legal news, political news, State news

Oops, Perry has own email trail

Doggone it anyhow, former Gov. Rick Perry.

Why did you have to be so quick on the trigger in criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton over this brewing email controversy, in which it is alleged that Clinton used a private email account to conduct federal government business.

It turns out the former Texas governor has done the same thing while working for our state.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/04/perry-faces-transparency-questions-after-clinton-r/

Perry piled on Clinton quickly, accusing her of lacking “transparency” in the way she conducted the public’s business while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Now, though, two legislators — both Democrats — say they believe Perry is just as non-transparent as Secretary Clinton. The questions come from state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio and former state Rep. Naomi Gonzalez of El Paso.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “Martinez Fischer and Gonzalez both sat on the House Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations as it looked into turmoil on the University of Texas System Board of Regents. At a meeting of the panel in 2013, Martinez Fischer brought up the emails in question, some of which were then obtained by The Texas Tribune. The emails, in which Perry is identified as only “RP,” show him corresponding with a number of UT regents as well as Jeff Sandefer, a prominent Republican donor and informal adviser to Perry.”

The Tribune also reported that Perry’s office has responded to the allegations: “’The Governor’s Office complied with state law regarding email correspondence,’ Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said. ‘While serving as governor of Texas, Gov. Perry’s emails were requested and released through public information requests.'”

Isn’t that what Clinton’s team has said, that she complied with the “spirit and letter” of federal law?

Is this yet another hurdle the ex-Republican governor will have to clear — along with that felony indictment alleging abuse of power — if he intends to seek the presidency once more?

 

entertainment news, legal news

Great work, judge, if you can get it

This thought didn’t originate with me. It comes from my friend Jon Mark Beilue, a columnist for the Amarillo Globe-News, who took note of something he saw.

I’m passing it along here.

It is that Judy Scheindlin, aka Judge Judy, I going to rake in tens of millions of dollars annually dispensing “justice” on television.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/judge-judy-contract-2020/

Judge Judy has been given a contract extension that will pay her an undisclosed amount of money through 2020. If history is a guide, it’s going to be for lots and lots of money.

Her Honor earned $47 million in 2014.

As Jon Mark noted in his social media post, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, earns about $225,000 annually. All he and his eight colleagues on the highest court in the land do for a living is determine whether federal laws comport with the U.S. Constitution. They get to decide things like, oh, the fate of the Affordable Care Act, whether someone deserves to be executed for crimes they commit or whether abortion remains legal.

Judge Judy? She gets to scold people for not making good on fender-bender accident claims, or shaving their neighbor’s pet dog or cat, or absconding with a refrigerator load of food. It’s that kind of thing that Judge Judy gets to hear.

For that she earns millions.

As Jon Mark noted: Only in America …

 

Uncategorized

Proposed ammo ban draws fire

2 Comments

So, a proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to ban ammunition used in assault rifles has become a target by those who say hunters actually use these weapons to hunt wild game.

The weapon at issue is the AR-15, which is virtually identical to the M-16 rifle soldiers have been issued when they go to duty in combat zones.

The ammo in question is a .223-caliber bullet that is tipped with material designed to produce maximum penetration.

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/234643-gun-ammunition-ban-draws-ire-on-capitol-hill

ATF wants to ban the ammo. Gun-rights supporters contend it’s another step toward disarming law-abiding Americans. It isn’t. It’s designed to protect law enforcement officers who could be killed by those using these weapons in anger.

Still, some on the right have suggested that the ban would occur by presidential executive action. That’s not the case. This notion is coming from a law enforcement agency.

The Hill reports that lawmakers have asked ATF to pull back the proposal. According to The Hill: “Under no circumstances should ATF adopt a standard that will ban ammunition that is overwhelmingly used by law-abiding Americans for legitimate purposes,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter to ATF Director B. Todd Jones.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment, of course, is the centerpiece of the opposition to the proposal. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the manufacture and distribution of weapons and ammunition that police deem to be dangerous beyond all reason.

There remain plenty of opportunities — even if the ATF ban goes into effect — for law-abiding citizens to “keep and bear arms.”

political news

Oh, for a little more good humor

I couldn’t keep from sharing these two videos on this blog.

They’re both hilarious and they remind us that good humor can exist between political adversaries.

The principals in these two brief videos are the 2012 presidential candidates: Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney.

They spoke at the Al Smith Dinner in New York City, honoring the memory of the late politician and civic leader who once campaigned for the presidency himself. He lost big to Herbert Hoover in 1928.

With all the name-calling, questioning of candidates’ love of country, assertions of evil intent and the stalemate that stalls government’s efforts to actually do something, it’s good to see demonstrations of self-deprecation and some good-natured jabs at the other guy.

And to think this all happened less than three years ago.

 

International news, national news, political news

Benghazi returns to center stage

I got a bit ahead of myself with an earlier blog post about Hillary Clinton’s email tempest.

The supposition was that she was in trouble again, but the difficulty didn’t have anything to do with Benghazi.

Wrong!

The House Benghazi Committee — that’s what I’ll call it — is going to subpoena the former secretary of state’s email messages to determine what she said at the time of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

http://news.yahoo.com/benghazi-committee-to-subpoena-clinton-s-emails-192823541.html

This ties into the email problem because Clinton used her personal email account to communicate official State Department business. The Benghazi panel, which already has traipsed all over the issue of the consulate fire fight and what the State Department knew about it, wants to see the emails to determine, I suppose, if there’s any “smoking gun” with which to blast away at the presumed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

I am concerned about the use of a private email account to conduct public business. The Benghazi matter? Not so much. Yes, the deaths of those people were tragic beyond measure. But I do not believe Secretary Clinton purposely misled Americans about the attack, nor do I believe there’s been an orchestrated cover-up by the State Department or the White House.

However, by golly, we’re going to revisit the Benghazi attack once again because of questions about whether Secretary Clinton hid pertinent information — whatever it might have been — from the public she was serving.

legal news

Ex-cop won't face federal civil rights charges

I truly don’t know what to think about the Justice Department’s decision against prosecuting a former police officer in the death of a young black man.

Darren Wilson, formerly a Ferguson, Mo., police officer, was no-billed by a local grand jury this past year after he shot Michael Brown to death during an altercation.

The grand jury’s decision to let Wilson go set off a firestorm across the nation.

Then the Justice Department said it would weigh in on whether Wilson violated any federal civil rights laws when he shot Brown to death. The DOJ said today it wouldn’t prosecute him.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/234595-feds-will-not-charge-officer-darren-wilson-in-ferguson-shooting

Is this a good thing? For Wilson, who quit the department after the grand jury cleared him, it’s certainly good news. Brown’s family no doubt feels differently.

Me? I tend to honor the local criminal justice system’s view on these matters. The locals said they lacked sufficient evidence to bring charges against the officer and the feds have concurred with what the locals decided.

But there’s an interesting political back story here. Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder has been criticized — wrongly, in my view — as a “race-baiter.” The calls come from those on the right who contend that Holder, the nation’s first African-American AG, too often relies on race to inform his public policies.

Well, here we have a Justice Department deciding that the white former police officer didn’t commit a crime that needed a federal civil-rights trial to resolve.

Does that mean the criticism of Holder will subside, now that his department — which he is about to leave — has sided with the white guy?

Do not hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

 

International news

Enough of the barbs, guys; start talking like friends

President Obama has been trading barbs of late with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

They’re tossing them in public at each other. I’m wondering, though: Each man has a secure phone line to the other’s office. What might a private conversation sound like at this moment:

Obama: Hello, Bibi? This is Barack. You got a few minutes?

Netanyahu: Sure thing, Barack. Hey, I can call you “Barack,” right? I heard about that crap over your addressing (German Chancellor) Merkel by her first name, Angela. What nonsense.

Obama: Sure thing, Bibi. No problem. Hey, let’s set aside all this name-calling and get down to brass tacks. You know why I didn’t want you to speak to Congress. First of all, John Boehner messed up by not advising me about the invitation. Second of all, you’ve got an election coming up and we just don’t usually invite foreign leaders to make high-profile public speeches so close to an election. That’s been the practice for as long as I can remember.

Netanyahu: Yes, I understand. But you have to understand something about my position here on Iran and those nuclear talks. Iran is a neighbor of ours. Those crazies sit just a few hundred miles from Jerusalem. I worry about them every hour of every day I’m awake. I’ve got to make the case that no deal is better than a bad deal. You’re sitting in Washington, a long way from the Middle East. You have the comfort of distance. We don’t have it here.

Obama: Absolutely, I get it. But understand that we have a tradition in this country of putting partisanship aside when it concerns foreign policy. In this country, as in yours, we have only one head of government at a time. Boehner’s invitation is seen as an intrusion in our foreign policy tradition. The president’s team negotiates deals. Sure, we take advice from legislators, but their job is to make laws, not to engage in diplomacy.

Netanyahu: OK. Here’s what I think we — you and I — ought to do. Let’s quit sniping. We know you love Israel and we love the United States, too, Barack. Let’s just cool the rhetoric until we get this negotiation completed with Iran. If the nut jobs in Tehran reject whatever plan you and your international partners come up with, then you and I can speak with one voice — as we’ve sought to do before.

Obama: But what if Iran accepts the deal?

Netanyahu: We’ll decide then what to do. Personally, I’m hoping they reject it, if only because I want us to be friends in public the way we are in private.

Obama: Deal, Bibi. Let me make just one request: If you decide to bomb the Iranian nuke plants, give us a heads-up, just to show Boehner how friends are supposed to interact with each other.

Netanyahu: Will do, Barack.

 

national news, political news

HRC looking suddenly vulnerable

What’s the opposite of “invincible”?

Is it, say, “vincible”?

Suddenly and with little warning, the chatterers of Washington and in some key political hot spots are starting to wonder aloud whether the once seemingly invincible Hillary Rodham Clinton might actually not run for president of the United States next year.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/what-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-115715.html?ml=po#.VPcJFFJ0yt8

I believe a Clinton pullout from the White House contest remains the longest of long shots. She’s invested a lot of her time, money, effort and political capital in getting support on board to bail now.

But oh, man, there’s trouble out there. It has nothing to do, really, with Benghazi.

It has to do with her use of email technology and whether she might have kept the public’s business hidden from public view.

Politico is reporting that Democratic strategists aren’t yet considering the idea of Clinton dropping out of the race: “What if The Unthinkable did happen and she actually dropped out? What would be the Democrats’ response? ‘Panic,’ says Democratic consultant Chris Lapetina.”

Some questions have emerged of late about whether the then-secretary of state broke federal rules by communicating exclusively with her private email account. The way I see the trouble is that using private channels leaves open the possibility that she conducted non-classified public business in private. More murkiness has emerged as well, with some Clinton supporters suggesting that the rules weren’t put in place until after she left the State Department.

Clinton’s advisers have said she broke no laws and followed the “spirit and letter” of the rules governing such communication.

Suddenly, though, the smooth sailing Clinton has enjoyed so far has given way to some choppy waters. Have the waves built enough to capsize the Good Ship Hillary? Not yet, but factions on the Democratic Party’s left and most certainly those on the right and far right aren’t about to throw her many life lines.

Democratic Party “panic” needs to give way to some planning in the event that The Unthinkable actually occurs.

 

national news

Speaker gets past this rocky road

House Speaker John Boehner has had more fun than what he experienced the past couple of weeks.

It’s been like, well, herding cats. His Republican caucus all but went into apoplexy over a plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The TEA party wing of the caucus remained dead set against it. Other Republicans joined with Democrats to fund DHS until September.

Without the money, DHS would have had to shut down; 30,000 federal employees would have been furloughed.

Crisis is averted. For now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/234467-house-approves-dhs-funding

The speaker’s difficulty with his the TEA party cabal is far from over. I’ll just suggest that his fear will be that they’ll be so angry with him they might try to launch an intraparty insurrection to get Boehner removed from his post.

Who would get the gavel? Louie Gohmert, the East Texas chucklehead? Would it be Steve Scalise, the majority whip from Louisiana who once spoke to a David Duke-sponsored outfit?

My hunch is that Boehner will survive any possible rebellion.

But the vote to fund DHS now allows the House of Representatives to get on with more serious matters. Lawmakers ought to focus on things such as, oh, a budget, infrastructure legislation, some national security issues. You know, the stuff to which they all signed on to do on behalf of all Americans.

I’m glad the deal was struck. Boehner actually worked with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the despised former speaker. That, by itself, might be cause for the TEA party wing of the GOP to break out the pitchforks and torches.

Isn’t governing fun, Mr. Speaker?

International news

Bibi's speech proves Barack's point

Barack Obama had it pegged. Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech today before a joint congressional session will play well in Israel and because of the proximity to the upcoming election, it was totally inappropriate for the Israeli prime minister to make such a speech in that venue.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/234543-fiery-netanyahu-speech-divides-dems

But the prime minister today delivered a blistering attack on President Obama’s Iran policy. Was he correct? Is a possible deal to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program so bad that it puts the Middle East in more danger of an Iranian nuclear weapons development?

Netanyahu says it will. Does he know more than anyone else on the planet? That’s debatable, to say the very least.

Today’s speech was not intended to disrespect the president, Netanyahu had promised. I’m afraid it did what he said it wouldn’t do. He suggested that the United States does not understand the Iranian threat. I would submit that the United States understands all too well how mercurial the Islamic Republic of Iran can be at many levels.

Mr. Prime Minister, surely you recall the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80.

Well, the White House didn’t want Netanyahu to speak, citing the juxtaposition of the speech and the upcoming Israeli elections. The United States is now going to be seen as playing a part in influencing the election. It’s long been customary to forgo such speeches.

None of that mattered to Speaker John Boehner, who extended the invitation without consulting with the White House. Nor did it matter to Netanyahu, who accepted the invitation understanding the firestorm it would create.

I remain confident that U.S.-Israeli relations will remain strong. President Obama says it is unbreakable; Prime Minister Netanyahu says the nations are like “family.”

This speech, though, has caused a significant rift between these allies.

The time to heal that rift is at hand.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience