Category Archives: political news

AG’s case takes interesting turn

051216KenPaxtonInCourt2_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s journey through the state’s judicial system has taken another interesting turn.

The 5th Court of Appeals, based in Dallas, has rejected Paxton’s request that the securities fraud case against him be tossed out. According to the appellate court, the case should go to trial and Paxton should have to make the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke securities law by failing to properly report income he received while providing financial advice to clients.

Paxton has pleaded not guilty to the charges brought by — get this — a Collin County grand jury, which happens to be in Paxton’s home county.

This case ought to be settled by a trial court.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/01/appeals-court-upholds-fraud-charges-against-paxton/

What’s next? Paxton’s legal team is considering whether to take it to the state’s highest criminal appellate court, the Court of Criminal Appeals. The special prosecutor’s office assigned to this case said it is confident the CCA will uphold the lower court ruling against the AG.

I understand fully that Paxton is “innocent until proven guilty.” He has tried all along the way to get the case thrown out. The courts have ruled repeatedly against him, saying the charges against him have merit.

Will the Republican AG prevail if he takes it to the all-GOP Court of Criminal Appeals? That might be his best shot at getting it thrown out.

The Texas Tribune reported: “During a hearing before the court last month, Paxton’s lawyers most prominently argued that the grand jury that indicted him was improperly selected. The court rejected that argument in its ruling Wednesday.

“‘After reviewing the record and, in particular, the process used by the district judge, we conclude the complained-of method of selecting the grand jury is not a complaint that would render the grand jury illegally formed,’ Chief Justice Carolyn Wright wrote.”

The way I look at it, if he’s innocent of the charges brought against him by the grand jury — and by the complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission — then he ought to make the case in court.

Make the state prove its case and let a jury of his peers decide.

 

Speaker Ryan’s endorsement seems a bit tenuous

ryan

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan has “endorsed” Donald J. Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States.

Will it put the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s bid over the top? Will it ensure victory in November?

Consider just how Ryan framed his endorsement.

Ryan acknowledged many differences with Trump on policy; he said he wants Trump to change his campaign tone; he didn’t vow to campaign with Trump; he acknowledged that friends encouraged him to withhold his support.

The speaker is going to vote for Trump. So, the combative GOP nominee-to-be will have Ryan’s ballot box endorsement.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/speaker-paul-ryans-trump-endorsement-comes-with-caveats/ar-BBtOuVh?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump and Ryan have said they barely know each other. They’ve met and had what was called a “cordial” discussion about policy and other political matters.

It’s interesting, though, that Trump’s bluster and bravado seems to at odds with the kind of policy discussion that Ryan seems to want from his party’s presumed presidential nominee.

Do you remember how Trump all but threatened the speaker if Ryan doesn’t treat Trump the right way? I guess no one had yet told Trump that the speaker of the House packs way more political punch than a presidential nominee.

But, hey, shouldn’t the Republicans’ leading candidate for president have known that already?

The Ryan endorsement wasn’t a surprise.

The biggest calculation, though, might be in whether the speaker now will be able to deliver his home state of Wisconsin to the Republican nominee this fall.

Hmmm. Well, Ryan himself — as the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012 — couldn’t deliver Wisconsin to the GOP ticket led by Mitt Romney.

This much now appears certain: Ryan endorsement of the GOP nominee likely has sounded the death knell for the “never Trump” movement.

Oh, and what about Mitt Romney? He’s not supporting Trump.

Let’s get on with this campaign.

Texas could be in play — for once

Texas-calendar

Is this the strangest election year you’ve seen since, oh, The Flood?

Consider, then, what just might be coming down the road in Texas, this place where Republicans rule from horizon to horizon and where Democrats seem to have been placed on a witness protection list.

Hillary Rodham Clinton just might — with the help of her probable Republican Party presidential campaign opponent — be able to make this state competitive in the upcoming election.

You can stop laughing now.

Hear me out.

GOP nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump appears to be doing everything he can to anger Latino voters. It all started with that hideous campaign launch in which he declared his intention to build a “beautiful wall” along our border with Mexico to keep out the rapists, murderers and drug dealers who, he said, were being sent here by the Mexican government.

Then just the other day he singled out an Indiana-born federal judge who Trump said “hates” him. The judge has a Latino name. Trump called him “a Mexican.” Uhh, no. He’s not. The judge is as American as Trump.

How does this play in Texas? The state’s largest minority group is Latino, who also are the fastest-growing demographic group in the state.

Just suppose the Latino population turns out in massive numbers after hearing the constant barrage of statements that the Republican nominee has made about them. Suppose that Clinton’s campaign team taps into that anger with a concerted effort targeted at reminding that voter bloc of what lies ahead for the country if Trump gets elected president.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/clinton-plans-play/

Granted, history hasn’t been good for Democrats in Texas. The state’s Latino population so far hasn’t turned out to vote in numbers commensurate with its enormous potential impact.

Erica Grieder, writing for Texas Monthly’s Burka Blog, notes: It seems that empirical evidence on campaigning in Texas deserves an asterisk too, because Clinton has now declared her intention to do something no Democrat has attempted recently: compete in a general election in Texas with the goal of winning. Barack Obama didn’t allocate serious time or resources to try to win the state’s electoral votes in 2008 or 2012.

My earlier prediction — such as it was — that Clinton might score an Electoral College sweep this fall is looking less and less possible, given recent polling data showing a tightening race across the nation.

However, consider this: If Clinton does make Texas a competitive state and closes to within spitting distance of Trump, then she’s likely to win those states that now are deemed too close to call.

Therefore, if Texas does flip from R to D, then I suggest we just might see a blowout in the making on Election Day.

And yes, I can hear you laughing now.

Hillary might not win the nomination … really?

hillary

Is it entirely possible that Hillary Rodham Clinton — the one-time candidate of destiny for the Democratic Party — could lose here party’s presidential nomination after all?

Douglas Schoen — a former pollster for President Bill Clinton — thinks it’s possible.

His thesis is simple.

If U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wins the California primary next Tuesday, the Democratic brass is going to come down with a case of terminal heebie-jeebies at the prospect of nominating a badly damaged candidate for the presidency.

Where would they turn? Who would redeem the party’s political fortunes?

That would be the vice president of the United States of America, Joseph Biden.

The vice president has said repeatedly two seemingly contradictory things about his decision to opt out of running for the presidency.

One is that he believes he made the right call. Two is that he regrets making that decision.

You might ask: Huh?

If you are, I get it. I’ve asked the same thing.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Doug-Schoen-Pollster-Democrat-Hillary/2016/06/01/id/731649/

Honestly, I don’t know what will happen after Tuesday. Everyone’s expectation is that Clinton will secure enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot when Democrats gather this summer in Philadelphia. In addition to California, voters in the Dakotas and New Jersey are going to the polls.

Clinton cancelled campaign events in Jersey to concentrate on California.

What does all this mean for Biden?

“Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible (Donald J.) Trump presidency,” the Democratic pollster said in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal.

I’ve stated already my admiration for the vice president. I wish he would have run. I understand why he stayed out. His son, Beau, had just died. The man is still mourning his son’s death.

In every other political year, though, it would appear that Biden’s decision to stay out of the race would be cast in stone.

As we’ve seen at almost every step along the way in this election season, this ain’t like anything we’ve ever seen.

 

Polling put to a new kind of test this election cycle

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

The media obsession with polls, “horse races” and determining who’s up and/or down continues.

The Hill has given us the latest read on how this presidential campaign will turn out.

The conclusion? Polling data may be skewed beyond all recognition because of the high unfavorable ratings of both major-party nominees-to-be.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281910-doubts-creep-into-trump-clinton-polls

The pollsters are having difficulty taking their findings to the bank. Republican presumptive nominee Donald J. Trump’s favorable ratings are in the tank; Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plus-side scores are right behind Trump’s.

Voters’ fickleness puts more guesswork into the polling, according to The Hill.

Will it be a high-turnout or low-turnout election? My own guess is that it’ll be the latter. Voters might decide the choices between the major-party picks are so dismal that they’ll just sit it out. They might not want to consider a third option because that ticket has no chance of winning.

Then again …

Some pollsters think the turnout will be high as voters are motivated to vote against the other candidate.

The anti-Clinton voter bloc will be set to vote for Trump. And vice versa.

All of this seems to be the ingredients tailor-made for a patently miserable campaign.

Hey, hasn’t Trump himself declared he has no intention to “change”?

My fellow Americans … we are in for a rough ride to the finish line.

 

Trump voter offers a reason

donald-trump-speech-promo-getty-491877616

I had a conversation this morning with a friend, who announced to me she’s going to vote for Donald J. Trump this fall for president of the United States.

She is likely among a majority of Texas Panhandle voters who’ll do so. That’s no surprise, given this region’s strong Republican ties and its apparent intense loathing of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

OK, so the conversation progressed.

I took a deep breath, looked over my friend’s shoulder at the TV screen in the lobby — which always is turned to the Fox News Channel — and said without offering specifics, “But Trump is not fit for the office.”

“Neither is Hillary,” my friend said.

I could feel my eyebrows lift.

“What has she done” to make her unfit for the presidency? I asked.

“I don’t know,” my friend said. “All I know is that I cannot vote for her.” She said she intends to vote for someone for president, it just won’t be Hillary Clinton.

I mentioned Gary Johnson, the recently nominated former New Mexico governor who’s going to run for the second election in a row as a Libertarian candidate for president.

She was unaware of Johnson’s candidacy. I encouraged her to take a look. She said she would.

We then agreed that we won’t talk politics from this day on … until after the election in November.

We’re still friends. I hope she still considers me a friend.

I took a profound feeling of non-acceptance away from that brief conversation this morning. I don’t get the sense that there’s anything in Trump’s alleged “platform” that appeals to my friend. She’s just not going to vote for Clinton because, I presume, she doesn’t trust her.

As for Trump, he’s tapped into some unknown reservoir of something among voters.

I know that he’s reeled in at least one Texas voter who’ll cast her vote for him.

My sense, though, is that the my friend has revealed more about the general electorate’s mood going into this presidential campaign than perhaps she realized.

There’s a lot negative karma in the air.

City enters new era of council selection

eades

I’m going to get something off my chest right off the top.

The person I wanted the Amarillo City Council to select to join its ranks didn’t make the cut; he’s not one of the five finalists chosen from a pool of 14 applicants.

Given that his name already is out there, I will just tell you it was Cole Camp. He’s the one I was hoping would get the job. He’s a friend of mine who, in my view, would have served with great distinction.

OK. That’s out of the way.

Now, about the selection process, which is a most fascinating departure from what has been the norm at City Hall. In the past, council members would solicit replacements privately, consider the individuals who’d expressed interest, meet and then announce the selection to the public. That’s what happened a couple of years ago when Councilman Jim Simms died and the council appointed Ron Boyd to serve until the next municipal election.

Council members are going to interview the five finalists — all fine folks, I’m sure — in public. They’re going to ask them questions prepared in advance. Each candidate is going to have 30 minutes to answer them.

Then the council members will consider their selection. The person they pick will succeed Dr. Brian Eades, who’s leaving the council this summer when he moves to Colorado. I presume they’ll declare it to be a “personnel discussion,” so they’ll have that deliberation in private, in executive — or closed — session.

You know what? With all this talk about “transparency,” I wonder why council members need to have that discussion in secret. It they were discussing, say, the job performance of a senior administrator and were considering terminating that individual, I get how that would qualify as an exemption under the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Selecting a City Council member, though, doesn’t qualify as a “personnel” matter in that context. They’re selecting someone who would answer to the council’s constituents. That would be about, oh, 200,000 of us who live here. Many of us pay property taxes that fund city government.

Why not open the process the rest of the way, to allow us to hear from the elected governing council how they’re deliberating? What factors are they considering as they ponder this important decision?

One of the aspects of the Texas Open Meetings Act that few of us ever seem to grasp is that the act doesn’t require governing bodies to convene these executive sessions. It only empowers them to do so. Some governing boards are more apt to convene executive sessions than others.

If the Amarillo City Council now comprises a majority of its members who got elected a year ago as agents of change, well, here’s a chance for them to demonstrate some serious change in the manner in which they decide to appoint one of its members.

Media simply ‘afflicting the comfortable’

donald-trump

Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.

One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.

Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.

Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html

The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.

Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.

Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

He didn’t witness anything of the sort.

Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.

That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.

Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.

 

This man must think the media will go soft on him

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reads from a list of donations to veteran's groups, during a news conference in New York, Tuesday, May 31, 2016. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) ORG XMIT: NYRD102

Donald J. Trump’s exhibition of petulance was a sight to behold.

Standing before reporters who had gathered to question him about whether he’d actually raised the money he said he had raised for veterans, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee sought to turn the tables on the questioners.

He called one of them a “sleaze.” He called another one a “loser.” He called the media “dishonest,” and the political media even more dishonest than that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-veterans-donations-223730

He proclaimed that he didn’t want to make the veterans contributions a big public deal. Oh, but when he backed out of a Fox News debate, he said out loud and in public that he’d raised $6 million and given a million bucks himself.

Media representatives have questioned whether Trump actually raised the money for the veterans. They want Trump to account for the money.

And for that they get called “sleazy”?

Does this individual — the GOP nominee in waiting — expect the media to back off in the highly unlikely event he’s ever elected president?

Listen to the press conference in its entirety. It’s gone viral out there in Social Media Land.

Then get back to me and tell me this guy really is suited for the job he is seeking.

 

Let’s make it a three-way race for POTUS

johnson

It’s official.

Americans are going to have three — count ’em, three — legitimate candidates for president and vice president of the United States to consider.

You may now count me as among the millions of Americans who are going to ponder the third path to the White House.

The Libertarian Party has nominated two accomplished former governors as its ticket to ride: Republicans Gary Johnson of New Mexico for president and William Weld of Massachusetts for vice president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/libertarians-johnson-weld-trump-gary-william-223703

Here’s my dilemma.

I’ve told you already that I’ve voted exclusively for Democrats for president/VP since I started voting back in 1972. I’ve split my down-ballot ticket, though, over the years; I’ve voted for many Republicans for U.S. Senate and House, and for state and local offices in the two states where I’ve lived.

I do not yet know how I’m going to vote this year for president and vice president.

Under no circumstances would I vote for the likely GOP nominee Donald J. Trump and whoever he picks as his running mate. That’s a given.

The likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is presenting some potentially serious concerns for me. They center on that “trust” thing that’s dogging her. Am I ready to forsake her? No, but I am ready now to look carefully at what the third-party ticket of Johnson-Weld has to offer.

Both of these gentlemen were moderate Republicans when they governed their respective states. Today’s version of hard-core Republicanism would call them RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. Johnson is most well-known for advocating the legalization of marijuana. He also did a creditable job running New Mexico. I know a whole lot less about Weld.

Both are men of substantial financial means … although I don’t hear either of them brag about it the way Trump boasts of his y-u-u-u-g-e fortune.

Given that I understand that voting preference is a private matter, I’m not likely to reveal who will get my vote. That might become evident as I continue to comment on matters as the campaign progresses.

OK, you already know who won’t get it.

I suppose, then, that my choices now are just two — which is what they’ve always been in the past.

Whatever.

I now declare myself ready and willing to examine a ticket other than one from either of the two major political parties.

That’s a big step. At least it is for me.