Public Integrity Unit pulled away from Travis County DA

And placed in the Texas attorney general's office.  The bill -- SB 10 -- passed out of committee with all Repugs in favor and all Dems opposed.

Voting along party lines, the Senate State Affairs Committee on Monday voted to recommend the full Senate approve a proposal to move the state’s public corruption watchdog out of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office.

For the better part of an hour, Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, defended her bill while Democrats picked it apart and testimony was offered suggesting it would make public corruption much more difficult to prosecute. Somewhat emphatically, Huffman said she’s not carrying the legislation on behalf of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Gov. Greg Abbott or anyone else. This is her bill alone, Huffman said.

As written, the bill aims to move the prosecution of an officeholder to that official’s home county instead of Austin when they are formally accused of abusing their power. Huffman explained that under her revised version of this, the District Attorney in the official’s home county could be removed from a case if there was a potential conflict of interest.

Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice interprets it a little differently.

“SB 10 is a politicians dream, a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for public officials. SB 10 creates a special legal system reserved for politicians only -- a system designed to end corruption prosecutions, not pursue them.

The bill is another attack on local control by big government Republicans. It strips all county district attorneys of their traditional power to prosecute corruption within their own jurisdictions. It transfers that power directly to the Attorney General.

Senator Huffman claims her bill will “restore public confidence” in corruption investigations and then hands those cases to a partisan attorney general, himself under a cloud of corruption allegations. In fact, punishing a corrupt politician under SB 10 requires the unanimous approval of the attorney general, the Texas Rangers, a state judge AND a district or county attorney SB 10 will likely breed more corruption by advertising the fact that there is no functioning deterrent.”

The TXGOP is only doing what the (historically low number of) 2014 voters elected them to do: cement one-party rule in Texas, as conservative as you can stand.

They haven't determined exactly how much we can stand yet, but that's on the docket.

Texas Senate Republicans pass open carry

20-11, a pair of numbers we can get used to seeing much more often.

Licensed Texans would be allowed to openly carry handguns in a shoulder or belt holster – like the Old West – under legislation tentatively approved by the Senate Monday after emotional debate that sharply divided Democrats and Republicans.

The measure by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, would join Texas with most other states in authorizing open carry of handguns – as long as the person has a state handgun license. Currently about 826,000 Texans have a concealed handgun license, nearly 3 percent of the state’s population.

The bill, approved on a 20-11 straight party-line vote, would be effective on Jan. 1, 2016. Texans can already carry long guns, like rifles, openly.

They called it a debate before the vote, but everybody had their minds made up long ago.  The Republicans, naturally, could not dare vote against it and survive a primary challenge next year.

Regarding concerns that many Texans will be fearful of people openly displaying guns in public places like parks, Estes suggested they should “get help somewhere.”

Senate Democrats tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to soften its impact. Among those were proposals to require annual background checks for license holders, more handgun training for licensees and retention clips on all holsters used to carry handguns. Most amendments were tabled on partisan 20-11 votes.

Democrats also claimed to have the support of the law enforcement community in Texas, which mostly testified in opposition to the bill at an earlier public hearing.

[...]

“Have you thought about the dangers you will expose to the men and woman who make up law enforcement in our state?” asked Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston.

Logic failed.  These are Republicans, after all.

(Sen. Royce) West also pressed Estes to name any law enforcement agencies or leaders who support his open carry proposal. “If none testified in favor, would you still move forward on this bill?” he asked, suggesting there was a good reason marshals and sheriffs in the Old West required cowboys to hang up their guns when coming into town.

The Republican tide on the open carry measure was aided by a change in Senate rules this session that reduced the number of votes needed to bring a bill up for debate. Instead of the previous two-thirds margin that was needed in the past (21 votes), the required margin is now three-fifths, or 19 votes. Republican currently hold 20 seats in the 31-member chamber.

One party rule.  But we knew this session was going to go down like this weeks ago.  One amendment that did pass seemingly will keep the Wild, Wild West off campus.  That bill is to be "debated" tomorrow.

One amendment that was adopted, by Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, exempted college campuses from the open carry measure.

Texas law presently bans carrying concealed weapons while you're at an institution of higher learning, but SB 11 would allow it.  So that means -- once all this shit gets passed -- you'd have to hide your gun and holster once you get to college.  I think.

Then again, maybe the Senate Repubs will resolve any differences they may have between the bills and each other -- because they're the only ones that matter -- in a shootout on the Senate floor.  I think I'll mosey on down to the saloon and have me a shot of red eye to celebrate.  Before the shootin' starts.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is sneezing a little as we fill out our brackets and prepare for our fantasy baseball drafts. Oh, and here's the blog post roundup from last week.

Off the Kuff reports on the last (we hope) special legislative election of the year.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos, is both outraged and embarrassed by the 47 GOP U.S. Senator saboteurs: The Snow Made Them Do It.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is terrified that private entities are controlling are access to water. Oligarchy is the Republican way.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson: The GOP in Texas used to be for local control, now they're not. Why is that? They're For Local Control As Long As They Control The Locals.

A tale of letters, email, and self-inflicted wounds was told by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Neil at All People Have Value visited the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo.  He hopes that any race of super-smart alien cows who visit us have mercy on our souls. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

jobsanger celebrates his ninth blogging birthday today.

Bluedaze reported on state Rep. Phil King's "Fracking Nanny" bill, which was tabled in committee.

Texas Leftist, also tracking state legislative developments, blogged about Big Oil's efforts to subvert local control, specifically Houston's regulating pollution from their refineries along the Ship Channel.

And John Coby at Bay Area Houston posted twice about how to drive in Texas.

****************

Here's more great Texas liberal blog postings from across the Lone Star State.

Texans for Public Justice wants the Lege to understand that public integrity depends on prosecutorial independence.

Grits for Breakfast noted the attempt by state legislators to scale back the statute of limitations for rape, and collected more criminal justice bill filings from Austin.

Trail Blazers posted about Rand Paul's SXSW boasting about his Snapchat skills, and his sniping at Hillary Clinton.

Socratic Gadfly wrote about Harry Truman and healthcare, while The Makeshift Academic reminds us that Obamacare is about people, not states.

Austin Contrarian illustrates the problem of disconnectivity in the streets.

The TSTA blog previews a couple of bad education bills, and Raise Your Hand Texas testifies that an A-F grading system for schools and school districts is a bad idea.

Texas Vox calls for renewables to push out coal.

Mean Green Cougar Red supports doing away with Daylight Saving Time.

Rafael McDonnell recalls a meeting and interview he had with anti-gay pastor Flip Benham 20 years ago.

The Quintessential Curmudgeon wonders if those Kiwanis "American Flag" flyers fall under the definition of ethical fundraising.

Prairie Weather wryly observes that what intellectual poverty looks like is exemplified in that Apple wristwatch.

Houston Matters provides an update on the spring bale of sea turtles that the NOAA Fisheries Service is raising and releasing in Galveston.

Juanita Jean caught us up on that "Jinx" TV star named Robert Durst.

Fascist Dyke Motors pens a murder mystery.

Last, The Texas Observer eulogizes former Texas land commissioner Bob Armstrong.

It's mutiny, not treason.

Here's where I need to say "IANAL", and that I know nothing about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which applies more to Sen. Joni Ernst as a military reservist and signatory to Sen. Tom Cotton's letter than it does him), but it certainly seems as if someone who holds both a Bronze Star and a Harvard law degree should know better than to have stepped on the line of the Logan Act, or demonstrated what a US Army general refers to as mutiny.

“I would use the word mutinous,” said (retired Major Gen. Paul D.) Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on to succeed.”

The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.

“I think Senator Cotton recognizes this, and he simply does not care,” Eaton went on to say.

If you'd rather have it illustrated, then here you go.

When in doubt, pull out your trusty pocket copy of the US Constitution -- every true conservative carries one, you know -- and turn to the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Cotton's letter and the 46 other senators who signed it aligned themselves with their counterparts in the Iranian government: hard-boiled, war-mongering conservative extremists.  Both of those wish to derail the nuclear non-proliferation proposal under discussion between Iran and the United States, negotiating on behalf of the United Nations Security Council.  Some critics want to call those talks 'aid and comfort to the enemy'.  Prosecutorial discretion aside (ham sandwiches and indictments, as they say), that charge really doesn't hold any water.  The letter's contents do not reveal anything resembling aid or comfort to the people of Iran, and that nation is not even quite our enemy, as they are our ally -- not just at the moment  but for some months now -- against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/whatever we're calling them this week.

But that's where people get the idea that Cotton's letter is treasonous; that "aid and comfort to the enemy" phrase, which is also mentioned in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

If you're still asking, "WTF does all this mean, PDiddie?" then here's a good interpretation (of the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3):

This section is stating that no person who has previously taken an oath into office (Congress, presidential, vice presidential etc) is allowed to engage in activities against or in harm to the state (country). So if someone is found to have engaged in a rebellion or is found to have aided enemies of the United States they are not able to hold office. This can, however, be ignored by a two thirds vote in Congress. (Emphasis is mine.)

So even if someone in Congress were found to have committed mutiny -- or treason, for that matter -- US Senators and Representatives can nullify that by a 2/3rds vote.  That's what happened in the late 1970s, when Congress removed the ban of CSA president Jefferson Davis from serving his re-unified country in public office (a little late for him to take advantage, to be sure).

But the best example of why there will be no consequence to Cotton or the others is that there are accused international war criminals named George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et. al., and a confessed war criminal and brazen, declared intentional recidivist named Dick Cheney who roam America wild and free today, more than a decade since they committed their war crimes.  Prosecutorial discretion, as they say.

Nothing of significance is going to come of Cotton and his in-Obama's-face disgrace beyond apoplectic indignation... with the exception of petitions and Democratic fundraising letters, of course.  And every political consultant worth his salt will tell you that you can't raise nearly as much money using the word 'mutiny' as you can 'treason'.

Update: Don't believe me?  Would you believe Sean Penn?

Sunday Funnies

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Of letters and email and self-inflicted wounds

Who has cut themselves the worst, Hillary or the 47 Cotton-picking morons?

I checked in with my alter-ego, Saul Relative -- whom the RNC is still soliciting -- and his response was: "meh, it's all relative".  It's certainly possible that aspiring presidential nominees Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio gained standing among GOP primary voters by trolling the Logan Act, but will ultimately lose the war, i.e. a November 2016 general election that has independents and moderates as the key to victory (as if those three guys had any chance of winning to begin with).

Potential but as yet undeclared contenders like Rob Portman may have injured his prospects because he's from purple Ohio, and Lindsey Graham helped his because he's from South Carolina.

So as it may go down in twenty months -- the economy, stupid notwithstanding -- to who's got the maddest foreign policy ballin' skilz, let's check in with the Iranian mullah who gets the last word in the matter of the pending, possible nuclear agreement between his nation and the US (and the other UN Security Council states, it should be emphasized).

Iran's supreme leader said Thursday that a letter from Republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by the next U.S. president is a sign of "disintegration" in Washington.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the letter a sign of "the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration," according to the official IRNA news agency. It was the first reaction to the letter by Khamenei, who has the final say over all major policies.

Khamenei said states typically remain loyal to their commitments even if governments change, " but American senators officially announced the commitment will be null and void after this government leaves office. Isn't this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration?"

Oops, he nailed it.

Khamenei called the letter “stupid” and “disgusting” and said he was negotiating with backstabbers.

He blamed the letter on the fact that they had been recently addressed “by a Zionist clown,” referring to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

He complained that the Senators had accused Iran of supporting terrorism, which, he said, “is laughable.” (Iran sees Hizbullah and Hamas as legitimate resistance movements). He countered that it was the United States that created ISIL (Daesh), the world’s worst terrorist organization by its invasion of Iraq. He also accused Israel, which he said that the US backs to the hilt, of being a terrorist state.

He said that when an administration concludes an agreement with someone, the next administration is bound to honor it, but that in the US this principle has been discarded. The GOP senators had pledged, he said, to make any agreement with the Obama administration “as though it never existed.” “This is the utmost in the decline of political ethics … that is, this system is a system on the verge of oblivion, such that a person sees these things in it… They actually said they want to give Iranians a lesson so that we would understand their laws. We don’t need the lessons of those people!”

Indeed.

Do those 47 senators actually hate Obama more than they love their country?  More than they fear nuclear war?  I report; you decide.

On the other hand, this next cartoon may be a perfectly cringeworthy illustration of everything we have to look forward to with respect to the Democratic party's primary debates.

This may not seem absurd to the people who gathered last night in Houston to get themselves ready, but I can assure them that it certainly does to many others.

Tonight, Houston Democratic establishment declares they are @ReadyForHillary in event hosted by @GeneforTexas. | https://t.co/loAYOtJfQR
— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) March 12, 2015

Paging Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, and/or Joe Biden to the red courtesy phone at Gate 411: you have an emergency clue holding.

Here's the deal with Hillary Clinton's email

A couple of deals.  Okay, a few deals.

Chris Cillizza:

The problem for Clinton (or at least the problem I see) is that we won't ever be able to check whether the judgment used by her lawyers was the right judgment. I'm not suggesting that she should have been required to publicly release every e-mail -- professional or personal -- she sent during her time at State. There's plenty of private things that she has every right to keep private. But the decision to destroy all of those e-mails means that the possibility of having an independent review of them by some trusted figure (or figures) is entirely impossible.

The "just trust me" approach is tough in any part of life but especially when it comes to a person running (or about to be running) for the nation's highest office. That goes double when at issue is primary source documentation of the most recent position Clinton held before the one she plans to seek. I don't think Clinton is lying about the nature of the e-mails that were withheld from the State department and then destroyed. But I do think that the line between personal and professional communications -- especially via e-mail -- is a very fine one. And simply saying that you drew that line yourself and expecting everyone to nod their heads and move on is decidedly far-fetched.

Gadfly.

Talking Points Memo has Hillary Clinton's nine-page press release, which has more lies. One? That she emailed all government employees on ".gov" accounts, when we know that Huma Abedin had an account on the Clinton server.

It also notes she is turning over 55,000 pages of emails, not 55,000 emails. She's actually turning over only half of the emails of the account, claiming a full one-half are private.

As for why Clintonistas cite Colin Powell for using a private email account but don't cite Condoleezza Rice, who followed him? A 2005 State Department policy manual update said private email accounts could be used only if those emails were turned over to the government, and specified narrow exceptions for private use. That's probably why Condi used a government account.

Meanwhile, ignore the fact that your chief female political fixer had an email on the same private domain and that your JP Morgan moneybags for your $25 million of investments runs the domain server.

My step-sister.

Ed Snowden, please undelete Hillary's emails, and send them out for review. She said she never put any classified information in her emails, so no worry about national secrets. Isn't it funny that she feels very secure that her deleted emails are deleted. Is there even such a thing as deleted emails? I think they live forever -- like on the other party's server, at the Google headquarters, in cyberspace somewhere. She used her iPad. Did she use it in foreign countries? Does she not know that the Koreans, Chinese, Russians, and many others tap everything in their countries and in ours if they really want to know, just like we do -- at the NSA?

That's bingo.  I still don't understand why Trey Gowdy or Darrell Issa or whoever's turn it is to drive the House Scandal Bus this week doesn't just ask NSA for whatever they need.  Seems like the easiest way to find out if there is actually something scandalous or not.

This is hopefully -- VERY hopefully -- the last thing I need to blog about this topic.