Thursday, January 08, 2009

As if we needed any more

Additional evidence that Texas attorney general Greg Abbott is simply the very worst of a wretched lot in Austin. Emphasis is mine, first person voice is Rick Casey's:

Five years ago I asked readers to feel sorry for Assistant Attorney General Gena Bunn.

Now I'm asking you to feel sorry for Assistant Attorney General Katherine Hayes.

It was Bunn's job, I wrote, to go "with a straight face" before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of death row inmate Delma Banks "and argue that the state of Texas should be able to suborn perjury and hide evidence with impunity in its quest to get the death penalty."

She had to admit that prosecutors had stood silent while two key witnesses lied under oath during Banks' two-day trial in 1980 for the murder of a 16-year-old co-worker.

She argued that defense attorneys had waited too long to raise the issue, even though the delay was caused by the prosecutors' cover-up of the evidence.

The justices were not receptive.

"Wasn't it the obligation of the prosecution, having deceived the jury and the court, to come clean?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"So the prosecution can lie and conceal, and the defense still has the burden to discover the evidence?" challenged Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The arguments advanced by Bunn had worked at the prosecution-oriented U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, but Bunn found no sympathy at the Supreme Court. It took that body — including archconservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — just 10 weeks to issue a stinging slap to the state of Texas and to the 5th Circuit.

In the unanimous opinion, Ginsburg wrote that it was "appropriate for Banks to assume that his prosecutors would not stoop to improper litigation conduct to advance prospects for getting a conviction."

The court sent the case back down, ordering a full examination of the facts to determine whether Banks should get a new trial. It also overturned the death sentence. (Scalia joined Thomas in dissenting from this portion, though Thomas called it a "close call.")

After examining the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, U.S. District Judge David Folsom of Texarkana ruled that Banks must be either retried or freed.

He noted that Charles Cook was a key witness at the trial, being the only witness to testify that Banks had said he killed the victim and the only one to provide a motive.

And, wrote Folsom, "Cook's testimony on these issues was uncorroborated."

It is undisputed that on the stand Cook said three times he had not talked to anyone before giving his testimony. For 16 years, prosecutors hid proof that Cook was lying.

Only in 1996, under a federal court order, did they turn over a 38-page transcript of a coaching session Cook received just days before he testified. Present were a prosecutor, a DA's investigator and the deputy who led the murder investigation.

Quoting the transcript, Folsom writes: "Cook's misrepresentation at trial — claiming that he had not been coached — is particularly significant in light of how extensively Cook was coached."

For example, a number of things Cook said during that session differed from the statements he had given originally, the kinds of inconsistencies defense attorneys thrive on.

What's more, Cook admitted on the stand he had been convicted of felony assault but "forgot" who the victim was.

Yet during the coaching session a few days earlier he had identified her as a schoolteacher. The AG's office argued that Cook thought the defense attorney was asking for a name, but Folsom wrote that the "name is clearly not what the defense was seeking."

And a handwritten note by one of Cook's handlers on the coaching session transcript next to the mention of the schoolteacher said, "do not say."

Prosecutors didn't want the jurors knowing their star witness beat up schoolteachers.

(Yesterday) Assistant Attorney General Hayes (appeared) in New Orleans and, based on a technicality, ask the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Folsom.

A major argument amounts to raising a technicality. The state argues that Banks' attorneys didn't give proper notice that they were using the coaching transcript in their case.

Having hidden the damning transcript for 16 years, prosecutors are saying defense attorneys aren't playing fair.

Both a federal magistrate and Judge Folsom ruled that proper notice was given when Banks' attorneys, without objection from the state, introduced the transcript at an earlier hearing and asked witnesses numerous questions about it.

Hayes may get a favorable reception in New Orleans. It's the same three-judge panel that didn't see any problems years ago. But then this already outrageously long legal process will go back to the high court.

There's a better course. Shouldn't Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose job presumably bears some relationship to the pursuit of justice, be chastising prosecutors for breaking the law rather than defending them?


I certainly hope all of the Republicans who read and comment at Chron.com remember this when Abbott announces his intention to run for re-election (or lt. governor, or governor) in 2010 and beyond.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

So THAT's why Tom DeLay isn't in prison yet

Scott Horton at Harper's:

In theory, our legal system affords equal access to justice. But, as George Orwell offers in Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others, and Tom DeLay is, in Texas politics, the most equal of all. Texas courts, which are notoriously political, are packed with Republicans who owe their careers to Tom DeLay, directly or indirectly. That makes the justice dealt out in the DeLay case justice without equal.

DeLay is now facing trial in Austin on charges of money-laundering. But his case has been bottled up by an appeals court dominated by Republicans. Ronnie Earle, a legendary prosecutor who has taken down far more Democrats than Republicans in his day, had hoped to end his career with this trial–but DeLay’s fellow Republicans insured that this would not happen. They waited patiently for Earle to retire and then handed down a preliminary ruling. The Republican judges find no reason why one of their colleagues who, before coming on the bench, said the DeLay prosecution was “politically motivated” could not then rule on the case. That reflects a novel understanding of the canons of judicial ethics, which–at least in places other than Texas–require that a judge handle his matters impartially. When a judge expresses an opinion on the merits of a case before it comes to him, that is prejudgment. It disqualifies him from participating in the case. Why this extraordinary departure from settled rules of judicial ethics? It appears that with one Republican recused, the court would have a tie vote, and DeLay would be denied the deus ex machina he is waiting for: a court ruling that the prosecution’s case is fatally defective.

As the Houston Chronicle reports today, the Republican majority on the court even blocked the two Democratic justices from filing dissenting opinions.


And what did the Houston Chronicle report yesterday?


The polarized state appeals court has ruled that Republican Justice Alan Waldrop did not have to excuse himself from a case against two associates of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The ruling from the 3rd Court of Appeals does not immediately affect the money-laundering charges against DeLay and his associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.

DeLay and his associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, have been accused of laundering corporate money into political donations to Republican candidates in 2002. Use of corporate money is generally banned from state campaigns.

Before any trial, Ellis and Colyandro challenged the constitutionality of the law.

Last September, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle asked the court to remove Waldrop because Earle claimed Waldrop betrayed his bias four years ago, before he became a judge. Earle alleged that bias was betrayed when Waldrop called a similar money-laundering allegation in a related civil lawsuit "politically motivated" and an attempt to "harass political opponents." At the time, Waldrop was representing a client who was a political ally of DeLay.

Waldrop wrote an opinion in August that upheld the constitutionality of the law on money laundering but warned that the prosecutors had a fatal flaw in their case, a view that two trial judges and one other appellate judges have disagreed with.

Waldrop, Chief Justice Ken Law and a third Republican justice, Robert Pemberton, wrote that the charges against DeLay and his associates should be dismissed because they used a check, not cash, in their transaction. Waldrop argued that the law — before it was changed in 2005 — did not cover checks during the 2002 election.

Two Democratic justices on the 3rd Court objected.

Justice Jan Patterson, a Democrat on the Austin-based state appeals court, claimed last year that Law, blocked the filing of her dissent to a ruling in October. The ruling overruled a motion asking Waldrop to step aside in the money-laundering case involving DeLay's associates.

Justice Diane Henson complained that her GOP colleagues were wrong about the money-laundering law and had bottled up the case for years to thwart prosecution of the high-profile case.

On Wednesday, the Republican majority struck back in an opinion written by Justice David Puryear. Law and Pemberton joined in Puryear's opinion. Puryear criticized Patterson's "attempts to insert suspicion and intrigue into what have been routine decisions by this Court," the Austin American-Statesman reported in an online story Friday.

Henson argued that a reasonable person would question whether Waldrop might favor DeLay's associates because of his earlier work with DeLay's political allies.

"One might also question why, if Justice Waldrop's lack of bias or partiality is so obvious, a 38-page opinion, including personal attacks on dissenting justices, was necessary to explain why the motion to recuse was denied," she wrote.

Earle just retired and Law's term ended Wednesday.


The old "it's not money-laundering if it's a check" trick again. Let' see now; where have we written about Alan Waldrop and David Puryear before?

Back to Horton for the obvious conclusion ...


Texas was once famous for Judge Roy Bean, who following various homicides and petty offenses established himself as the “law west of the Pecos.” Bean’s first act in judicial office was to shoot up the saloon of a Jewish competitor. Now Texas is home to Tulia, where in the governorship of George W. Bush forty African-Americans were arrested on bogus drug charges by a racist cop, and it’s the state that sent Alberto Gonzales to Washington as attorney general. Its notions of justice are transparent from cases like the DeLay prosecution, in which we get a glimpse of the most ferociously partisan judges in the country. Did Reconstruction end too soon?

(insert The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" catch phrase here)

It's been a little overused in blog headlines of late. So anyway, I suppose I can believe now:

Joe Straus, a legislator from San Antonio with just one full legislative session behind him, all but assured his election as the next speaker of the House on Monday, picking up at least 12 more pledges from House members and losing his only remaining opponent.

Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, dropped out of the race Monday afternoon. Smithee was endorsed by Speaker Tom Craddick on Sunday after Craddick had given up the fight for a fourth term as the House's leader.

Straus, 49, said more than 100 House members were now committed to vote for him when the session convenes Jan. 13. The minimum number required for election as speaker is 76. ...

Straus stands to become only the second urban House speaker in 70 years and the first since Gib Lewis of Fort Worth won the powerful office in 1983. Only one other San Antonio member has been elected House speaker: Chester Terrell in 1913. The last Houston House speaker was R. Emmett Morse in 1939.


Vince thinks Straus is bad news for Democratic prospects of taking back the House, especially in 2010 when redistricting will be on the slate. Philip, not so much. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Monday, January 05, 2009

A post-Craddick Wrangle

As Will Hartnett, Sid Miller, and Alexis DeLee prepare the body for viewing, let's catch up on last week's postings from the blogs of the Texas Progressive Alliance.

BossKitty at TruthHugger sees the USA is not the "goodie two shoes" it claims to be. Among other discrepancies, euphemisms don't change hard cold facts: US Teaches Terrorism As “Irregular Warfare”.

SHOCKING! How Exxon Fixes Benzene Leaks. Also at Bluedaze: links to the five-part series, Behnd the Shale. Part five highlights blogger TXsharon.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes the monarchists are using words like 'insurgency', 'coupe d'etat' and 'overthrow' to describe the Speaker's race.

Neil at Texas Liberal wrote about how our terrible Texas Senator John Cornyn is silent on hard economic times in Texas, but quite vocal about the Senate race in Minnesota.

The Texas Cloverleaf looks at the possibility of a higher federal gas tax, and offers suggestion on new ideas.

Off the Kuff looks at various possibilities for the presumed eventual special election to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate.

jobsanger addressed both political and lifestyle issues last week. First, he answered those who questioned the qualification of Caroline Kennedy to be a senator in Is Kennedy Qualified?, and then expressed his amusement that a swinger's club exists in the absurdly religious Texas Panhandle in Panhandle Swingers - Who Knew?

PDiddie at Brains and Eggs remains skeptical about the prospects of Tom Craddick being unseated. He's still got Hope for Change, he just isn't sure that the Republicans have it in them.

McBlogger this week takes a look at the hard times some are having the Bush's 'Economic Miracle'. Mayor McSleaze gives us an inside look at a Wendy's in DC metro that has a Supreme new employee.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson says that Ronnie Earle should run for Governor of Texas.

Vince at Capitol Annex takes a look at Joe Strauss, the candidate for speaker anointed by the 11 "Anybody But Craddick" Republicans and now the presumed Speaker.

Do you think he's really dead this time?

I can't quite shake the feeling that I'm watching one of the thirteen Halloween films and that Michael Myers Tom Craddick, though he has been shoved out a third-story window, is going to rise yet again to savage the naive teenagers the House Democrats, not to mention poor Texas children and most of the rest of the state's population as well -- excepting a few conservative politicians and lobbyists, and thousands of corporate executives.

(Hell of a run-on sentence that was.)

It's still a week before the vote. I think I'll hold off on the cheering until they drive a stake through his heart AND cut off his head, as in Bram Stoker's versions.

Meanwhile you can raise a post-New Year's toast with those who are celebrating (I certainly don't mean to rain on anyone else's parade).

Sunday, January 04, 2009

The new dog's name is Lucky



She's a pittie, about two years old, found us on our walk on New Year's Eve. Wonderful disposition -- sweet, calm, loves to play with the #1 dog. We're going to keep trying to find her owner before we decide to keep her. All of the so-called "no-kill" shelters aren't really when it comes to a pit bull. The breed gets a bad rap.

Sunday Not-So-Funnies






Saturday, January 03, 2009

Responses to "Why I am a Socialist"

My posting of the essay from Chris Hedges drew a pair of responses; the first, from the always erudite Open Source Dem, follows:

===============

Indeed, these are some of the challenges of our day, not least in Texas and Harris County. But for the life of me I do not see what any of the received doctrines of European socialism or even the Jacobin threads in our distinctively American traditions allow us to deal effectively with any of this; “confront” it, as political poseurs like to say.

Consider a different way of looking at these challenges:


“These corporations have no loyalty to America or the American worker. They are not tied to nation states.”


Actually it is our propertied and credentialed elites -- as a class -- who lack any notion of loyalty at all, even to their own class and phony-baloney corporations. Hell, look at Bernie Maddoff, squandering the savings of his fellow Wilhelmine Jews, while the idiot LaRouchites were obsessed with George Soros. What we have here are extremes of narcissism among the educated elites and simple plutocracy throughout the ruling elites.


Loyalty, by contrast, is cultivated by egalitarian civil and military institutions that have been replaced by a hierarchy of educational institutions starting with prisons at the bottom and ending with your Princetons at the top. The middle-class institutions in the middle are the most muddled and insecure of all. There are actually no common, patriotic institutions, nothing like the Swiss Barrackenschule -- although that is what the Second Amendment implied -- or the French Ecoles Superieres -- although that is what the Land Grant Colleges were supposed to be.


So, what about “a political shift in Europe toward an open confrontation with the corporate state.”


What can we learn here from this? Very little! Europe still has states, bureaucracies, patriotic institutions that can regulate corporations, private enterprises of any sort, even banks, and each other. The “EU” is newer and weaker than our federal union. But it has institutional legacies to build on whereas our federal union is rotting at the head and tail, vanishing before an Anglo-American overclass that recognizes no constitutional restraints on personal power, ambition, or their own entitlements at all.


So, are the “free market and globalization” a new problem, our problem?”


Actually the legacies of American and Russian economic autarky pose problems of corruptly regulated financial markets, obsolete import concessions, arms and drugs barter, perverse industrial policies, subverted professions, and financial bubbles such as predate both socialism and capitalism. Socialism and capitalism are both semi-reputable doctrines of political economy with, however, limited application to problems of recent history and even less to those of the immediate future.


That is the problem with “confronting” matters with either of these doctrines, reduced to mostly buzz-words now with no analysis, standards, or plans.


In other words, Chris Hedges is an ignorant fool.


“The corporate forces that are looting the Treasury and have plunged us into a depression.”


Actually, the 1964-1994 Neo-Confederate GOP was able to do that given a failure of the other, Republican and Democratic, parties to compete. The looting going on before our very eyes consists of panicked Congressional Democrats throwing money at financial institutions they failed to regulate for decades and mortgaged their own balls to: Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel ... who are we kidding with these? The depression was financially engineered by Clinton appointee Alan Greenspan. This is a failure of responsible, two-party government -- something we do not have today but could have relatively easily provided Democrats stop perpetuating their own, failed leaders.


The situation is so exasperating today that pleas for a magic formula will come from the left and right. But the answer may lay deeper in the middle, not further on either extreme. For instance, the European countries Chris cites still have “a draft”-- actually that is an Anglo-American term for the break-down of “all-volunteer” armed forces. They have universal suffrage and very low incarceration rates. They have very few lawyers and medical doctors do not make much more money than police officers. They have strong political parties. Moreover the left, right, and center largely agree on such institutions, whatever else they disagree on. In any case they do not confuse remnants of a titled nobility with merely wealthy mountebanks.

Recently in Belgium, the King joined with the firemen in a violent protest. They used their hoses to blow out the windows of the interior ministry and drench corrupt police and prosecutors who had been protecting a ring of informers, pimps, and gun-runners, who were also murderous pedophiles. The cowardly coalition government -- sort of like the Democrats and Republicans in city and county government here -- fell and was replaced. Contrast that with Bill White and Ed Emmett making excuses for each other, borrowing money hand over fist and levying regressive, indirect taxes to cover up their own improvidence and roll over a mountain of debt.

Where is the competition and accountability in our “system” of government? How does importing socialist jargon do anything but obscure elementary breakdown of our own traditions? Would it not be simpler if the Democratic Party simply competed, instead of collaborated, with the GOP today? We could use over 200 years of robust traditions that Euro-socialists and even Jacobins used to emulate and even now, fall back on in times of crisis!

========================

And also this, in response to that, from my friend David Van Os:

========================

One of the new realizations I obtained from reading The Predator State is that the CEO class, the oligarchy, the plutocrats, the super-rich, the elite, whatever one may choose to call them, actually starve the corporations they work for by diverting what should be the corporations' resources to their own personal accounts, using the money for new mansions and other personal luxuries instead of new factories.

Furthermore, I agree with you about the ways in which the Democratic Party needs to re-establish its mission and reorganize itself in order to cease being complicit in the predation.

However I am unconvinced that it has the capacity to do so, or to be more precise, that any possibility exists for any number of intelligent and committed inside activists to be able to force the reorganization. The structure of the party in Texas, to use the nearest example, results from a Jim Crow Election Code; the problem remains, as always, that lawmakers who were elected under the existing party structure are not motivated to legislate root-level change in a system that got them elected and keeps them elected.

===================

How about a response from you in the comments, please.

A moderate Republick for Speaker of the Texas House?

I don't think so -- and not just because "moderate Republican" is an oxymoron:

A crusade by Republican lawmakers to depose House Speaker Tom Craddick accelerated in earnest Friday when they selected Rep. Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, as the candidate strong enough to oust the longtime incumbent.

The maverick group of 11 Republican state representatives met secretly Friday in an effort to unite behind a single candidate — one they believe also will appeal to Democratic lawmakers in what's expected to be a weekend showdown over the coveted House leadership position. ...

He and the other 10 Republicans represent a growing number of GOP representatives who have grown weary of the leadership style of Craddick, who also has lost the support of most of the chamber's 74 Democrats.


Straus has "impeccable credentials", according to someone at Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report (until HK brings his website into the 20th century, click on "Daily Buzz" and scroll down to the entry dated January 2nd and time-stamped 7:20 p.m.). It's postings like these that call into question Harvey's reputation as a non-partisan. Likely he pissed off Craddick and all of the radical right-wing that runs the Republican Party of Texas more than he did me, however.

So why wouldn't the most conservative powers-that-be not like Straus? Muse has the news:

Oh, my, my, my. Straus got a 100 rating from NARAL in 2007. That's the highest pro-choice rating they give. Only 5 Republican legislators got above zero in 2007. Bust out the popcorn, because this is going to get crazy!

He's already getting the scarlet letter from the crazies.

I just don't see how a guy this sensible (for a Republican) defeats Craddick. Color me the same shade of "shocked" as Burpa:

(I)f this goes south, and Craddick somehow survives, this will be one of the ghastliest mistakes I have ever seen in Texas politics.

I also agree with McB that Speaker Tom is going to slide back in. STXC has more and a good round-up.

Friday, January 02, 2009

Cornyn will filibuster Franken seating

Six more years of obstructionism from this sorry ass:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) threatened Friday to filibuster any attempt to seat Democratic Minnesota Senate candidate Al Franken next week.

The newly minted National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman said he had not whipped votes in the GOP caucus, but added that he could not imagine any members defecting and seating Franken without a certificate of election.

Franken will not have that certificate as long as the election is challenged in the courts — a likely scenario, with Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) legal team already attacking the credibility of the recount process.

“This is a very, very serious matter,” Cornyn said. “I can assure you that there will be no way that people on our side of the aisle will agree to seat any senator without a valid certificate.”

To think that we could have had one decent Senator from this great state. Just one.

Yeah, we need more of it

I'd like to jack up a few conservatives to open the New Year.

The corporate forces that are looting the Treasury and have plunged us into a depression will not be contained by the two main political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties have become little more than squalid clubs of privilege and wealth, whores to money and corporate interests, hostage to a massive arms industry, and so adept at deception and self-delusion they no longer know truth from lies. We will either find our way out of this mess by embracing an uncompromising democratic socialism -- one that will insist on massive government relief and work programs, the nationalization of electricity and gas companies, a universal, not-for-profit government health care program, the outlawing of hedge funds, a radical reduction of our bloated military budget and an end to imperial wars -- or we will continue to be fleeced and impoverished by our bankrupt elite and shackled and chained by our surveillance state.

The free market and globalization, promised as the route to worldwide prosperity, have been exposed as a con game. But this does not mean our corporate masters will disappear. Totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out, is not so much an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. “A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial,” Orwell wrote, “that is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.” Force and fraud are all they have left. They will use both.

There is a political shift in Europe toward an open confrontation with the corporate state. Germany has seen a surge of support for Die Linke (The Left), a political grouping formed 18 months ago. It is co-led by the veteran socialist “Red” Oskar Lafontaine, who has built his career on attacking big business. Two-thirds of Germans in public opinion polls say they agree with all or some of Die Linke’s platform. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands is on the verge of overtaking the Labor Party as the main opposition party on the left. Greece, beset with street protests and violence by disaffected youths, has seen the rapid rise of the Coalition of the Radical Left. In Spain and Norway socialists are in power. Resurgence is not universal, especially in France and Britain, but the shifts toward socialism are significant.

Corporations have intruded into every facet of life. We eat corporate food. We buy corporate clothes. We drive corporate cars. We buy our vehicular fuel and our heating oil from corporations. We borrow from corporate banks. We invest our retirement savings with corporations. We are entertained, informed and branded by corporations. We work for corporations. The creation of a mercenary army, the privatization of public utilities and our disgusting for-profit health care system are all legacies of the corporate state. These corporations have no loyalty to America or the American worker. They are not tied to nation states. They are vampires.


That's from Chris Hedges, it's entitled "Why I am a Socialist", and you really ought to go read the whole thing.

Thursday, January 01, 2009