Monthly Archives: October 2019

national news

What if Senate provides a majority to convict Trump?

Let’s ponder for a moment the raw politics of impeaching the president of the United States.

It appears to be a near certainty that the House of Representatives is going to impeach Donald J. Trump on grounds that he violated his oath of office by seeking foreign government assistance for personal political gain.

I stood with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s initial reluctance to impeach Trump. Then came that phone call with the Ukrainian president that revealed a clear violation of the presidential oath. It has gotten even worse for Trump since then. Pelosi changed her mind, launching an impeachment inquiry.

I now endorse the inquiry. I also believe Trump has committed impeachable offenses.

But what will happen when Trump gets impeached, where Democrats hold a significant majority in the House? It goes to trial in the Senate, where Republicans command a narrow 53-47 majority. The House needs a simple majority to impeach; the Senate needs a two-thirds super majority to convict the president.

Do I believe the Senate will kick the president out of office? No.

However, consider this: Three GOP senators are bowing out after 2020. They won’t seek re-election. They are Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Mike Enzi of Utah and Pat Roberts of Kansas. What happens to these men’s conscience when they are freed from the pressure of seeking re-election in states that voted for Trump in 2016? Is it possible they could decide that Trump has committed an impeachable offense? These men flip and we have a 50-50 split in the Senate. But wait a second!

There are other senators who are expressing grave concern about Trump’s conduct. Enzi’s junior partner in Utah, Mitt Romney, is one. How about Susan Collins of Maine, who has spoken critically of the president from time to time? Might there be one or maybe two GOP senators willing to vote to convict, knowing that their votes won’t result in Trump’s removal?

Yes, there is a chance — although it’s still small, but it could be growing — that a majority of senators vote to convict the president of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but he remains in office by virtue of the high bar the founders set when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, what about the House vote? A significant number of Republican House members have decided to step aside after 2020. They, too, might be motivated to vote their conscience rather than worry about retribution from a president who is known to retaliate against those who cross him.

The number of Republicans set to leave both congressional chambers very well might provide Democrats some measure of cover as they prepare to impeach Donald Trump.

If he is impeached, he will go down in history as an impeached president. If he clears the Senate trial, there might be a qualifier if more senators vote to convict him than acquit him. And how in the world is Donald Trump going to spin such an event?

Hey, strange things can — and do — happen atop Capitol Hill.

national news

Now it’s a newbie GOP blowhard who gets all this attention

I have spent a bit of blog time and effort criticizing Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s instant fame in the House of Representatives. I have suggested she hasn’t earned all the attention she craves … and receives!

In fairness, I now shall blast a GOP blowhard who for the life of me I don’t understand how he gets all this publicity.

Step up, Matt Gaetz, a GOP congressman from Florida. He’s been in the House all of one term already; he is serving his second term.

But this is the clown who led that Republican assault on Capitol Hill this week that disrupted House committee hearings on the impeachment inquiry under way against Donald J. Trump.

Gaetz is a fanatic Trump supporter. He has attacked the “process” rather than defending Trump on the issues that are likely to result in his impeachment. Those issues deal with whether he violated his oath by seeking foreign government help for political purposes. Gaetz won’t say that Trump “would never do such a thing.” Oh, no. He’s attacking the alleged “secrecy” surrounding the closed-door hearings in the House.

The hearings will be made public. Probably soon at that. They are being held under rules established in 2015 by a Republican-run House, and signed by then-Speaker John Boehner; yep, he’s a Republican, too.

Now we have Gaetz showboating, prancing, preening and bellowing in public about so-called “sham” hearings.

This guy hasn’t earned his time in the spotlight any more than AOC has earned her time.

Settle down, young man. Rep. Gaetz, how about letting the process run its course as prescribed by the rules? 

Donald Trump

‘Human scum’? Is that right, Mr. POTUS?

Donald “Stable Genius” Trump wrote this message via Twitter earlier today …

The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!

Wow, man! That message comes from an angry politician. I mean, he is irrationally angry. He is, shall I say it, actually, um, mad! What needs to be determined by people with expertise on it is whether he is clinically “mad.” As in pathological.

The Never Trump Republicans in actuality are the real Republicans, the individuals who understand what their party historically stands for and those who have sought to preserve those principles relating to strong national security, distrust of dictators, free trade, strong alliances around the world.

Donald Trump is a classic Republican In Name Only, a RINO with no party background prior to running for the only public office he ever has sought.

So, for this president to say that Never Trump Republicans are “human scum” is to reveal someone who sounds increasingly desperate in the face of probable impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Millions of Americans, indeed, think the “scum” comment well could be a matter of someone projecting that label on others who think the very same thing of him.

national news

Rep. Ryan drops out of 2020 race for POTUS; more should follow

U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan didn’t have a prayer of being nominated by the Democratic Party for the presidency of the United States, let alone of being elected.

So, today he called a halt to it.

Frankly, in the discussion about the still-monstrous Democratic field, I barely ever heard his name mentioned.

Ryan is done. There clearly needs to be others who will step aside, return to what they were doing before they decided to run. Former Housing Secretary and ex-San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro has said he needs to raise $800,000 soon; if he falls short, he’s out. Hmm.  We’ll see.

Look, the race has boiled down to about five, maybe six Democrats.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and perhaps Amy Klobuchar are still in the hunt. The rest of them? Well, they ought to reconsider their future.

I’ll presume Rep. Ryan does a good job for his Ohio constituents.

The winnowing of the field should continue. I am growing tired of trying to listen to the field seek to outshout one another on those joint appearance stages.

national news

‘We’re building a wall … in Colorado!’

There was a time — and some folks still giggle at it — when a presidential candidate named Barack Obama talked about visiting all “57 states” in this country.

Republicans had a field day with it. They said the Democratic candidate didn’t know the country he sought to lead.

Well …

Here we are in the present day. The current president of the United States stood before a crowd this week and bragged about building a wall along our southern border. Then he said, “We’re building a wall in Colorado!” 

Donald Trump raised eyebrows everywhere. What? What do you mean, Mr. POTUS? Colorado is an “inland state.” It doesn’t border Mexico.

The man with “the best brain” who knows the “best words” made a mistake.

What I find remarkable, though, is that when he made that gaffe, many in the crowd to whom he was speaking in Pennsylvania stood and clapped and cheered and hollered. They don’t know their geography any better than the president of the United States.

I don’t know if Obama ever acknowledged publicly his goof in 2008. I can rest assured that Trump won’t do so with his, um, misstatement about Colorado. Indeed, he is likely to find a way to double down on it, contending that the “fake news media” has taken his words “out of context.” Or maybe he will say that since Colorado borders New Mexico, that the wall is needed because New Mexico is letting too many illegal immigrants cross its border with Mexico.

Or that Democrats are feeding into the laughter that can be heard across the country … even in Colorado.

national news

GOP should hold off on ‘secrecy’ mantra

Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress need a dose of reticence as they complain about so-called “secrecy” by their Democratic colleagues who are pushing ahead with the impeachment inquiry into Trump’s conduct as president.

They are complaining that Democratic-led House committees are conducting a clandestine hearing by listening to witnesses in private, behind closed doors, out of public view. They contend the secrecy removes legitimacy from the impeachment probe.

It does nothing of the kind.

The so-called secrecy is standard operating procedure in the House. Republicans did the very same thing when they launched their hearings into the Benghazi tragedy in 2012. You recall that, yes? A House select committee examining the circumstances regarding the fire fight that killed four U.S. embassy officials in Libya did so in private. It looked for complicity by Hillary Clinton, who then was secretary of state. Then, after collecting evidence, they went public. They put Clinton at the witness table for 11 hours. Oh, by the way: They came up empty!

Now the shoe is on the other foot, metaphorically speaking.

Democrats are going by the book. Eventually, and I hope it is soon, they will throw open the doors and the entire world will hear much of what they have heard already in private.

For the GOP alliance lining behind the president to suggest a “coup” and an attempt to “overturn the results of the 2016 election” is just so much demagoguery.

Then again, that is torn straight out of Donald J. Trump’s playbook.

State news

This ‘stunt’ is not necessary in Texas

Texans don’t like a state income tax. They don’t pay it now. They likely won’t ever approve of it in my lifetime, or maybe in my granddaughter’s lifetime.

Yet our Legislature has decided that we need to have yet another amendment to the Texas Constitution that makes a state income tax even more difficult to enact.

It’s as what one Dallas-area legislator has called it: a “stunt.”

Proposition 4 is the ballot. It is one of 10 amendments to the Texas Constitution that voters will decide next month. It will pass likely with a huge majority. It won’t have my vote.

It’s not necessarily that I want a state income tax. It is because Texas already has an amendment on the books, on top of a law passed prior by the Legislature that requires a majority of Texans to approve of a state income tax if the issue ever were put to a vote.

Proposition 4 is a case of amendment overkill.

According to the Texas Tribune: Currently, the Texas Constitution requires voters to approve an individual income tax in a statewide referendum, which legislators can ask for with a simple majority in the House and Senate. Proposition 4 would raise the bar, amendment the constitution so that any income tax resolution would need two-thirds support in both legislative chambers before the matter goes to votes, who would ultimately decide.

State Sen. Pat Fallon of Prosper, a Republican who toyed briefly with challenging U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in the 2020 GOP primary for Cornyn’s Senate seat, authored this amendment.

State Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, calls Prop 4 a “waste of time” in addition to labeling it a “stunt.” It is both of those things.

Texans won’t approve a state income tax. There is no need to clutter up the Texas Constitution — which is too cluttered as it is — with this piece of legislative idiocy.

environmental news, local news

Nine tornadoes … and no casualties? I’d call that a miracle!

North Texas experienced a miracle the other night.

I can think of no other way to describe what did not happen when tornadoes plunged to the ground during savage thunderstorms and tore through many square miles of heavily populated regions of greater Dallas.

Each morning I wake up to learn that authorities keep increasing the number of tornadoes that hit the ground Sunday night.

The count of twisters as I write this brief blog post is nine. The strongest of which was an EF-3 twister that hit northwest Dallas. The rest were EF-1s and EF-2s. They pummeled communities north and east of Big D.

The miracle? There are no reported human casualties! Holy smokes, man! How does that happen?

I saw some video in real time Sunday night as storm chasers followed tornadoes along U.S. 75 and the LBJ Freeway. One team of storm chasers found a man in a pickup stalled on the highway; he gave them a thumbs up to let them know he was OK.

Then there’s the story of the manager of the Home Depot store in Dallas who — 45 minute before a tornado hit the store — ordered the outlet closed. He managed to shoo customers out of the store and ordered his employees to go home — quickly! Then the storm hit and inflicted heavy damage to the Home Depot.

The manager is a hero and my hope is that his bosses reward him handsomely for his heroism.

Several schools in the Dallas Independent School District are closed for the foreseeable future; students and teachers will be displaced and parents will have to figure out how to get their children to class on time.

There has been significant damage throughout the Metroplex. Trees were knocked down, shards of metal were thrown into the air, windows were shattered.

And no human casualties? I know that other storms brought tragedy to Arkansas and other points east of the Metroplex. My heart aches for those who are suffering. It aches, too, for those who suffered serious property damage here as well.

Still, I am shaking my head and I am expressing thanks at the miracle that transpired during that night of extreme weather violence.

legal news

Former acting AG: ‘Abuse of power is not a crime’

I am not a lawyer; nor do I portray one on TV.

However, I have read the U.S. Constitution. I have been following the Donald Trump impeachment saga with considerable interest. So, when a former U.S. attorney general says “Abuse of power is not a crime,” I am left to scratch my noggin and wonder: How did this guy become — if only briefly — the nation’s top law enforcement official?

Matthew Whitaker, a staunch defender of Donald J. Trump, said in public that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t specify that abuse of power is a crime. Therefore, according to Whitaker, the grounds for impeaching Trump are, um, without basis.

According to Salon: Invoking the Constitution, former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker claimed that “abuse of power is not a crime” as he rushed to President Donald Trump’s defense after the nation’s top envoy to Ukraine testified to Congress that Trump had withheld military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to investigating his political opponents.

“I’m a former prosecutor and what I know is this is a perfect time for preliminary hearings where you would say show us your evidence,” he told (talk show host Laura) Ingraham. “What evidence of a crime do you have? So the Constitution — abuse of power is not a crime.”

Oh, my. Yes, it’s a crime.

Salon points out the obvious fact of history, which is that President Nixon would have been impeached on an abuse of power count; except that he resigned before the House could impeach him. Moreover, one of the House’s counts against President Clinton, who it did impeach, included, um, abuse of power.

So, how does this “former prosecutor” assert that abuse of power is not a crime and, therefore, is not an impeachable offense?

Donald Trump has abused the power of his office by seeking foreign government help in his re-election bid. He has abused the power of his office by firing an FBI director because he was conducting an investigation into the “Russia thing.”

I don’t have a legal background. However, I know a crime when I see one. I believe Donald Trump’s abuse of power is a crime for which he can be impeached and, by all means, removed from office.

State news

Just wondering: Was Bonnen set up?

I believe it is fair to wonder about a possible element in the shocking downfall of Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen.

The lame-duck speaker and a right-wing zealot had this conversation in June in which the zealot, Michael Quinn Sullivan, received the names of 10 Republican legislators he could target in the 2020 legislative election.

I do not know Bonnen or Sullivan. I have understood, though, that they are not considered political allies. Therefore, here’s my question:

Did Sullivan, the head of Empower Texans, lure Bonnen into a trap that he sprung when he released the recording of the conversation the men had several months ago? The recording went public, Bonnen’s words were revealed to stunned legislators, many of whom called for his resignation; Bonnen then decided he won’t seek re-election in 2020. He is done as speaker of the Texas House.

How in the world did this meeting occur? What kind of politician — other than someone who adheres to the rigid ideology espoused by Empower Texans — make such an agreement?

Bonnen’s decision to step away after the current term has brought some praise from media outlets and politicians who have talked of the speaker’s sense of principle.

Was he snookered somehow by Sullivan? For that matter, why did Sullivan feel the need to record that conversation?

My sense is that a bare-knuckled political operative records conversations surreptitiously for nefarious reasons.

I watched Sullivan’s tactics unfold during a couple of Texas Senate campaigns in the Panhandle over two election cycles. He sought to topple state Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo. He failed both times by running the same TEA Party-favorite candidate — Mike Canon of Midland — against Seliger. He played rough. So did Canon. Seliger was able to use his considerable knowledge of legislative matters to maximum advantage.

He won the GOP nomination in 2018, even though he also had to run against a third archconservative, Amarillo businessman Victor Leal, in the primary.

Seliger calls himself a conservative. He is proud of his conservative voting record and his conservative political views. He just isn’t conservative enough to suit Sullivan.

I am wondering, therefore, if Dennis Bonnen falls into that category and that Sullivan wants a House speaker to emerge from the GOP ranks who follows the same extreme ideology as he does.

As the late U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen once said, “Politics in Texas is a contact sport.”