Perry spot on regarding Paxton

How about that Rick Perry, coming to the defense of the rule of law and the process that produced the impeachment of fellow Republican, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton?

Perry is the longest-serving person ever to hold the office of Texas governor. He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that it is imperative that the Texas Senate proceed with its trial of Paxton on various charges that he abused the power of his office.

“Republicans once believed in the rule of law. My party had confidence in the U.S. and Texas constitutions and the processes and freedoms they recognize and protect,” he writes. “That’s why it’s shocking to see some Republicans—through a coordinated effort of texts, emails and social-media posts—working to delegitimize the impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Ken Paxton. It points to an important question: Do we trust the processes outlined in our Texas Constitution or not?”

Perry does trust the process and he implores his fellow GOPers to cease their attacks on it.

Perry also said the impeachment that came from the Texas House in the waning days of the 2023 Legislature was done above board and is quite legitimate. He noted, too, that the vote to impeach the AG was overwhelmingly bipartisan, which in Perry’s mind gives the charges against Paxton more legitimacy.

In his Wall Street Journal piece, Perry wrote, “I know that processes can be abused. But that isn’t what I see here.”

Nor do many other Texans.

Mug shot makes history

The photo on the left has made history of a nature the subject of the picture likely never imagined it would make.

It is a mug shot taken of Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, who today was arrested and then released from the custody of the Fulton County, Ga., sheriff’s office.

He is charged with crimes against the federal government.

I encourage you to look long and carefully at this picture. It made history the moment it was snapped. Trump is the first president of the U.S.A. ever charged with a felony.

It now likely becomes the foremost image of the 45th POTUS.

So … very … sad.

Mug shot, fingerprints …

As I write these words, Donald J. Trump is being booked at the Fulton County, Ga., jail on charges that he sought to overturn a duly constituted federal election in 2020.

He will deliver his fingerprints, will get his picture taken, will post bail and then will go to wherever he intends to go.

It sounds all so very routine. Except that it isn’t. The defendant in this matter is a former president of the United States of America who allegedly sought to steal an election from the guy who defeated him, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Trump will be treated just like every other criminal defendant who’s been processed in this fashion. Which brings me to the beauty of our criminal justice process.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has declared many times that “no one is above the law.” He also has implied that no one should be treated more harshly than others. Donald Trump is getting precisely the treatment he deserves from Georgia officials who are running the show with this latest set of indictments against the ex-president.

I happen to be OK with the way this is being played out.

Let’s remember, too, that Donald Trump always has sought to portray himself of being charge of all he sees, does and touches.

Not … this … time!

What is remarkable — to my way of looking at it — is that the individual in charge of the proceedings happens to be a Black woman. Given the ex-POTUS’s open disdain for Black people and for women, it is remarkable that District Attorney Fani Willis would be the one to dictate the terms of what the former president is having to endure.

The irony is remarkable. Don’t you think?

So it will go as Donald Trump surrenders to the authorities on a charge of racketeering. His face is likely to be plastered on every newspaper on Earth the next morning, not because what he went through is so extraordinary, but because of who he is and what he has been charged with doing to the very government he once took an oath to “defend and protect.”

Let the due process continue.

GOP group shows cowardice

Admission time: I did not watch the initial Republican Party presidential “debate” in Milwaukee.

There. That said, I cannot comment on what I didn’t witness in real time. I can, however, offer a brief response to what I understand happened when a Fox Propaganda Channel moderator asked of the group of eight whether they would pledge to support the GOP nominee if it happens to be Donald Trump, who could be convicted of felonies against the U.S. government.

Six of them raised their hands, meaning they would support Trump if he’s the nominee. Two of them declined: former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

What does that tell me? It says that most of the individuals running for president are cowards, in that they cannot bring themselves to be critical of the prohibitive frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination.

Sickening.

Working through hangups

I am working my way through a couple of lingering hangups that I cannot release … seven months since cancer took my bride, Kathy Anne, away from me.

One of them deals with what I call the “d” word. You know what it is. It rhymes with “bread.” I am not sure if I am ever going to be able to say the word in describing Kathy Anne’s condition. I am acutely aware of the finality of her passing. I am made aware of it whenever I want to tell her something, only to realize that I cannot do so.

I don’t need to repeat certain words to remind me of what I already know to be true.

The other hangup deals with the “w” word. I am going to stick with “husband” to describe myself. I will be Kathy Anne’s “husband” for as long as I walk this good Earth. Before you get all bothered over the obvious, which is how that might work were I to develop another relationship, I will concede my intention to rethink that commitment should circumstances ever require it.

Kathy Anne once told me in clear and concise terms that she wanted me to find someone in the event of her passing; I believe I said the same thing to her. She insisted that I deserved to be happy. I can recall that conversation clearly even as I grapple with the hangups I have mentioned here … but I’m not there.

I am in the here and now, still trying to navigate my way through my new life. The journey is getting easier all the time. Some days are better than others, but all told, I am doing far better today than I was a week ago. Hangups be damned!

Friends and family have told me to take it all “one day at a time.” I am following their advice. It works.

Putin gets his payback

Yevgeny Prigozhin seems to have died in a plane crash today.

I say “seems” because Russian authorities haven’t yet declared that he is indeed one of the 10 people who died when the plane plummeted to the ground.

Who is this guy? Two months ago, he mounted a mutiny against Russian strongman Vladimir Putin with his mercenary army  marching within spitting distance of Moscow. Prigozhin called off his challenge to Putin, retreated to Belarus, and then Putin declared that he wouldn’t exact any punishment against Prigozhin.

Then this happened. Coincidence? Hardly!

The death of this thoroughly bad actor shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone. Putin’s promise to let Prigozhin live on was pure BS and those who follow Kremlin intrigue knew it when Putin made the declaration.

I am not mourning Prigozhin’s apparent demise. I am just aghast that Vladimir Putin would follow the script from which he has been reading once again … while the world is watching how he is prosecuting an illegal and immoral war against Ukraine.

Is Trump disqualified?

Can it possibly be true that Donald J. Trump’s conduct on 1/6 — his provoking the assault on our government and his giving “aid and comfort” to those who mounted the attack — has disqualified him from seeking the presidency?

That is the view of two highly esteemed legal experts. One of them is a conservative, the other is a liberal. They are, respectively, former U.S. District Judge Michael Luttig and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe.

The have written an op-ed in which they declare that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means that Trump is hereby disqualified from seeking the presidency. Period … full stop!

Luttig said that when the amendment was ratified in 1868 — shortly after the Civil War — it made no qualifier to declaring someone ineligible if they knowingly engaged in an insurrection or rebellion. The amendment’s intent was to prevent another war within the United States.

Indeed, at least two congressional leaders — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell — are on record declaring that Trump was responsible for the attack on the government that sought to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Oh, did I mention that Trump lost that election to Joe Biden?

They have been joined, interestingly, by a host of conservative legal scholars who contend that Trump, indeed, should be barred from the presidential ballot because of what he said that day on the Ellipse. He challenged the crowd to take control of the electoral process and stop the certification of what he contends to this day as a “stolen” election.

Two conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, wrote in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, according to CBS News:

In writing about Trump’s speech from the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, to his supporters who then overran the Capitol, Baude and Paulsen said Trump delivered a “general and specific message” that the election was stolen, calling on the crowd to take immediate action to block the transfer of power before falling silent for hours as the insurrection progressed.

“Trump’s deliberate inaction renders his January 6 speech much more incriminating in hindsight, because it makes it even less plausible (if it was ever plausible) that the crowd’s reaction was all a big mistake or misunderstanding,” they write.

Oh … my … goodness!

When those upon whom you depend for legal support turn on you in this fashion, it seems to me that it’s time to call it quits.

Trump ‘defenders’ go on attack

Donald J. Trump’s “defenders” have a curious and frankly ingenious method of standing behind their cult hero.

Many of them acknowledge Trump’s multiple failings, but then engage in that curious game of “whataboutism” relating to President Biden.

They say things like, “Sure, Trump is crooked … but what about Joe Biden? He is, too! You know?”

A fellow with whom I am acquainted only casually is a frequent critic of this blog. He keeps insisting he doesn’t “give a sh**” about Trump. Except that he does. How do I know that? Because whenever I post a critical blog item about Trump — calling attention to his crooked past — this fellow jumps out of his skin long enough to tell me that Biden is even more crooked than Trump.

He mentions the Hunter Biden stuff (of course!) and then declares that Daddy Biden must be corrupt as well because someone alleges some connection between Hunter Biden’s business dealings and the president, who once served as VP.

The intent of this fellow’s whataboutism is to harm President Biden and benefit Trump. So … he doesn’t “give a sh** about Trump?” Of course he does! Just as I, too, “give a sh** about the ex-POTUS, although certainly not for the same reasons.

I simply must applaud the Trump cultists, though, for devising this strategy, which is proving to be effective. It has kept President Biden’s approval ratings down from where I believe they should be.

In the final analysis, though, this non-defense defense of an ex-POTUS will not return him to the White House. I take considerable comfort in believing that Donald John Trump is toast.

GOP awash in contradiction

An astonishing array of competing opinions has gripped the Republican Party by the throat as its presidential stable of candidates prepares to debate on an Iowa stage.

The “star of the show” is a twice-impeached, four-times-indicted candidate for POTUS, Donald Trump … who isn’t even going to be there for the opening round of Q&A.

He’s the talk of the event in absentia. Imagine had he decided to take part. He’d be the talk of the event in that context as well.

I am going to presume this is what Trump has wanted. He is a media hog, even as he proclaims the media to be “the enemy of the people.” The truth is he loves the media and the media love him despite rumors to the contrary about media bias against Trump.

His presence on the political stage has thrown the entire process into chaos, which was one of the hallmarks of the time he held the office of president. His alleged “style” of governing hardly ever contained a moment of research of actual scholarship. He thrived on his “hunch” and his “belief” in what someone had told him.

What continues to astound me, truth be told, is that all of this is OK with the gullible MAGA morons who continue to back this clown’s latest presidential candidacy.

We are left, then, with circumstances in which Trump becomes the story. He’s not at the debate? He’s the story. Would he show up? He is still the story.

This is the environment that makes Donald Trump most comfortable. It saddens me to say it, but it also demonstrates most graphically one more reason why he is patently unfit to hold the office he is seeking.

When to close an ‘open meeting’

I tend to view the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act through a fairly strict prism, meaning that exemptions granted should be interpreted strictly.

What do I mean? The act allows governments to close their meetings to the public when discussing pending litigation, real estate transactions or personnel matters. It’s the last of those provisions that has caught my attention.

The Princeton City Council plans to go into closed session soon to discuss who it wants to select as its Place 4 council member, replacing Keven Underwood, who resigned from the council after serving nearly three years; Underwood is battling some health issues … and I certainly wish him well as he continues that fight.

But is a city council member the same as, say, the police chief, the fire chief, the city manager or any other full-time paid staffer who draws a paycheck from City Hall? I submit that, no — he or she is not the same.

Which brings me to my point about the Open Meetings Law. Its exemptions are understandable and are more or less clearcut.

I long have interpreted the law to exempt discussions involving the disciplining of city employees, or their hiring and firing. I never have considered a member of the governing body to fall under the “personnel” provision used to talk about a pending appointment to that very governing body.

I am going to presume the Princeton City Council consulted with its legal counsel on this matter before deciding to go into executive session to talk about Underwood’s successor. And that the city attorney gave his blessing to the decision to keep it secret.

I also get that the council members are entitled to speak candidly about potential applicants and perhaps don’t want their true feelings about an individual to be known by everyone in town.

It’s just that the city council is not a “paid position” the way someone who answers to a municipal administrator is paid. The city councilman or woman is the “boss” at City Hall … and doesn’t belong in the same category of employee as the people who report to the council.

Thus, these laws designed to keep matters crystal clear at times get a bit murky.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience