Tag Archives: Greg Abbott

Did Greg Abbott Kill Lawsuit Against Trump U?

1 Reply

After documents were released pursuant to a open records request, it was revealed that the Texas Attorney General’s office had determined that Trump University was a scam worthy of pursuit under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  But now the Dallas Morning News reveals that a potential lawsuit against good ol’ Trump U was scuttled by none other than Our Poor Idiot Governor Greg Abbott.  Did Abbott – who was not shy about suing the federal government when he was AG – stop action against Donald Trump?  And did he get his reward in the form of campaign contributions from the self-proclaimed billionaire?

According to a DMN investigation, plans for the lawsuit and settlement negotiations had been carefully prepared; the AG’s office was ready to take action  and was looking at damages of at least $5.4 million for the violations – at least until the plan was killed by Abbott.

John Owens, the former deputy chief of the AG’s consumer protection division smells something rotten in the decision to let Trump skate after fleecing Texas consumers for millions of dollars.

“It was swept under the rug, and the consumers were left with no one to go to bat for them,” according to Owens who also claimed that the decision to not sue Trump was clearly political.  His consumer protection division routinely got approval to sue schools who offered bogus diplomas.  The only difference in this case was Trump’s status as a political player.

And what was the payoff for Greg Abbott?  A few years later, Trump donated $35,000 to Abbott’s gubernatorial campaign.  Other sources are reporting that Florida AG Pam Bondi dropped her office’s investigation and refused to join in a lawsuit against Trump just days after receiving a $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump.

So now we know just about exactly how much Texas consumers can be bought and sold for.  It’s a little more expensive than in Florida, but not much.

What Greg Abbott’s Office Had to Say about Trump University

1 Reply

Our Poor Idiot Governor Greg Abbott has resoundingly endorsed Donald Trump for President of these United States.  But when his office investigated good ol’ Trump U back in 2010, it reached the conclusion that the whole scheme was a scam designed to fleece the gullible.   The Texas Attorney General Office’s investigation of deceptive trade practices at Trump University determined that the promises made to students were “virtually impossible to achieve.”

In the documents unearthed by a Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, Assistant Attorney General Rick Berlin stated that Trump University seminars  targeted real estate novices and promised “to teach these novices everything they need to know to be a successful residential real estate broker — in 3 days.”  But Berlin also noted, that in Texas, “to become licensed as a real estate broker you must have 900 hours of classroom instruction and 2 years selling experience.” Berlin also concluded that the information provided to students by Trump University “is essentially unusable,” and students “will be unable to recoup their investment in the course, much less make a profit, as promised by Trump U.  .  . . In addition to encouraging unlicensed activity (which is a misdemeanor in Texas), the course materials in a number of respects are simply wrong under Texas law.”

Apparently the AG’s investigation was enough to drive the Trump U hucksters out of Texas as the “University” stopped doing business in Texas shortly afterwards.

So kudos to OPIG for having driven a con man out of the state.  So exactly why does he want to bring him back now?  Does Red smell a vice-presidential hope in the air?

Ted Cruz has Anti-Dildo Vote Locked Up

Leave a reply

Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) formerly served as the Solicitor General of Texas under then Attorney General and Greg Abbott.  As SG, part of Cruz’s job was to defend Texas laws when they were attacked in court.  So Red is a bit sympathetic with the Junior Senator (words you won’t read very often), as the attorney’s job is to advocate for his client.  But the time Cruz worked to defend the so-called “Anti-Dildo” law provides some insight into the workings of the brilliant legal mind of Cruz.  In 2004, several Austin sex-toy stores and a retail distributor of such products challenged the Anti-Dildo law which prohibited the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene devices.  A violation of the law was punishable by a prison term of up to two years.  Since the suit attacked the constitutionality of the law, the Attorney General’s office weighed in and Cruz presented a forceful defense of Texas’ right to keep it citizens free from the pernicious influence of the dastardly dildo peddlers.  David Corn at Mother Jones has the full story.

 The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect “public morals,” had  “police-power interests” in “discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors.” There was a  “government” interest, it maintained, in “discouraging…autonomous sex.” The brief compared the use of sex toys to “hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy,” and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution. In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz’s office declared, “There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.” That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no “right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices.” The plaintiffs, it noted, were “free to engage in unfettered noncommercial speech touting the uses of obscene devices,” but not speech designed to generate the sale of these items.

Fortunately, Cruz lost this legal battle and Texas was spared from the horrors of a thriving dildo black market.  But if you are a squarely in the anti-dildo column, you have found your candidate.

 

Texas GOP Ready to Play the Gay Bashing Card One More Time

Leave a reply

The Houston Chronicle gets an early jump on the 2017 Legislative session by looking at proposed GOP legislation that would legalize discrimination against gay Texans based on one’s religious beliefs.

Get ready for another round in Texas, too. For state Rep. Matt Krause, a Fort Worth Republican, the fight here extends to legislation next session that would “supplement the state’s existing law to allow business owners to refuse services to people whose lifestyles clash with their religious beliefs,” as reported by the Austin American-Statesman’s Tim Eaton.

Except Krause isn’t only after a law, which would require simple majorities in both chambers and Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval. He wants to send the question to voters as a proposed constitutional amendment — the first time they will vote on something remotely related to gay rights since 2005. Krause has to clear a high bar first, though. He needs to win the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate to get it on the ballot. Still, the issue is that important to him, Krause told Eaton.

“I wanted to put it in the constitution to make it even stronger,” he said. “It is still something I think is very important.”

Should Krause get the election he desires, it will create some crucial challenges and opportunities all around that may well define the political contours of this fight in Texas for years to come.

Red supports the proposed amendment.  Red is anxious to discriminate against numerous of his fellow citizens who have raised Red’s holy ire.  Red’s religious beliefs will prohibit him from providing services to left-handed owners of dogs that weigh more than 50 lbs (the dogs that is), drivers who fail to follow the “every other car” rule,  anyone who claims soccer is boring, stockbrokers, people who fart in elevators just before exiting, Rep. John Culberson, Dallas Cowboys fans, lake trash, Bluetooth cell phone users, anyone appearing on a “Best Dressed” list, several of Red’s in-laws and a few cousins, Aquarians, ethnic Albanians, and high-school science teachers.  There are probably a few more, but this is a good start.

Is There Anything Ted Cruz Doesn’t Lie About (cont.)?

Leave a reply

Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) of course had to weigh in on President Obama’s trip to one of Cruz’s ancestral homelands.  According to Cruz,  “It is so sad, and so injurious to our future as well as Cuba’s, that Obama has chosen to legitimize the corrupt and oppressive Castro regime with his presence on the island.”

But what did the Junior Senator have to say when his former boss, good buddy and Poor Idiot Governor Greg Abbott visited Cuba a few months ago?  Righteous indignation at pandering to dictators?  Hardly.  Even though the two trips shared almost identical mission statements, there was radio silence from Cruz.  So when Tea Party Republicans visit Cuba to promote trade and business that’s absolutely great.  But when the President does the same thing, well we all knew he was a Commie at heart anyway.

Today in Texas History – March 21

Leave a reply

From the Annals of Bloviation –  In 2010, then Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot made the following statement regarding the recently passed Affordable  Care Act: “The federal health care legislation passed tonight violates the United States Constitution and unconstitutionally infringes upon Texans’ individual liberties. To protect all Texans’ constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation’s founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation.”

Wrong, wrong and wrong.  As our latest in a long line of Poor Idiot Governors, Abbot has cost Texas literally billions of dollars in pandering to his Tea Party base. Not to mention the many dollars Abbot has wasted as AG and Governor in frivolous litigation.

Our Poor Idiot Governor

Leave a reply

The Texas Observer chronicles Gov. Greg Abbott’s first year in office and it is a sad tale of incompetent leadership, right-wing bluster, Tea Party sycophancy, and an apparent desire to do anything but the job he was elected to do.

Abbott has won real national attention for precisely three things this year: his Jade Helm letter, his personal war against Syrian refugees, and his bonkers proposal to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, which we may properly call the Articles of Gregfederation. In each case, the primary effect of his actions has been to make us look kinda dumb.

Put Abbott to Work on Something Useful

1 Reply

Gov. Greg Abbott’s plan to amend the holy crap out of the U.S. Constitution looks to be a non-starter judged solely by the complete lack of buzz surrounding his “big” announcement.  Red saw Megyn Kelly giving him what-for on her show a few nights ago, but other than that –  cue the crickets.   So instead of directing so much of his energy towards not actually running the state he was electing to govern (hence the title “governor”), Tom Herman of the Austin American-Statesman suggests that Abbott turn his attention to a document that actually could use some revising – namely, the bloated, turgid and all too frequently amended Texas Constitution.

 Abbott is correct on another front: There indeed is a Constitution overdue for a major overhaul. It’s our very own semi-beloved Texas Constitution, a 90,000-word, 385-section, 491-amendment mélange of a mess of a pastiche of a patchwork of a guiding document.

The last real run at reworking the Texas Constitution — and it turned out to be a run that barely got beyond the starting line — was in 1999 when then-state Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, and Rep. Rob Junell, D-San Angelo, tried it.

As the 1999 legislative session began, Ratliff and Junell noted a new millennium was approaching and “we must exercise foresight to prepare this state and its citizens for the challenges of the next century.”

All Quiet on the Constitutional Front?

Leave a reply

In the wake of Gov. Greg Abbott’s call to  fundamentally alter the structure of our country’s government, the Texas Tribune speculates about the almost total lack of support yet forthcoming from other Tea Party stalwarts such as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.  Even Sen. “Krazy” Konni Burton (TP- Colleyville) – never one to wander too far from the lunatic fringe – is maintaining radio silence on Abbott’s plan.   It seems as though the Tea Party is hesitant to get behind supporting a constitutional convention that might spiral out of control.

Someone was nice enough to leave a copy of “Restoring the Rule of Law With States Leading the Way” by Gov. Greg Abbott on Red’s desk.  Red has yet to work his way through the 92 page tome complete with 353 endnotes.  When he does, you will be hearing more.  But, there are two things that immediately strike Red about Our Poor Idiot Governor’s proposal:

First, why is OPIG so reluctant to do the job he was actually elected to do?  He seems to have little or no interest in attempting to run Texas.  OPIG spends most of his time grandstanding, filing absurd lawsuits, and kowtowing to the TP base that elected him.  Exactly how much of the state’s time and money was wasted on this non-starter of a “plan?”  Will someone send an open records request?

Second, if by some unf0rtunate happenstance, OPIG’s 9 constitutional amendments were to pass, then the seeds of a second American civil war will have been planted.  The  “indivisible” nation that we pledge allegiance to will be no more.  We will once again be a collection of states – and we know how well that worked out last time.  And if – under the new constitution (for that is what OPIG’s proposal would essentially create) –  some of those states still can’t get their way, then what would be the natural option for these newly emboldened states?  Cessation.  The precedent is firmly established in blood, sweat and tears that unilateral cessation is not an option in our republic.  The inevitable result of such an attempt would be rebellion and civil war.  And if you thought the last one was messy . . .  Red for one does not want to see this country torn asunder by fools like Abbott.

 

Abbott Proposes 9 – Count ’em – 9 Constitutional Amendments

Leave a reply

Gov. Greg Abbott (TP-Texas) appears to have bigger things on his mind than simply running the state that he was elected to lead.  Abbott has come out with a call for a constitutional convention and 9 proposed amendments to the Constitution that would fundamentally alter the federal-state system that has worked pretty darn well for almost 225 years.   To put this in perspective there have been exactly 27 total amendments to the Constitution in more than two centuries and 10 of those were essentially done in a deal to get the Constitution ratified in the first place.

Abbott’s plan is mostly a direct attack on the U.S. Supreme Court – a profoundly c0nservative institution for the most part.  Red finds this a bit strange from a former Justice of the Texas Supreme Court who had no problem interpreting (some would argue making) law to benefit and kowtow to the corporate masters and insurance company overlords that rule that Court.  Abbott was more than willing to carry their water at the expense of the rights of ordinary Texans.  Among his more foolish proposals are a balanced budget amendment – something that any economist worth his salt will tell you is a prescription for economic disaster.

Here are the short hand descriptions of what Abbott proposes:

  1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
  2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
  3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
  4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
  5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
  6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
  7. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
  8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
  9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.