The real meaning of impeachment

Posted on September 26, 2019 by bvanrysdam

The word impeachment has been in the news a lot, but it seems many Americans don’t really understand what that means (which is not surprising when you realize only 26% of Americans can name all three branches of the government (see “Could you pass this test”)

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official from office; it is the equivalent to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the statement of charges against the official.

In the relatively young history of the U.S. (243 years), only two presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 (Nixon resigned in part to avoid being impeached). Both Johnson and Clinton were acquitted and finished their term in office.

Impeachment by its very nature can be a very politicized event and that seems even more evident in today’s hyper-partisan world. Democrats want to “Dump Trump” while Republicans counter with “You just don’t like that he won”.

So where does that leave us? There really is no road map on how any of this works. For instance, there is a debate on whether or not congress must vote on a resolution to open inquires. No resolution has been voted on and it’s not clear that one would pass at this time (although it does appear the tide is shifting). Others argue having the House Judiciary Committee already engaged in an impeachment investigation by-passes the need for a resolution to open inquires.

Let’s just say for the moment, the House votes on the articles of impeachment with one of the articles passing, the president is officially impeached (the equivalent of being indicted, but not found guilty). The matter than goes to the Senate, were the procedures are even murkier.

You would think something this important would be spelled out in great detail, but you would be wrong; there are no set rules. The Senate could pass a resolution (there’s that word again) to lay out how the trail would proceed making it up as they go along, but there is no legal mechanism in place if the majority leader were to refuse to convene a trail (ala Senator Mitch McConnell refusing to permit a Supreme Court confirmation hearing and vote on Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland).

So how does this get resolved? There is one solution; let the American people decide in the 2020 presidential election. Then we can argue about the Election College and stop talking about impeachment.

Texas law goes up in smoke

Posted on July 30, 2019 by bvanrysdam

“Marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas”

So reads the letter, signed by Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, and Attorney General Ken Paxton. It may not be decriminalized, but it sure has taken an interesting turn with the passage of House Bill 1325 this past session.

The so-called “Hemp Bill” took the drug off the list of controlled substances in Texas, as long as products such as CBD oil contain no more than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive ingredient that gives users their buzz.

So what’s the problem? It seems measuring the difference between legal (0.3 percent) and illegal (0.4 percent) requires very special equipment which is not readily available and expensive. Some estimates projected the equipment and training for 25 new employees to be around $5.5 million annually. Since no funding was provided, many district attorneys are delaying, or even dropping low-level marijuana cases.

The letter signed by Abbott, Patrick, Bonnen and Paxton went to say…

“Since H.B. 1325 did not repeal the marijuana laws of Texas, as Judicial Branch Members, you should continue to enforce those laws by ‘faithfully executing the duties of the office of the [District or County Attorney], of the State of Texas, and … to the best of [your] ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.”

The problem is lawmakers were told before they voted that H.B. 1325 was going to make prosecuting marijuana a lot tougher. The Texas Department of Public Safety testified to state budget officials the bill would need to be funded to work. Democratic state Rep. Tracy King’s office was told that, without funds for new lab testing, the legislation would “essentially legalize marijuana.”

It’s all part of the “un-funded mandate” game. Austin makes the rules, then wants to local jurisdictions to figure out how to pay for it. Texas lawmakers take great pride passing tax cuts, implementing new laws, then screaming foul when local authorities try to figure out how to make it work, or worse don’t try at all.

With lawmakers approving a $250.7 billion two-year budget, could someone in Austin have listened a little more carefully to the people testifying and come up with $5 million?

Was it something she said?

Posted on April 9, 2019 by bvanrysdam

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjyn Nielsen recently resigned. The besieged top person charged with protecting our borders often butted heads with President Trump and his desire to enforce tougher immigration.

“I hope that the next Secretary will have the support of Congress and the courts in fixing the laws which have impeded our ability to fully secure America’s borders and which have contributed to discord in our nation’s discourse,” Nielsen wrote in the two-page letter. “Our country — and the men and women of DHS — deserve to have all the tools and resources they need to execute the mission entrusted to them.”

What I find interesting is the timing of her resignation. It has been reported that Nielsen had no intention of quitting when she went to the meeting Sunday with the president and that she was forced to step down. The announcement of her departure came shortly after the meeting.

So why now? I wonder if Trump watched her interview with CNN’s Chris Como.

During the interview (which was not included by CNN in this clip), Como acknowledged the very difficult job border agents have and how he witnessed many of them showing compassion and working hard to keep everyone safe in the shelters. Como also pointed out how the current immigration laws often impede border agents from doing their job.

Nielson responded by thanking Como for recognizing the work being done and appreciated him making that point. She also agreed that immigration laws have to be improved to help solve this issue.

So was that the preverbal straw that broke the camel’s back? One has to wonder what Trump thought of his secretary appearing on CNN and thanking the host. The president and CNN have butted heads since he announced his candidacy and if history is any indication, it had to go over like a lead zeppelin.

Maybe it was time to for Nielson to go, but it sure seems like her CNN appearance did not do her any favors.

Exonerate

Posted on April 3, 2019 by bvanrysdam

Here is a question for you; what do President Trump and actor Jussie Smollett have in common? The word “Exonerate”.

Merriam-Webster defines it is as…

to relieve of a responsibility, obligation or hardship
to clear from accusation or blame

When the long awaited Mueller report came out (we’re still waiting to see exactly what it said), U.S. Attorney William Barr, in letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary wrote…

The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The president immediately took to Twitter saying…

It is not surprising the president would interpret the memo to his advantage, while others have looked at this saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute collusion, which people much smarter than me say that charge is very difficult to prove in court.

Now let’s head from Washington D.C. to Chicago where Empire actor Jussie Smollett claimed to have been attacked by two people in what was thought to be a hate crime.

When Chicago police investigated the attack, they determined he orchestrated the alleged hate crime in January on himself because he was unhappy with his salary on the show “Empire.” Smollett was arrested and charged with felony disorderly conduct, but the story does end there.

A representative for Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, whose office was prosecuting Smollett, said,

“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”

This of course led to the actor saying (through his attorneys)…

“Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement.”

After the evitable fire storm hit the internet, First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Mages (the lead prosecutor) told CNN affiliate WLS that dropping the charges did not mean the actor was exonerated. When asked whether he considered Smollett to be innocent, the prosecutor said “No.”

So where does that leave us? I would suggest on the road to nowhere.**

**a plan, project, development, or course of action that appears to have or offer no meaningful, desirable or useful conclusion.

The disappearing middle

Posted on February 19, 2019 by bvanrysdam

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has rolled out a health plan that would help provide universal child care. The proposal would create a federal program that establishes a network of public and family-run centers.

The care would be free for families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level (about $51,500 for a family of four) and those earning more would pay a subsidized fee based on their income, with no households shelling out more than 7 percent of their income.

Experts estimate her child care initiative would cost the federal government $700 billion over 10 years which begs the question, how do we pay for that?

Tax the wealthy! (Please raise your hand if you think that will work) Other than being a far-fetched idea, it sounds eerily like another campaign promise regarding a certain border wall (whose going to pay for it? Mexico!).

While I applaud anyone trying to improve health care, fixing the immigration system and tackling any of the other hundreds of issues facing our country (roads, education, trade), throwing out ideas that are dead on a arrival are of very little help. This may play to her base (very much like the border wall plays to Trump’s base), but has about as much of a chance of working as me winning the lotto.

It feels that, when it comes to politics, the pendulum swings from left to right (or right to left depending on the year). Playing to the hard core case leaves out a very important segment of America, those in the middle looking for common ground and solutions that have a chance.

I would like to see the pendulum slow down and little and let America catch her breath.

Open mouth insert foot (repeat)

Posted on January 15, 2019 by bvanrysdam

“I never worked for Russia”

Let those words sink in for a moment. They were not said by Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn, but by President Trump. Even knowing Trump’s disdain for the media (with the exception of Fox News), it was an extraordinary thing to say.

I am reminded back to the days of Nixon and Watergate when he quipped “I am not a crook” which, according to Time magazine, became one of the Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners (others making the list was Clinton’s “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and George H.W. Bush’s infamous “Read my lips: no new taxes”). The line instantly caught fire and one could arguably say was the beginning of the end of the Nixon White House.

As I so often like to point out, I am not implying Trump is guilty and this not about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians. I’ll let the Mueller team figure that out, but it’s about an American president actually having to deny they worked for a foreign and to a large degree, adversary.

Trump supporters will say it’s because the media is obsessed with the investigation (and they would be right). They will also remind you there is no direct evidence linking Trump to conspire to rig the election (and they would be right again), but Team Trump continues to step in it.

Remember these lines…

“Truth isn’t truth” – Rudy Giuliani
Spicer was giving “alternative facts” – Kellyanne Conway
“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock” – Anthony Scaramucci

In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter what Trump or his team says. It seems most American’s fall into three categories. You support him, you hate him, or you hold your nose at what he says and hopes he keeps nominating conservative appointees.

Still, one has to wonder how long this ride can last before the train flies off the rails.

Fear and loathing on the border

Posted on January 14, 2019 by bvanrysdam

We have crisis on the border.

That is the message the White House is delivering in an attempt to win the perception game on the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

President Trump recently visited the border joined by fellow republicans including Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Ted Cruz and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The rhetoric of really bad people including terrorists and/or members of vicious gangs coming across smuggling drugs and making our country less safe continues to ratchet up.

While I do agree the border and immigration are issues that have to be addressed, I am struck by the tone of trying to convince America that we need a wall. It sounds as if Texas, and especially the border, is a really dangerous place right now that no one should want to be a part of.

It seems to me that if a business was looking to relocate, the last place they would want to move to is somewhere that is so dangerous, the U.S. is willing to implement a partial shutdown of the government. And what about the tourism industry. What family would want to visit towns like El Paso, McAllen or Brownsville?

It has been pointed out by opponents of Trump’s proposal, that the facts are simply not there to support his claim, but I think in the case (as is too often the case), the facts really don’t matter. It’s about tone, innuendo and scaring people into believing something is real (anybody remember Joe McCarthy and the fear of “Reds Under The Bed”?).

I do sympathize with people who have lost loved ones by people who are here illegally, but not anymore than those who lost a loved one in mass shooting. Both are wrong and both issues need to be fixed.

The Republican Party has always flown the “We Support Business” banner, but in this case, they may be more Chicken Little running around yelling the sky is falling and we all know how that turned out.

We The People (except you)

Posted on January 10, 2019 by bvanrysdam

How far has American come in terms of tolerance? Consider this, a group of Tarrant County Republicans will vote this week on whether or not to remove Tarrant County Republican Vice-Chair Shahid Shafi. His crime? Being Muslim.

Shafi, a trauma surgeon and Southlake City Council member, is having his position challenged because he doesn’t represent all Tarrant County Republicans. They point out that Islamic ideologies do not align with the U.S. Constitution even though Amendment I says…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

According to the Texas Tribune, Dorrie O’Brien, one of the precinct chairs, said she wants to boot Shafi out, not because he is Muslim, but because she questions whether he supports Islam or is connected “to Islamic terror groups”. I guess she is also unaware of the 14^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees ‘equal protection under the law’ which basically ensures a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

Ironically, the argument O’Brien is making is the same the KKK made against Catholics. The Klan pointed out that since Catholics had to put the pope first, they could not put the country’s interests ahead of the pope who would be the de facto leader (the same argument was made when JFK ran for president).

The good news in all of this is several high ranking Texas Republicans are standing with Shafi including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush and former House Speaker Joe Straus.

It looks like there is common ground to be found in politics. Unfortunately, it takes something this extreme for it to happen.

Government and social media

Posted on December 6, 2018 by bvanrysdam

As is usually the case, the law is trying to keep up with technology. The question of what constitutes a public forum is being debated and its impact could affect everyone from your locally elected dog catcher to the president of the United States.

A case has been making its way through the courts involving Deanna Robinson and the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. Robinson learned she had been blocked from commenting or liking posts after criticizing them on their Facebook page. This was not the first run-in Robinson has had with the agency. In 2015, Robinson was confronted by a Hunt County deputy and a Child Protective Services representative looking to remove her then, 18-month old son from the home.

The case was finally dismissed and charges were dropped, but that hasn’t stopped the bad blood between them. Robinson filed a lawsuit in Feb. 2017 where she lost the case in a North Texas trial court. She has appealed and oral arguments will be heard today in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. (There is a similar case pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals between President Trump and a group of citizens who have banned from his Twitter account)

The sheriff’s office contends that by blocking Robinson, they are enforcing Facebook’s conduct rules. Under the terms of agreement, Facebook states…

Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:

People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action – for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.

So, can being critical of a governmental agency be considered harmful conduct? Not knowing what the exact post said could play into this decision. Context is important and if the post used obscene language, or was threatening, you could see why a person would be blocked (although you could have simply deleted or hide the comment). But, if the post just offered a negative opinion, you could argue your First Amendment rights are being violated.

In light of more and more governmental agencies turning to Facebook and Twitter to communicate with their constituents, the outcome could have far reaching implications as to the future use of social media.