The Campaign For DA

3.31.2016

Random Thursday Morning Thoughts


  • Trump says a woman needs to be punished for having a (legal) abortion. Cruz won't deny having an affair. This is going very well for the GOP.
  • I actually listened to the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas after hearing for years that the Harris County DA, who decided he could handle it, got beat up. Man, he did get crushed. 
  • I looked out the window yesterday and saw 19 ducks on the shore. 19!
  • Mark Cuban wants a new arena. He might want to focus on drafting someone for once in his life.
  • Yesterday up at the courthouse I told a lady (and friend) who is in the latest stage of her pregnancy that if an emergency would happen, I would deliver the baby. The guys in the room said, (1) No way. We are heading for the exits, and (2) "Barry, you have lost your mind."
  • I almost want to go to the big WWE event this week at Jerry World just to see the crowd.
  • I cannot tell you the number of times I have a conversation with someone who blurts out, "You cannot write about this!"
  • Someone told me the other day that the older you get the less you care about professional sports. That's true.
  • "Asset forfeiture surpass burglaries". That means the government takes more of your property than crooks do.
  • Texas Monthly: "Scrutinizing district attorneys is a necessary part of improving the criminal justice system."



45 comments:

Anonymous said...

19 Duck on the Shore will be my bracket name next year!

SpanishWarDonkey said...

Despite what the establishment would have you believe, Trump had been drawing a lot of support from disenfranchised democrats as well. They like his social views, but that abortion comment might make them stay home.

The getting older sports comment; I think a lot of that depends on where you live. I've been to NFL games in the NE. Plenty of older (60's+) fans in the stands. It's literally all they have up there. The weather sucks 6 months out of the year, you pay 30%+ of your wages in taxes, you wake up early to travel wherever you work then get home after dark, only to do it again tomorrow. Pretty miserable existence if you ask me, despite being in the cradle of our country. Sports are their escape from life for a few hours.

Anonymous said...

RTG must be one of your nosy neighbors.

Andy Stevenson said...

The Republican nominee is going to wind up being Kasich and his running mate Rubio by legitimate process at the convention. Wait and see.

Anonymous said...

Trump exposes the craziness of right to life wing nuts. Should it become illegal will a woman who resorts to a coat hanger be guilty of murder? Will a First Baptist mom be guilty of aiding and abetting when she takes daughter to Cancun for one?

Our schools,welfare rolls,penal system etc are in undated with swamped with unwanted children!

Abortion is a moral thing. There should be no law one way or the other. Only couple,Doctor,a pastor (if needed) should have a say. Everyone else needs to butt out

Anonymous said...

Funny, I've never had to forfeit any of my assets to the government. You don't think the government is selectively taking assets, such as the proceeds of criminal enterprises, from criminals, do you?

Anonymous said...

Ya, Trump didn't say that "Trump says a woman needs to be punished for having a (legal) abortion". Check your facts before playing into the media. This is what he said: “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed—like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

Anonymous said...

Trump said that, if abortion were ILLEGAL, the woman should be punished. Still stupid, but he wasn't saying to punish for a legal abortion.

Anonymous said...

19 ducks, huh? I suggest a betting pool for how long it takes for the novelty to wear off and the reality of duck s**t all over the yard to occur.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday up at the courthouse I told a lady (and friend) who is in the latest stage of her pregnancy that if an emergency would happen, I would deliver the baby.


Is she hawt?

Anonymous said...

RTG looks voluptuous now, but will be a fat ass in 10 years.

Anonymous said...

Someone told me the other day that the older you get the less you care about professional sports.


I see a lot of old white people at NBA games. Old white people who didn't get a free lake house from daddy, but they are worth considerably more than the daddy's boy with the free lake house/cabin.

I said old not elderly.

Anonymous said...

Cruz having an affair is like Arnold doing his housekeeper. YUK!

Anonymous said...

Trump makes more sense than all the other idiots.

All the rest are just career politicians who couldn't do anything else in life but suck up our money.

When all else fails in life, become a politician.

Anonymous said...

Bacon ought to be happy with today's RTG!

Anonymous said...

Texas Monthly: "Scrutinizing district attorneys is a necessary part of improving the criminal justice system."



The Texas Monthly reporter who wrote that article describes herself as an Aspiring unfriendly black hottie and she was a resident assistant at a UT dorm in 2010. We're supposed to care what she says? She grew up on the internet or texting or both.

Triple Fake... said...

"the government takes more of your property than crooks do"
That's why theft is illegal - the government is trying to do away with the competition!
They pioneered the whole movement of taxes, fees, charges, licensing. Now that the private sector has caught up, the gubmint is expanding their seizure and forfeiture efforts.


Isn't labor the latest stage at which one can be considered pregnant?
I'm Not a Doctor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

I would suggest a little moderation with the duckmania. It's not quite beyond your cop obsession...yet, but your head could explode any time now.
"I'm your worst nightmare. I'm a duck with a badge!"

Triple Fake Quacksel Foley

Anonymous said...

Great logic, 8:58. "Because I've never had anything taken away without due process, no one has."

9:04 & 9:07 - your comments are based on the flip-flop statement Trump's camp released after the fact, when it hit the fan. Watch his actual, off-the-cuff statement, and you'll see:

Matthews: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?
Trump: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
Matthews: To the woman?
Trump: Yeah, there has to be some form of punishment.

mzchief said...

All of you people waffling on the abortion issue are just feather plucking insane or nothing more than run-of-the-mill raging hypocrites.

1. If abortion is murder of an "unborn baby" than it's murder, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception of the "unborn baby." Do any of you anti-choice people actually think it's okay to MURDER one person to save another? Thus, there should be NO exception for abortion.

2. If abortion is illegal and murder than the consenting patient, receiving an abortion, should indeed be just as culpable for the MURDER of the "unborn baby" as any person performing an abortion. Do any of you honestly believe that the people who purchase and use illegal drugs shouldn't be charged with a crime and that it's only the dealer who has committed a crime? Do any of you honestly believe it's okay to solicit the MURDER of someone, by a professional hit-man? So, yes, even the mother should be punished.

disclaimer: I most assuredly side with the SCOTUS and believe that abortion is a private medical matter between a pregnant woman and her doctor.

As for Trump and his ramblings regarding abortion. Initially, Trump stated that if "it" was illegal the woman should be punished. When Trump's handlers realized what Trump, the candidate who proudly proclaims he doesn't engage in political correctness, had actually said, they issued a very tidy public statement, doing some very fancy tap dancing to include referencing Ronald Reagan. Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Unlike Trump, who has claimed to be a Republican for 2yrs, Reagan was a Republican for 20+ years, as well as having established a record of being a Republican whilst Gov. of CA, prior to running for POTUS.

Anonymous said...

I am increasingly convinced that Trump just throws verbal sh*&^ at the wall to see what sticks. The Trump public, being the Trump public, listens to most of the crazy, contradictory garbage and says, "Yeah. Hell yeah!" And Trump blathers mindlessly on.

Then, once in a blue moon, he says something so blatantly WRONG that even the Trump public goes "Huh? That don't sound right." And THEN Trump simply issues one of his contradictions (never a 'reversal'), saying "Hey, THAT'S not what I said. What I said was this: (insert contradictory garbage)."

And the news media blathers on, whining (a little) about the first statement, and then ALWAYS giving the "last word" to the Trump mouthpiece on the show, to provide him cover. Why?

Because Trump coverage gets lots of viewers/listeners, and makes money for the media outlet in question.

And no one in the mindless media seems concerned that this season of insanity is dragging civil political discourse off a cliff.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." A. Lincoln

Sam Brows said...

Cuban does not need a new stadium. if the City of Dallas funds that they are coo coo for koko puffs.

Trump's exchange with C. Mathews doesn't expose the lunatic fringe so much as it exposed his ability to process details under pressure. That's not a good quality for your President, and I've been defending the guy as a legitimate candidate for awhile now.

As for what he said or didn't say, the crux of the biscuit, while not being the apostrophe, was the following exchange:
Trump: there has to be some form of punishment;
C.M.: For the woman?
Trump: Yes.

Regardless of the overall context, a thinking candidate never allows himself to be put in a box that strings together those three sentences to create that soundbite. that is especially true if you're going into a sitdown with someone like Mr. Hardball, who you know ahead of time is going to try and do exactly that to you. Further, the fact that his camp has since come out and recanted the position takes away from the idea that it was all about the soundbite not providing proper context. He, and those defending this, can't have it both ways: either it is context and you don't recant, you merely point to the entire exchange; or, it isn't context in which case walking it back is entirely appropriate.

And Cruz appears to be taking his talking points on affairs from Hillary's husband.

Anonymous said...

Cruz won't deny the affair? Skippy, what news channel have you been listening too? MSLSD?

Anonymous said...

Skippy, when you go to Jerry World, be sure and hold up your Black Lives Matter poster and don't punch anyone. You might get more than just mace in your face.

Anonymous said...

WWE = Trump rally / NASCAR crowd x # klan members present + square root of Bud Light.

The Crux of the Biscuit said...

Is anyone else tired of hearing about this election. The demographics are cut and dried, Hillary will be the next President and she will win by a landslide. I hate the wench but the numbers don't lie.

mzchief said...

*then

Triple Fake... said...

and somebody will probably say "Axel Foley (in Beverly Hills Cop) didn't say that line. It was Reggie Hammond (also played by Eddie Murphy) in 48HRS."
But guess what - I know dat, and I don't care. It was the first thing that popped into my head

Anonymous said...

"'Asset forfeiture surpass burglaries'. That means the government takes more of your property than crooks do."

No, that means that the government takes more illegally held property than the crooks are known to. That's not the same thing, and also doesn't actually affect me.

I arrested a burglar the other day, and impounded the truck that he used to cart away his stolen stuff. (Seriously, we recovered the stuff from him. This isn't a "maybe he did it" kind of case. He admits to having done it.) My chief plans to attempt to seize the pickup via asset forfeiture. Is it really so objectionable that the tool of the crime (used to cart off the stolen items from the burglary) be forfeited by the admitted criminal? This guy doesn't need a pickup; he needs a job and a little commuter car.

Anonymous said...

Can any of you liberal weenies who favor abortion tell me why Hermitt Gosnell is in prison?

Anonymous said...

10:41, What took so long?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link to the Lawrence v Texas case. I listened to the arguments. You're right, the DA got hammered. What an idiot. The counsel for the plaintiffs was quite impressive.

that guy said...

@11:13

so you're an eye for an eye kind of guy. He stole, so the department steals in return

next time there is one of those police beating cases (and we all know there will be a next time), is it your position that the offending officers be beaten by the public?

And do you guys really need SUV's and full size cars to write tickets?

You need to get off your high horse, learn what it means to be a public servant, and drive a Prius.

Anonymous said...

And Hillary is getting close to checking in to the Martha Stewart suite but the media wants us to focus on a hypothetical question on abortion.

Anonymous said...

Barry, if you have to birth that baby at the courthouse, will you be charging your usual professional rates or will it be an initial free consultation? I need to know how to bill it.

DF Your Accountant

Anonymous said...

Duck, duck, GOOSE!

DF The Goose

Anonymous said...

What started out during the Bush 1 years as a measure to go after Felony large scale drug dealers has morphed into a device by which the police have realized an additional revenue stream. It wasn't ever written as real law with parameters (intentionally so) and is now widened its net to include such erroneous things such as the cop that was proud that a home burglar had his truck confiscated. Don't get me wrong- it wouldn't have have my feelings for said burglar to have been gunned down by the homeowner--but the slippery slope of seizures has already gotten out of hand a long time ago. Where does this end? You buy something illegal with your check or credit card and they confiscate your money? Go through the airport with a money belt and 3 grand because you follow David Ramsey and don't have a credit card? You rent a house to a meth cooker and they take your house? (This one has been done countless times to the fixed income elderly because they don't have the resources to fight it and give it up). Ect. Ect…… You can't completely undue what started out to be an almost perfect judicial system because one bad apple slipped through the cracks.
Hillary and Bernie are already eyeballing your 401's, SEP's, annuities, pensions and so forth just like Obunghole has mentioned from time to time along with his congressional miscreants--that along with the aforementioned will be a nice prize.

Not Sam.

Anonymous said...

12:48 -

That started off as a pretty good comment, but then it turned into...something. Whatever it was, by the end it wasn't good.

Triple Fake... said...

The "one bad apple slipped through the cracks" mashup was a nice touch, though

Triple Fake Sir Mix-a-Metaphor

Anonymous said...

Some idiot said...

I arrested a burglar the other day, and impounded the truck that he used to cart away his stolen stuff. (Seriously, we recovered the stuff from him. This isn't a "maybe he did it" kind of case. He admits to having done it.) My chief plans to attempt to seize the pickup via asset forfeiture. Is it really so objectionable that the tool of the crime (used to cart off the stolen items from the burglary) be forfeited by the admitted criminal? This guy doesn't need a pickup; he needs a job and a little commuter car.

You have to be kidding me. You have NO right to seize his vehicle. Is that clear enough for ya?

Anonymous said...

2;36
I believe the last part was relevant--just not palatable.

Not Sam.

Anonymous said...

When I worked in LE (don't anymore), we always thought that the Asset Forfeiture laws were designed to seize the property that was obtained through the fruits of the crime.

If I sold dope, the cash I made or the stuff I bought from selling the dope was fair game. If I lived in a house and decided to start growing marijuana, the house was off limits. I didn't buy the house with illegal funds. The guy mentioned above probably didn't sell his stolen property to buy a truck, either.

Anonymous said...

3:56

Based on your say-so, right? Under our current law the state has a LEGAL right to seize the vehicle. Is that clear enough for you?

DF Scalia's Ghost

Anonymous said...

Professional sports is not the only thing you csre less and less about!

Anonymous said...

5:35,

Just because the state has a LEGAL right to claim our property doesn't make it the right thing to do. DAs and popo across Texas and the nation have been LEGALLY robbing citizens for years. It needs to stop. Is that clear enough for YOU?

DF Future Wise County DA

Anonymous said...

Again, based on your say-so, right? Thanks for acknowledging the conduct is legal, which was my point.