Texas Governor Rick Perry is back in the news this week – this time being called out by grand jurors, complainants and the special prosecutor for his efforts to spin facts surrounding his recent indictment.
You should recall that on August 15, Perry was indicted by a Travis Country grand jury on two felonies stemming from allegations of abuse of power. Although the charges have nothing to do with politics or his exercise of the power of the line-item veto, Perry and his supporters are spouting that out to anyone willing to listen – i.e. pretty much everyone in the media to include the liberal press.
The problem is that neither assertion is true.
Texans for Public Justice filed the initial criminal complaint on June 14 after identifying four state felonies applicable to the governor’s actions: abuse of official capacity, coercion of a public servant, official oppression and bribery.
As Director Craig McDonald and Research Director Andrew Wheat of Texans for Public Justice wrote this week for Politico:
The governor rightly argues that he has absolute authority to veto the Public Integrity Unit’s budget. Texas law does not, however, grant him authority to threaten another public official—even one who behaved as wretchedly as Lehmberg did. Notably, we filed our criminal complaint before Perry vetoed Public Integrity funding. After all, it was the governor’s threats—not his veto—that broke Texas law prohibiting an official from using the power of his or her office to coerce another official into taking an action, such as resignation.
What’s more, Perry continued to pressure Lehmberg to resign even after the veto. Official sources cited in media accounts confirm that Perry’s representatives continued to try to induce Lehmberg to resign by promising her a high-paying junior position in her office. That behavior is a potential bribery felony in Texas. [emphasis added]
Special Prosecutor Michael McCrum has repeatedly stated that he was deeply disturbed by what he learned from interviewing more than 40 Perry insiders and after reviewing hundreds of pages of documents relating to the charges. In an interview with Texas Lawyer, McCrum “said there is evidence to support the charges against Perry but that he can’t discuss the findings of his investigation or disclose the witnesses who testified before the grand jury. He said that he’s not surprised at the outcome.
When asked why Perry was not charged with all four crimes alleged in the Texans for Public Justice complaint, McCrum said, “I looked at all statutes. I thought four potentially could fit. In addition to the two charged, I looked at the offenses of official oppression and bribery. At the end of the day, the grand jury returned an indictment just on the other two statutes. … There’s a variety of reasons they may have done that. I don’t know.”
Speaking to the Houston Chronicle, “Several members of the grand jury that indicted Gov. Rick Perry said Tuesday that his claim the indictment was based more on politics than substance is unfair and disrespectful to the months of work they put in.”
The jury, which met weekly for four months, “really tried to keep an open mind and come to a fair decision given all the testimony that we heard,” said Janna Bessin, one of the 12 Travis County residents appointed to serve on the grand jury.
“It’s too bad,” Bessin said, calling the criticism unfair. “But I guess that his side’s job – to really spin it.”
The Chronicle goes on to note that several grand jurors are taking exception to Perry’s defense against those charges in the days since the indictment was handed down. “One, who asked not to be named, said he expects the public perception to change once the full scope of the prosecutor’s case becomes public.”
“I think if and when the facts come out, that’ll change,” the juror said.
All six jury members reached by the Chronicle said they were told it would be illegal for them to discuss the grand jury proceedings. The willingness of some to discuss their thoughts in general terms may indicate frustration with Perry’s defense.
Rho Chalmers, who name matches that of a grand juror but would only confirm her service on a jury that ended last week, said grand juries involve careful consideration of facts.
“For me, it’s not a political decision,” Chalmers said. “That’s what a grand jury is about – take the emotion out of it and look at the facts and make your best decision based on your life experience.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login