Jack Cross should be ashamed of himself for opposing the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report (“Newspaper has shown bias against President Trump,” The Daily News, April 3). And Cross is wrong to refer to Mueller’s investigation as a “debacle.”

Despite its limitations, this report provides compelling evidence that the Trump-Russia connections and the president’s obstruction of justice constitute one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history.

Cross doesn’t mention the Russian intervention in the presidential campaign, or the felony charges against 26 Russian nationals, three Russian enterprises, Trump’s campaign chairman, his campaign vice chairman, his first national security adviser, and his personal attorney. Of course, Trump himself has never forthrightly acknowledged the Russian actions on his behalf.

Cross errs when he asserts that “a dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton” launched the Mueller investigation. The FBI began investigating the Trump-Russia connections in July 2016 after an Australian diplomat reported that Trump adviser George Papadopoulos revealed that Moscow had damaging information on Clinton. Mueller was appointed special counsel in May 2017.

Cross is misleading when he claims that Mueller “cleared the president and everyone in his administration of conspiring with the Russians.” In fact, the report found “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.” These include the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting at which senior campaign officials met with Russians who said they had damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Paul Manafort, Papadopoulos and other Trump advisers also met with Russians who wanted to help the campaign.

The investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” But as former FBI agent Frank Montoya told Reuters, this language “doesn’t mean a subject is innocent. It means investigators didn’t find enough evidence to charge a crime.” Former Supreme Court clerk Marissa Malek told Politico that “the report did not exonerate the president even with respect to conspiracy and coordination” and pointed to evidence that may have been suppressed or may yet be found.

Cross is silent on Trump’s obstruction of justice. Mueller wrote that the report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, (but) … also does not exonerate him.” Mueller cites Trump’s misleading public statements, his firing of FBI Director James Comey, his directive to the White House counsel to fire Mueller and eight other actions to impede the investigation.

Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents. But the report refers to “constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” and, as Yoni Applebaum wrote in The Atlantic, implies “There is sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice to merit impeachment hearings.”

Two years on, it’s time for the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against the president. If Trump isn’t held accountable for his unethical and illegal actions, the danger of fascism will grow.

David Michael Smith Ph.D. is a former professor of government at College of the Mainland.

Locations

(103) comments

Don Schlessinger

[thumbdown]

Rusty Schroeder

[thumbdown][thumbdown]

Claudia Burnam

[thumbdown][thumbdown][thumbdown] E G Wiley

Carlos Ponce

Keep writing, David Michael. The sheer lunacy of your column points out that COM was right in removing a pro-Mao, pro-terrorist indoctrinater of the young. You're nothing but a Communist Clown.

Mike Zeller

Carlos, you do know, the same thing can be said about you, being in a classroom with your FAR RIGHT views.

Cary Semar

[thumbup]

Carlos Ponce

Mike you were never in my classroom so how would you know. I believe you were in Mrs. Saunder's classroom. She'd be disappointed in you.

Gary Scoggin

Carlos... if you can’t win the point on facts, you have to resort to personal attacks. Very weak.

Carlos Ponce

I've dealt with David Michael before. I told him to keep writing! [beam]

Katrina Evenhouse

[smile][smile]

Ray Taft

The Mueller Report shows President Trump is Mr. Clean. Not so much for the Dems and the Obama administration. Obama’s corrupt DOJ/FBI/NSA/CIA/State was "all hands on deck" in the Obama administration's going after Trump and then the corrupt targeting morphed into the Mueller operation.

It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!

Gary Scoggin

I must have been looking at a different report.

Carlos Ponce

Even the one from CNN confirms Ray Taft's findings. By the way, I hear the unredacted report contains testimony on Russia having a copy of a "phone sex" conversation between a former president and his intern. I wonder who it was?

Paul Hyatt

Your communist side is showing Mr. Smith. BTW, why did Nixon get remove from office for wire tapping his political opponent and yet when Obama and his minions did it they have not been brought to justice. John Kerry has been acting like a foreign agent going around Europe trying to hold the Iran deal together and yet he has not registered as a foreign agent. Those are very serious laws that have been broken. Or when Obama weaponized the IRS against conservative groups, and used the FBI as a political weapon in the last year of his horrible reign.... Why do you not bring up REAL crimes Mr. Smith?

Connie Patterson

Misinformed, misguided emotional hype, clinging to the hope you can salvage something of the theories( Collusion & Obstruction) born out of pure lies. Mueller report is a $35 million dollar piece of junk and the man stepped way out of bounds in Vol II. Special Council makes recommendations to the AG but never ever writes a report on their “ suspicions “ what a joke. The report was never challenged by a court of law or a jury so the premise of guilt is flawed...this is not how the judicial system works OR an intel investigation. Trump could have at anytime exercise his executive powers to block Mueller from some of his request. 1500+ documents requested, everyone associated gave testimony and he gave his answers to anything and everything Mueller asked for and not once claimed executive powers. Mueller couldn’t subpoena him because he had no evidence and the Supreme Court would have engaged at that point and Mueller knew it! So where is the Obstruction into an investigation on a crime that didn’t happen?
The whole thing reeks, a total waste of taxpayers money and amounts to nothing more than an attempt by an oppositional party, politicizing the FBI and DOJ in an attempt to overthrow a duly and fairly elected president. Really sad day for this country.
Connie

Emile Pope

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? Everything you wrote is totally false...

Lisa Blair

“Misinformed, misguided, emotional hype”

Gary Scoggin

Was the investigation into Russia’s activities a waste also?

Carlos Ponce

We learned that Russia has a copy of a former president having "phone sex" with his intern. (Unredacted copy)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6950835/Mueller-redacted-claim-Russia-tapes-Bill-Clintons-phone-sex-Monica-Lewinsky.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/mueller-report-contains-claim-russia-taped-bill-clinton-having-phone-sex-with-monica-lewinsky

Gary Scoggin

So Bill Clinton is the moral standard we are setting for Donald Trump? At least we know where you stand on these things.

Carlos Ponce

No, Gary. Apparently you missed the point. Don't fire your weapon anytime soon. You'd probably miss.
You asked,"Was the investigation into Russia’s activities a waste also?"
I reported that the Russians had recordings of phone sex from the 1990s from a previous president and his intern. This Tells us:
Russians have been electronically eavesdropping on presidents long before the Obama administration.
They had information on Bill Clinton. They have the "goods" on Bill. Now extrapolate from that. Hint: Bill's wife was running for president in 2016.

Patricia Smothers

David Michael's points are totally on point and correct according to numerous respected news organizations. Trump began his interactions with Russia in the 1980's when he made his first trip to Moscow. There is plenty in the Mueller report that needs to be further investigated for the sake of the protecting our country from foreign interests.

Rusty Schroeder

There it is, "respected news organizations". You meant to say the left leaning liberal media that is scattering to try and defend 2 years of nonsensical, unsubstantiated reports. Those respected news organizations ?

Jack Cross

Michael David Smith the disgraced former professor at COM is displaying why COM has regained to confidence of voters. He also is showing us what is wrong with America. To think that his person taught students government is shocking. Not only does ne not understand Government, he does not understand law enforcement. It is not the job of a prosecutor tp exonerate someone charged. His job is to convince a jury that a crime was committed.
Attorney General Barr wrote: "The Special Council did not find that the Trump Campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian affiliated individuals to assist the trump Campaign." Smith is correct, the investigation by the Obama FBI did start in 2016 which proves my point that the Obama Justice Dept and the FBI was trying to frame Trump before he was elected. Sad for the country.
The Democrats have a choice, they can continue with a witch hunt and lose the 2020 election or they can work with Trump to solve the many problems facing the country that the democrats themselves have acknowledged needs to be addressed.

Lisa Blair

Or they can continue to hold Trump accountable for his crimes and win the 2020 elections.

Rusty Schroeder

Funniest thing I have heard today. You are a hoot Lisa.

Carlos Ponce

When Trump gets re-elected, I wonder what Lisa Blair is going to say....

Carol Dean

Keep an eye on his "socialistic" buddy there at the COM, Sean Skipworth. He too is "delusional" and is not being forthright truthful in a lot of his comments in his run for a Council position in Dickinson.

RE-ELECT BRUCE HENDERSON!

Lisa Blair

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

The report identifies 10 instances of possible obstruction by Trump and said he might have “had a motive” to impede the investigation because of what it could find on a variety of personal matters, such as his proposal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

“The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns,” the report states.

Emile Pope

Now that idiot is saying that if he's impeached that he'll go to the Supreme Court to try and stop it. Doesn't he know anything about the law or the Constitution? Whining and threatening is all he knows. And lying about everything...

Randy Chapman

Don't you know he'll never be impeached by a Republican-controlled Senate? Or are you one of those that believes the Dumbocrat House can do it all?

Diane Turski

If anyone actually reads the available redacted Mueller report, you will discover that Mr. Smith is correct.

Gary Scoggin

Some folks here never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Carlos Ponce

Wishful thinking, Turski.

David Smith

If the Demotards had the goods on Trump,they would have impeached him years ago.. The truth .. right out of their puppets mouth was ... No Collusion..
But that doesnt stop them from continuing this charade..
How many people have been charged with COLLUSION? Heres the list. ----------------
The truth is.. as told by their very own lips on election night.. they would resist him at every turn for 4 years
. And to helk with the country.. and thats exactly whats occuring.
Just like the BSituation on our southern border..
BTW....for the record..Im no relation to this socialist
Who continues to be given column space to spew his anti American socialist Ideology

Gary Scoggin

Did you really have to say Demotards? That is so juvenile that I ignored everything you wrote after that.

David Smith

My comment has nothing to do with what triggered you
Get over it.
You dont like my opinions any way..
Sorry we dont agree.. I dont support any party that advocates open borders and killing babies

Mike Zeller

[thumbdown] [thumbdown] [thumbdown]

Carol Dean

David Smith, you just need to get over yourself and your pedaling of Socialistic and Communist Propaganda.

Gary Scoggin

Where was the “socialist and communist propaganda “ in this post?

Steve Fouga

I wonder how many on this forum have read the report.

Having read about half, I'm convinced Trump is a criminal and an idiot, as are his campaign leaders. I'm convinced his campaign, whether they "colluded" or not, wink-wink nod-nodded to the Russians so often that in everything short of the strictest legal sense, they conspired. It says a lot that if they had already held the security clearances they now hold, several of them could be prosecuted for felonies. It should be especially comforting to the Dems, as it is to me, that there is a LOT of Russia investigating still underway, totally aside from congressional investigations. More to come, in other words.

If you believe the report, Trump obstructed justice but has not yet been indicted. He clearly committed impeachable offenses, and now it's simply a matter of the Dems deciding which political nightmare to visit on the Republicans: impeachment of their standard bearer, or slow rot as Republican dupes slavishly follow an unfit crook to defeat in 2020. I favor the latter course.

I dare you to read the report.

Carol Dean

It's your opinion; nothing more, nothing less.

Steve Fouga

True, it's my opinion, but you're wrong about it being no more than that. It's also the Special Counsel's opinion. You don't even have to read the whole report to see that. You don't even have to apply Liberal spin. It's right there in black and white. I don't know if you've read the report, but it sounds like you haven't.

Lot's more still to come, though, so who knows how it'll turn out...

Carol Dean

Could be stuff that the dems just might NOT want to be revealed as well. The fact still remains that the conclusion of the investigation says there was NOTHING to show that Trump was involved in a collusion with the Russians. That was what the entire investigation was supposed to be about. Wouldn't it be funny if we learned that this was connected to the Steele dossier?

Steve Fouga

"(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)."

Sounds like it was about more than you thought. Those "any matters" turn out to be a big deal. Plus, the whole Russia thing makes me sick. When a foreign adversary attacks our election, patriots are supposed to do something about it. Trump and his crooked minions knew about it, agreed with it, and did nothing. You should read the report and draw your own conclusions.

No need to tell me Obama did nothing about it either; I already know. Big eff-up on his part too.

Carlos Ponce

" It's right there in black and white." Okay which page number?

Jim Forsythe

If you would read the report, you would know.

Steve Fouga

Carlos, it's the WHOLE report! It's harder to find portions that AREN'T damning than those that are. Read it, if you haven't.

Carlos Ponce

I read it, Jim. What you allege is simply NOT THERE.

Steve Fouga

You left your gaslight on, Carlos... [beam]

Carlos Ponce

What you allege is simply NOT THERE!

Carlos Ponce

"Having read about half, I'm convinced Trump is a criminal...." Interesting since Mueller exonerated him on "collusion" and practically "no billed" him on obstruction. It's all in your mind, Steve.[scared]

Steve Fouga

Nope. All that's left is for a prosecutor or congressperson to copy-paste from the report. READ it. Do NOT rely on the media for this one!

Rusty Schroeder

November 3, 2020. [thumbup]

Steve Fouga

I'll be there to cancel your vote, Rusty, unless Nikki Haley or Bill Weld runs.

Rusty Schroeder

I have about 3 dead relatives and 4 aliases, learned that from your side. But it really doesn't matter, your vote won't count in Texas. Thank God for the Electoral college.

Steve Fouga

LOL. [cool]

Carlos Ponce

Steve, Galveston County will vote Trump in 2020. So will the majority in Texas.

Steve Fouga

Yeah, so I guess y'all's votes don't matter either. [wink]

Jarvis Buckley

what a joke of an article.😂

Wayne Holt

I'm a little confused here; perhaps someone can help me out to better understand the fundamental issue as it has been muddied with so much noise around the investigation itself.

In referring to collusion with Russia, is this a reference to a "hack" (it wasn't, it was a phish) of high-level Democrat communications that exposed a number of unsavory details of the party headliners, or is the collusion referred to Trump and/or his minions subverting the electoral process by conspiracy with Russia to rig the election?

Because if it's the latter, I want every administration man jack involved brought to justice and severely punished. If the collusion is the former and refers to the exposure of Democrat leadership's dirty laundry to the salutary effects of public consideration, I would kick in on a Go Fund Me campaign.

Which is it? If I were on a jury, I would find it difficult to vote to convict someone who brought to light the misdeeds and illegalities of the State, classified or not. So I am biased in that I don't consider someone publishing the truth about party leaders to be a black hat.

What is the actual illegality that everyone talks about bringing Trump to justice over? And why has that not been reflected in evidence if the proof lies in great drifts around us? It seems like you would just have to scoop some up and you would be able to get conviction after conviction. It's one thing to parse what someone meant, or inferred, or suggested, or implied. Why has actual wrongdoing not been found that meets the standard of the relevant laws?

Steve Fouga

Obstruction of justice.

Wayne Holt

Thank you for that. Obstruction of justice of to thwart prosecution of what specific criminal act?

Gary Scoggin

Obstruction of Justice is obstructing an investigation. An underlying criminal act does not have to have actually occurred.

Carlos Ponce

"An underlying criminal act does not have to have actually occurred."
Debatable.
At the end of the TV show "The Fugitive" David Janssen (Dr. Richard Kimble) finds the one armed man who actually killed his wife. Police Lt. Philip Gerard winds up shooting the actual killer. Did the police then arrest Dr. Kimble for escaping? No. It is just a TV show but think about it.

Emile Pope

It was. but Mueller said that he couldn't indict a sitting president. he also said that Congress could take action. You're not confused, just refusing to accept facts...

Carlos Ponce

"Mueller said that he couldn't indict a sitting president. he also said that Congress could take action." Emile
Here's a different opinion:
QUESTION: Mr. Barr, did the special counsel indicate that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left for Congress?
BARR: Well, Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress; I hope that was not his view, since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not — I didn’t talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision. But I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my — my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/18/barr-mueller-report-news-conference-transcript/?utm_term=.1ea8e69884a3
Now whom do we trust, Emile or the Attorney General?????

Steve Fouga

It's not a binary choice, but if it were, I'd trust Emile. Barr proved his untrustworthiness with his interpretation of the Report. It's understandable that Mr. Barr is biased toward his boss, but that makes him untrustworthy.

Carlos Ponce

Steve Fouga trusts Emile over an Attorney General. Wow! As many times as Emile has been disproven you still trust Emile! Have at it!

Steve Fouga

Maybe Emile is occasionally wrong, but Barr is untrustworthy. Your question was about trust.

Carlos Ponce

Occasionally?

Carlos Ponce

Why am I reminded of the phrase, " the blind leading the blind"? - No offense to anyone who is sight impaired.

Wayne Holt

Actually, I prefer to wait until facts actually are clear. Steve has helpfully suggested obstruction of justice. To which I responded and would like to know what specific criminal act was this obstruction intended to obscure? And if you would like to suggest what that might be, great. Please also indicate why $35,000,000 worth of evidence gathering was not sufficient to secure something so obvious.

Steve Fouga

Wayne, he sought to obstruct an investigation into himself and his campaign. The report is chock full of evidence of obstruction, an entire volume of it. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it. It's quite well-written and easily understandable by a layman, which I am.

Mueller also explains his motivation in not actually charging the president. Read all about it in the report. It's basically that Justice Dept policy does not allow indicting a sitting president, and he, being employed by that department, decided to follow their policy. He gave plenty of hints as to how a prosecutor could indict after Trump leaves office, or how the House could impeach him. Very instructive document, easily worth whatever it cost.

Carlos Ponce

Steve, the investigation vindicated Trump and his campaign but hindered the effectiveness of his administration. Any decent president would object to it.
"Russia, Russia, Russia. Collusion, Collusion, Collusion" turned out to be a FALSE narrative. Trump got a lot accomplished despite this "witch hunt". But think of all that could have been accomplished. You claim to be objective - YOU'RE NOT!

Steve Fouga

Yes, I claim to be more objective than most, and definitely more so than you.

The investigation did not come close to vindicating Trump; in fact, just the opposite. Get ready, Carlos, a s**tstorm is coming.

Carlos Ponce

"Yes, I claim to be more objective than most, and definitely more so than you."
The evidence of your posts is not in your favor, Steve. Not objective at all.
Look for the Inspector General's Report - COMING SOON!

Paula Flinn

President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey to get rid of the Trump/Russia conspiracy. In the NBC interview with Lester Holt, Trump admits it. That would be Obstruction of Justice.
Trying to fire Mueller, himself by asking Corey Lewandowsky and/or Don McGahn to do it. That would be Obstructing an investigation.
Mueller couldn’t prove President Trump’s intent on firing Comey and no follow through on firing Mueller. But we all can surmise President Trump’s intent, just cannot prove it.

Carlos Ponce

"President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey to get rid of the Trump/Russia conspiracy." NOT TRUE, Paula.
Here's the Trump - Lester Holt transcript:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/11/president_trumps_full_interview_with_lester_holt.html
Now find me where he said he fired Comey to get rid of the Trump/Russia conspiracy.
Here's what was said:
HOLT: But were -- are you angry...angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation?
TRUMP: I just want somebody that's competent. I am a big fan of the FBI. I love the FBI.
and
TRUMP: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.
They -- he made a recommendation. He's highly respected. Very good guy, very smart guy.
And the Democrats like him. The Republicans like him.
He had made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it
And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won.
HOLT: But were you a fan of...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: ...people of the FBI.
HOLT: him taking up that investigation?
TRUMP: I think that -- about the Hillary Clinton investigation?
HOLT: No, about -- about the Russian investigation and possible...
TRUMP: No, I don't care...
HOLT: ...links between...
TRUMP: Look -- look, let me tell you. As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly.
"I want that thing to be absolutely done properly."
"I want that thing to be absolutely done properly."
Now does that sound like Trump " fired FBI Director James Comey to get rid of the Trump/Russia conspiracy," ????????

Carlos Ponce

"Trying to fire Mueller, himself by asking Corey Lewandowsky and/or Don McGahn to do it."
Trump told McGahn Mueller had conflicts of interests that could possibly result in his removal. He asked McGahn to discuss the matter with Rod Rosenstein.
But was Mueller fired????? No.
Was McGahn fired for not firing Mueller? No.
The matter was discussed and no one was fired. It's all in the Mueller report.
Others in the discussion state Trump NEVER told McGahn to fire Mueller.
From CNN:
Trump asked, "Did I say the word 'fire'?" McGahn replied, "What you said is, 'Call Rod (Rosenstein), tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel." Trump replied that he never said "fire" and merely wanted McGahn to bring Rosenstein's attention to the perceived issue and leave it to him, according to the report.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/politics/fact-check-trump-claim-i-never-told-don-mcgahn-to-fire-mueller/index.html

Jarvis Buckley

Communist

Gary Scoggin

A really insightful comment there, Jarvis.

Gary Scoggin

I’m no fan of Mr. Smith’s writings and, frankly, many of his activities at COM. But he has a right to his opinion and the facts that he states and the conclusions he draws are not too different from those of many other Americans. If you can’t rebut him without personal attacks you do nothing but show the weakness of your arguments.

Carlos Ponce

What I posted come from David Michael's previous columns dating back to the 1990s.

Carol Dean

Carlos, you must have been reading my mind in regards to Emile and Steve! DENIAL is the key word that is hampering their ability to comprehend!

Steve Fouga

LOL. [cool]

Comprehend what? Let's have a comprehension contest!

Wayne Holt

I appreciate you taking the time to actually explain your position. Whether one agrees or not, it makes it a lot easier to try to find common ground when that is done. Thank you.

Emile Pope

Just heard that the state Is stopping it’s voter purge efforts and paying the plaintiffs 450,000. Carlos? Carlos? Somebody better check...

Carlos Ponce

It's called a settlement, Emile, to expedite matters.
The "purge" of non-citizens from voting rolls CONTINUES under new agreed to guidelines:
https://texascivilrightsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/4-25-10_voter_purge_settlement_agreement.pdf
"The Secretary of State will obtain from DPS a list of all individuals who are at least 18 years old and who hold a current (unexpired) driver’s license or personal identification card and presented to DPS documents indicating non-U.S. citizenship at their last DPS visit in which they were issued a new or renewed driver’s license or personal identification card. DPS verifies the validity of documents indicating non-U.S. citizenship (lawful presence documents) through the SAVE database at the time of the person’s DPS visit. These records will not utilize a match criteria based on individuals who obtained a replacement driver’s license or personal identification card or changed their personal information such as name or address before the expiration of their existing driver’s license or personal identification card. The Secretary of State will not request— and has never requested—that the DPS data disclosed to the Secretary of State as part of any non- U.S. citizen matching process contain the race or ethnicity of any individual.
The Secretary of State will match those DPS records with the voter registration database using the following criteria: a. Last Name (including Former Last Name on the Voter Record), First Name, and Full Social Security Number (9 digits);
6 b. Last Name (including Former Last Name on the Voter Record), First Name, and DPS-Issued Driver License or Personal Identification Card Number; or c. Last Name (including Former Last Name on the Voter Record), First Name, Last Four Digits of the Social Security Number, and Date of Birth. These criteria are used to maximize the likelihood that the individual identified in the DPS database is the same individual identified in the TEAM database. 10. Utilizing this process, the Secretary of State will identify only currently registered voters who registered to vote before they presented documents to a DPS office indicating non-U.S. citizenship. That will be determined by comparing the effective date of a person’s voter registration to the date on which DPS validated the person’s non-U.S. citizen lawful presence documents using the SAVE database and issued the person’s current driver’s license or personal identification card to that person. Because Texas law provides that voter registration does not become effective until 30 days after a voter submits a registration form, the matching process will include voters whose effective date of registration is up to 30 days after the date on which they presented documents to a DPS office indicating non-U.S. citizenship. Thus, the Secretary of State will send to county voter registrars and elections administrators only the records of voters whose effective date of voter registration is prior to, or no more than 30 calendar days after, the issuance date of the voter’s current driver’s license or personal identification card for which he or she proved lawful presence but not U.S. citizenship."
Who gets the money? Remember they were suing for MILLIONS.
"Texas taxpayers will hand over $450,000 to the lawyers who sued the state earlier this year ..."
https://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2019/04/26/texas-pay-450-k-settlement-over-voter-rolls-purge-attempt/3591948002/

Emile Pope

https://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-official-apologizes-for-inaccuracy-of-voter-13616764.php

Carlos Ponce

It's STILL a settlement. The purging of the voting rolls will still continue under the terms of the settlement - not really that different than what occurred earlier. Did you BOTHER to read the settlement, link provided?

Emile Pope

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/26/texas-agrees-stop-effort-purge-voter-rolls/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.30fa01258867

Emile Pope

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/texas-retracts-voter-fraud-claim-stops-purge.html

Emile Pope

Game over...

Carlos Ponce

But the purging of voter rolls pf non-citizens will continue.

Emile Pope

The state paid out $450,000. Not something winners do...

Carlos Ponce

Emile doesn't get it.
The plaintiffs wanted a lot more in terms of money and resulting conditions.
The $450,000 goes to the various attorney's fees.
"The Secretary of State will pay the plaintiffs a total of $450,000 for the plaintiffs’ fees and cost incurred in the litigation of this case through checks payable to Brazil and Dunn LLP."
What they wanted was a termination into any procedure to investigate the citizenship of those who previously claimed they were not citizens. That's not happening. Compare the original directive issued January 25, 2019 to the terms of the settlement dated April 25, 2019:
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2019-02.shtml
compared to the terms of the settlement:
https://texascivilrightsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/4-25-10_voter_purge_settlement_agreement.pdf
They are essentially the same, main difference being more paperwork.
The apology was given to the counties and DPS:
“Before announcing the number of people who may not be eligible to vote, more time should have been devoted to additional communication with the counties and DPS to further eliminate anyone from our original list who is, in fact, eligible to vote. To the extent my actions missed that mark, I apologize,” Whitley wrote.
In my opinion the plaintiffs wanted this process dragged on to affect the 2020 election cycle. With the agreement current litigation is terminated as of April 25th. Plaintiffs however are allowed to challenge Tex. Elec. Code § 16.033 if they believe it violates the National Voting Rights Act. In the meantime the procedures they signed off on will be followed. If someone claimed they were not citizens on official documents but appear on the voting rolls they will be investigated.

Emile Pope

Useless blathering...the state got stomped and wasted taxpayers money in an attempt at voter suppression. And had to apologize!!! That's what happens when you pick on people willing to defend themselves. Scoreboard baby...

Carlos Ponce

Once again, rather than read the case settlement you choose to rant.

Yes the state pays $450,000 in lawyer's fees.
Yes, the SOS apologizes to the counties and DPS.
The purging of non-citizens continues under agreed to guidelines which look like the ones adopted earlier.
The removal of non-citizens from the rolls will continue to include the 2020 campaign cycle.

Emile Pope

Yawn...the state got thumped...

Carlos Ponce

Emile does not understand the concept of a legal settlement
legal definition- "an alternative to pursuing litigation through trial. Typically, it occurs when the defendant agrees to some or all of the plaintiff's claims and decides not to fight the matter in court. Usually, a settlement requires the defendant to pay the plaintiff some monetary amount."
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/settlement
The plaintiffs and defendants agreed to a process to screen those who indicated non-citizen status but still appear on the state's voting rolls. If you examine the agreement it is essentially the same as put out by the Secretary of State's Office back in January. More paper trail is the main difference.

Emile Pope

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/texas-voting.html

Emile Pope

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/26/texas-voter-purge-state-settles-lawsuit-over-attempt-trim-voter-lists/3593055002/

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.