Category Archives: legal news

Promise kept: kudos to POTUS for prison reform proposal

I told you I would offer praise to Donald John Trump when the president merited it.

He has delivered an opportunity for me to make good on my pledge.

Trump today announced a sweeping reform of federal prison sentencing, the first such overhaul in a generation. The president called it a bipartisan agreement, although, as The Associated Press reported, there were no congressional Democrats present today at the announcement.

The deal, which must be approved by Congress, gives judges more flexibility in sentencing individuals convicted of federal crimes. The change appears to have the most impact on those convicted of drug offenses, where critics of the federal sentencing guidelines say result often in overly harsh sentences for non-violent offenders.

As the AP reportedHouse Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., called Trump’s announcement “an encouraging sign that we can achieve substantive reforms to our criminal justice system in this Congress.”

“Redemption is at the heart of the American Idea, and that’s what this is about,” he said.

Yes, redemption is critical in this proposal.

Prison sentencing reform has been of particular interest to one of the president’s key advisers, son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Senate leaders aren’t yet ready to climb aboard the prison reform bandwagon. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to conduct a count of votes in the Senate once he sees the entire bill.

As a matter of principle, though, this loosening of federal prison sentencing is long overdue. Judges need some flexibility when issuing these sentences. They should be able to consider varying standards for sentencing the way state judges are entitled to do.

Well done, Mr. President.

Just why did POTUS fire the AG?

It’s fair to ask this question regarding former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Was he doing a bad enough job as the nation’s top lawyer to be fired for cause?

I keep coming back to this answer: No.

Donald Trump fired Sessions for one reason only. He fired him because the AG recused himself from the Russia investigation. The attorney general had no choice but to step away. He could not possibly ever in a million years take charge of an investigation in which he was a key participant in the matter being investigated.

Sessions was a key adviser to the Trump presidential campaign. He made contact with Russians who were, um, interested in the outcome of the election. The law required him to hand the probe over to someone else. That’s what Sessions did.

The AG’s recusal enraged the president. Sessions doomed his tenure at the Justice Department the moment he stepped away.

Trump wanted Sessions to plow straight ahead and seemingly wanted him to push aside the questions that arose from the Trump presidential campaign’s dealings with Russian operatives who attacked our electoral system in 2016. That the attorney general couldn’t — or wouldn’t — do the president’s bidding simply was more than the president could tolerate.

The only public criticism Trump leveled against Sessions dealt with his recusal and his failure to tell the president he could not deal specifically with the Russia matter.

It’s interesting in the extreme that the president didn’t criticize DOJ’s performance under Sessions’s command. He didn’t lament any perceived disobeying of public policy. Sessions, you’ll recall, announced to the country that the Trump administration was implementing a policy that took children from their parents as they crossed the border into our country illegally. And didn’t he cite Scripture as his basis for doing so?

There will be plenty to say about the appointment of Matthew Whitaker, Trump’s choice to become acting AG.

But for now I am left to wonder out loud what others have asked already: How in the world does the president justify his firing of Jeff Sessions other than to express anger that the ex-AG was being true to the law?

That is no basis for terminating a U.S. attorney general.

‘I do not know Matt Whitaker’

Sure thing, Mr. President. We all believe that one.

Actually, I don’t. Matthew Whitaker is the nation’s new acting attorney general. He has a widely known view of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into “the Russia thing” involving possible collusion between the Donald Trump presidential campaign and Russian operatives.

Whitaker has called the Mueller probe a “witch hunt.” He calls it a “hoax.” He has denigrated the probe as nothing more than a pretext fabricated by the “liberal left.”

Can you say, um, “prejudicial”?

And so the president of the United States appoints this guy to succeed AG Jeff Sessions, whom Trump fired on Wednesday because Sessions had the good sense — and ethical awareness — to recuse himself from an investigation involving an issue with which he was connected during the 2016 campaign.

The president now expects us to believe that he doesn’t “know Matt Whitaker”?

Yet another lie.

Thank you for your service, Justice Johnson

It is with a touch of sadness and a bit of pride as well that I have just learned that a member of the Texas Supreme Court is retiring at the end of the year.

Justice Phil Johnson is calling it a career.

I’ve known Johnson for several years. I worked as editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News and Johnson was chief justice of the 7th Court of Appeals based in Amarillo. Thus, he became a source for me. We developed a nice relationship over the years.

Why the sense of pride?

Well, it goes like this. When the vacancy occurred on the state’s highest civil appeals court 13 years ago, I authored editorials for the newspaper urging Gov. Rick Perry to look past the I-45/I-35 corridor from where all Supreme Court justices hailed. I checked out the histories all the remaining eight justices and learned they all came from communities within that swath that runs through Central Texas.

The newspaper urged Gov. Perry to look westward. Johnson expressed an interest in getting appointed.

To his credit, Perry did appoint Johnson to the court.

Now, I am not going to take credit for the appointment. It’s likely no more than a coincidence. After all, Johnson did have one powerful friend in the Texas Senate, fellow Republican Bob Duncan — a former law partner of Johnson in Lubbock — who very likely made it known to the “right people” that Gov. Perry needed to appoint Johnson to the Supreme Court.

So, I’ll take all the credit I deserve for Justice Johnson’s appointment.

I also want to wish this good man well as he rides off into retirement.

Crisis might be approaching more quickly

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe that we might be closer to a constitutional crisis than I thought originally.

Matthew Whitaker has been named acting U.S. attorney general in the wake of Donald Trump’s firing of former AG Jeff Sessions. Whittaker leap-frogged over the Justice Department’s No. 2 guy, Rod Rosenstein, who is managing the special counsel’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Donald Trump presidential campaign and Russian agents who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

Whitaker is a known critic of the Robert Mueller probe into alleged collusion and other matters relating to the 2016 campaign. He has spoken out against it. Rosenstein, meanwhile, has said that Mueller must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. Whitaker isn’t so, um, open-minded about that. He seems to want Mueller to call a halt to it.

So does the president.

Whitaker is under pressure now to recuse himself from the Russia probe, given his prejudicial statements against it. Whitaker says he has no intention of recusing himself, which of course is just fine with the president.

So, what will happen if Whitaker turns off the fiscal spigot that pays for Mueller’s investigation? He has stated already that the next AG could do such a thing, rather than fire Mueller outright. He is now the “next AG,” meaning that he is in a position to do what he speculated could happen if Sessions were given the boot.

Meanwhile, the president no doubt is bristling at the notion of Mueller getting closer to a conclusion that well might implicate him or members of his family in possible wrongdoing.

Matthew Whitaker should not be running the Justice Department. The president has put someone in that post who will do his bidding, which is precisely why he fired Jeff Sessions.

As distasteful as Sessions’s appointment was in the first place, he acted correctly in recusing himself. Has it dawned on anyone else that the absolute crux of Trump’s criticism of Sessions had everything to do with his recusal and nothing to do with the way DOJ was functioning?

So now the president installs a lap dog at the top of the DOJ chain of command.

Yep, I believe a constitutional crisis might be just around the corner.

Is there a constitutional crisis on the horizon?

Jeff Sessions is gone. The Department of Justice has a new acting boss, a guy who happens to be a Donald Trump sycophant, someone who has been openly critical of an investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s alleged “collusion” with Russian agents.

So, what’s in store? Acting AG Matthew Whittaker could fire special counsel Robert Mueller. Donald Trump could order him to do so. What would a firing engender? It would, in my view and in the view of many observers much closer to the situation, ignite a constitutional crisis of the first order.

Trump pushed Sessions out the door because the former AG thought enough of the law to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. He did so because of his own involvement in the Trump campaign and his own relationship with Russians. He could not possibly investigate himself. The law and an appreciation of ethics and conflict of interests forced him to back away, forced him to hand the matter over to his No. 2 man at DOJ, Rod Rosenstein.

It was Rosenstein who hired Mueller to examine the complex matter.

Trump once asked “what kind of man?” would recuse himself from this probe. I can answer that one for you, Mr. President. That man would be someone who understands and appreciates ethical propriety. That’s why he recused himself.

Don’t misunderstand me on this point: I am not a fan overall of Jeff Sessions. On this matter, though, he did the right thing. He did the only thing he could do. Trump castigated Sessions for accepting a job and then recusing himself from a key part of that job. He never once questioned his own decision to appoint Sessions in the first place. Had he given any substantive thought to what might play out down the road upon his being elected president, he wouldn’t have appointed Sessions to become attorney general.

So now we’re facing the real prospect of a constitutional crisis if the acting AG — and his pal the president — commit the mother of foolish acts.

Robert Mueller needs to stay on the job. He needs to finish what he started. He needs to let this probe play out completely without interference from the president of the United States.

POTUS equates partisan concerns with big FBI bust

Check out this tweet from the president of the United States. It speaks volumes about the priorities of Donald John Trump.

FBI, Postal Service and local police have arrested a man and charged with committing acts of terrorism against Democratic political figures as well as against CNN.

What concerns the president? He is just so damn worried that the “‘Bomb’ stuff” might be serving as a drag on Republican candidates for public office. He wants GOP partisans to “go out and vote!”

I don’t begrudge the president for urging voters of his party to help elect friendly politicians.

However, I do begrudge the timing of this Twitter message.

As I look back at the message, I am drawn to where Trump says, “Very unfortunate. What’s going on.” I cannot tell if the unfortunate aspect deals with (a) the possibly dwindling fate of Republican politicians or (b) the crime that has been alleged and the acts of terror committed against Democratic partisans and a major news network.

Disgusting.

Clean house at state AG’s office

Texas can do a lot better than it has done in selecting its top law enforcement officer.

State Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican (naturally!), is seeking re-election against Democratic challenger Justin Nelson. Paxton isn’t a normal incumbent. He happens to be an incumbent who’s been indicted for securities fraud.

But here’s the surreal part of it, the maddening element: Paxton is likely to win re-election when all the ballots are counted on Nov. 6.

I am going to cast my ballot for Nelson.

What’s fascinating to me is that Paxton — who used to represent Collin County, where I now reside — in the Texas Legislature. Yet a Collin County grand jury found enough credible evidence to indict him for securities fraud; Paxton allegedly didn’t register properly as an investment agent.

Here’s the fabulous part of it: While he was in the Legislature, Paxton voted against a bill that would have made it a felony to commit the very crime for which he has been accused.

The Dallas Morning News, which has endorsed Nelson, has taken note of Paxton’s penchant for partisanship while serving as AG. To be honest, I kind of expect such from most politicians in Texas. NOt that it’s acceptable, mind you. The partisanship doesn’t bother me nearly as much as having a state attorney general who is under criminal indictment.

Good grief, man! Can’t we do better than that? Of course we can! Will we do better when given a chance to select an attorney general on Election Day? Uhh, probably not, given the state’s hard-right lean.

Check out the Dallas Morning News editorial here.

The editorial board offers a solid reason to go with the challenger. Then again, I’ve been convinced for some time that Ken Paxton isn’t my guy.

Get ready for the deserved lawsuits on this tragedy

I usually am not one to call for litigation in the wake of tragedy, but the case involving a crash in New York that killed 20 people qualifies as a profound exception.

Yes, 20 people died this week when a limousine careened off a New York highway. It now turns out that the vehicle, an 18-year-old SUV, didn’t pass the state safety inspection required of motor vehicles.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the vehicle had no business being on the road.

Moreover, the driver of the vehicle reportedly wasn’t properly licensed to drive it, let alone carry so many people.

This probe continues

This tragic event has so many terrible back stories, it’s almost impossible to process the sadness one can feel, even from a distance. Newlywed couples perished; four sisters died as well. The National Transportation Safety Board says it rarely investigates incidents that carry this kind of emotional impact.

Indeed, I fully expect there to be lawsuit upon lawsuit filed to recoup some modicum of the loss that these families and other loved ones have suffered from this tragic event.

My knee-jerk reaction normally would allow for some skepticism.

Not this time.

Credible accusation … or not?

Brett Kavanaugh’s ascent to the U.S. Supreme Court is virtually assured.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has endorsed Kavanaugh’s nomination; then came immediately after her 50-minute Senate floor speech came the endorsement of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

It’s done!

But here’s an interesting — and borderline maddening — caveat to the senators’ “yes” votes. They both had plenty of praise for the testimony delivered by the woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in that gripping hearing a week ago.

They both said they believe Ford is a victim of sexual assault. They both called Ford’s testimony “credible.” OK, if it’s credible, why do they both assert that although they believe she was assaulted, they do not believe her “100 percent certain” allegation that Kavanaugh was the assailant in 1983? Ford told senators she is absolutely, unequivocally certain that Kavanaugh attacked her.

Is the accuser’s allegation credible? Or not?

How are these folks defining the term “credible”?