Texas

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Unborn human’: the anti-abortion rhetoric of Texas judge’s ruling

      by

      Texas-based federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on Friday issued a ruling aiming to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion drug approved for use 23 years ago that has been consistently found to be safe and effective.It is widely believed that the anti-abortion groups who brought the case challenging the FDA’s authorization of the drug did so in Amarillo, Texas, so that it would be certain to land on the desk of this particular judge. Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by Donald Trump, is known for disregarding precedent and for weighing in on the far-right side of culture war issues.Kacsmaryk’s 67-page decision – a preliminary ruling that will be appealed and is likely to wind its way up to the supreme court – makes plain that the strategy paid off. His decision employs the same rhetoric that has been deliberately seeded over decades by the anti-abortion movement. Some examples are below.‘Unborn child’In the very first footnote to the decision, Kacsmaryk sets the tone for the opinion, explaining he why he will use “unborn human” or “unborn child” throughout his ruling:Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages … Because other jurists use the terms “unborn human” or “unborn child” interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.‘To kill the unborn human’Mifepristone, the drug at the center of the case, works by blocking progesterone, a hormone required for a pregnancy to develop. It is approved by the FDA to be taken up until 10 weeks of pregnancy and is generally used in conjunction with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract. This is how Kacsmaryk describes this two-pill regimen, which together account for more than half the abortions in the US:Because mifepristone alone will not always complete the abortion, FDA mandates a two-step drug regimen: mifepristone to kill the unborn human, followed by misoprostol to induce cramping and contractions to expel the unborn human from the mother’s womb.‘Shame, regret, anxiety, depression’The anti-abortion movement is known to champion the idea that people who have abortions come to be plagued by regret – an idea promoted by former supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy in a 2007 decision, even as he admitted there’s “no reliable data to measure the phenomenon”. But reliable data finally came in 2020, with the landmark Turnaway Study, which spent five years following nearly 1,000 women who sought abortions. The study found that 95% of women who had abortions reported five years later that it had been the right decision for them.Kacsmaryk, however, writes:Women who have aborted a child – especially through chemical abortion drugs that necessitate the woman seeing her aborted child once it passes – often experience shame, regret, anxiety, depression, drug abuse and suicidal thoughts because of the abortion.‘Fetal personhood’Kacsmaryk also writes that any consideration of alleged damage caused by the abortion pill should extend to the fetus. This is a nod to the radical idea of “fetal personhood” – that embryos and fetuses are people entitled to the full protection of the US constitution. That argument presumes abortion to be murder, and were it to take hold in the legal system, could lead to a national ban on the procedure. Invoking the name of the US supreme court decision which eliminated federal abortion rights, he writes:Parenthetically, said “individual justice” and “irreparable injury” analysis also arguably applies to the unborn humans extinguished by mifepristone – especially in the post-Dobbs era.Comstock ActThe groups that brought the case ruled on by Kacsmaryk aim to revive a long dormant, 150-year-old anti-obscenity law called the Comstock Act, which prohibited sending abortifacients in the mail. Kacsmaryk’s decision indeed revives that law – and some experts fear his logic could extend to more abortion methods and even lead to a national ban.This purported “consensus view” is that the Comstock Act does not prohibit the mailing of items designed to produce abortions “where the sender does not intend them to be used unlawfully”. Id. This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons … In any case, the Comstock Act plainly forecloses mail-order abortion in the present … the law is plain.Abortion as eugenicsKacsmaryk also quotes conservative US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, who has linked abortion to eugenics, the belief in selective breeding to produce a superior society. In rejecting research pointing to worse psychosocial and financial outcomes for children of people denied abortions, he also seems to draw a line between abortion and the worst atrocities of the last century:(“[A]bortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.”) Though eugenics were once fashionable in the Commanding Heights and High Court, they hold less purchase after the conflict, carnage and casualties of the last century revealed the bloody consequences of Social Darwinism practiced by would-be Übermenschen. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Absorb Trump’s Indictment With Joy, Vindication and Anxiety

      by

      In some ways, it was the turn of events Democratic voters had dreamed of and some of the party’s lawmakers had long demanded: After years of telling lies, shattering norms, inciting a riot at the Capitol and being impeached twice, Donald J. Trump on Thursday became the first former president to face criminal charges.“We’ve been waiting for the dam to break for six years,” declared Carter Hudgins, 73, a retired professor from Charleston, S.C. “It should have happened a long time ago,” added his wife, Donna Hudgins, 71, a retired librarian.But as the gravity of the moment sank in, Democratic voters, party officials and activists across the country absorbed the news of Mr. Trump’s extraordinary indictment with a more complex set of reactions. Their feelings ranged from jubilation and vindication to anxieties about the substance of the case, concerns that it could heighten Mr. Trump’s standing in his party and fears that in such a polarized environment, Republicans would struggle to muster basic respect for the rule of law as the facts unfolded.“They are going to treat him as if he is Jesus Christ himself on a cross being persecuted,” said Representative Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat from Dallas who worked as a criminal defense lawyer before she was elected to Congress last year. She blasted Republican arguments that the charges were politically motivated, saying, “We knew the type of person Trump was when he got elected the first time.”Mr. Trump, who polls show is the leading Republican contender for the 2024 presidential nomination, was indicted on Thursday by a special grand jury in connection with his role in hush-money payments to a porn star. He was charged with more than two dozen counts, though the specifics are not yet known.It is one in a swirl of investigations Mr. Trump faces, on a range of explosive matters including his handling of sensitive government documents after leaving office and whether he and his allies criminally interfered with the 2020 presidential election. He could face multiple other indictments.But the one this week, centered on a tawdry episode that predates Mr. Trump’s time in the White House, struck some Democrats as a sharp contrast in substance with the other possible charges against the former president. Some felt conflicted between their view that no one is above the law, while wondering if this particular case will be worth the chaos for the country, especially when there may be other, bigger targets.“He isn’t above the law and anyone who suggests otherwise is un-American,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic organization. “The question is, is it worth it for this crime?”Bernd Weber, right, in Littleton, N.H., on Thursday evening. “There were any number of things that he could have been indicted for, and this was probably the least of them,” he said of Mr. Trump. John Tully for The New York TimesIn Littleton, N.H., Bernd Weber, 65, a dentist, said he was glad the grand jury had voted to indict Mr. Trump, but he worried about the former president’s ability to “spin it to make it look like a witch hunt, and there are people that are buying that.”“There were any number of things that he could have been indicted for, and this was probably the least of them,” he said.Other Democrats made clear that while they welcomed this indictment, they believed Mr. Trump should be held accountable for far more.“No one is above the law,” Representative Barbara Lee, a liberal California lawmaker now running for Senate, wrote on Twitter. “Now do the rest of his crimes.”Jon Hurdle More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Face Setbacks in Push to Tighten Voting Laws on College Campuses

      by

      Party officials across the country have sought to erect more barriers for young voters, who tilt heavily Democratic, after several cycles in which their turnout surged.Alarmed over young people increasingly proving to be a force for Democrats at the ballot box, Republican lawmakers in a number of states have been trying to enact new obstacles to voting for college students.In Idaho, Republicans used their power monopoly this month to ban student ID cards as a form of voter identification.But so far this year, the new Idaho law is one of few successes for Republicans targeting young voters.Attempts to cordon off out-of-state students from voting in their campus towns or to roll back preregistration for teenagers have failed in New Hampshire and Virginia. Even in Texas, where 2019 legislation shuttered early voting sites on many college campuses, a new proposal that would eliminate all college polling places seems to have an uncertain future.“When these ideas are first floated, people are aghast,” said Chad Dunn, the co-founder and legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. But he cautioned that the lawmakers who sponsor such bills tend to bring them back over and over again.“Then, six, eight, 10 years later, these terrible ideas become law,” he said.Turnout in recent cycles has surged for young voters, who were energized by issues like abortion, climate change and the Trump presidency.They voted in rising numbers during the midterms last year in Kansas and Michigan, which both had referendums about abortion. And college students, who had long paid little attention to elections, emerged as a crucial voting bloc in the 2018 midterms.But even with such gains, Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights program for the Brennan Center for Justice, said there was still progress to be made.“Their turnout is still far outpaced by their older counterparts,” Mr. Morales-Doyle said.Now, with the 2024 presidential election underway, the battle over young voters has heightened significance.Between the 2018 and 2022 elections in Idaho, registration jumped 66 percent among 18- and 19-year-old voters, the largest increase in the nation, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. The nonpartisan research organization, based at Tufts University, focuses on youth civic engagement.Gov. Brad Little of Idaho gave his approval to a law that bans student ID cards as a form of voter identification.Kyle Green/Associated PressOut of 17 states that generally require voter ID, Idaho will join Texas and only four others — North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee — that do not accept any student IDs, according to the Voting Rights Lab, a group that tracks legislation.Arizona and Wisconsin have rigid rules on student IDs that colleges and universities have struggled to meet, though some Wisconsin schools have been successful.Proponents of such restrictions often say they are needed to prevent voter fraud, even though instances of fraud are rare. Two lawsuits were filed in state and federal court shortly after Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, signed the student ID prohibition into law on March 15. “The facts aren’t particularly persuasive if you’re just trying to get through all of these voter suppression bills,” Betsy McBride, the president of the League of Women Voters of Idaho, one of the plaintiffs in the state lawsuit, said before the bill’s signing.A fight over out-of-state students in New HampshireIn New Hampshire, which has one of the highest percentages in the nation of college students from out of state, G.O.P. lawmakers proposed a bill this year that would have barred voting access for those students, but it died in committee after failing to muster a single vote.Nearly 59 percent of students at traditional colleges in New Hampshire came from out of state in 2020, according to the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts.The University of New Hampshire had opposed the legislation, while students and other critics had raised questions about its constitutionality.The bill, which would have required students to show their in-state tuition statements when registering to vote, would have even hampered New Hampshire residents attending private schools like Dartmouth College, which doesn’t have an in-state rate, said McKenzie St. Germain, the campaign director for the New Hampshire Campaign for Voting Rights, a nonpartisan voting rights group.Sandra Panek, one of the sponsors of the bill that died, said she would like to bring it back if she can get bipartisan support. “We want to encourage our young people to vote,” said Ms. Panek, who regularly tweets about election conspiracy theories. But, she added, elections should be reflective of “those who reside in the New Hampshire towns and who ultimately bear the consequences of the election results.”A Texas ban on campus polling places has made little headwayIn Texas, the Republican lawmaker who introduced the bill to eliminate all polling places on college campuses this year, Carrie Isaac, cited safety concerns and worries about political violence.Voting advocates see a different motive.“This is just the latest in a long line of attacks on young people’s right to vote in Texas,” said Claudia Yoli Ferla, the executive director of MOVE Texas Action Fund, a nonpartisan group that seeks to empower younger voters.Students at the University of Texas at Austin lined up to cast their ballots on campus during the 2020 primary. A new proposal would eliminate all college polling places in the state.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesMs. Isaac has also introduced similar legislation to eliminate polling places at primary and secondary schools. In an interview, she mentioned the May 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers — an attack that was not connected to voting.“Emotions run very high,” Ms. Isaac said. “Poll workers have complained about increased threats to their lives. It’s just not conducive, I believe, to being around children of all ages.”The legislation has been referred to the House Elections Committee, but has yet to receive a hearing in the Legislature. Voting rights experts have expressed skepticism that the bill — one of dozens related to voting introduced for this session — would advance.G.O.P. voting restrictions flounder in other statesIn Virginia, one Republican failed in her effort to repeal a state law that lets teenagers register to vote starting at age 16 if they will turn 18 in time for a general election. Part of a broader package of proposed election restrictions, the bill had no traction in the G.O.P.-controlled House, where it died this year in committee after no discussion.And in Wyoming, concerns about making voting harder on older people appears to have inadvertently helped younger voters. A G.O.P. bill that would have banned most college IDs from being used as voter identification was narrowly defeated in the state House because it also would have banned Medicare and Medicaid insurance cards as proof of identity at the polls, a provision that Republican lawmakers worried could be onerous for older people.“In my mind, all we’re doing is kind of hurting students and old people,” Dan Zwonitzer, a Republican lawmaker who voted against the bill, said during a House debate in February.But some barriers are already in placeGeorgia has accepted student IDs only from public colleges and universities since 2006, so students at private institutions, including several historically Black colleges and universities, must use another form of identification.Georgia has accepted student IDs only from public colleges and universities since 2006, a rule that means students at private institutions, like several historically Black colleges and universities, must use another form of identification. Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesIn Ohio, which has for years not accepted student IDs for voting, Republicans in January approved a broader photo ID requirement that also bars students from using university account statements or utility bills for voting purposes, as they had in the past.The Idaho bill will take effect in January. Scott Herndon and Tina Lambert, the bill’s sponsors in the Senate and the House, did not respond to requests for comment, but Mr. Herndon said during a Feb. 24 session that student identification cards had lower vetting standards than those issued by the government.“It isn’t about voter fraud,” he said. “It’s just making sure that the people who show up to vote are who they say they are.”Republicans contended that nearly 99 percent of Idahoans had used their driver’s licenses to vote, but the bill’s opponents pointed out that not all students have driver’s licenses or passports — and that there is a cost associated with both.Mae Roos, a senior at Borah High School in Boise, testified against the bill at a Feb. 10 hearing.“When we’re taught from the very beginning, when we first start trying to participate, that voting is an expensive process, an arduous process, a process rife with barriers, we become disillusioned with that great dream of our democracy,” Ms. Roos said. “We start to believe that our voices are not valued.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump describes 2024 election as ‘the final battle’ from podium in Waco

      by

      Donald Trump, the former US president, continued to invoke retribution and violence on Saturday when he used the first rally of his 2024 election campaign to rail against prosecutors weighing a criminal charge against him.Efforts by Trump’s team to steer a more conventional, disciplined candidacy have wilted in recent days as the 76-year-old unleashed words and images that – even by his provocative standards – are unusually dehumanising, menacing and dangerous.He opened the rally by playing a song, “Justice for All”, that features a choir of men imprisoned for their role in the January 6 insurrection singing the national anthem intercut with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.Trump stood solemnly on a podium with hand on heart and footage from the Capitol riot was shown on big screens and US flags billowed in the wind. “That song tells you a lot because it’s number one in every single category,” he told a crowd of thousands. “Number two was Taylor Swift, number three was Miley Cyrus.”The choice of location for the rally was also striking: Waco, a city in Texas, exactly 30 years after a 51-day standoff and deadly siege between law enforcement and the Branch Davidians that resulted in the deaths of more than 80 members of the religious cult and four federal agents.It came with Trump facing the prospect of becoming the first president in US history to be indicted. A grand jury in New York investigating a hush money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged a sexual encounter with Trump, a claim he denies.Trump falsely predicted his own arrest on Tuesday last week and called for protests without adding that they should be peaceful. On his Truth Social platform he warned of “potential death & destruction” if he is eventually charged.He also used increasingly racist rhetoric as he launched ever more personal attacks against Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, raising fears that supporters could try to lash out on his behalf. Trump even shared an image of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Bragg.Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader in the House of Representatives, said: “The twice-impeached former president’s rhetoric is reckless, reprehensible and irresponsible. It’s dangerous, and if he keeps it up he’s going to get someone killed.”On Friday a powdery substance was found with a threatening letter in a mailroom at Bragg’s offices; officials later determined the substance was harmless.Yet at Saturday’s rally at Waco airport, there was little sign of Trump heeding the warnings and cooling off. Behind him supporters held signs that said, “Witch hunt”, “I stand with Trump” and “Trump 2024”.The 45th president repeated his false claim that the the 2020 presidential election was “rigged”, praised the rioters of January 6 and raged against the “weaponization of law enforcement”, branding the prosecutors overseeing multiple investigations into his conduct as “absolute human scum”.Wearing a dark jacket, white shirt and no tie, he said: “I got bad publicity and my poll numbers have gone through the roof – would you explain this to me … It gets so much publicity that the case actually gets adjudicated in the press and people see it’s bullshit.”Trump claim that his personal life “has been turned upside down” because of “prosecutorial misconduct by radical left maniacs” and framed the various investigations as political attacks coordinated by Democrats in Washington.He said: “You will be vindicated and proud. The thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system will be defeated, discredited and totally disgraced.”He declared that his “enemies are desperate to stop us”, and “our opponents have done everything they can to crush our spirit and to break our will. But they failed. They’ve only made us stronger. And 2024 is the final battle, it’s going to be the big one. You put me back in the White House, their reign will be over and America will be a free nation once again.”Trump also launched his most sweeping attack yet on Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, seen as his strongest challenger for the Republican presidential nomination.“He’s dropping like a rock and I wonder why,” Trump said of DeSantis’s recent slippage in opinion polls. He went to repeat his claim that DeSantis had begged for Trump’s endorsement with “tears in his eyes” when he was running for governor. “I did rallies for Ron that were massive rallies.”Trump claimed that Florida had been successful for “decades” before DeSantis took office and accused him of disloyalty. “But when a man, you know, you get him elected and there’s no quid pro quo … He gets the nomination because of you, he wins the election because of you. Two years later, the fake news is up there saying, ‘Will you run against the president? Will you run?’ And he says, ‘I have no comment.’ I say, that’s not supposed to happen. ‘I have no comment.’ No. So I’m not a big fan.”Trump’s critics described the rally as anti-democratic and un-American. The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, said in a statement: “Trump doubled down on his usual violent rhetoric and threats against his political enemies. After spending this week threatening the New York City district attorney Alvin Bragg and calling for ‘protests’, he talked about the ‘final battle’, ‘weaponization’ of the office, and how he would be the ‘justice’ for his supporters.“His choice of Waco on the anniversary of the Branch Davidian standoff was to embrace the rightwing extremists who gave him the violent protests he craves. His followers got the message, loud and clear.”The grand jury investigating Trump’s alleged hush money payment is expected to meet again Monday in New York. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans tried to delay release of US hostages to sabotage Carter, ex-aide claims – report

      by

      A former Texas governor met Middle Eastern leaders in 1980 to convince Iran to delay releasing American hostages as part of a Republican effort to sabotage Jimmy Carter’s re-election campaign, according to a news report.The New York Times reported on Sunday that John Connally, who served as Texas’s Democratic governor from 1963 to 1969 and ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, traveled to a number of countries in the summer leading up to the 1980 election.By that time Ronald Reagan had secured the Republican nomination, and the re-election campaign of his Democratic rival Carter was struggling in the midst of the crisis that resulted from more than 50 Americans being taken hostage from the US embassy in Tehran.In an interview with the Times, a then protege to Connally named Ben Barnes said he was with Connally as he met leaders in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. Connally was there to deliver a message, the Times reported:“Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr Reagan will win and give you a better deal.”Carter, who had ordered a failed attempt to rescue the hostages in April 1980, lost the election amid criticism of his handling of the Iran crisis and a stagnating economy. The hostages were eventually released on 20 January 1981, the day Reagan took office.“History needs to know that this happened,” Barnes said in one of several interviews with the Times.Barnes said he decided to come forward with his account after news last month that Carter, 98, had entered hospice care at his home in Plains, Georgia, after a series of hospital visits.“I think it’s so significant and I guess knowing that the end is near for President Carter put it on my mind more and more and more,” Barnes said. “I just feel like we’ve got to get it down some way.”Barnes – a Democrat who served as lieutenant governor of Texas and was vice-chair of John Kerry’s 2004 election campaign – told the Times that on returning from the Middle East, Connally reported to the chairman of Reagan’s campaign, William J Casey.“Carter’s aides have long suspected that his campaign was torpedoed by Reagan affiliates who wanted to delay the release of American hostages until after the election,” Axios wrote on Monday.It added: “Ronald Reagan’s subsequent presidency ushered in a conservative era that remains a model for Republicans. If Carter had secured the release of the hostages, he might have won instead.”Being able to confirm Barnes’s account, the Times said, is difficult “after so much time”.“Barnes has no diaries or memos to corroborate his account. But he has no obvious reason to make up the story and indeed expressed trepidation at going public because of the reaction of fellow Democrats,” the Times wrote.Connally died in 1993. And Casey, who went on to become the director of central intelligence, died in 1987.John Connally III, Connally’s eldest son, told the Times that he remembered his father taking the Middle East trip but had never heard about a message being sent to Iran.Barnes told the Times he had shared the information with four people over the years: Tom Johnson, a former Lyndon B Johnson White House aide who later became president of CNN; Mark K Updegrove, president of the LBJ Foundation; Larry Temple, a former aide to Connally and Lyndon Johnson; and HW Brands, a University of Texas historian.All four, the Times reported, confirmed that Barnes had told them the story. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Ken Paxton to pay $3.3m to ex-staffers who accused Texas AG of corruption

      by

      Ken Paxton to pay $3.3m to ex-staffers who accused Texas AG of corruptionState attorney general must also apologize to four former aides whose claims initiated ongoing FBI investigation The attorney general for the state of Texas, Ken Paxton, has agreed to apologize and pay $3.3m in taxpayer money to four former staffers who accused him of corruption in 2020, igniting an ongoing FBI investigation of the three-term Republican.Under terms of a preliminary lawsuit settlement filed on Friday, Paxton made no admission of wrongdoing to accusations of bribery and abuse of office, which he has denied for years and called politically motivated.Texas attorney general who tried to flee abortion subpoena ordered to testifyRead moreBut Paxton did commit to making a remarkable public apology toward some of his formerly trusted advisers whom he fired or forced out after they reported him to the FBI. He called them “rogue employees” after they accused Paxton of misusing his office to help one of his campaign contributors, who also employed a woman with whom the attorney general acknowledged having an extramarital affair.Both sides signed a mediated agreement that was filed in the Texas supreme court and will be followed by a longer, formalized settlement.“Attorney general Ken Paxton accepts that plaintiffs acted in a manner that they thought was right and apologizes for referring to them as ‘rogue employees’,” the final settlement must state, according to court records.In all, eight members of Paxton’s senior staff joined in the extraordinary revolt in 2020, and they either resigned or were fired. The attorney general said he settled with the four who sued under Texas’s whistleblower law to put to rest “this unfortunate sideshow”.“I have chosen this path to save taxpayer dollars and ensure my third term as attorney general is unburdened by unnecessary distractions,” Paxton said in a statement.The $3.3m payout would not come from Paxton’s own pocket but from state funds, which means it would still require approval by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature.Settlement of the case, which Paxton’s office fought in court for years, means he will avoid sitting for a civil deposition at a time when a corruption investigation by federal agents and prosecutors remains open. In turn, the attorney general’s office agreed to remove an October 2020 news release from its website that decries Paxton’s accusers and to issue the statement of contrition to former staffers David Maxwell, Ryan Vassar, Mark Penley and James Blake Brickman.The settlement also prevents Paxton from seeking the withdrawal of a 2021 appeals court ruling that state whistleblower law applies to the attorney general. But it does not include any provisions limiting the ability of Paxton’s accusers to make public statements or cooperate with federal investigators.The deal comes more than two years after Paxton’s staff accused him of misusing his office to help Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, whose business was also under federal investigation. The allegations centered on Paxton hiring an outside lawyer to investigate Paul’s claims of misconduct by the FBI.Paxton and Paul have broadly denied wrongdoing and neither has been charged with a federal crime.The investigation, accusations and a separate 2015 securities fraud indictment for which Paxton has yet to face trial have done little to hurt him politically. He easily defeated challenger George P Bush in a contested GOP primary last spring, went on to decisively beat his Democratic opponent and secure a third term in November and has filed a steady stream of legal challenges against the Joe Biden White House.While swearing in Paxton to another four years on the job last month, Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, described it as an easy call during the midterm elections to keep backing him.“I supported Ken Paxton because I thought the way he was running the attorney general’s office was the right way to run the attorney general’s office,” Abbott said.TopicsTexasUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas lawyer shot by Dick Cheney on 2006 hunting trip dies aged 95

      by

      Texas lawyer shot by Dick Cheney on 2006 hunting trip dies aged 95Harry Whittington spent week in intensive care after being inadvertently shot by then vice-president on quail-hunting trip A Texas attorney who was inadvertently shot by US vice-president Dick Cheney during a 2006 hunting trip – and then apologized to him for the attention the accident drew – has died.Harry Whittington was 95.George Santos accused of sexual harassment by congressional aideRead moreWhittington died on Saturday morning after a short illness, the Texas Tribune reported.Whittington was known in his state as an avid supporter of the Republican party, helping build the state’s GOP on a national level, the Associated Press reported. Whittington also worked for George W Bush and George HW Bush during their years in Texas politics before both men became US president.Whittington made international headlines after Cheney, George W Bush’s vice-president, shot him while quail hunting. Whittington, Cheney and others were hunting on the sprawling 50,000-acre Armstrong ranch after sunset.Cheney had aimed at a bird but mistakenly hit Whittington in the face, neck and body.Whittington was rushed to the hospital with several birdshot wounds after the shooting, which was deemed an accident. He suffered a collapsed lung as well as a mild heart attack due to a piece of birdshot near his heart, and he spent a week recovering in an intensive care unit, the Tribune reported.The accident did not go public until 14 hours after it occurred. The Corpus Christi Caller-Times broke the story after the ranch owner called the newspaper. The White House later confirmed the shooting.Whittington was largely blamed for the accident. A White House spokesperson said that Whittington had stepped into Cheney’s line of fire.The host of the hunting group, Katharine Armstrong, noted that Whittington did not make his presence known when he approached a group of hunters after shooting a quail.Whittington later apologized to Cheney and his family for having been shot. His apology said: “My family and I are deeply sorry for all that vice-president Cheney and his family have had to go through this past week.”Whittington spoke publicly about the shooting years after it happened. He discussed the shooting and its portrayal in the movie Vice, about Cheney’s role in the Bush administration, in a 2018 Austin American-Statesman interview.“The script doesn’t attempt to discuss how it happened other than a picture of [Cheney] having a gun,” Whittington said, emphasizing that the shooting was an accident.“Quail hunting is a fast-moving procedure. The birds fly and you swing on them and shoot the best you can. I had been hunting for 50 years before this accident. I wasn’t exactly an inexperienced hunter, and I’d never seen an accident.”TopicsUS politicsDick CheneyTexasRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ted Cruz wants two-term limit for senators – and a third term for himself

      by

      Ted Cruz wants two-term limit for senators – and a third term for himselfTexas senator says he ‘never said I’m going to unilaterally comply’ with his own proposed restriction Ted Cruz has introduced a bill to limit US senators to two terms in office, thereby removing from Washington what he calls “permanently entrenched politicians … totally unaccountable to the American people”.Buttigieg backs Biden 2024 run but poll says most Americans don’tRead moreOn Sunday, however, he said he saw no problem with running for a third term himself.“I’ve never said I’m going to unilaterally comply,” the Texas senator said.Cruz was speaking to CBS’s Face the Nation.Elected to the US Senate in 2012, Cruz emerged as a face of the Republican hard right through stunts including reading Dr Seuss and impersonating Darth Vader during a marathon floor speech and prompting a government shutdown.Such behaviour did not make him popular in Congress. Al Franken, then a Democratic senator, once said, “I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.”Nonetheless, Cruz challenged strongly for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, finishing the primary second to Donald Trump.After a brief spell as a rightwing alternative to Trump, Cruz won a second term in 2018 despite a strong challenge from the Democrat Beto O’Rourke.Cruz’s name now features, if not strongly, in polling regarding the notional field for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 – when he will be up for Senate re-election.Congressional term limits are a popular policy offering on the American right.Introducing his bill to achieve a constitutional amendment, an effort mounted with Ralph Norman, a House Republican from South Carolina, Cruz said term limits were “critical to fixing what’s wrong with Washington DC”.Bemoaning “a government run by a small group of special interests and lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians … totally unaccountable to the American people”, he said: “Terms limits brings about accountability that is long overdue”.On Sunday, his CBS host, Margaret Brennan, said: “You introduced a bill to limit terms to two six-year terms in office for senators. Why aren’t you holding yourself to that standard? You said you’re running for a third term.”Cruz said: “Well, listen, I’m a passionate defender of term limits. I think that Congress would work much better if every senator were limited to two terms, if every House member were limited to three terms. I’ve introduced a constitutional amendment to put that into the constitution.”Brennan said: “But you’re still running.”Cruz said: “And if and when [the term limits amendment] passes I will happily, happily comply. I’ve never said I’m going to unilaterally comply. I’ll tell you what, when the socialists and when the swamp …”Brennan interrupted, asking: “Are you running for president?”Cruz carried on, saying “… are ready to leave Washington, I will be more than happy to comply by the same rules that apply for every one. But until then, I’m going to keep fighting for 30 million Texans because they’ve asked me to do” so.Brennan said: “I think you’ve heard me ask if you’re running for president.”Cruz said: “I’m running for re-election to the Senate. There’s a reason I’m in Texas today. I’m not in Iowa, I’m in Texas, and I’m fighting for 30 million Texans.”In 2018, 4.26 million Texans voted to send Cruz back to the Senate. More than 4 million voted to restrict him to one term.TopicsTed CruzRepublicansUS SenateUS CongressUS politicsTexasnewsReuse this content More