Composite 3.45 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Support is foreclosed by a confirmed capping severity flag (process subversion), independent of the composite. At credit 453 (Failing band) the record does not clear the support line on conduct.
Scott Perry is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief (Dec 11 2020), which asked the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral votes of four states, a legal-on-its-face power used to defeat the constitutional purpose of the certified election. Beyond the amicus, the Jan 6 Select Committee documented his central role in pressing to install Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General so DOJ would issue a false letter doubting the results. This is process subversion, capping the record and foreclosing author-verdict support.
Evidence: Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus brief, 126 Representatives (corrected) · Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan 6 Committee report on Perry and the Jeffrey Clark scheme
A capping flag forecloses an Author's Verdict of "supported" regardless of the composite; a terminal flag suspends the number entirely. Conduct is weighed on documented evidence, applied symmetrically. How flags work →
- Enlisted 1980; commissioned officer; rose to Brigadier General in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard
- Commanded an aviation battalion; Iraq deployment 2009-2010 (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
Military service is honored here as context, not scored. Character demonstrated within it is scored as conduct in the relevant measures where documented; the badge contextualizes but does not move the composite.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 2 | why?CAPPING criterion-8 process subversion drives this to the floor. Perry signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania
amicus (verified on the 126-signatory list) urging the Supreme Court to discard the certified electoral
votes of four states, including his own Pennsylvania. Beyond the brief, the Jan 6 Select Committee
documented that Perry introduced Trump to Jeffrey Clark and pressed to install Clark as Acting Attorney
General so DOJ would send states a letter falsely asserting doubt about the election, a plan to defeat a
certified constitutional outcome through facially-legal levers. The oath's core duty, to support the
Constitution's transfer of power, was inverted. Floor.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?Conduct-only read of cross-aisle good faith, NOT scored on ideology or caucus membership. Perry's
legislative posture is consistently bottom-tier on the Lugar Bipartisan Index, and his public conduct
toward institutional counterparts (calling the select committee a "kangaroo court," refusing to engage its
process) shows little willingness to grant opponents legitimacy when it costs him. Caucus alignment itself
is not penalized; the demonstrated refusal to treat the other side as a legitimate partner is.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 4 | why?Persons-of-equal-worth read. Perry's rhetoric runs hot toward institutions and investigators ("witch
hunt," "kangaroo court"), but there is no documented sustained pattern of casting whole classes of
citizens as enemies who do not belong, heated institutional combat is not crit-10. The drag here is the
delegitimizing framing of lawful processes and the millions of voters whose certified ballots the amicus
sought to void. Below-middle, not floor.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 3 | why?Abuse-of-power measure, hit by criterion-8. The effort to weaponize the Justice Department against the
certified election, installing a compliant Acting AG to issue a knowingly false letter, is the direct
use of state machinery to defeat a constitutional purpose and to disenfranchise opposing voters. This is
the inverse of constraining power; it is attempting to turn power against the electoral outcome itself.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?Rhetorical conduct. Perry and his office deployed contemptuous language toward a lawful oversight body
("petulant... kangaroo court desperate for revenge"). This is corrosive institutional rhetoric but stops
short of a documented incitement/enemy-making pattern aimed at citizens. Below-middle: real delegitimizing
heat, not a crit-10 pattern.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 3 | why?Accountability measure. Perry refused to comply with a lawful congressional subpoena for his testimony
and was referred to the House Ethics Committee for it (the referral resolved without sanction, weighed as
an appearance-concern, not a finding). The FBI seized his phone in August 2022 in the Jan 6 probe; no
charges followed against him, so that too is weighed as appearance, not conviction. The conduct that is
scored is the affirmative non-cooperation with oversight and the absence of any ownership, the opposite of
voluntary accountability.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 3 | why?The higher bar is calling out one's OWN side at cost. The record shows the inverse: Perry was an active
organizer of his own side's effort to overturn the certified result, not a check on it. No documented
instance of confronting his own coalition's misconduct at personal cost; instead, sustained alignment with
and facilitation of it. Low.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?Discretion test, use of position when no one is forcing the hand. Perry used the discretion of his office
to broker the Clark-Trump introduction and push the DOJ-letter plan, choosing to deploy his access toward
subverting the count rather than toward fidelity. Some routine constituent and committee service exists, keeping this off the floor, but the most consequential discretionary choices ran against the oath.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 4 | why?Private-vs-public consistency. Unsealed records and his texts to Mark Meadows ("Mark, you should call
Jeff...") show the private conduct was if anything more aggressive than the public posture, privately
coordinating the DOJ scheme while publicly framing himself as defending election integrity. The gap runs
against him: the off-camera record is the more damaging one. Below-middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 4 | why?Constituent-fidelity read, conduct-only. Perry's signature on an amicus seeking to void his own
Pennsylvania constituents' certified votes is a direct breach of the representative's duty to the people
who elected him, choosing a national partisan objective over the validity of his district's ballots.
Ordinary district service keeps this from the floor; the disenfranchisement effort is the drag.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Office-attributable enrichment ONLY (raw wealth and partisan alignment excluded). No documented record of
self-dealing, family payroll abuse, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue tied to
Perry's office. Absent a specific enrichment finding, this measure is not driven down by the criterion-8
conduct scored elsewhere. Middle, reflecting an unremarkable financial-conduct record rather than
affirmative virtue.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Institutional decorum / respect for the office. The pattern, defying a lawful subpoena, branding an
oversight committee a "kangaroo court," and lending his office to an effort to override the certified
count, reflects a disposition that treats institutional constraints as obstacles rather than as the
structure the oath binds him to. Low.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 3 | why?Truthfulness measure. Perry promoted the false premise of a stolen 2020 election, the factual basis for
the amicus and the DOJ-letter plan was a claim repeatedly rejected by courts and confirmed by no evidence.
Advancing a knowingly unsupported factual narrative to justify overturning the count is a documented
falsehood pattern tied to consequential action, not a stray misstatement. Low.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?Substantive command read. Perry holds substantive committee assignments (Transportation & Infrastructure, Oversight, Foreign Affairs) and engages on policy detail in those areas, a working command that keeps
this at the middle. It is not elevated, because the most visible application of his policy energy went to
the election-subversion effort rather than to durable lawmaking. Middle.
[source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | Signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Dec 11 2020) seeking to void four states' certified electoral votes, and pushed to install Jeffrey Clark as Acting AG to issue a false DOJ letter doubting the results ↳ Criterion-8 process subversion, legal levers used to defeat a certified election | None, capping conduct |
| M04 | Attempted to weaponize DOJ against the certified election outcome via the Clark scheme ↳ Abuse of state power to disenfranchise opposing voters | None, capping conduct |
| M06 | Refused a lawful Jan 6 Select Committee subpoena; referred to House Ethics (resolved, no sanction); FBI seized his phone Aug 2022 (no charges) ↳ Non-cooperation with oversight; appearance-concerns weighed not as findings | Ethics referral resolved without sanction; no charges, weighed as appearance only |
| M13 | Advanced the court-rejected stolen-election claim as the factual basis for overturning the count ↳ Documented falsehood tied to consequential action | None substantive |
| M07 | Organized rather than checked his own side's subversion effort; no documented own-side call-out at cost ↳ Inverse of the active call-out duty | None |
| M10 | Sought to void his own Pennsylvania constituents' certified votes via the amicus ↳ Breach of constituent fidelity | Ordinary district service exists |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 3 | why?Loyalty ran to a person and a coalition over the constitutional order: the documented organizing role in the effort to overturn a certified election is the opposite of fidelity to the oath. Long Guard service shows personal courage, but the political conduct under measure here trends toward Self-Interest over the constitutional trust. Low. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 3 | why?Conviction is present, but Authenticity and Self-Reflection are undercut by privately coordinating the DOJ scheme while publicly posing as an election-integrity defender, and by the absence of any ownership of the subpoena defiance. Low. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 2 | why?Power was directed toward Exploitation of constitutional process, the Clark/DOJ plan and the amicus aimed to override voters rather than protect them. No documented use of position to constrain abuse. Floor-adjacent. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 2 | why?Integrity and Love of Truth are the dominant drags: a legacy built around advancing a court-rejected stolen-election claim and resisting accountability. The contested moments are not asterisks here; they define the record under this standard. Low. |
| TOTAL: Unfit | 10/40 |
Total 10/40, Failing. The pillars track the criterion-8 capping conduct: a record whose most consequential civic acts ran against the constitutional transfer of power.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work, especially with the FBI.”
Text to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging the path to install Jeffrey Clark at DOJ, unsealed in the Jan 6 investigation · Jan 6 Select Committee record / unsealed court filings · CONTESTED · cite
“More games from a petulant and soon-to-be defunct kangaroo court desperate for revenge and struggling to get out from under the weight of its own irrelevancy.”
Perry's office responding to the Jan 6 Select Committee subpoena · WHYY · CONTESTED · cite
“[The investigation is a] political witch hunt focused on fabricating headlines.”
Perry on the select committee subpoena · WHYY / WESA · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Scott Gordon Perry (born May 27, 1962). U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District since 2019 (formerly PA-4, 2013-2019). Republican. Chair of the House Freedom Caucus 2021-2023. Brigadier General, Pennsylvania Army National Guard, with an Iraq deployment 2009-2010. Serves on the Transportation & Infrastructure, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs Committees. Currently running for re-election in 2026 in a redrawn, competitive PA-10 rated a toss-up.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Consistently bottom-tier on the Lugar Center Bipartisan Index; DW-NOMINATE firmly on the right of the House Republican conference. Founding member and former chair (2021-2023) of the House Freedom Caucus. Caucus alignment and ideology are recorded here as context and are NOT scored, the framework refuses to grade party or policy in either direction. What is scored is documented conduct: the post-2020 election-subversion role.
3. Constitutional Moments
The defining constitutional moments run against the oath. Perry signed the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Dec 2020) seeking to discard four states' certified electoral votes, and the Jan 6 Select Committee documented his central role in the plan to install Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General so the Justice Department would issue a false letter casting doubt on the results, a facially-legal effort to defeat the certified transfer of power. He then refused a lawful committee subpoena. These are criterion-8 process- subversion events, capping the record.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Rhetoric toward institutions and investigators runs hot, "witch hunt," "kangaroo court," "desperate for revenge." This is corrosive delegitimizing language aimed at lawful oversight bodies. It is weighed as a real drag on the rhetoric and decorum measures, but it does not rise to a documented criterion-10 enemy-making or incitement pattern targeting citizens, so no crit-10 flag is raised. The capping concern is criterion-8, not criterion-10.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented office-attributable enrichment, no self-dealing, family-payroll abuse, office-information trading, or foreign-government revenue on the record. The fiduciary breach in this dossier is not financial; it is the breach of the oath's duty through the election-subversion conduct. M11 therefore sits at the middle, reflecting an unremarkable financial-conduct record, while the constitutional breach is scored where it belongs (M01/M04).
6. Severity-Class Conduct
One capping criterion-8 (process subversion) flag, confirmed. Perry is a verified signatory of the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (Dec 11 2020), every signatory receives crit-8, and the documented organizer of the Jeffrey Clark DOJ scheme to defeat the certified 2020 result. The pardon inquiry and FBI phone seizure are weighed as appearance-concerns, not findings, and the subpoena-defiance Ethics referral resolved without sanction. No criterion-10 pattern is documented. The capping flag forecloses author-verdict support regardless of composite.
7. What The Framework Says
Under a fixed standard measured against the oath, not party, not policy, Scott Perry's record is capped by documented criterion-8 process subversion. He signed an amicus to void four states' certified votes including his own state's, and the Jan 6 Select Committee documented his central role in a plan to weaponize the Justice Department to overturn the count. That conduct inverts the core duty the oath imposes: to support the constitutional transfer of power. Heated institutional rhetoric and subpoena defiance compound the picture without reaching crit-10. Appearance-concerns are weighed honestly as appearances. The capping flag forecloses support. Failing.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Supreme Court docket, Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus · Congress.gov member profile · House Financial Disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan 6 Committee report · WHYY, Perry subpoena / Ethics referral · Axios, phone seizure / Jan 6 probe
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack PA-10 · Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (126 Representatives) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.