Monthly Archives: March 2019

local news

Yes, the city surely has ‘changed’

My wife and I are continuing to make new acquaintances in our new home in Collin County and as we do, we routinely tell folks from where we moved.

We came here from Amarillo, we tell folks. The response is varied. “Oh yeah. I’ve been through there. Have you eaten the big steak?” is one. “Hey, that Palo Duro Canyon is really something,” is another.

We met a fellow the other day who said this, “I go to Amarillo frequently. Man, that city has changed!”

Yeah. It has. I didn’t take the time to ask what precisely he has noticed about the changes he has observed, although I did offer my own brief observation.

“The downtown district is nothing like it used to be,” I told him, “and it’s still undergoing an amazing transformation.”

Indeed, the city’s change has been dramatic.

We moved to Amarillo in early 1995. I went to work at the Globe-News’ office downtown. I was struck by how quiet it was. I learned of the “main drag” that used to run along Polk Street. The blocks between Seventh and Ninth Avenues were virtually desolate.

They are no longer desolate. There has been a tremendous infusion of business activity along Polk. And along Buchanan Street. So, too, along 10th Avenue.

There’s tremendous construction clamor occurring as crews work to finish ongoing projects. The Potter County Courthouse complex restoration has transformed the courthouse square. County commissioners have just voted to proceed with a $54 million construction of a new courts building.

And, let’s not ignore Hodgetown, the new ballpark that is getting the finishing touches in time for the Amarillo Sod Poodles’ home baseball opener in a couple of weeks.

The medical complex on the far west end of the city is growing. Texas Tech University is pushing ahead with construction of a college of veterinary medicine in Amarillo. Medical clinics are popping up throughout the area.

Texas highway planners are tearing the daylights out of Interstates 40 and 27. City street repair is diverting traffic throughout the community.

Has the city undergone change? Uhh, yeah! It has!

Part of me wishes we could watch it unfold in real time. A bigger part of me enjoys seeing the result of all that effort upon our occasional return trips to the place we called home.

national news

Mueller’s finding contains good news

I try to be a fair-minded fellow. I have been highly critical of the president of the United States, but I also am willing to acknowledge good news about him when it presents itself.

Robert Mueller III has determined that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign did not “collude” with Russians who sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

That is good news for the United States of America.

It means that Mueller’s exhaustive 22-month probe into alleged collusion came up empty. He found insufficient evidence to bring charges related to collusion, which is not by itself a criminal act.

Does this mean I think better of the president? Or does it mean that our electoral system isn’t in jeopardy from foreign hostile powers sowing discord and causing havoc? No. None of that is true.

Donald Trump is as unfit to be president today as he was prior to the conclusion of Mueller’s investigation and I will use this blog as a forum to make that point for as long as he sits in the Oval Office. What’s more, Mueller has determined — along with our nation’s intelligence professionals — that Russia indeed interfered in our election. That is a serious national security concern that needs our nation’s fullest attention.

Mueller’s findings have provided significant confirmation that Donald Trump was not a Russian “asset” who knowingly coordinated with Russia to disrupt our election.

Let’s also understand that the obstruction of justice matter — the other 800-pound gorilla — remains an open question. Mueller did not “exonerate” Trump on that score. He took a non-committal stance on whether the president obstructed justice in the search for the truth regarding “The Russia Thing.” Congress will have more to say on that matter, as will federal prosecutors working out of the Southern District of New York.

On the matter of collusion with Russia and whether the president and his campaign team conspired with the bad guys, well . . . that chapter appears to be closed.

Thus, irrespective of what it might mean for the president and his political future, Robert Mueller has delivered a healthy helping of good news for the country.

national news, political news

Impeachment, no; election defeat, yes

Nancy Pelosi must have seen this coming.

The speaker of the House of Representatives said some time ago that she doesn’t favor impeaching Donald J. Trump. Then the special counsel, Robert Mueller, seemed to uphold Pelosi’s view that impeachment is a non-starter. He essentially cleared the president of colluding with the Russians who attacked our electoral system.

So now the task for Democrats has changed. They need to defeat Trump in November 2020’s presidential election. They might uncover more campaign grist from the congressional hearings they are planning in the weeks and months ahead. There seems to be plenty of campaign ammo to be loaded into their weapons.

For his part, Trump is preparing to batter the Democrats with Mueller’s findings. The “no collusion” mantra might as well become Trump’s 2020 re-election slogan. His dedicated base will glom on to it, citing what they insist was a “witch hunt” and an “illegal” investigation by the former director of the FBI; of course, it was neither a witch hunt or illegal.

Democrats must avoid overplaying their anger at Mueller’s findings. They spent a lot of time and emotional effort defending his integrity against the Trump attacks, which he mounted incessantly during the course of the past 22 months. They said Mueller’s integrity is impeccable; they praised his dedication and his thoroughness. So, he’s delivered them news they didn’t want to hear.

Democrats’ challenge now is finding a candidate who can stand up to Trump’s insults, his innuendo, his hideous rhetoric. They know what to expect, which I am quite certain will mirror what they heard from him on his way to election in 2016.

Impeachment now seems like a bridge too far.

As the speaker said, “He’s not just worth it.”

political news

Voting ‘no’ on reducing voting age

I am going to be called a stick-in-the-mud, a fuddy-duddy, a grouchy old man.

Too bad. I do not think we need to reduce the voting age in this country from 18 to 16. The idea is drawing support from political progressives. Even the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi — who’s older than I am — has climbed aboard the Let ‘Em Vote at 16 bandwagon.

I won’t argue the point about whether those in their mid-teens have brains that are developed fully enough for them to make rational, reasonable and well-considered decisions on who to elect to public office.

I do know, though, that young voters today — those in the 18- to 21-year-old range — vote in far fewer numbers than those of us who are a good bit older. Is there an argument to be made that giving those who are 16 years of age is going to boost that voter turnout rate? If so, it doesn’t make sense.

I get the argument that those who are affected by gun violence ought to have their voices heard at the ballot box. The argument goes that those younger students are the victims. Therefore, they have earned the right to cast votes for those who are responsible for making policies relating to gun ownership.

Look, I heard the argument back when I was coming of age that if we were old enough to go to war we were old enough to vote on the politicians who would send us to war. I went to war in 1969 before I was old enough to vote. I served some time in Vietnam, came home and then became politically active upon my separation from the U.S. Army.

Then we ratified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution to reduce the voting age to 18. The 1972 election saw the voter turnout plummet from what it was in the 1968 election.

It’s enough that we have granted 18-year-old the right to vote. There’s no need to go lower.

Because I’m a fair-minded guy, I want to share with you an essay published in the New York Times that makes the case in favor of reducing the voting age. You can read it here.

My mind is made up.

national news

Oops! Or so it should go for Rep. Schiff

2 Comments

U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff needs to invoke a four-letter utterance made famous by a Trump Cabinet official who once ran for president of the United States.

Oops! That’s what Energy Secretary Rick Perry said when he couldn’t think of the third agency he would shut down were he elected president in 2012.

Well, Chairman Schiff is now eating his words in an “oops” moment.

Stand down, Mr. Chairman

He said that he knew of “more than circumstantial evidence” that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

Except that special counsel Robert Mueller disagreed with Schiff. He filed his report over the weekend and concluded that he didn’t have enough to charge the Trump team with collusion.

House and Senate Republicans are steamed at Schiff. They say he owes Trump and apology. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has demanded that his fellow Californian resign from his Intel Committee chairmanship, if not from the House altogether.

That is an overreach. Perhaps he could apologize whenever the president says he’s sorry for fomenting lies about Barack Obama’s birth, or for mocking the New York Times reporter’s disability, or for saying the late John McCain was a “war hero only because he was captured” during the Vietnam War.

Schiff is standing behind his belief that there’s more to learn about collusion, although he said he accepts Mueller’s judgment.

The Intelligence Committee chairman needs to stand down on this collusion matter. Robert Mueller looked high and low for criminal behavior. He didn’t find it. I get that Schiff is unhappy with the result; so are many millions of other Americans . . . me included.

But that’s what we got.

As for the obstruction of justice matter, Mueller was decidedly non-committal.

Perhaps, though, Chairman Schiff ought to just say “oops!” and go on to the next thing, whatever it is.

national news

Legal loudmouth gets more bad publicity

What do you know about this?

Michael Avenatti, the loudmouth lawyer who once represented Stephanie Clifford — aka Stormy Daniels — has been arrested and charged with trying to extort $20 million from Nike Corp.

I don’t whether to laugh or . . . laugh some more.

Avenatti became a talk-show staple while he was representing Clifford/Daniels, the adult film actress who allegedly had a sexual relationship with the future president of the United States, Donald Trump. She received a $130,000 payment to keep quiet about the alleged encounter, even though Trump said it didn’t happen. Well, go figure.

Avenatti got so much mileage from his representing the future president’s one-night squeeze he considered running for president of the United States in 2020. He has scrapped those POTUS plans.

He has been accused of threatening Nike with negative publicity if it didn’t pay him the dough.

This clown is entitled to his presumption of innocence. I’ll grant him that presumption.

Still, there’s another part of me that secretly is cheering federal prosecutors on in their quest for a conviction. Why? Let’s just say Avenatti pi**** me off with his constant talk-show blathering about Trump, his client and how he intended to savage the president were he to run as a candidate for the White House.

His moment in the limelight looked for all the world like someone seeking to capitalize on the proverbial “15 minutes of fame.”

Check out the complaint, which is contained in this link.

It’s a doozy.

national news

Oh, yeah! The Russians attacked our electoral system!

What has seemingly been lost in all the hubbub over special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings that Donald Trump did not “collude” with Russians is this important morsel . . .

Mueller has joined other U.S. intelligence officials in affirming that the Russian government did attack our electoral system in 2016. Yep, they did it.

Mueller, a former FBI director and a prosecutor with decades of experience looking at national security matters, determined that the Russians orchestrated a campaign to disrupt our electoral process. They used social media hacking and disinformation to roil the U.S. political tides in Trump’s favor. They didn’t want Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election and they did what they could to prevent it from happening.

I won’t yet suggest that their efforts were determinative, but they damn sure intended for them to sway the result.

Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report devotes a significant section to “Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Barr outlines the two major efforts that sought to sow discord in the United States. Mueller, though, “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” according to the attorney general.

So, with that comes another question: Will the president of the United States now offer a full-throated condemnation of Russian leadership, including his pal Vladimir Putin, and warn them about future serious sanctions this nation will take if they continue to embark on these missions of mischief?

If you want an example of threats to our national security, Robert Mueller has peeled more layers off an effort that occurred right under our noses.

If only the major beneficiary of that scandalous behavior, Donald Trump, would admit what the rest of the world knows.

legal news

No collusion? OK, but let’s look a bit closer at obstruction

I get that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign did not collude — in the eyes of the special counsel — with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

The president is right to proclaim “complete exoneration” — on that point! I accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings.

Is it too much to ask, nonetheless, for a more thorough look at the issue of whether Trump or his team obstructed justice? I think it’s a fair request.

Congressional Democrats are clamoring for more information on the obstruction matter. Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s findings takes note that Mueller did not “exonerate” the president on the obstruction of justice issue, even though Trump said he did. Well, Trump is known to, um, bend the truth a bit . . . you know?

Mueller reportedly found evidence on both sides of the fence. He learned there was evidence that the president did obstruct justice, but that it didn’t rise to the level of criminality. OK, let’s see what he found.

The attorney general hasn’t yet made that call. It is believed he’ll take his time deciding whether to release that portion of Mueller’s findings to Congress and to the public.

I am one of millions of Americans who wants to know what Mueller learned and on what basis he determined that he could not prosecute Donald Trump for obstructing the search for the truth regarding the Russian attack on our electoral system.

national news

Support Mueller’s work, however . . . let’s see more of it

I feel the need to reiterate with emphasis: I accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings regarding the president of the United States, that he didn’t “collude” with Russians who hacked our electoral system in 2016.

I trust Mueller as a man of high integrity.

However, all the work and the public expense that went into Mueller’s findings compel the attorney general to release the bulk of that effort to the public.

AG William Barr’s four-page summary of what Mueller has concluded reportedly has created an ebullient mood in the White House. At one level, I, too, am glad to know that Donald Trump didn’t commit any crimes related to collusion with Russian government goons.

Mueller, though, has concluded that the president is not “exonerated” from questions about obstruction of justice. So, let’s see the whole thing, shall we?

I have no intention of impugning Mueller’s integrity. I have sought to defend this good man, former FBI director, a combat veteran of the Vietnam War against attacks by those on the right — starting with the president of the United States. I do not believe there is anything in the details of what he uncovered that will change my view of Mueller and the effort he put forth in making his determination.

Americans just have the right to see his findings in as much detail as possible for themselves.

national news

We need to see more of what Mueller found

A four-page summary authored by the U.S. attorney general isn’t enough.

Americans need to see — to the furthest extent possible — more of what special counsel Robert Mueller III found that led him to clear Donald Trump of colluding with Russians or of obstructing justice.

Don’t misconstrue my point. I accept Mueller’s findings. He worked tirelessly along with his team of prosecutors to get to the truth behind the allegations that Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian government operatives. He has determined that there is insufficient evidence to accuse the president or his campaign of collusion. Nor does he have enough evidence to accuse him of obstructing justice.

AG William Barr, though, did say that the lack of a formal criminal complaint on obstruction of justice does not “exonerate” the president.

So, let’s look at the supporting documents that Mueller used to make his determination. Congressional Democrats want the public to see them. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it an “urgent” matter.

There appears to be some “evidence” of obstruction, just not enough to file formal charges, Mueller concluded. I get that.

I also want to see the rest of it. Or at least as much of the rest of it that won’t tar individuals who aren’t charged with wrongdoing. We don’t need to see national security-sensitive information, either.

Many Americans have been waiting for a couple of years to know what the special counsel has concluded. We have heard the executive summary as delivered by the attorney general.

There’s more to learn.