institutes of health to cut funding. congress canman is taken note of the contradiction, he tweeted since 2011 house republicans have cut n.i.h. funds by billions and you thought dumping ice water on your head was cold. inside story, is next. you hear it whenever a political figure is charged with crime. as the governor of one of the largest states and national figure is arraigned, we take a look at what sometimes called the criminalization of politics. it's the inside story.

hello, i am ray swarez. over the years a lot of elected officials have been charged, tried, some even convicted of official misconduct. the former governor of virginia is taken to stand in his own defense this week, telling a jury he didn't accept gifts from a businessman, in return for influencing the operation of state government. robert mcdonald says he didn't do anything for johnny williams, he wouldn't have done for any constituent, trying to invest and create jobs. in texas, governor rick perry has been charged with trying to use the powers of his office, to muscle a county prosecutor out of office, after she was convicted of drunk driving. the district attorney in question rose mary are is a democrat, the county where she serves travis is also the home of the state government in austin, and thus, investigates official corruption. lamb burg still in office, governor perry insists the charges against him are are pure harassment, poll tiggs in

trouble, this time on inside story. texas governor, turning himself in and then posing for a mug shot, the longest serving chief executive in the state history, he was indicted last week by a grand jury on charges of abuse of power. on the powers of the office of governor. there are important fundamental issues at stake. and i will not allow this attack on our system of government to stand. >> the charges stem from perry threatening to veto and then vetoing funding for a county district attorneys office, allegedly for political reasons. perry says he street toted the funding pause the head county district attorney did not step down after she was charged with a dui.

the governor insists what he did was legal, and that this is just politics as usual. >> i am here today pause i did the right thing. i am going to enter this courthouse with my head held high, knowing the actions that i took were not only lawful and legal, but right. uh importanter house majority leader sympathized he was charged with money raisering and fund conspiracy in 2002, by the same d.a.'s office. delay told fox news, this is the partisan warfare, and the office is in a democrat part of the state. for nine years i have been warning the republicans that if they don't reform this unit, and put it on a statewide basis, with the attorney general, that they could be next, and here we go. rick perry was next. representative delay also

said these people for 30 years have been doing this, to their enemies. ^t more line between politics and crime is not unique to texas. bobirginia former mcdonald and his wife are on trial for allegedly accepted $165,000 worth of gifts from a businessman seeking political favors. the couple faces 14 federal corruption charges. >> it's just a sad day, for the entire mcdonald family, thank you. >> the question is when does politics as usual, cross the line into crime. there's no question some politician abuse their offices. former connecticut governor john roland went to prison in 2005, for essentially putting his office up for sale, for over $100,000. also in 2005, california republican randy duke cunningham, pled guilty to tax evasion, conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, he spent more than seven years in jail.

but some observers believe governor perry's case has more to do with texas politics than with laws that may or may not have been broken. former opam ma campaign advisor, hardly rah supporter of texas republicans, tweeted that to him, the charges felt "sketchy." if perry and others are being pursued for essentially political reasons, can any office hold core the job properly, without having to con can standly look over their shoulders? you will hear again and again, that criminal charges against politician and political activists are just partisan witch hunts. cases of rivals and opponentses out to get them. is there anything to that? have laws to limit official corruption pulled so tight around public offices, that it's harder to play the game, bare knuckled and tough as kit be, without running afoul of some broad interpretation? joining us for a look at

politics and prosecutions, in washington, melanie sloan. executive director of citizens for responsibility and ethics in w, from dallas texas, paul cog ban as former u.s. attorney for north texas and also joining froes the inside story studio, terry c ordero, add jundt professor of law. welcome to the everybody. we didn't put in the laws without the precedent of having politician do bad things in office. >> right, so public corruption cases are very important. i think the dish about the perry case is this is a state charge verses federal public corruption, which is one of the major priorities, it is the top criminal priority of the fbi. so it isn't that public cases are new, or anything like that, it is

really just that this case is someone unusual. a lot of otimes these cases have to do with the influence of the office. and elected officials are influential, and one of the things they can do is deliver. whether it's public funding for projects or support for various kinds of commercial concerns, is that an example of how we have criminalized politics? just taking the nature of what we expect elected officials to do, and making it into a crime? >> one thing when you think about it is you mentioned the statutes are often broad, and they are. so it takes a lot. what is politics the name of the game polices. be uh the truth is to get any kind of jury appeal, in a public case, you need to have something

secret, something co can vert going on. money under the table, some secret ownership and property. this guy passed legislation to help supporters, you can can basically like if every politician in the country if that's a crime. >> but in the case of texas in particular, this is the office, the funding question, had to do with an office that investigates malfeasance while in office. even if it's not in black and white law, that it is against the law, isn't there antic factor in a powerful state official trying to defund an office they are looks into the business of powerful state officials. >> no question, you can see governor perry as a bully, you can say this is a dumb political move, he should never have done that, but i look at the fact that what he did was as transparent as it could be, you said basically i don't trust this woman to run this

office. i don't trust her as a steward of seven preponderate $5 million as long as she is there,ly do everything i can can do to block that $7.5 million of state funding going to her. so you know, argue it politically, but i don't think that rising to the level of public corruption. melanie sloan, fair enough, he didn't hide his hand, or what he was trying to accomplish, by robbing -- taking away the funding from this office. >> he may not have are hidden it, but that doesn't mean it is not a crime. islamicdy agree with the theory are that it has to be secret to be a crime. here it is governor perry wanted to get rid of this woman, but interestingly enough, he didn't try to get rid of two other district attorneys in texas who also had drunk driving convictions, one of them had two con can viceses.

>> including a major donor to merry himself. so it looks line when he was trying to get rid of the funding was trying to end the investigation, into the texas cancer prevention and research institute. do you share the concern about the openness as opposed to one prosecutor as opposed to another. >>s that's another good point, here oa special prosecute canser the one that indicted governor perry with use uhing a grand jury, it ises not the distribute attorney, who governor perry was trying to get rid of, it was a guy named mike mccrumb, who was appointed by republican judge, republican are state judge, and mccrumb himself, had previously had the support of united states senators when he had put his hand in the ring, so this doesn't look like the same kind of political persecution, governor perry is trying to claim it is. >> professor, is there problems with the way

some of these laws are drafted that we only find out about once they are in court? >> as a general matner a corruption case, you need at least two pacic things one is there needs some sort of quid pro quo, there has to be something that the public official is doing in in their official quality, and then they have to get something. in return. and so based on the facts that have been disclose canned so far, it doesn't seem to appear what the governor had to gain in terms of any kind of a personal gain, or even professional gain, from whatever was the pressure that he was supposedly putting on the district attorney. the second thing is they have to show intend. so under these statutes that the governor has been chanced with, they have to show that he knowingly, was misusing his authority. and they have to show an

idea of intent. >> i am interested in the idea that there was a quid pro quo. this official was an elected official, not someone that serves at the pleasure of the governor, not someone he could fire. so he was using the power of his office to sort of do an end run are on the voters of travis county, wasn't he. >> well, so con can travis that when we think about traditional kid pro go, getting something giving something to get something, a notorious case, would be the illinois governor. so here is is the case where you can have this extensive investigation, wiretaps, huge investigation, run by the u.s. attorney there, and they had tapes of the former governor saying i have this thing of value, which at the time was barack obama senate seat, and i am -- paraphrasing of course. but i am not giving it up, i am not giving it up for nothing, so that was this substantial evidence, and so in this case, in the perry cases, i think what people will be looking for is was

this really a legitimate investigation? are there credible witnesses, is there some evidence that the governor was misusing his authority and had the went to do so? >> we will be back after a short break, when inside story returns we will continue our look at politician and the law, can can partisan motivation and the plain language of the law in the hands of a prosecutor become a weapon for settling political scores. stay with uses.

where is the line. this differentiates legal horse trading to a federal offense that pits you in prison. i think that creditlizes nicely what we are talking about? >> it is true, that it is a difficult line to find. but in this case, in the case involving governor perry, this isn't actually a case of rid

quo pro corruption. northern irathat's obecause governor merry are was trying to get rid of this public servant, and in return he was going to get to appoint whatever district attorney he wanted so he was going to be able to find one more favorable to him, one that may shut down the investigation he didn't like into the texas cancer center for prevention and research are, and that's a trouble thing. no american should want a public official to be able to go in and stop a public corruption gas that might touch on that public official and his donors. >> when melanie sloan puts it that way, it sounds pretty pad. >> yeah, what she has is pure speculation, what governor perry never said, is i want to shut down this public integrity unit, what he said is i don't trust this woman to run are that public integrity unit. now, if we had a situation, let's take an example.

was embezzling funds and they said i am not going to give you any more funds because i don't trust you, i don't trust you to run are the unit, they probably say that's probably justified, well, governor perry rightly or wrongly said that. she needs to step down. she pled guilty to dui, she is now prosecuting her office is prosecuting people, who commit can d, with, is so that's pacicly what governor perry said here, and they are essentially, i agree with the professor, there's no quid pro quo, he is not sticking money into his pocket, the possibility of his family, friends and a jury is not going to understand it, and frankly the indictments may not get past the court in the first group. won't it be hard to demonstrate your version of the case, is true? when it comes out, as it will, that governor perry are hasn't been so concerned, drunk driving con can viceses including one that has had two drunk driving convictions.

he never didn't have confidence in those, they too often prosecuted. presumably, they didn't have seven preponderate $5 million of state funds to run a unit. only the travis county has that. >> here is a broader point, which can is that in order for a public corruption investigation, to sort of be legitimate, have to do two things it has to be fair, the investigation itself, and it has to have the appearance of fairness. and public corruption is one of the most sensitive kind of investigations that can be conducted. i think the reason are that people are particularly thinking prosecution looks political, is in part because of the timing. governor perry was just on the cusp of really reinvigorating his national presence. he recently had a couple published on foreign policy,en national security, he has a very

extensive public engangment, calendar right now, and so the timing of this really looks curious. to people. and that weighs into i think the assessment of it, on in addition to the fact that the indictment itself doesn't provide much facts at all, why people are very skeptical of this. it ends up having a political function, this kind of charge, even if it ends up not changing rick perry, because we also have the case of chris christie in new jersey, bedeviled by accusations about how he runs his governors office. scott workwear a long term investigation into the way he serves as northern iraq, as he is trying to run for re-election, which will determine whether he has legs as a national candidate, or not. >> we have history, we have hutchison who is

indicted by the unit, early on in her political career, that indictment was dropped on the courthouse steps on the day of trial. and not only did it not hurt, she had a long career in the u.s. senate here, so people have survived these charges. here i think the smart political move, is the smart legal omove, the same thing, and that's get to trial oand get to trial. >> we'll be back with more inside story after a short break, politicians in the dock, this time on the program,s when elected officials are charged they often dismiss their legal problems as political vendetta, if they aren't going to appeal what's the alternative to these prosecutions? stay with us.

inside story on alg jazeera america. this week, we have the arraignment of rick

perry, ^t most prominent governor in america. in one of the largest states in the country, and we can can see this week ending with robert mcdonald, testifying on his own behalf. we are looking at the laws that govern behavior of public officials this time on the program. in washington, melanie sloan is with us. citizens for responsibility ethics in washington. and also with me, paul cog gans former u.s. attorney, for north texas, currently a law partner, and kerry are cordero, from the georgetown university school of law. melanie sloan, public officials are expected to play a part in the disbursement of cumulatively. s and trillions of dollars. and they are also expected to raise the money nor their own campaigns since we don't have public financing.

create jobs and plants to go here, rather than there. these mingled functions, don't they just create a temptation possibility for blurred lines that don't live very well with the kind of laws we have written to govern their behavior? >> i think that's true. in an ideal world we would have public financing and then we wouldn't have politician endebted to their donors. and stay in office, i think it is a very big problem that said, many politician most politician learn to walk that line. they learn not to take a too close in time, to them making some decision that might seem to benefit that particular donor. and that's the kind of thing we have a right to expect at a minimum. >> a lot of the reare cent prosecutions have involved the timing and

coordination of contributions to campaigns, ways to finesse or get around the restrictions that are written into the law to prevent certain kinds of mingling of funds and so on. is it too hard? have we made these laws too difficult even so that you have to have council on staff telling you whether you are allowed to spend this dollar or that dollar. >> well, the reason we have these is to keep politician honest, and make sure that public moneys are being used in an appropriate way, and in accordance, these positions are positions of public trust, there's a number of federal laws that are commonly used in public corruption federal cases. laws against bribery, honest services, a lot of public corruption cases have to do with election fraud, things like that, so these are important laws that keep our political process honest. that being said, if you look at statistics that have been reare leased by the justice department, over about a 20 year span, from about 1993, to

about went 12, the number of federal public corruption prosecutions actually has reare mained about steady. so it hovers somewhere around 1,000 prosecution as year, which can sounds like a lot, but it is fairly consistent. so i don't think that we are are seeing sort of -- although there are high profile cases sort of a rapid uptick in the general enforcement. >> paul, i think someone watching that program today could both conclude can that these proos cougs are too difficult to bring? iny the statutes are incredibly broad, the indictment is very very sketchy. a lot of judgement, basically what a jury is

going to understand, and what jurors understand is they understand the quid pro quo concept. i think when you get too fancy, and try to force it into this situation. this is a former u.s. attorney talking melanie sloan. >> do these trials have the effect, if nothing else, of at least reigning in executive overreach in the case of these cases? >> i am a former proses cuterses cute iraqi myself, and i have more faith in juries i think they can understand these more complicated cases i don't think they require quid pro quo corruption on every case. i don't think we are are seeing a overcriminallization, in fact, i would argue just the opposite. you can can see a few public officials prosecuted other public officials are going to

change their conduct to make sure they are confirming with the law. public officials don't want to go to jail. >> i have fail in jurors i just think jurors exercise common sense, and i think they will see othis is politics this isn't corruption, and there is a difference, and i think that's the way a jury will come can down here. >> and still in office, right now, and her public corruption investigation unit has not been funded, right? and so the finning remains and of course the defense team will argue that that that was a legitimate use of his state constitutional authority. i think what people will be looking to as they see this case progress, is was this a serious thoughtful sensitive investigation that was

conducted, in order to go forward on a prosecution like this, the prosecute canner is supposed to know there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits so people will be looking to see if there is sufficient evidence before the sensitive case was proud. thank you to you all, food to talk to you. that brings us to the end of this edition, thank you for being with us, in washington, i'm ray swarez. for the first time, speaking about james foley, the american journalist who was beheaded by islamic state, also talking about a possible rescue can mission that was taken earlier this summer, and

the demands the group made before killing folly. also the lawyer from michael brown's family talks to us about the investigation into the death, and the reaction, and we will have on ^t two americans released from the hospital after recovering ebola, i all of that and more coming up. haiti, october 2010, at a hospital in a small, rural town north of the capital. these were the first victims of a horrific, unknown disease in a country still reeling from a devastating earthquake. patients were dying in the space of a few hours. children were especially vulnerable. al jazeera was the first news channel on the scene. in the following days and weeks we tracked the epidemic as it