Governor rick perry
texas governor rick perry indicted for abuse of power allegations
When the American people vote officials into power, they expect for those chosen to tend to their constituent's interests and concerns and, maintain the integrity of their office. Texas governor Rick Perry has fallen short of these expectations, as this week Governor Perry was indicted for abusing the power of his office; the governor carried out a threat that entailed vetoing funding for state public corruption prosecutors. The governor is accused of publicly pledging to reject a request for $7.5 million, purposed for the state public integrity unit. Following being indicted by an Austin grand jury, the felony counts were determined as "abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant"--the maximum punishment for the charges are five to 99 years and two to 10 years, respectively. After this legal blemish, can Governor Rick Perry continue his aspirations to be the Republican presidential candidate in the election of 2016?
Marry Anne Wiley, the governor's legal counsel, defends Perry's actions by stating: "The veto...was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas constitution." However, the ulterior motives behind Perry's veto are what were being called into question by a grand jury. The governor claimed he would veto the funding if District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg did not resign from her position. The governor highlighted Lehmberg's previous drunk driving conviction to cast doubt upon her credibility, among other aspects. When Lehmberg refused to take heed of Perry's threat and resign, the governor took the legal action of implementing the veto against the funding. Governor Perry now believes the felony indictments to be political ploys and maintains the veto was well within his gubernatorial powers.
To prepare for the indictment, a special prosecutor spent months interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence, that would prove that Perry broke the law. Top aides to the governor were called to appear before the Austin grand jury, including his "deputy chief of staff, legislative director, and general counsel."--Perry did not make an appearance at the hearing to testify. Stated previously, as governor Perry was allowed to veto measures that had been approved by legislature, including the state budget, and no one disputed that fact. However, the liberal "Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group" filed an ethics complaint, concerning the governor's legal actions. Specifically, the ethics complaint accused Governor Perry of coercion because he used the idea of the veto to threaten and pressure Lehmberg into quitting.
To be completely fair, Lehmberg is not without her faults--in fact, Perry is not the only public official who was gunning for Lehmberg's resignation after her April 2013 conviction. Many believed Lehmberg should have resigned immediately after she was arrested and pleaded guilty to a drunken driving charge. Her intoxication is documented on a video, which shows the District Attorney shouting at police officers, kicking her cell door, and "sticking her tongue out." With a blood alcohol content level of three times the legal limit for drivers, she was sentenced to 45 days in jail. After serving half of her sentence Lehmberg returned to office, despite Perry's protestations, because a grand jury (unrelated to Governor Perry's hearing) decided she should not be fired for official misconduct. Calling her behavior inappropriate, Perry did not believe the Lehmberg was capable of heading a unit in charge of investigating "statewide allegations of corruption and political wrongdoing." Perry asserted that "he would not allow Texas to fund the unit...[if] Lehmberg remained in charge." Governor Rick Perry's indictment is the first the state of Texas has seen since 1917; Governor James "Pa" Ferguson was indicted for his use of a veto of state funding to the University of Texas, because he wanted to "unseat faculty and staff members" he didn't like. Ferguson was eventually impeached and resigned before he was convicted of his charges.
In my opinion, I understand both sides of this situation--on one hand, Governor Perry's intentions were invested in the people of Texas' best interests. Perry wanted to remove a public official who was guilty of legal infractions that could have possibly clouded her judgment, in regards to future policies. However, Governor Perry should not have taken the situation into his own hands, by abusing the trust and power that his votes instilled in his leadership. Ultimately, the law is the law and no one should be excused from following it--not even a powerful state governor who tried to abide by the rules, but in the end, took drastic measures to make a positive change in his state's legislature.
Marry Anne Wiley, the governor's legal counsel, defends Perry's actions by stating: "The veto...was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas constitution." However, the ulterior motives behind Perry's veto are what were being called into question by a grand jury. The governor claimed he would veto the funding if District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg did not resign from her position. The governor highlighted Lehmberg's previous drunk driving conviction to cast doubt upon her credibility, among other aspects. When Lehmberg refused to take heed of Perry's threat and resign, the governor took the legal action of implementing the veto against the funding. Governor Perry now believes the felony indictments to be political ploys and maintains the veto was well within his gubernatorial powers.
To prepare for the indictment, a special prosecutor spent months interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence, that would prove that Perry broke the law. Top aides to the governor were called to appear before the Austin grand jury, including his "deputy chief of staff, legislative director, and general counsel."--Perry did not make an appearance at the hearing to testify. Stated previously, as governor Perry was allowed to veto measures that had been approved by legislature, including the state budget, and no one disputed that fact. However, the liberal "Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group" filed an ethics complaint, concerning the governor's legal actions. Specifically, the ethics complaint accused Governor Perry of coercion because he used the idea of the veto to threaten and pressure Lehmberg into quitting.
To be completely fair, Lehmberg is not without her faults--in fact, Perry is not the only public official who was gunning for Lehmberg's resignation after her April 2013 conviction. Many believed Lehmberg should have resigned immediately after she was arrested and pleaded guilty to a drunken driving charge. Her intoxication is documented on a video, which shows the District Attorney shouting at police officers, kicking her cell door, and "sticking her tongue out." With a blood alcohol content level of three times the legal limit for drivers, she was sentenced to 45 days in jail. After serving half of her sentence Lehmberg returned to office, despite Perry's protestations, because a grand jury (unrelated to Governor Perry's hearing) decided she should not be fired for official misconduct. Calling her behavior inappropriate, Perry did not believe the Lehmberg was capable of heading a unit in charge of investigating "statewide allegations of corruption and political wrongdoing." Perry asserted that "he would not allow Texas to fund the unit...[if] Lehmberg remained in charge." Governor Rick Perry's indictment is the first the state of Texas has seen since 1917; Governor James "Pa" Ferguson was indicted for his use of a veto of state funding to the University of Texas, because he wanted to "unseat faculty and staff members" he didn't like. Ferguson was eventually impeached and resigned before he was convicted of his charges.
In my opinion, I understand both sides of this situation--on one hand, Governor Perry's intentions were invested in the people of Texas' best interests. Perry wanted to remove a public official who was guilty of legal infractions that could have possibly clouded her judgment, in regards to future policies. However, Governor Perry should not have taken the situation into his own hands, by abusing the trust and power that his votes instilled in his leadership. Ultimately, the law is the law and no one should be excused from following it--not even a powerful state governor who tried to abide by the rules, but in the end, took drastic measures to make a positive change in his state's legislature.