legal news, State news

Texas AG deserves to stand trial at home

My jaw dropped. My mouth is gaping. I cannot believe what I have just read.

Prosecutors seeking to convict Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is set to stand trial for an alleged securities fraud matter, have asked for a change of venue because they say they cannot get a fair trial in Collin County, a suburban region just north of Dallas.

Why the jaw-drop?

Well, Paxton represented Collin County in the Texas Legislature before he was elected AG in 2014. That’s what made his indictment by a Collin County grand jury all the more remarkable, the way I saw it. This wasn’t a group of liberal activists seeking revenge against a conservative statewide politician. The grand jury was a panel of Paxton’s peers.

Prosecutors need not seek a change of venue, given that a Collin County grand jury brought the charges against Paxton in the first place.

The grand jury indicted Paxton on allegations that he misled investors in a company; the alleged crime occurred before he became attorney general.

I don’t know about you, but I find this allegation of bias against them to be soaked in irony.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “Ken Paxton, like all Texans, has the right to be tried in the County he was charged in,” Paxton lawyer Dan Cogdell said in a statement. “The Special Prosecutors have filed a 60-page pleading trying to thwart that right. That these prosecutors are somehow painting themselves as ‘victims’ of some nonexistent conspiracy is extremely telling.”

I believe the trial court will be able to seat a jury that can determine this case fairly and without bias. Just look at what the grand jury did to bring this case to trial.

The case is set to go to trial on May 1. Let it take place in Collin County.

International news, legal news, national news

Mammoth court fight awaits Trump

Here is where we stand regarding that ill-considered ban on refugees.

It appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to a unanimous ruling this afternoon by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court’s suspension of Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

Clear as mud, yes?

The 9th Court ruled 3-0 to uphold the suspension ordered by U.S. District Judge James Robart, whom Trump called a “so-called judge” in criticizing his decision.

What about the politics of the court? Judge Robart is a George W. Bush appointee; the three appellate court judges were picked by Presidents Carter, Bush 43 and Obama. It looks like a bipartisan rejection to me.

Now the highest court stands ready to ponder this controversial executive order. It has a vacancy, meaning that eight justices are on the job. Four conservatives and four liberals. What happens if the Supremes issue a tie vote? The 9th Court ruling stands. Trump’s executive order is negated.

The 9th Court ruling takes aim at the provision in the order that bars people with visas from re-entering the United States, which the judges ruled is unconstitutional.

According to The Associated Press: “The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.

“‘On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.'”

Trump, of course, responded with a tweet. “SEE YOU IN COURT,” the president said via Twitter.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, whose state has sued the president over his executive order, responded: “Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.”

The fight has just begun.

military news

POTUS takes aim at Senate vets; be careful, sir

Donald J. Trump once said his enrollment in a military high school was equivalent to serving in the actual military.

He was wrong. What’s the president doing now? He has decided to attack at least two actual veterans who now serve in the U.S. Senate.

A word of advice, Mr. President: Do not go there.

First case: Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., reported that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch called Trump’s tweets criticizing federal judges “demoralizing” and “destabilizing.”

Trump’s reaction was to call attention to Blumenthal’s assertion years ago that he once served in the Vietnam War. Blumenthal didn’t go to Vietnam. However, the senator did serve in the military.

Next case: U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticized a military mission that Trump ordered that resulted in the loss of an expensive aircraft and the life of a Navy SEAL.

Trump’s press flack said McCain dishonored the memory of the slain SEAL.

Trump treads on tricky ground.

Remember, too, that candidate Trump once said McCain was a Vietnam War hero only because “he was captured. I like people who aren’t captured, OK?” I’ve spoken my piece already on that shameful and ridiculous assertion.

But as a veteran of the Army myself — who served for a time in Vietnam — I take tremendous umbrage at the president going after veterans when he has no knowledge of what they endured.

In the case of McCain in particular, I would caution Trump strongly to avoid launching anything resembling a personal attack on this gallant war hero.

International news

‘Extreme vetting’ doesn’t sound so bad after all

When he was campaigning for the presidency, Donald J. Trump called for “extreme vetting” of people seeking entry into the United States of America.

Then he became president. What did Trump do then? He signed an executive order that prohibits entry of refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries. The order has raised a firestorm of criticism. The federal judiciary has entered the fray by delaying implementation of the order.

So, my question is this: What happened to “extreme vetting” of every single immigrant who wants to enter the country?

I guess the president needs to define the term. How extreme does the government go? To what end do agents grill incoming visitors? How do they determine a threat to our national security?

The problem I have with Trump’s executive order is its discriminatory nature. I believe the court system might have a similar problem with it, too.

Of course, extreme vetting or any ramping up of security measures will cost lots of money. Congressional Republicans would seem to resist such an expenditure without finding a way to pay for it. Isn’t that what fiscal conservatives are supposed to demand?

If Trump is serious about protecting Americans from threats abroad, then he ought to protect us against all types of immigrants. If this extreme vetting policy is fair and effective, the vast majority of entrants will find a home in the Land of Opportunity.

At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

environmental news, national news

RIP, Packy the Elephant

Those of us of a certain age who grew up in the City of Roses — aka Portland, Ore. — are sad today with news that burst out of the Oregon Zoo.

Packy the Elephant is dead at the age of 54.

Big deal, you say? You bet it is.

Packy came into this world in April 1962. His birth at the time was heralded as the rarest of events. His mother Belle had gone into false labor, causing panic among zoo officials. Then came the real thing. Packy was born.

Packy’s birth became so big, in fact, that they hung a new name on a song that had played in the film “Hatari.” They called it “Packy’s Elephant Walk.”

Packy was one of several Asian elephants to be born at the zoo. I and others just like me watched Packy grow up. I didn’t get a chance to see him grow old, though, as my family and I moved away from Portland in 1984. Our sons, though, did see him — although they likely were too young to remember it today.

Packy was a star.

Still, some social media messages have disparaged the Oregon Zoo — once called the Portland Zoo and the Washington Park Zoo — for its treatment of pachyderms. Honestly, I don’t know what the hell those trolls are talking about. I long have considered the Oregon Zoo to be one of the better such attractions in the country.

And take my word for it: Packy the Elephant was a huge draw for visitors looking to see a bit of zoological history up close.

He had grown ill, as I understand it, in recent years. He suffered from recurring TB.

So, Packy’s time among us has ended.

I am saddened by this news.

national news, political news

Yes, Sen. Cruz, but the Democrats have evolved

Oh, how I hate it when someone I detest is correct … even if he doesn’t tell the whole story.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas delivered a historical truth this week while talking to the Fox News Channel. The Republican said that the Democratic Party is the party of the Ku Klux Klan. He said Democrats — not Republicans — have a history of racism and scorn of minority Americans.

Sure, Ted. I get that. Southern Democrats resisted the enactment of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of the 1960s; prior to that, some Democrats bolted their mainstream party to form something called the “Dixiecrat Party,” and then ran the late Sen. Strom Thurmond for president in 1948; Thurmond would later leave the Democratic Party to become a Republican. What’s more, Democratic history of racial intolerance goes many years before that.

Indeed, President Lyndon Johnson faced fierce opposition from within his Democratic Party to enact the civil rights legislation. He enlisted political help from his Senate Republican friends to push them through to his signature.

But times and policies can change. They did with the Democratic Party. Democrats “evolved” over time.

It’s one thing to talk about historical perspective. It’s quite another to relate politics and policy in real time.

Cruz’s comments came after Senate Republicans shut down a speech by Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who was reading a letter by the late Coretta Scott King; Warren used the letter to state her opposition to Jeff Sessions becoming the next U.S. attorney general.

Sen. Cruz spoke correctly about Democrats’ sordid history. It’s understandable, too, that he would ignore how the Democratic Party has evolved into a more inclusive organization.

It’s also understandable that he would ignore how his own Grand Old Party has become, well, a bit less inclusive.

I think it’s fair to wonder what President Abraham Lincoln would think today of the political party that carries his name.

media news

Is there no end to POTUS’s sophomoric tweets?

I get that Donald J. Trump is proud of his daughter.

Moreover, I also understand that he wants her to succeed to the fullest.

But for the life of me, I do not get why the president insists on using Twitter in the fashion he uses it. Now he says Nordstrom is treating Ivanka badly and he has taken to Twitter to make his feelings known.

The president has a full plate of issues to consider. You know, things like war and peace, the economy, getting his Cabinet picks confirmed by the Senate. Small stuff, right? Um, no. They’re real big!

So why is the president taking on a department store company because it no longer wants to market Ivanka Trump’s brand of products?

Honestly, I am tired of commenting on this baloney. I feel I must protest, given that the social media maven happens to be the president of the United States of America, the guy who governs the country of which I happen to be a taxpaying citizen.

Someone coined the term “diplomacy by Twitter.” That’s a dangerous practice. The president shouldn’t use this social medium to communicate foreign policy. He shouldn’t use it to criticize federal judges. He shouldn’t use it to boast about crowd sizes and poll numbers or blast those who dispute them.

The presidency is an office that compels maximum respect and dignity. Its current occupant clearly — in my mind — is denigrating the decorum that this high office commands.

State news

Still waiting for the outrage over mosque fire

This just in … investigators have determined that an arsonist set a fire that destroyed a mosque in the Texas coastal city of Victoria.

That silence we’re hearing from Washington, D.C. — namely from the Oval Office — over this despicable act is, well, a bit deafening.

Donald J. Trump hasn’t said a word publicly about it. Nor has our nation’s Department of Justice. Our national security adviser hasn’t uttered a peep; then again, what does one expect from Michael Flynn, who has called Islam a “cancer”?

Yes, we’re at war but supposedly not with Islam. We’re at war with terrorists who have perverted a religion.

I’m gratified, though, to read how the Victoria community has rallied behind the congregation that is suffering in the wake of the fire that destroyed the mosque in late January. I also am glad to know that federal authorities have joined state and local investigators in searching for the culprit who did this deed.

Victoria residents and leaders are teaching a valuable lesson of compassion and empathy that I wish would be heard by those who sit around the offices in the West Wing of the White House.

It’s interesting, too, that authorities have issued a press release that says this: “At this time, the evidence does not indicate the fire was a biased crime.”

According to the Texas Tribune: “Federal, state and local agencies are investigating the Jan. 28 blaze, which grabbed international headlines in part because it roared through the mosque hours after President Donald Trump signed his executive order barring refugees from entering the country and restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.”

Coincidence?

Keep looking, folks. Something tells me you’re going to find something that does indicate “bias.”

International news, legal news

9/11 mastermind tells the Mother of all Lies

Khalid Sheik Mohammed blames the United States of America for the terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 innocent victims on Sept. 11, 2001.

Imagine that.

The 9/11 mastermind says it’s our fault.

We are to blame because 19 madmen boarded jetliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon — and struggled with passengers before crashing a third plane into a Pennsylvania field.

Mohammed wrote this fantasy in a length letter to President Barack Obama.

According to the Miami Herald: “‘I will be happy to be alone in my cell to worship Allah the rest of my life and repent to Him all my sins and misdeeds,’ he says in the letter that he wrote at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“‘And if your court sentences me to death, I will be even happier to meet Allah and the prophets and see my best friends whom you killed unjustly all around the world and to see sheik Osama bin Laden.'”

They’ll both rot in hell.

He said in his letter that U.S. “tyrants” have brought death to the Middle East. The letter had been hidden from the public until just this week.

In truth, Mohammed’s case is another one of those that tests my opposition to capital punishment.

This guy isn’t a U.S. citizen. He’ll go on trial — eventually! — for the plot he concocted and the terrible act of war he committed against this country.

I’d be willing to bet my last dollar that he’ll get a one-way ticket to the death chamber whenever a jury gets around to convicting him.

Yes, I still oppose capital punishment — even for monsters such as this one. When Mohammed checks out of this world, though, I won’t shed a tear.

If only our nation’s judicial system would get busy and dispose of this heinous killer.

legal news

Gorsuch stands up for his judicial peers

I am beginning to think more highly of Neil Gorsuch.

The man whom Donald J. Trump has nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court has put the president on notice, saying that Trump’s tweets about the federal judiciary are “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

It’s tempting — for me at least — to wonder if Trump is going to withdraw Gorsuch’s nomination because he had the gall (and the integrity) to speak in favor of his federal judicial peers.

Of course Gorsuch is correct. The president’s petulance performance via Twitter has been beyond the pale and below the high standards of respect the presidency should demand.

Trump clearly demands that others respect the office. I submit that he should respect it, too. Perhaps he should respect it more, given that his behavior — or misbehavior — reflects directly on the office to which he was elected.

Trump’s tweets have been in response to a federal judge’s decision to strike down the president’s temporary refugee ban. The president has chosen to demonstrate his anger through this social medium — acting like, oh, a teenager who’s just been told his car isn’t as cool as the other guy’s.

Now a judicial gentleman has taken the president to task.

Good for you, Judge Gorsuch.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience