Happy Valentine's, Chuck

A dispute between Harris County grand jurors who returned an indictment against a Texas Supreme Court justice, but were rebuffed by DA Chuck Rosenthal, now goes to court. From the press release:

In what is believed to be the first suit of its kind in Texas history, members of a Harris County grand jury who indicted Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife, Francisca Medina, for charges stemming from the June 28, 2007, arson of their Houston area home have sued for the right to publicly disclose evidence they considered in handing down the indictments. By law, proceedings before grand juries are usually required to be kept secret.

Once again, the backstory:

On January 17, 2008, the 263rd District Court Grand Jury indicted Francisca Medina for arson and Judge David Medina for evidence tampering. Within an hour, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal announced that the Medinas would not be prosecuted for the crimes due to “insufficient evidence.” On January 18, 2008, State District Judge Brian Rains dismissed both indictments at the request of Assistant District Attorney Vic Wisner.

And to the complaint:

“This suit is necessary because we want the truth to come out,” said Jeffrey L. Dorrell, assistant foreman of the Medina grand jury, an attorney whose firm, Dorrell & Farris, L.P., is representing grand jurors free of charge. “However, out of a decent respect for the rights of the Medinas and for the integrity of the grand jury system, we believe it is proper to seek a judicial determination of our duties before we speak.” The suit seeks no monetary damages or attorney's fees. ...

“Repeatedly accused of base and corrupt motives and hidden political agendas, grand jurors have been obliged to sit close-mouthed while District Attorney Rosenthal and his assistants trumpet to media that the evidence was 'insufficient' to support either a criminal prosecution of the Medinas or even any further investigation of the charges,” the suit says. The grand jurors want a chance to “respond to the attacks on their character.”

“Only disclosing the evidence will allow Plaintiffs to show convincingly that they were not animated by the vile and contemptible motives of which they have been publicly accused by truly the strangest of bedfellows -- the Medinas' criminal defense attorneys and the Harris County District Attorney's office,” the suit says.

And finally, there is precedent (though the roles are reversed):

Another public dispute between a Houston grand jury and a Harris County District Attorney 85 years ago has many parallels to the Medina case. The Harris County District Attorney in 1923, Dixie Smith, had been elected on the Ku Klux Klan ticket. After Smith publicly accused grand jurors of failing to follow their oath, grand jurors accused Smith of failing to prosecute fellow Klansmen who were suspected of crimes, including an arson. Smith sued for libel. The appellate court in that case wrote:

Every man has the right to defend his character against false aspersion. It is one of the duties which he owes to himself and his family. Therefore communications made in fair self-defense are privileged.

I only have one question. Why hasn't Rosenthal resigned yet?

Update ( 2/15): 'Bout freaking time.

Chuck Rosenthal resigned as Harris County district attorney today amid an e-mail scandal that recently forced him to abandon his re-election campaign and a lawsuit filed today that sought his removal from office.

Bill Delmore, chief of the D.A.'s legal services bureau, which oversees the general counsel's office, confirmed that Rosenthal issued a press release in which he says he contacted the governor's office to tender his resignation.

"Although I have enjoyed excellent medical and pharmacological treatment, I have come to learn that the particular combination of drugs prescribed for me in the past has caused some impairment in my judgment," Rosenthal wrote in his resignation letter.

He's blaming the meds? Okay then.

Rosenthal might be admitting that pharmacological drugs impaired his judgment so he can raise intoxication as a possible defense against a future perjury charge in the contempt case pending against him, (attorney Lloyd) Kelley said.

"He's using that as a defense for perjury," Kelley said. "This just isn't his problem. This goes back to (Harris County Judge) Ed Emmett and the county commissioners — they've known about this and haven't done anything about it. It's just shameful."

One last excerpt here, involving county judge Ed Emmett:

Emmett vehemently denied Kelley's assertion that he was aware of Rosenthal's drug issues, said Joe Stinebaker, the county judge's spokesman.

Emmett doesn't need any more stench of corruption wafting over to his race with Charles Bacarisse for the right to lose to David Mincberg in November. I had lunch today with Mincberg and fellow bloggers Charles Kuffner, muse, and Christof Spielor, and will have something on that later.

Clemens: innocent, or idiot?

Dan Wetzel pontificates on the chinballs Rocket has been throwing at anyone who even intimates he's been juicing, and the ramifications to him if the umpires finally eject him. As regards the choice of labels in the headline ...

There really isn't another option, not after Clemens has so aggressively defended himself against performance-enhancing drug charges that he has, perhaps unwittingly, raised the stakes to felony levels.

Today he and his former trainer and chief accuser, Brian McNamee, will testify in front of a Congressional committee. It's a moment we may just find out what Rocket Roger really is – a man lashing out at false charges or a fool begging for a prison cell.

Clemens may be as guilty of doping as McNamee and a fair amount of common sense say. But he is, at the very least, acting like he is innocent, his lawyer all but daring federal agents to take him on.

Time will tell whether he regrets turning a sports controversy into a federal case.

Clemens' defense was slow to start, but now he's done everything imaginable to assert his innocence. He's filed a defamation lawsuit. He's gone on "60 Minutes." He's held a news conference. He's taped a phone call. He's voluntarily testified under oath. He's welcomed his day in Washington. He's met privately with politicians. He's prepared statistical arguments. He's challenged the slightest of charges with evidence. He's had his lawyers make all sorts of crazy comments.

He's showed how you attempt to prove a negative, with a full-bore attack. It certainly hasn't been perfect and it certainly hasn't proven anything, but it's nonetheless been impressive for its scope and intensity.

The problem for Clemens is that, despite his complaints, the court of public opinion was a far better place for an iconic athlete like himself to fight than a pseudo court of law (and probably eventually a real one), which is where he's pushed this. For all the outrageous back and forth in this cat fight -- old beer cans, golf receipts, his wife in a bathing suit, allegedly enhanced by HGH -- Clemens was perfectly capable of muddying the water enough to win support. He has plenty of willing apologists, from the press box to the box seats.

But they hardly matter now. Everything changed when he willingly swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

That's why his public relations and legal campaign is so compelling. The natural reaction is to say Clemens might be innocent because he's acting innocent -- forcing all the cards on the table like he has nothing to hide. It's everything we haven't seen out of baseball players, who usually just complain how unfair the accusations are and do nothing. This isn't Mark McGwire refusing to talk about the past and then hiding out in a gated community in California. This isn't Barry Bonds, defiant in some circles and silent in others.

But we also know that perjury is a slow-forming crime, a witness so backed into a corner, so concerned about the damage the truth can bring, that he just continues to lie even as the risks grow greater.

It is what we saw out of sprinter Marion Jones, who loudly and boldly proclaimed her innocence until she was broke, humiliated and en route to six months in the federal clink.

We also know McNamee has been equally aggressive, that he's a former cop who had little to gain by risking prison time for lying, and that his stories are so detailed or over the top they don't sound like lies (you don't just bring Clemens' wife into it out of nowhere). We also know he told the truth about Clemens' friend Andy Pettitte taking HGH.

The smart play for Clemens, assuming he is guilty, might have been to do what Pettitte did: give an admission with qualifiers that will be accepted and excused by most. But Clemens may not be capable of such clear thinking, no matter how carefully his high-powered legal and public relations team explained the consequences to him.

Or, indeed, he may be innocent.

Either way, here's Roger, aggressively attacking anyone in his way, with a series of brush-back pitches that sometimes seem ill-advised.

Was it really smart to have lawyer Rusty Hardin trashtalk IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky, warning him not to show up Wednesday and claiming if he makes a move on Clemens, "Roger will eat his lunch"? That was enough for Rep. Henry Waxman to chastise Hardin for what could "be seen as an attempt to intimidate a federal law enforcement official."

Was it really a good idea to commission a statistical defense of his career resurgence, one that four Ivy League professors ripped to shreds in the New York Times, concluding that the numbers actually, "strongly hint that some unusual factors may have been at play in producing his excellent late-career statistics"?

And mostly, was it really a good idea to testify under oath about this, a move that could turn the scandal from embarrassing to criminal?

We'll see. At this point, the dice have been thrown, and someone is in a lot of trouble.

Clemens spent last week meeting individually with Congressional committee members, trying to use his star power, engaging personality and intimidating presence to gain favor with our easily dazzled and ethically challenged lawmakers. He did all but write campaign checks. Unfortunately for Clemens, now that a perjury charge, either against McNamee or him, seems inevitable, winning over gushing lawmakers won't help much.

That's the chance he took in his all-out blitz; one more chip he pushed into the pile in his all-in gamble to prove his innocence.

If Clemens is clean, then he deserves credit for fighting this fight and proving it. If not, he'll have plenty of time in a prison cell to curse his reckless stupidity.

Richard Justice is live-blogging the Congressional hearing at which McNamee and Clemens have testified.

You may have noticed a change

in the sidebar. Over there, on the right.

After much consternation and a period of navel-gazing introspection, this blogger will support, vote for, caucus for, and probably walk or phone and perhaps even donate to the Barack Obama for President campaign.

The only real decision was whether to continue to support my man John, on March 4, at the ballot box and the precinct convention caucus -- or not. As much as I enjoy tilting at windmills and rooting for underdogs, it seems like my help may be more valuable in stopping the Clinton machine here in the Lone Star.

And that's what this really comes down to: a vote for the lesser of two Elvises, as Mr. Fish pointed out.

Obama really isn't the perfect candidate for me. That would be Dennis Kucinich. But I couldn't throw my time, talent and treasure behind Kooch because there was simply never any chance for him to win. So I proudly picked the next best guy in Edwards, whose message of hope, of restoring government to the little guy, resonated strongly with me. He received my full-throated support.

But as he said in his 'suspension' speech, history was about to blaze a path right over him, so he had to get out of the way.

I saw Obama when he visited Houston last year at this time and threw in a hundy to boot. And I certainly took in a full toke of the man's aura, his charisma. Whatever "it" is, he has it. But I wasn't convinced, even though a post-Christmas conversation with my nephew the A&M freshman indicated he planned to cast his first-ever vote for Barack. I wasn't sold when I learned my brother the Republican liked him so much he gave him a grand.

No, for me it's all about the block. I have said my piece about Hillary, and the only revision to make is that if she should happen to capture the Democratic nomination, I will support her as the nominee. Without much enthusiasm, candidly.

I just don't think the country can stand four more years of the Clintons much better than it could John McCain, the primary difference between them being the kind of judges they would appoint to the Supreme Court. So my hope is that Obama goes on to be the nominee, be that in the next few weeks, or at a brokered convention in Denver this summer, or some point in between. Whenever, doesn't matter (although I would enjoy the donnybrook of a contested national convention.)

While not my ideal presidential candidate, Barack Obama espouses more than enough of the progressive values necessary to earn my wholehearted endorsement.

Update: Burnt Orange and Eye on Williamson join me. Vince picks Hillary.

Texas in Play (part two)

The continuing series from Open Source Dem ...

----------------------

The peculiar delegate selection process in Texas described in Burnt Orange Report and elsewhere is designed and managed between conventions by white male liberal lawyers -- mostly -- pretending to administer affirmative action (quotas actually), but succeeding only in perpetuating their own and a few large donors’ disproportionate influence over the party.

This is not a system that can stand up to competition with the GOP externally or internally, between diverse individuals, alternative leadership, or -- now -- two national candidates.

It is a kludge.

Actually the race-based analysis of likely voters, used by campaign or segmented marketing consultants, suggests a narrow Obama delegate count advantage but does not show either how or why either candidate for nomination could win big in Texas --"run the table" -- by inspiring rather than by categorizing and manipulating Democratic voters. It does not reflect the fact that the state party establishment is in a panic over the possibility that likely voter "categories" may be swamped by unlikely voters.

No, political elites are unhappy and unprepared for vigorous competition. But most Democratic voters will happily put up with unprecedentedly long lines and confusing directions to show up, speak up, and stand up for candidates they like. Both of them.

The Progressive Populist Caucus (PPC) is the party-building caucus in the TDP (Texas Democratic Party). It is not a PAC; it does not endorse candidates in state or federal campaigns but rather encourages regular participation, non-discrimination, good order, and sustaining membership in the Democratic Parties of Texas and of the United States.

In this primary, convention, and general election cycle, populists seek to sweep statewide races and countywide races in Harris County rather than do the more usual targeted campaign and incumbent protection “arrangement” with the GOP. We also propose a “campaign for change” to sweep a self-perpetuating control faction out of power in Austin and to rebuild a real party from the ground up -- without entrenched social, economic, and professional discrimination left over from a patronizingly “inclusive” but still fundamentally Jim Crow party.

On two-­timing the voters ... the Houston Chronicle and other media are surely correct in observing that nobody expected the Democratic 'prima-caucus' in Texas to be “decisive in the contest for the party’s presidential nomination.” No, the mindless complexity this party wallows in -- more rulesmanship than rules -- mainly serves to divide and demoralize the party by preserving a self-perpetuating control faction within the party. That faction includes a handful of special interests and a fading clique of mercenary campaign consultants. Nearly all of these are holed up in Austin, hangers-on from a previous era, not really leaders of any sort today.

Two years ago the state convention nearly dissolved into chaos because the absurd party rules did not even support orderly election of a State Chair(man) -- that, too, being ordinarily uncontested. This election cycle, the party establishment tried to avoid having a decisive impact by collaborating with some in the GOP to move the primary date up early, when they hoped to “deliver” Texas for John Edwards.

Still, most big-money donors in Texas work around all that. They deal directly with local or statewide campaigns or with national campaign committees. Meanwhile, small donors and party activists have to camp out in the blogosphere. Besides rendering the state party dysfunctional, the little faction in Austin has made the state convention nearly irrelevant ... until now.

Most of the Democratic elites were initially favorable to John Edwards and now have to scramble to embrace Hillary Clinton, or maybe split up to plant a few of their number on an unwelcome Obama bandwagon. Who cares? They will probably do Hillary or Obama as little good as they did Edwards. Remember: this entrenched faction would rather lose elections than lose control of the patronage chain they preside over. “The way we have always done it!” That is their battle cry. Over many years they have taken a battleground state and made it a red-state write-off.

Patriotic, loyal, and simply energetic Democrats -- whether supporting Clinton or Obama -- need to rise up and overthrow this failure-prone party establishment. That takes vigorous participation in the three-tier state convention system. Do not just vote: Flood the conventions! Caucuses and conventions are fun, gratifying, and today, of historic significance. In the convention system delegates each have vote and voice. Moreover, the party establishment has maybe two hundred (no more than one thousand) out of seven thousand votes at the state convention.

The only way to change a moribund party is at the party convention. So a “change agenda” starts at 7:15 p.m., March 4. Change cannot wait until January of next year. You will not see it on television. You cannot download it on your computer. You have to show up, speak up, and stand up, and not just for personalities but for principles -- you know, what reckless conservatives claim to have a monopoly on.

Oh, and delegates in convention have plenary power over the entire party. That is kind of a secret. Yes, state delegates in convention, every single one equally -- not place-holders on the state executive committee, not paid staff or hired guns in Austin -- are the highest authority in the party. Behind a curtain of mumbo jumbo this party is still actually republican in form and democratic in purpose. So contrary to how political control freaks portray it, the conventions are not a stupid beauty pageant in which almost half of the national delegation from Texas get a free ride to Denver while everyone else has to compete in order to pay full freight and more. If we have a real state convention, Texas can actually deliver an outstanding delegation. We could speak clearly on energy and the environment. Real Democrats could say “no” to malarkey about corn ethanol, coal power, obsolete nuclear reactors, or whatever else lobbyists are peddling and dumping in Texas.

In any event, it will do no good to nominate our best ticket in Denver just to leave the old party establishment sitting there in Austin, administering demeaning quotas and petty patronage on behalf of a few white male attorneys protecting a few safe seats, Craddick Democrats mostly. Democrats have a huge, latent Democratic majority in Texas and vital statewide races on the ballot in November.

Between 4 March and 6 June, Texas Democrats need to get out of the latest Grisham novel we are stuck in. We need a Democratic Party that can handle competition within the party fairly, manage time and materials effectively and compete against the GOP decisively. That is not rocket science. But it is more than the cornpone legalism that the Houston Chronicle and the national media just noticed.

Update: Neil adds his sly dry wit.

Discounts for Netroots Nation available here

Mary Rickles, the director of marketing and media, sends me this (for you):

As an active member of the Texas Progressive Alliance, we hope you're making plans to join us July 17–20 in Austin for Netroots Nation 2008.

In less than six months, you'll connect with progressive candidates, elected officials and fellow activists while you participate in your choice of more than 100 workshops, panels and events.

For a limited time, Netroots Nation is offering a $50 discount to all TPA members who register by Friday, February 15. For just $325 -- $50 off the current rate and $125 off the full convention price of $450 -- you'll experience four days filled with all the panels, workshops, caucuses and socializing you can handle in your home state. The registration fee covers many of your meals, too.

Register now! Simply enter promo code "TPA" to take advantage of this special rate. This offer expires Friday, February 15 at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time.

As always, visit netrootsnation.org for convention updates. See you in Austin!

One FAQ: If you're reading this blog, then you're a "member" of the TPA. Now come on and join us.

Around the world with Chelsea Clinton

In the wake of MSNBC reporter David Schuster's cheeky question about the Clinton campaign "pimping out" the once and potentially future First Daughter, The Rude Pundit wants to know how much a night with Chelsea might be. Whatever the cost, I think I would have to at least consider paying it ... as long as voting for her mother wasn't included in the asking price:

But the fact remains that Hillary Clinton agreed to a debate on Fox "news" despite all the not-very-nice things said about Chelsea (not to mention the "incredibly offensive" things spewed by Fox about Bill and her constantly). And she threatened to bail on MSNBC's debate, refusing to accept Shuster's apology and even Keith Olbermann's prostration. (The debate was canceled after Barack Obama agreed to another one on CNN.)

That means that she leapt at Shuster's remark as a way of keeping sympathy for her and her family in the news, a distraction from Obama's primary/caucus sweep this weekend. She used this Chelsea situation as a way to kick start some desperately needed fundraising.

And that ... is pretty much the definition of pimping.

FISA: Better Democrats needed in the Senate

mcjoan:

Here's the bunch of Democrats who were willing to sell out your Constitutional rights to protect the telcos:

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Senators McCain and Obama voted nay and aye, respectively. Senator Clinton was not present, though she might be for final passage.

This group bought the "keep us safe" canard hook, line, and sinker. Bush, his Republicans, and their telco buddies were a stronger force than us on this one. On days like this, it's hard to remember that this is, as Howard Dean told us at Yearly Kos last summer, a long term project.

Paul Keil:

Speaking to a conference call of reporters this afternoon, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said that, reflecting on the string of defeats in the Senate today, he thought the House was the best hope for stripping retroactive immunity from the final surveillance bill."We've lost every single battle we had on this bill [in the Senate].... We're not getting anywhere at all" he said. "The question now is can the House do better." ...

The Senate had "just sanctioned" the "single largest invasion of privacy in the history of the country," he said. When asked why he thought so many Dem senators had crossed over, he replied: "Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties in order to be more secure are apparently prevailing. They seem to be convincing people that you're at risk politically or we're at risk as a nation if we don't give up rights."

The fight shifts over to the House of Representatives, where John Conyers has just announced his opposition to telecom immunity. Contact your representative.

Ron Paul: prelude to a third-party run

Lots of empty seats on the McCain bandwagon:

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, secured more major endorsements on Monday, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and evangelical leader Gary Bauer. But there's one vote he shouldn't count on, from fellow presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.

Paul, R-Lake Jackson, said he will not back McCain if he is the party's nominee unless the Arizona senator "has a lot of change of heart."

"I cannot support anybody with the foreign policy he advocates, you know, perpetual war. That is just so disturbing to me," Paul said Monday. "I think it's un-American, un-constitutional, immoral and not Republican."

Once Dr. No salts away Chris Peden in his Congressional primary, then he will turn his attention to the Libertarian Party's presidential selection process.

Just a hunch.

A maelstrom of conservative bullshit

Lookey here:

Che Guevara Flags in Obama's Houston office

First of all, you idiots, one of those is a Cuban flag with Che's photo on it, so you better get busy tieing Barack Obama to Fidel. Given that Castro and McCain are currently fussing with each other -- and that Castro is still alive, albeit barely -- you might get a little more outrage mileage outta that.

You just have to stand back and laugh sometimes when right-wing freaks get busy whipping themselves into a frenzy over their latest perceived Swift Boat opportunity. I thought the GOP meme was that they were to say nice things about Obama in order to convince Democrats to nominate him. So I guess that theory is out the window, since they're shooting this wad prematurely.

As with Obama's religion (Christian), his swearing-in (on a Bible) and his hand over his heart during the national anthem (once it was missing), the conservatives are drooling and wiggling like hungry bats on a cave wall, ready to swoosh out into the night and devour their weight in insects before returning at dawn to sleep upside down and add to the large pile of guano beneath them.

Since Republicans tend to know nothing about popular culture, let's enlighten (emphasis mine):

Despite the controversies, Guevara's status as a popular icon has continued throughout the world, leading commentators to speak of a global "cult of Che". A photograph of Guevara taken by photographer Alberto Korda^[164] has become one of the century's most ubiquitous images, and the portrait, transformed into a monochrome graphic, is reproduced endlessly on a vast array of merchandise, such as T-shirts, posters, cigarettes,^[165] coffee mugs, and baseball caps largely for profit. This fact led Argentine business analyst Martin Krauze to postulate that: “The admiration for El Che no longer extends to his politics and ideology. It’s a romantic idea of one man going to battle against the windmills, he’s a Quixote.” While British journalist Sean O’Hagan has described Che as “more Lennon than Lenin”. Taking the opposite hypothesis, Mexican commentator and Che Biographer Jorge Castaneda has proclaimed that: “Che can be found just where he belongs in the niches reserved for cultural icons, for symbols of social uprisings that filter down deep into the soil of society.” ^[166] The saying "Viva la revolucion!" has also become very popular and synonymous with Guevara.^[167][168] In North America, Western Europe and many regions outside Latin America, the image had been likened to a global brand, long since shedding its ideological or political connotations, and the obsession with Guevara has been dismissed by some as merely "adolescent revolutionary romanticism".^[134]

Shorter Wiki: hanging a banner of Che Guevara today is sort of like wearing a corporate logo polo. You morons.

Update: Douchebag Robbie has more of the typical Republican "outrage". The Chron's city hall blog deviates from their usual topic to cover the "flap".

90,000 and 150,000

This little corner of the Intertubes reached those milestones in visits and page views in the past few hours (click the Sitemeter button at the very bottom if you are ever interested in the traffic here). I don't recall precisely when I began to track the number of clicks, but it was long after November of 2004, when I began to blog in earnest.

This shop opened for business in November of 2002, but it was a false start; it jumped up again two years later and stuck (if you're ever interested in knowing what I was saying a few years ago, the old postings are archived by month at the end of the right sidebar. Don't count on the links working, though). That chronology puts me up there in age with Web daddies like Kuffner, who makes a point of saying his is the oldest continuously published blog in Texas. It is. Charles is also better than me at a few other things, like procreating, but that's a digression.

Thank you, dear reader, very much for visiting and commenting here the past few years.

Some of my prized blog brethren have fallen by the wayside during that time: Media Whores Online was a particular source of early inspiration, the cessation of Billmon was deeply felt, and recently norbizness gave it up. Some, like my very good friend Prairie Weather, take a break and renew themselves, something I have also managed a couple a times. It makes me sad when people with so much talent and insight suddenly lose interest, while a no-account hack like me (and virtually every single conservative blogger I have ever found) continues to soldier on.

The one best thing I have always managed to do is find good writing or funny pictures and share them here, and occasionally think of something approaching profound to say. I expect I will continue to do that for as long as Uncle Sam and my advancing Agent Smith Syndrome allow me to.

Onward.