Tag Archives: U.S. House of Representatives

legal news, political news

Stand tall, Rep. Ted Poe!

2 Comments

Poe_jpg_800x1000_q100

I’ve been critical of some members of the Texas congressional delegation of late.

They haven’t distinguished themselves at times while standing under the national spotlight.

U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, a Republican from Humble — near Houston — however, has made me proud.

Poe took to the floor of the House of Representatives to demand that the judge in a notorious rape case at Stanford University recuse himself.

You no doubt have heard of this case. Judge Aaron Persky sentenced a young Stanford athlete, swimmer Brock Turner, to six months in prison and three years probation for raping a young woman.

The light sentence outraged Poe –who was a former prosecutor and trial judge before being elected to Congress. He said: “The judge should be removed and the rapist should do more time for the dastardly deed. I hope the appeals court … overturns the pathetic sentence and gives him the punishment he deserves.”

Here’s the story as it was reported by the Texas Tribune:

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/09/texas-congressman-demands-removal-judge-stanford-s/

You might ask: What business is it of a Texas congressman to order a California judge to remove himself from a case being adjudicated under another state’s laws?

I don’t care if he has no business.

Rep. Poe has spoken for a lot of Americans who are outraged over the shamefully light sentence given to a young man who sexually assaulted another human being. He committed an act of extreme violence.

The Tribune reported:

“Persky said he chose not to impose a harsher punishment because ‘a prison sentence would have a severe impact on [Turner].’

“’Well isn’t that the point?’ Poe said in his speech to the House. ‘The punishment for rape should be longer than a semester in college.’”

Severe impact? On a criminal? What about the impact that the crime Turner committed had on his victim?

Ted Poe had a reputation in the Houston area of being a no-nonsense judge, perhaps owing to his prior work as a prosecutor.

I’m glad to know he has used his federal office as a bully pulpit to take up for the victim of a violent crime.

legal news, State news

Texas AG faces possible indictment

This one seems cut-and-dried, but it’s probably not going to be determined that way.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has actually admitted to securities fraud. He was elected anyway in 2014 as the state’s top lawyer, its chief litigator. He should be above reproach. Isn’t that correct?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/28/grand-jury-looming-paxtons-team-and-prosecutors-sp/

He’ll be investigated by a Collin County grand jury, which will get evidence presented by the Texas Rangers, the elite investigative arm of the Department of Public Safety.

Cut-and-dried?

The Republican attorney general admits to soliciting investment clients for a friend without notifying the state in accordance with state law.

So, is Paxton guilty as charged?

Let’s walk back a few years to around 1998.

President Bill Clinton took an oath to tell the truth while testifying before a federal grand jury. The panel asked the president some questions relating to his relationship with a young White House intern. The president didn’t tell the truth about that relationship.

What did the House of Representatives do? It impeached President Clinton.

Ostensibly, the impeachment really wasn’t about the inappropriate affair with the intern. It was about whether the president followed the law. The House said his lying to the grand jury constituted an impeachable offense.

The Senate, though, acquitted the president of the counts brought against him.

So, when a state constitutional officer — the attorney general — admits to breaking state securities law, does that constitute an indictable offense?

Cut … and … dried. Maybe.

national news, political news

Benghazi panel to keep on pushing

House Select Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy says Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign have no “impact” on his panel’s probe of the Benghazi matter.

Sure thing, Mr. Chairman. I get it.

If anything, it’s only going to intensify your panel’s search for something with which to torpedo the former secretary of state’s quest for the presidency.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-announcement-benghazi-probe-116861.html?hp=l3_3

The chairman says he intends to call Clinton to talk to the committee about what happened — once again — on Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorists stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

We’ve been through this already. But by golly, we’re going to go through it again. And again, if necessary. And perhaps even again after that.

Clinton, you see, remains the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination next year. She also remains a strong favorite to become the nation’s 45th president, even though recent polling data suggest her strength may have weakened.

Meanwhile, her congressional Republicans foes — and let’s include Chairman Gowdy in that crowd — want to do all they can ensure she isn’t the nominee.

Will her candidacy have an “impact” on Gowdy’s Benghazi hunt? If, by “impact,” you mean it lessens it … hell no! If anything, it’s only going to get more heated.

national news, State news, Uncategorized

Who are you calling ‘crazy,’ Rep. Hastings?

It’s one thing to be called “crazy” by someone whose very presence commands respect and dignity.

It’s quite another to be labeled as such by someone who, shall we say, has a bit of a checkered past himself.

All that said, it’s bizarre to the max to see such an eruption of anger at a congressional rules panel hearing between Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the people’s representatives in the government of the world’s most powerful nation.

U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., called Texas a “crazy” state and said he wouldn’t live here “for all the tea in China.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2015/02/crazy-texas-republicans-to-alcee-hastings-dont-mess-with-texas/

Hastings made the crack during a House Rules Committee hearing on the Affordable Care Act and whether Texas would participate in its implementation.

His remark drew a sharp rebuke from Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, who said Hastings had “defamed” the great state of Texas. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but the remark seemed a bit of a diversion from the issue at hand.

I won’t get into defending the state where my family and I have lived for the past 31 years — except to say this: Yes, the politics here aren’t quite to my liking, but the state is chock full of decent, hard-working, caring, compassionate folks who don’t nearly fit the stereotype that many Americans attach to Texans.

The sunrises and sunsets ain’t bad, either.

As for Hastings, I just wish he wouldn’t have brought up that crazy talk.

This individual once sat on the federal bench. President Carter appointed him to be a U.S. District Court judge — and then he got himself impeached on perjury and bribery charges by a Democratically controlled House of Representatives. The vote was 413-3. How did he fare in a Senate trial? Senators convicted him and he got tossed out of office.

Never fear. Congress welcomed him in 1993 when he won election.

So, let’s stop throwing “crazy” talk around out there, Rep. Hastings. Shall we?

 

Uncategorized

Cantor loss deals blow to campaign reform

The thought occurred to me this morning after I awoke from a good night’s sleep.

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss Tuesday to tea party candidate Dave Brat in the Virginia Republican Party primary Tuesday might have dealt a serious blow to the cause of campaign finance reform.

Why? Cantor outspent his Brat by something like 25 to 1 in a losing bid to keep his congressional seat.

Cantor was the well-funded superstar within the Republican Party. He had it all: looks, brains, the “right” ideology,” a gift of gab, ambition. You name it, he had it.

He also had money. Lots of it, which he spent lavishly to hold on to his House seat.

None of it worked. Brat is a college professor who’s never run for public office at any level.

Yet he beat Cantor by 11 percentage points in a shamefully low voter-turnout primary.

What happens, then, to effort to limit campaign spending? The argument always has been that money buys votes, that it buys people’s loyalty, and that it gives deep-pocketed donors more influence than Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe in setting public policy.

Dave Brat’s stunner in Virginia has just blown the daylights out of those arguments.

Let that discussion get fired up all over again.

Uncategorized

Don't boycott Benghazi probe, Leader Pelosi

1 Comment

If I were in Nancy Pelosi’s shoes, I would take part in the special investigation of the Benghazi matter along with Republicans.

Pelosi, the leader of the U.S. House Democrats, might be considering a boycott of the hearings called by Speaker John Boehner. Big mistake, Mme. Leader.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/205715-boehner-stacks-benghazi-panel-with-lawyers

Boehner has selected a back-bencher, Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to chair the select committee. Six other GOP members have joined the panel. As of this moment, no Democrats have been named.

The committee is going to conduct yet another hearing into what happened Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where a firefight resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

There have been calls by Republicans in Congress that the State Department, led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, stonewalled the cause of the uprising. They’re suggesting some kind of cover-up. House committees already have looked at this matter. They’ve come up with, well, next to nothing to hang on then-Secretary Clinton, other than a botched response immediately after the event.

I don’t know what the select panel will find out, but its work ought to include Democrats.

There’s been some talk that Democrats might sit this one out, letting Republicans have their way. However, that’s not what their constituents sent them to Washington to do. They sent them there to participate in government activities.

This investigation, if it’s going to be as Boehner has billed it — a search for the truth and not a political witch hunt — should include those who will counter the intense grilling that will come from the GOP members. Democrats should ask their own difficult questions as well and the panel then should craft a bipartisan report that produces constructive recommendations for protecting our foreign service personnel against future attacks.

Boycotting these hearings would be counter-productive at almost any level possible.

Take part, Minority Leader Pelosi.

Uncategorized

Kissing congressman to bow out

Vance “The Kissing Congressman” McAllister has announced he won’t seek re-election to a seat he’s held only since this past November.

Good deal. He should go home and try to restore his marriage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/28/vance-mcallister-wont-seek-reelection-but-plans-to-finish-his-term/

McAllister is the Louisiana Republican who was caught on video making out with his married female staff member, who since has resigned from his staff. Meanwhile, her husband has all but declared his marriage to be over.

What makes this story so bizarre is that McAllister sold himself to his Louisiana constituents as a God-fearing, Bible-thumping, family values-oriented congressman who loves and cherishes his wife and five children. Why, he even ran TV ads touting his love of family.

Then he got caught planting a serious wet one on his staffer … and all heck hit the fan.

What’s more, the husband of the staffer then revealed that McAllister said prior to the election that he was going to remake himself into Mr. Family Man just for the political advantage he would gain.

Well, Rep. McAllister will be gone at the end of the year. Congress will shed itself of one more hypocrite. If only the rest of them would follow suit.

Uncategorized

New year brings old argument over jobless insurance

Dear U.S. Senators:

Good morning and happy new year. Welcome back to the same ol’ same ol’ fights among yourselves and with the White House. The issue today is unemployment insurance.

First, a question: Will you do the right thing and extend unemployment insurance for long-term unemployed Americans for another three months?

If you do, you will make about 1.3 million Americans quite happy as they continue to find work in an economy that is recovering, but is in a still-fragile state of recovery. If you do not, then you will incur their wrath at the next election.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/07/showdown_set_on_unemployment_bill_in_senate_121150.html

And that election, by the way, is coming up this year for about one-third of you. Every single seat in the House of Representatives is up for election, so your friends on the other end of the Capitol Building have their own concerns about this bill.

I hope some of you heard Gene Sperling, one of President Obama’s economic advisers, this weekend on “Meet the Press.” Sperling made a critical point about this extension, which was that during President Bush’s two terms in office immediately preceding Barack Obama’s time there, Congress approved the jobless insurance extension five times without adding “pay for” provisions to them.

The country’s debt load was heavy then as well, in case you don’t recall. Now, however, some of you — chiefly Republicans — say they would approve extending the benefits only if Congress can come up with spending cuts to pay for them. Why now? Why not when President Bush was asking for the extension? This kind of heartlessness reminds me of when, in 2011, some of your House colleagues said the same thing about providing emergency relief for victims of the killer tornado that tore Joplin, Mo., apart.

Let’s not play that game now, ladies and gentlemen. Americans out here are suffering. They need some assistance while they keep looking for work.

Are you on their side or aren’t you?

Get busy. Do the right thing.

Uncategorized

Waiting on Mac Thornberry to weigh in on Syria

Has anyone seen or heard from U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry lately?

I know that’s a rhetorical question. Some folks have seen and/or heard him as he travels through the vast 13th Congressional District of the Texas Panhandle, which he has represented since 1995.

But here’s the deal: The nation is roiling at this moment over whether President Obama should order missile strikes against Syrian military forces in retaliation for their use of chemical weapons, but Mac Thornberry, a senior Republican member of the House Armed Services and Permanent Select Intelligence committees, has been all but silent on the matter.

http://thornberry.house.gov/

I spent some time this morning perusing Thornberry’s website. I looked for press releases, issues statements, “white papers” on national security. Nothing in there about Syria.

I’m waiting for Thornberry to offer some wisdom on this matter, given that so many members of Congress have weighed in already.

I am acutely aware that much of the public commentary on Syria has come from the usual cadre of Democratic and Republican legislative blowhards. Thornberry isn’t one of them. He’s been a quiet and fairly studious member of Congress since winning the House seat in that landmark 1994 election.

However, he’s also had a ringside seat on some difficult national security issues. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Thornberry has been required to study diligently issues relating to the use of our massive military might. What’s more, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he has had access to some of the most sensitive national security material imaginable. The late U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Lufkin — who also served on that panel — once told me that committee members saw virtually everything the president saw. I’m quite certain Thornberry has access to a lot of information about Syria and its possession of deadly nerve agents.

The nation has entered the most serious national security debate since President George W. Bush sought authorization to go to war with Iraq, citing dictator Saddam Hussein’s supposed cache of chemical weapons — which we learned later did not exist.

President Obama’s national security team has presented what appears to be compelling proof that Syria has used the gas on civilians and it has more of it stashed away. He wants to hit those stockpiles in a series of air strikes. The military says it’s ready to go.

Mac Thornberry, our elected representative, has had time to digest the information.

I’m waiting to hear whether he supports striking at a seriously evil dictator.

Talk to us, Mac.

Uncategorized

GOP sets new impeachment standard

I have concluded something sad about today’s Republican Party: It has reset the standard for impeaching the president of the United States.

Some GOP members of Congress are so intent on impeaching President Obama that at least one of them admits to having dreams about it. For what reason? What precisely are the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the president committed that warrant such a drastic act? They aren’t saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/politics/ignoring-qualms-some-republicans-nurture-dreams-of-impeaching-obama.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Suffice to say that it appears — to me, at least — that Republicans, led by the tea party wing of their party, have decided impeachment is one way to get rid of a guy they dislike, whose policies they detest.

It has gotten me to thinking about whether this new standard would have come into play during previous recent administrations. Was it plausible, therefore, to impeach:

* President Ford, for issuing a summary pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for any crimes he might have committed against the nation?

* President Carter, on whose watch the Iranian hostage rescue mission went so horribly wrong, causing the president and his national security team tremendous heartache?

* President Reagan, who misled the nation during the Iran-Contra crisis, which resulted in arms sales to the Contras in Central America while negotiations were underway with the rogue Iranian government that was holding seven American hostages?

* President George H.W. Bush, who promised never to raise taxes as long as he was president, and who then reneged on that solemn pledge?

* President George W. Bush, whose national security team — along with much of the rest of the world — sold Americans a bill of goods that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had a huge cache of chemical weapons? Turns out, after we invaded Iraq in March 2003, there were no such weapons — anywhere.

The answer to all of those, of course, is “no.”

You’ll notice, naturally, that I didn’t include President Clinton in that roster of past leaders. The House did impeach Clinton … for having an affair with a White House intern and then lying to a federal grand jury about it. In my view, the GOP set a pretty low standard for impeachment then as well. The Senate then tried Clinton, but acquitted him.

Are we heading back down that path now, with Republicans simply drooling over the possibility of impeaching a president?

They’re going to have to come up with a whole lot more than they’ve presented to date as reasons to do such a thing. And to date, they’ve produced nothing.