Category Archives: political news

Make way for the ladies at Amarillo City Hall

Amarillo’s history is layered with tales of the exploits of men.

They were involved with cattle, the railroad, oil and natural gas. They formed civic clubs, became active in politics and in government. They built banks and other businesses throughout the city.

It was a man’s world around Amarillo. A good ol’ boys club. Men ran the show.

Well, an election just occurred in Amarillo and — presto! — just like that the City Council has an entirely new look. We have three women comprising a majority on the five-member governing board.

I once lamented the loss in 2015 of two women who had served on the council. They got beat by two men whose election created an all-male City Council. I wanted Ellen Robertson Green and Lilia Escajeda to be been re-elected two years ago, but then they got beat by Elisha Demerson and Randy Burkett, respectively, in the contests for Places 1 and 3.

Burkett didn’t seek a second term, and his seat will be taken by Eddy Sauer. However, Demerson lost to Elaine Hays; meanwhile, Freda Powell defeated a male candidate in the race for Place 2, which had been occupied by Lisa Blake, who decided against seeking election to the seat to which she was appointed after Brian Eades resigned from the council.

The third woman on the council is none other than the new mayor, Ginger Pearson Nelson, who defeated two opponents handily to win the right to succeed Paul Harpole, who decided to bow out after three terms as mayor.

What, precisely, does a female-majority City Council mean for Amarillo? I haven’t a clue. Indeed, the entire council has been turned over, with Howard Smith becoming the fifth member of the body after defeating incumbent Mark Nair in the race for Place 4.

It really shouldn’t matter a great deal that we have a majority City Council comprising women. Except you might recall the big deal that was made in 2007 when Debra McCartt was elected the city’s first female mayor.

She became a marvelous spokeswoman for the city and it was on her watch that the city took the bold step of installing automated surveillance equipment at troublesome intersections to catch motorists running through red lights. McCartt stood firm in her support of the red-light cameras in spite of sometimes blistering criticism that some had directed at the City Council.

There well might be some more bold initiatives undertaken by this new council. Is it an inherent fearlessness that enables female politicians to do things their male counterparts cannot do? Beats me.

I also must note as well that Potter County’s Commissioners Court is being led by the county’s first female judge, Nancy Tanner, who was elected to the post in 2014.

There simply is something appealing to me now as the city awaits the transition to this new governing council about the prospect of a female-majority body making critical policy decisions.

Take it away, ladies. I’m pulling for you.

No, Rep. Thornberry, it won’t go away easily

This is what U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry told a TV station about the upcoming selection of a new FBI director: “It needs to be somebody with impeccable credentials,” Thornberry told local affiliate KCIT about his ideal FBI replacement. “It needs to be somebody who has trust across the aisle, widespread trust who is a professional and with that I think largely this controversy will die down.”

Hmm. Well, I believe I’ll disagree with the Republican lawmaker, who happens also to represent yours truly in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The selection of an FBI director to succeed James Comey won’t by itself allow “this controversy” to wither away and die.

There needs to be a lot of investigating completed before we start to put this matter in our rearview mirror. The president cannot appoint a yes man, a lackey, a hack. He needs a tough prosecutor, someone who is independent and fearless.

Thornberry is right about the need for someone with “trust across the aisle.” How does an FBI director gain that trust? By demonstrating resistance against the White House and from the president.

Texans in Congress mostly silent

The FBI boss needs to continue the search for the whole truth into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian hackers who every intelligence expert in American has concluded tried to influence the 2016 election.

If a vigorous and thorough search clears the president, only then will it “die down.”

Congressional clown act isn’t so funny

The clowns who comprise a substantial portion of the U.S. Congress seem intent on deflecting criticism of the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey.

They are staking out an openly transparent — and dubious — strategy in that attempt.

Donald J. Trump canned Comey while the FBI director was in the midst of an investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government’s effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It’s the timing of the dismissal that has drawn the incoming fire.

Congressional Republicans are defending the president’s action by saying something like this: Leftists are angry because Trump did something they wanted done this past autumn when Comey sent Congress that letter regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mails; so now that they’re getting what they wanted in the first place, they should be happy, not angry.

I heard Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., make that argument this morning. I damn near pitched something heavy at my TV set.

That is not the issue, Sen. Paul!

It’s the timing, dude. The timing!

I’m one of those Americans who was angry at Comey for releasing that letter to Congress just 11 days before the presidential election. He sought to inform lawmakers that his office had found some more e-mails that needed some examination. It likely helped stall Clinton’s march to victory, although I am not going to heap all the cause for Hillary’s defeat on the FBI director; she and her campaign made plenty of mistakes all by themselves while Trump and his team were doing things right.

Did I ever think Comey should resign, or should be fired?

In addition to the timing of Trump’s dismissing of Comey we have this White House’s stumble-bum explanation, which simply doesn’t hold up. The president said he was upset at the way Comey handled the Hillary e-mail matter. What the …?! Donald Trump the candidate thought Comey had done exactly the correct thing at the time — and he said so repeatedly as news was breaking in October.

Then we hear that Trump became angry because Comey was exerting too much energy on the Russia hacking matter, but then comes word from some in the White House that the firing had nothing to do with the Russia investigation. Holy mackerel!

Deputy White House press flack Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it’s time to “move on,” away from the Russia matter. Oh, no it isn’t, young lady! Far from it.

But this crap from congressional Republicans and Trumpkins all across the land that those who are critical of the firing are the same folks who wanted Comey canned in the first place are missing the point by a country mile.

Timing, as they say, is everything.

Russia probe caused Comey to lose his job … period!

Donald J. Trump can insist all he wants that his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey had nothing to do with Russia.

Mike Pence can echo the president as well, that the Russia probe played no role in Comey’s sudden and shocking dismissal.

I do not believe either man. Not for a nanosecond.

Call it purely circumstantial, but the evidence seems to be mounting that Comey’s departure as FBI boss had everything to do with the Russia investigation he was leading and nothing to do with the FBI director’s handling of the 11th-hour dump on Hillary Clinton regarding some e-mail messages that turned up late in the 2016 presidential campaign.

As the New York Times editorialized: “The explanation for this shocking move — that Mr. Comey’s bungling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server violated longstanding Justice Department policy and profoundly damaged public trust in the agency — is impossible to take at face value.”

As the Times continued: Mr. Trump had nothing but praise for Mr. Comey when, in the final days of the presidential campaign, he informed Congress that the bureau was reopening the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails. ‘He brought back his reputation,’ Mr. Trump said at the time. ‘It took a lot of guts.’”

Here’s the complete editorial

The media are reporting that Comey asked just days earlier for more money and staff help to ratchet up his investigation into allegations that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian government operatives seeking to interfere with the 2016 election.

Then he gets canned? Just like that? Trump and Pence want us to believe the Russia probe played no part in this matter?

They are insulting the intelligence of Americans.

I am picking up the whiff of a cover-up.

Hey, didn’t the AG recuse himself from Russia probe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVpDT4PyM04

Al Franken knows a lie when he hears it. He wrote a book about “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.”

The U.S. senator from Minnesota stood on the Senate floor and offered a point-by-point rebuttal of an apparent lie that Donald J. Trump likely told about a recommendation he got to fire FBI Director James Comey.

Then again, perhaps the lie came from the mouth of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced this year he would “recuse” himself from any dealings at any level with the probe into whether Russian government officials sought to influence the 2016 presidential election in the president’s favor.

You see, the president said he got a recommendation to fire Comey from — drum roll! — AG Sessions, the fellow who said he would recuse himself from this matter.

Oh yeah! Then there’s that matter of Comey leading the FBI probe into allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian hackers to sway the election.

Sen. Franken’s statement zeroes in quite cleanly on Sessions’ recusal and he casts doubt (a) on whether the president really got a recommendation from Sessions to fire Comey or (b) on whether Sessions has actually recused himself as he pledged to do.

Man, this Comey firing matter is beginning to get stinkier by the day.

Time for an independent counsel

Here is a copy of the letter that Donald John Trump sent to former FBI Director James Comey informing him that he was being relieved of his duties immediately.

No expression of thanks for Comey’s service to nation is here. No salute for Comey’s work at the FBI or as U.S. attorney in New York state. All we get here is some expression of thanks that Comey told the president he wasn’t being investigated.

This stunning development, though, is crawling with back stories.

One of them involves why the president praised Comey so effusively on the eve of Election Day. Why did the president declare that Comey was such an excellent public servant after he sent that letter to Congress informing lawmakers of his intention to look yet again at those e-mails that Hillary Clinton sent out when she served as secretary of state. Back then Comey seemed to be a candidate for sainthood, the Nobel Prize and perhaps even a spot on Mount Rushmore.

Today, though, Comey’s name is mud. Trump reportedly is angry that Comey “wasn’t doing a good job.”

Oh, but wait. Now we hear that Comey sought more money and manpower to step up his investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian government officials who were hacking into our electoral system.

One more thing: We now hear that Trump was “thinking about” getting rid of Comey since right after the 2016 presidential election. Sure thing. Was the president also “thinking about” bungee jumping off the Washington Monument?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said today he won’t appoint a special prosecutor.

Are we now expected to believe that Donald Trump is going to appoint someone to continue an investigation into his own administration and his own campaign and whether something improper occurred between Trump and a foreign power?

I believe the concerns coming from congressional Democrats and Republicans. They are labeling this controversy as a full-blown constitutional crisis.

We need an independent counsel to grab this investigation by the throat.

Trump makes zero sense in explaining Comey firing

I am confused, confounded, baffled and outraged … all at once.

That is what Donald John Trump has done to me with the latest live grenade he has just tossed into the political pile.

He fired FBI Director James Comey because he lacked the trust of his agents. The agency needs new leadership, said the president. Then he tossed out a morsel relating to the manner in which Comey handled the 2016 Hillary Clinton e-mail mess.

But, but … wait!

As a candidate for president, Trump spoke effusively about what a wonderful job the FBI boss did in sending that letter to Congress 11 days before the election, informing lawmakers that he had found some more e-mails that needed a closer look.

So, Comey’s a hero in one breath and a zero in the next.

And now the vice president says the Comey firing had nothing at all to do with the FBI’s investigation into whether the Trump-Pence campaign colluded with Russian government officials who were seeking — allegedly — to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

Are you confused? Or are you just angry?

Truth be told, my confusion and is abating a good bit and it’s being replaced with outrage over what the president has done.

I’m smelling something very foul in the air as it regards the president.

For starters, Mr. POTUS, please explain the timing of Comey firing

This has been a big week in the presidency of Donald J. Trump, wouldn’t you agree?

The former acting attorney general of the United States, Sally Yates, testified Monday that she warned the Trump campaign about Michael Flynn’s association with Russian government officials.

Then on Tuesday, the president decided to fire FBI Director James Comey, whose agency is in the midst of investigating questions surrounding the former national security adviser.

The firing has shocked and stunned much of Washington, D.C., and — I venture to guess — much of the rest of the nation, too.

What in the world does one make of this?

Trump’s letter to Comey discusses something about his conduct regarding the Hillary Clinton e-mail matter that erupted 11 days before the presidential election. So … he waits until today — May 8 — to pull the trigger on Comey?

I don’t know about you, but something smells badly here. It stinks. It reeks.

There’s going to be some gnashing of teeth for a few days. Then what?

Here’s what I think ought to happen. I believe it is monumentally imperative that Congress — House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans — declare the need for an independent prosecutor to continue this Trump-Russia probe. There can be no hint, not a whiff, of bias in this investigation.

Comey told a congressional committee that his office was examining questions about whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian government officials who — according to intelligence agencies’ assessment — sought to interfere with the 2016 election. Has any of it been proven? No, although the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Democrat Adam Schiff, has said there appears to be something “more than circumstantial evidence” to pin the collusion charge on the Trump campaign.

Still, the investigation must continue. Can a Trump appointee as head of the FBI be trusted fully to do what he or she must do to root out the truth? Call me a skeptic — even a cynic, if you prefer — but I have grave doubts that the president is going to nominate a truly independent FBI director.

We’re hearing words like “Nixonian” to describe what Trump has just done. President Nixon fired the independent prosecutor who was zeroing in on the White House during the Watergate scandal. As we know, it didn’t work out well for the president, who quit his office just as the House of Representatives was preparing articles of impeachment against him.

This latest matter has taken a dramatic turn for sure.

It’s timing of this dismissal that has awakened a lot of Americans.

Mr. President, you need to explain yourself. Now!

Yates testimony deepens Flynn-Russia mystery

No one in Washington, D.C., likely thought Sally Yates was going to clear things up when she testified today about a former national security adviser and his relationship with the Russian government.

Oh, no. The former acting U.S. attorney general deepened the questions, heightened the intrigue and quite possibly opened some more doors of inquiry into this ongoing mess within the Trump administration.

At issue is former national security adviser Michael Flynn, the retired Army lieutenant general who last 24 whole days as Donald Trump’s right-hand man on national security issues. The president booted him after Flynn lied to Vice President Pence about conversations he had with Russian government officials.

Yates’ testimony, though, did reveal an interesting lapse of time: It took 18 days for the president to fire Flynn after learning about the general’s deception. Why did it take so long to let him go?

Flynn’s seat gets even hotter

Yates also told U.S. senators that Flynn’s conversations with the Russians — and his lying to the vice president — likely exposed him to blackmail. She said that’s a dangerous set of circumstances surrounding someone upon whom the president must rely for national security advice.

Oh, the web of intrigue continues to grow.

Yates stayed on after Donald Trump took office; she had been appointed by President Barack Obama to serve in the Justice Department, but then the new president asked her to stay on during his initial days in office. Then he fired her.

The Hill reports: “Reporting based on leaks of U.S. surveillance revealed in February that Flynn misled Vice President Pence about the contents of a December phone call to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — an account Pence was then repeating to the American people.”

There’s also this from The Hill: “‘We weren’t the only ones that knew all of this,’ Yates said Monday, referring to the revelation that Flynn misled Pence about the true content of the phone call with Kislyak. ‘The Russians also knew about what Gen. Flynn had done. The Russians also knew that Gen. Flynn had misled the vice president and others.

“’This was a problem because not only do we believe that the Russians knew this, but that they likely had proof of this information — and that created a compromise situation, where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians,’ she said.”

Do you think this Russia-Trump story is going away any time soon? Neither do I.

The FBI is examining this relationship. And of course there’s the question about collusion and whether the Trump campaign actually cooperated with Russian hackers who sought to influence the 2016 presidential election.

I believe I’m going to stay tuned to this drama as it plays out.

GOP now reaping what it has sown

John Boehner was angry, man. He was furious when he took the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Republican congressman from Ohio was furious that Democrats had pushed a bill that sought to reform health care without even reading the massive piece of legislation.

He bellowed, blustered and berated his “friends” on the Democratic side of the floor for shoving this bill down the throats of their Republican colleagues.

Boehner’s anger was righteous.

The Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. Boehner would eventually become House speaker. He would file a lawsuit to get the law repealed. Speaker Boehner, though, bailed on public service after continuing to fight with the TEA Party wing of his Republican House caucus. He’d had enough.

Then the 2016 election occurred. Donald J. Trump was elected president. He promised to “repeal and replace” the ACA. This past week, the GOP-controlled House approved a bill we’ll call “Trumpcare.” It’s an alternative to the ACA. It passed by just four votes out of 430 cast in the House.

But wait! Did the GOP leadership know what was in the bill? Did they read the legislation? Did their GOP caucus members read it? Do they know all the nuts and bolts of it?

Hah! Hardly.

They’ve repeated the sin of their colleagues. Does it make their effort to “shove it down Democrats’ throats” any more palatable? Not in the least.

Instead, GOP House members are hearing loud and clear from their constituents a ringing message: The folks back home don’t like what they’ve passed and what they have foisted onto the Senate for its consideration.

Meanwhile, the president who has crowed about keeping his campaign pledge now has to persuade the Senate to follow the House’s lead. Trump, the guy with zero government experience or knowledge of how it works on Washington, D.C., is going to recieve yet another lesson in how Congress just doesn’t do the president’s bidding whenever he barks the order.

And those Republican members of the House of Representatives who voted for Trumpcare are going to get a taste of what they sought to deliver to Democrats in 2010.

Payback truly is a bitch … you know?