office. The Governor then follows through and vetoes that budget.

That is not an abuse of power? Interfering with an entire office because of one individual? Does Rick Perry issue the same threat to all Texas government officials and their offices under similar circumstances? Is that his job? Because fucking hell he could easily zero out the entire government if so. Balanced budget - woo!

Criminalizing politics? Bullshit. It's almost a textbook example of why people complain about politicians, and yet... now some are saying... oh it's ok. No big deal, some Governor just wants to strip a government oversight office because he has a hard on over a drunk driver. What's the acronym? IOKIYAR?

An issue of "Free Speech" ? What the hell ever. Careful you don't dislodge your shoulder with that overreach there.
posted by edgeways at 10:27 AM on August 16 [6 favorites]


I so hope they find a smoking gun that proves that Rick Perry only attacked the DA over her DUI because she prosecuted Tom DeLay. I'm fine with a DA who's actually done 45 day for a DUI so long as she actually did the time, especially one who actually tackles hard corruption cases. I'm not fine with DAs like Stephen Heymann walking abusing their power for personal gain without suffering any consequences.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:52 AM on August 16


No big deal, some Governor just wants to strip a government oversight office because he has a hard on over a drunk driver.

Oh I'm pretty sure it wasn't just because he had a "hard on over a drunk driver"-- undoubtedly Perry got excited thinking he could easily get rid of the elected head of the Public Integrity unit, who happened to be a Democrat, and instal a Republican of his choice. What are the chances a hand-picked replacement would be as thorough in investigating the ethics of elected officials? Someone beholden to the governor for their very job?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:53 AM on August 16 [6 favorites]


But he is not being indicted for vetoing - everyone agrees he is allowed to veto any bill and does not even have to give a reason. He is being indicted for his threat to use the powers of his office to force out a lawfully elected official. Whether that speech is protected political speech - and if so, whether the corruption angle is sufficient to nevertheless mean he is guilty of a crime is clearly a highly complex legal issue. But this is American politics so yeah, obviously we won't treat it like that.
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 11:20 AM on August 16 [2 favorites]


But he is not being indicted for vetoing - everyone agrees he is allowed to veto any bill

But there are lots of acts that are perfectly "allowed" under the right circumstances but which become illegal in the wrong circumstances. I can punch you in the fact in the boxing ring--I can't do it on the street. A Chancellor is perfectly entitled to deny a faculty member tenure, but cannot do so just because the faculty member is black. If I run a business I can choose to assign worker A the shitty jobs and equivalent worker B the nice jobs, but if I tell worker A that i'm doing this because worker A refused to go out with me, then it becomes harassment.
posted by yoink at 11:37 AM on August 16 [1 favorite]


It seems to me that that the main point from Volokh's analysis (via jpe) is that the appeals court in the relevant case, Texas v. Hanson (1990), found the statute itself to be unconstitutionally broad (and this was never fixed by the Texas Legislature).

The charge here (based on 36.03 and Defn 1.07(9)):
Governor Perry --- by threatening to take action as a public servant through veto power (coercion) --- attempted to influence another public servant (DA Lehmberg) in a specific performance of her official duty, "to-wit: the duty to continue to carry out her responsibilities as the elected District Attorney for the County of Travis through the completion of her elected term of office".
seems to be a perfectly fine application of the law. But the law itself criminalizes any statements the Governor might make about his planned use of a veto to affect political change.
posted by pjenks at 12:25 PM on August 16


You know he's guilty when his cronies harp on his victim's DUI as some kind of proxy defense or excuse for his actions.
posted by Mr. Six at 1:18 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]


Jonathan Chait, in New York Magazine: This Indictment Of Rick Perry Is Unbelievably Ridiculous:
But that statute also specifically exempts “an official action taken by the member of the governing body.” The prosecutors claim that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not. Of course the threat of the veto is an integral part of its function. The legislature can hardly negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,” the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes work.

The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost any kind of political conflict could be defined as a “misuse” of power or “coercion” of one’s opponents. To describe the indictment as “frivolous” gives it far more credence than it deserves. Perry may not be much smarter than a ham sandwich, but he is exactly as guilty as one.
posted by jenkinsEar at 2:25 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]


It's not that he made the threat of a veto, it's that he threatened a veto in an effort to undo an election he didn't like the result of.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:15 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]


Rick Perry is a dumb and evil bag of bricks, but the "undo the election" argument doesn't hold much water for me. If the Democratic leadership decides that Anthony Weiner is an embarassment and they try to push him out the door, I think most people would consider that politics, not an unholy subversion of our electoral process.
posted by leopard at 5:41 PM on August 16




Many Texans I know would sincerely vote him into the White House just to get him out of Texas.
posted by Monkey0nCrack at 9:51 PM on August 15 [1 favorite +] [!]


They're from Austin, aren't they?
posted by 4ster at 6:54 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]


An independent grand jury apparently thought this case had enough merit to go on, so it apparently is at least debatable.

Meanwhile, regardless of the merits of this case, let's just take a moment to appreciate how stupid Rick Perry was here. There are some things he just can't do, but he could have accomplished a whole lot here anyway. If he had just shut up and vetoed the funding for the Public Integrity Unit, everyone would have understood it as a punishment of Ms Lehmberg; hell, if asked about it after the fact, he could probably have even said "I vetoed that funding because the person running the Unit shouldn't be in public office." He has that legal authority, and just vetoing funding – I would have thought that was what Rick Perry does best.

But instead, he had to open his fat mouth and say he wouldn't veto the funding as long as Lehmberg resigned. If only he hadn't made that contingent offer, this whole thing would not be national news, and he wouldn't be fighting this huge corruption case.

It's just silly stupidity like this that ought to preclude him ever running for anything again.
posted by koeselitz at 11:29 AM on August 17 [5 favorites]


I think this article is better than most I've seen.

I so hope they find a smoking gun that proves that Rick Perry only attacked the DA over her DUI because she prosecuted Tom DeLay.

Unlikely, since Ronnie Earle prosecuted DeLay (Lehmberg may have been involved but she did not hold her current position at the time).

The DeLay prosecution is just one conflict of many between the Republican-dominated state government and the Democratic machine that runs Travis County and Austin. The Lehmberg issue is another. Perry saw an opening to install a crony and weaken the Travis County-operated PIU, but overplayed his hand (in a political sense -- although my antipathy toward Perry is intense, I'm not making an argument for the validity of the charges here).

One interesting detail from the article I linked above: "there were numerous reports that Perry's office continued to dangle a restoration of the state funding or a future job offer to Lehmberg if she would leave office". But it's not clear to me that the text of the indictment speaks to that.
posted by scatter gather at 12:01 PM on August 17


Ugh.

I work for Travis County (the county that contains most of the city of Austin, that employs Ms. Lehmberg, and that sat the grand jury that brought forth the indictment (although the prosecutor is from San Antonio, and was appointed by a Republican judge (in Travis County.)))

I don't work for or with any of those people directly, though. I do web stuff. Our website feedback apparatus (as well as social media) are just overflowing with bile and misapprehension regarding this all. People from around the country are posting poorly photoshopped macros of Ms. Lehmberg in bed with various people, or linking to the arrest video and saying how ridiculous it is that she is prosecuting Rick Perry for ANYTHING, or trying to sell "I STAND WITH RICK PERRY" tshirts.

Completely separate from my feelings on this all as a constituent of Texas or Travis County, as an employee this is a giant pain in my butt.
posted by dirtdirt at 9:02 AM on August 18 [1 favorite]


l really do not like Rick Perry and I think stripping a prosecutor who handles public integrity investigations of all funds for 2 years (after said prosecutor has conducted an investigation which damaged his cronies) should be criminal, but damned if I can see how his conduct fits under the two statutes he alleged with violating. Not to mention I agree with those earlier in the thread who think an appellate court is likely to find at least one of these statutes unenforceablely vague in this context, and may well dismiss the whole thing as a political fight masquerading as a criminal case.

Texas needs clearer criminal statutes on abuse of power, in short. I don't think these charges are going to hold up to judicial scrutiny.
posted by bearwife at 2:40 PM on August 18




Hey, if there is anyone still in this thread, I just realized there is something about this case I'm not clear on.

Ms. Lehmberg's position is described as an elected one. But then, the Secret Life of Gravy (above) and others have said Perry just wants to "install... a hand-picked" appointee.

If Ms. Lehmberg did resign, wouldn't there just be a special election to replace her?
posted by Alaska Jack at 3:48 PM on August 18


Alaska Jack: no, there would be no special election for that office. The governor would select an interim DA. Which is why local Democrats have generally supported her decision to finish her term (she has committed to not running again, however).
posted by scatter gather at 4:42 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]


Though some of our most eminent lackwits have had their turns to strut and fret, this I-WANTS-MY-SCHA-DEN-FREUDE thread has not been metafilter's finest hour. More thoughtfully liberal voices have by now spoken up to a different point.

Is Gov. Rick Perry’s Bad Judgment Really a Crime?
by the New York Times editorial board

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is one of the least thoughtful and most damaging
state leaders in America, having done great harm to immigrants, abortion
clinics and people without health insurance during his 14 years in office. But
bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony, and the indictment handed
up against him on Friday — given the facts so far — appears to be the product
of an overzealous prosecution.

For more than a year, Mr. Perry has been seeking the resignation of the Travis
County district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg. He had good reason to do so:
Ms. Lehmberg was arrested in April 2013 for driving with a blood alcohol level
of more than three times the legal limit, and she verbally abused the officers
who found her with an open bottle of vodka. She ranted and raved at the local
jail, threatening sheriff’s deputies, and she had to be restrained in a chair with
a hood over her head. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in jail.
In addition to endangering people’s lives, she instantly lost her credibility as a
prosecutor of drunken-driving cases.
...
Governors and presidents threaten vetoes and engage in horse-trading all the
time to get what they want, but for that kind of political activity to become criminal
requires far more evidence than has been revealed in the Perry case so far.


Far from ending Perry's career in disgrace, progressives have good reason to fear that he may parlay the case into a large sympathy vote, not to mention effective armor to repel any other scandal that might emerge, even if it has more substance. "Hail, this sh*t ain't no different from that last sack-of-feathers boogyman they held up and shook at me."
posted by jfuller at 7:07 PM on August 19 [1 favorite]


some of our most eminent lackwits have had their turns to strut and fret

Stay classy, you.

Y'know, the gory details of Lehmberg's conduct are completely immaterial to whether Perry committed a crime, but I've seen several op-eds like that one that seem to ask the reader to make the leap from "the DA is a mean drunk" to "Perry didn't break the law." It just doesn't follow.

And it's grimly amusing to see the "governors threaten vetoes all the time" argument in defense of Perry when the guy is notorious for surprise vetoes of legislation passed by his own party, which controls both houses of the legislature. Like, he has without warning vetoed bills people worked on for months. You'd think he would communicate better with his own side.

For this and other reasons, Perry is not loved by many Texas Republicans. It's more like he is tolerated and people are afraid of him. The knives may come out once he's not in office.
posted by scatter gather at 10:18 PM on August 19 [4 favorites]


> the gory details of Lehmberg's conduct are completely immaterial to whether Perry committed a crime, but I've seen
> several op-eds like that one that seem to ask the reader to make the leap from "the DA is a mean drunk" to "Perry didn't
> break the law." It just doesn't follow.

It follows thusly. It is directly material because it distinguishes whether Perry tried to use a threat of funding veto to force Rosemary Lehmberg's resignation out of his own self-interest, as per comments like this one, above

> I would also like Rick Perry to be indicted for any corrupt act he might have committed, including taking advantage of
> other officials' drinking and driving and forcing them to resign for his own benefit

... in which case it was a reasonable indictment for a corrupt act. Or whether he acted as he did because it was in the public interest to remove a drunk from the DA's office, as The New York Times has it

> For more than a year, Mr. Perry has been seeking the resignation of the Travis County district attorney, Rosemary
> Lehmberg. He had good reason to do so. [gory details follow]

...in which case, in the absence of any moral corruption, the question is reduced to whether there was a technical overreach worth bringing before a grand jury. Which is highly debatable, with legal scholars up to and including the distinctly leftish Prof. Alan Dershowits of Harvard Law holding that there was not. Dershowitz, who calls himself a "liberal Democrat," said he doesn't "approve of [Perry's] views on most matters, certainly on social matters." However, he said Perry's actions were "not the basis of what a criminal charge should be," and explained the indictment was "political in nature, and that's why I'm so opposed to it." (linkie)

In fact, if the indictment itself was sought for political reasons, then that is what verges on a corrupt act.

You could have figured that out if you'd done your homework. But it's not unpleasing to do it for you.
posted by jfuller at 8:01 AM on August 20


It is directly material because it distinguishes whether Perry tried to use a threat of funding veto to force Rosemary Lehmberg's resignation out of his own self-interest... Or whether he acted as he did because it was in the public interest to remove a drunk from the DA's office.

There have been two other Texas DAs who had DWIs during Perry's governorship and he didn't call for their resignations.

You could have figured that out if you'd done your homework. But it's not unpleasing to do it for you.

I'm willing to continue this discussion with you and anyone else who is still interested, but let's keep it respectful (and mea culpa on the "stay classy" comment).
posted by scatter gather at 10:24 AM on August 20 [1 favorite]


Hmm, here's an interesting take from Texas Monthly:
[I]f his goal was to cover his right flank rather than to gut the PIU... it’s not hard to believe that months later, Perry (or his people) would let Democrats know that he was open to replacing Lehmberg with a Democrat, that he would help find another job for Lehmberg, and even that he would restore funding to the PIU if they proceeded with such a deal.
posted by scatter gather at 10:43 AM on August 20


That a few prominent self-described liberals are coming to Perry's defense does little to invalidate an apolitical process leading up to a grand jury in a conservative state.
posted by Mr. Six at 10:58 AM on August 20 [2 favorites]


There have been two other Texas DAs who had DWIs during Perry's governorship and he didn't call for their resignations.

Some of the cognitive dissonance in question:
Bill Baker, the Kaufman County GOP chairman, called for Harrison, a fellow Republican, to resign....
He said the governor’s office and the state GOP had no involvement.
“We just felt like it was a local issue,” Baker said.
At the same time, he does not see any comparison with the Lehmberg case.
“She was over the state’s integrity unit,” Baker said. “She was not a good representative of that office.”
He said that he and many other Republicans for many years have supported the integrity unit being moved from the Travis County DA’s office and given to the Texas attorney general’s office, which has been in Republican hands for 15 years.
So Lehmberg's case was actually more deserving of state-level involvement because her office has the PIU, and oh, by the way, the PIU -- the entire point of which is that it investigates state-level official corruption and should therefore be free of possible conflicts of interest -- should be run by the state.

Yeah, that makes sense.
posted by Etrigan at 11:09 AM on August 20 [3 favorites]


That a few prominent self-described liberals are coming to Perry's defense does little to invalidate an apolitical process leading up to a grand jury in a conservative state.

A Republican judge appointed a special prosecutor known for studiously refusing to back one party over the other, while being an ex-Cop and involved in an evangelical church - so, yeah! Partisan politics!
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:02 PM on August 20 [4 favorites]


> I'm willing to continue this discussion with you and anyone else who is still interested, but
> let's keep it respectful (and mea culpa on the "stay classy" comment).

My comments were snottier uh, more provocative than they needed to be also. But I really don't have anything else to say until more information comes out, preferably from people who are under oath and subject to cross examination.
posted by jfuller at 4:37 PM on August 20 [2 favorites]


Looks like Perry needs to be more careful in his public statements: Judge warns against Perry grand jury threats
posted by scatter gather at 7:42 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]


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.

So, up to his bushy eyebrows in legal trouble after threatening to use his office to go after political enemies holding an office he craves control over, he goes and threatens a judge, prosecuting attorney and an entire grand jury with political retaliation? The man is dumb as a stump, isn't he?
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:30 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]


So, up to his bushy eyebrows in legal trouble after threatening to use his office to go after political enemies holding an office he craves control over, he goes and threatens a judge, prosecuting attorney and an entire grand jury with political retaliation? The man is dumb as a stump, isn't he?

Well no...

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

But that's nonsense.

There was an organization, Texans for Public Justice that filed the complaint that led to the indictment. And they have backers with an agenda too... trial lawyers who oppose tort reform, for instance.
posted by Jahaza at 8:42 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]


He's not a four-term governor for nothing. I would not say he's dumb. I think he's accustomed to aggressively confronting political threats. But I think the judge is warning Perry that if he's going to represent this as a malicious partisan prosecution, there are certain lines he must not cross.
posted by scatter gather at 9:01 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]


I would not say he's dumb.

The man claimed ISIS fighters were invading Texas from Mexico. This is a thing that he said.

I dunno, he may be smart playing stupid - stupid like the fox. Or he has an excellent political machine supporting his administration and his campaigns.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:52 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]


Eh, I think he's demonstrating his powers of cynical manipulation. He claimed it is "a very real possibility" that ISIS has crossed the border, and added that he has no evidence, knowing that the story on Fox etc will become "has ISIS crossed the border into the US?"
posted by scatter gather at 10:06 AM on August 22


Maybe he's angling to be Palin's VP, knowing she'll get bored and resign halfway through her first term.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:58 AM on August 22


I dunno, he may be smart playing stupid - stupid like the fox. Or he has an excellent political machine supporting his administration and his campaigns.

The ISIS and lawlessness comments are dog-whistles for a particular audience that makes up his political base inside Texas — and outside, should he again run for President. His coded language is probably not intended for consumption by most people on Metafilter.
posted by Mr. Six at 11:52 AM on August 22 [1 favorite]


> I would totally buy that t-shirt.

Now there's a t-shirt you can actually buy.
posted by jfuller at 12:17 PM on August 23


The Statesman is reporting (partially behind a paywall) that Perry called Mindy Montford (a well-known Democratic defense attorney who has also run for district judge and DA) to feel her out about the DA job before he made the public thread to veto the PIU funding. The same story is on KVUE's web site.
posted by immlass at 9:57 PM on August 24


Perry called Mindy Montford

Interesting. When Montford was running against Lehmberg in the primary years ago, it was for me a simple decision not to vote for Montford because of a mailing that implied she was the only candidate who would protect our children from pedophiles.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:26 AM on August 25


« Older authentic point of view   |   Five-O Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post