Kim Ogg
District Attorney Kim Ogg was reprimanded on Tuesday night by the Harris County Democratic Party, which passed a resolution calling for her admonishment.
By a vote of 129 to 61, precinct chairs approved the resolution accusing Ogg of not adequately representing the values of the Democratic Party.
While the resolution does not limit her legal powers, it does put Ogg at odds with her own party as she heads into next year’s March primary. She is facing a challenge from Sean Teare, a former prosecutor who raised almost $750,000 in the first six months of the year – more than 10 times what Ogg raised during the same period.
Ogg, who attended the vote in person, downplayed its significance minutes after the resolution passed.
“It’s political drama within a party,” she said. “It’s the in-fighting that our American public has grown tired of. I would tell the public that this is damaging to the political process, and it hurts public trust. Anybody who pushed this is wrong.”
Daniel Cohen, a precinct chair and one of the organizers of the resolution, said its passage was the result of a grassroots movement of people who were tired of Ogg’s tussles with major figures in the party, as well as “every day working folks trying to make things work.”
“This is the future of the Harris county Democratic Party if we want to see success in elections,” Cohen said.
The resolution, first introduced in October, was signed by over 110 of the party’s 549 precinct chairs. It contained more than a dozen accusations, among them that Ogg “abused the power of her office to pursue personal vendettas against her political opponents, sided with Republicans to advance their extremist agenda, and stood in the way of fixing the broken criminal justice system.”
[…]
The resolution was narrowly approved by two party committees – the first in late November and the second in early December – before heading to the county executive committee, which is comprised of the party’s elected precinct chairs.
[…]
Once the debate concluded, precinct chairs cast their ballots. After about half an hour of counting ballots, Mike Doyle, the party chairman, announced the results, and the crowd quickly erupted into cheers.
“We’ve acted in accordance with the rules,” Doyle said above the din. “I very much appreciate that, and I very much welcome this as a show of Democrats having an important discussion, following the rules and doing it the right way. I know not everybody’s happy, but we’ve followed the rules. We’ve done what’s required.”
I’m a precinct chair and I was there last night. I did not vote on the resolution. I believe the people who put it together and advocated for it did a lot of hard work and made a strong case for themselves, and in the end expressed the will of a majority of the precinct chairs. Ogg’s supporters made some good points in her defense, and there was a great deal of passion on both sides. The meeting was well run, the rules were followed, and the people were heard. I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with that.
I did not vote on this resolution, after a lot of thought and consideration. While there are legitimate concerns about how Ogg has aimed her power at local officials, I am by nature squeamish about engaging in what might be perceived as political influence on the criminal justice process. I also have this pseudo-journalistic role in which I’m about to do a bunch of interviews with candidates running in the Democratic primary, and I want and need them to view me as a fair broker. I do these interviews and judicial Q&As to help my fellow Dems learn more about the candidates on their primary ballot, and I take that seriously. I had the experience a few years ago of a candidate refusing to talk to me because I had written something in support of his opponent in their race. I’m obviously happy to sling my opinion around, but after all these years I’m aware of some boundaries. It can be a little weird sometimes, and I don’t claim to always be consistent about it, but there it is.
Anyway. The Democratic precinct chairs followed a well-defined small-d democratic process to express their will. Whether you like the result or not, that’s the system working as designed.
Two more things: One, in case anyone who was not there is wondering, Sean Teare was not present at this meeting. While these meetings are an excellent opportunity for candidates to meet and mingle with party stalwarts, I think it was wise of him to steer clear, as the resolution was not about him. And two, for a hot minute this morning, around 5 AM, the front page of the Chronicle’s website had a photo of Ogg accompanying this story in which she was standing right next to where I was sitting. (Honestly, I’m glad I wasn’t fiddling with my phone in the picture.) I was up front with the other SD15 precinct chairs, and Ogg, who is also an SD15 resident, was there along with some of her supporters as the resolution was taken up. As it happens, when Chair Mike Doyle divided the room, the pro-resolution ballot box was on the opposite side of the room, and the anti-resolution ballot box was right where we were. I haven’t seen that picture since they changed it to a different one, but I’m sure it’s somewhere in their directory. I mention this in case anyone else was up at 5 AM refreshing the Chron homepage to see if they had a story up.
So let me get this straight, Democrats want a DA who investigates possible acts of corruption committed by Republican?
That’s old school Tammany Hall!
Greg, I don’t think you could identify a straight line if a Democrat drew it.
How about someone who does not yell MAGA talking points to help the MAGA party?
This does seem like killing the messenger here. Ogg didn’t rig a multi-million dollar county contract and use encrypted messenger apps to hide her involvement, stash millions of dollars in African art in a county storage building, allow violent criminals to run loose on our streets on numerous felony bonds, etc., but she gets slammed for speaking out and looking into those actions as part of her job as the District Attorney? For shame.
Greg: Always count on a cop to find them guilty before a jury or judge ever does.
What exactly did they find that Commissioner Ellis did?
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/Grand-jury-clears-Rodney-Ellis-in-mysterious-16572810.php
She was not doing her job; she was doing the bidding of the MAGA governor and his cronies. Maybe they can convince Republicans to come vote for her in the Democratic Primary; after all, they did that when Gene Green defeated Ben Reyes.
Manny, don’t you think any DA should look into and question the things I mentioned? Possible official corruption, reckless/dangerous felony bond practices, etc.? Ogg did so and was rebuked for it. If the officials involved were Republicans instead of Democrats, the precinct chairs would be praising Ogg instead of attacking her.
While I thoroughly enjoy reading Kuff’s blog, I’m having an issue with:
“I’m a precinct chair and I was there last night. I did not vote on the resolution. I believe the people who put it together and advocated for it did a lot of hard work and made a strong case for themselves, and in the end expressed the will of a majority of the precinct chairs.” “I did not vote on this resolution, after a lot of thought and consideration. While there are legitimate concerns about how Ogg has aimed her power at local officials, I am by nature squeamish about engaging in what might be perceived as political influence on the criminal justice process. I also have this pseudo-journalistic role in which I’m about to do a bunch of interviews with candidates running in the Democratic primary, and I want and need them to view me as a fair broker.”
Doesn’t Kuff’s position as a Precint Chair override Kuff’s role as a pseudo-journalist ? This position sounds like it’s akin to Consumer Report not writing a negative review of a Nestle product (for example) because Nestle also has pop up ads on the Consumer Report website.
Greg that is not what she was rebuked for; those are her talking points. You do parrot them very well.
Introduced by Precinct Chair Daniel Cohen, the resolution stopped short of a “censure” but chided Ogg for requesting “high cash bail for minor crimes,” attacking Democratic judges, producing a report on the consequences of bail reform, and undermining “gun violence prevention programs.”
Cohen’s resolution also accused Ogg of using her office to “bully and intimidate” elected Democratic officials she disagrees with by “threatening them with criminal prosecutions,” and criticized her referral of criminal complaints related to the county’s 2022 elections to the Texas Rangers for investigation.
Interesting, as I have never considered Kuff as a fair broker.
C.L., in order to avoid even the appearance of bias Consumer Reports doesn’t take advertising from anyone.
As someone who was once an ink stained wretch before changing tracks to a profession that had the likelihood of a much better income, I can also tell you that as a matter of ethics few (if any) journalists register with one party or the other in those jurisdictions that require it, ditto with voting in primaries, and some don’t vote at all.
Given the openly Democratic tilt of this blog I see no conflict in Kuff taking on the mostly administrative job of being a Democratic precinct chair. In the interest of full disclosure, he’s also my precinct chair.
I’ve been following Kuff’s blog for about 20 years. He’s as fair and honest a broker as any I’ve seen in the world of bloggers. I have no problem with his work as a precinct chair and as a blogger. He has a lot more insight than I do and I’m grateful for his perspective on this story and other news.
Manny, the resolution verbiage aside, we all know why this reprimand really occurred. Some people want to install a puppet in the DA’s Office so they can act above the law. We don’t want our city and county to end up like Chicago – one of the most corrupt cities in the nation.
As far as Kuff, he explained why he didn’t vote and it makes sense to me. If he had felt strongly about the resolution, one way or the other, I’m sure he would have voted. You can describe Kuff a lot of ways, but “shy” isn’t one of them.
https://news.wttw.com/2023/11/03/four-peat-chicago-ranks-no-1-corruption-report-finds
Don’t believe what I signed; believe what Greg says.
I am a Democratic Precinct Chair who signed the petition. I know what I signed. I was not able to be to vote on the 12th, but I was there at the other two committee meetings.
So keep spreading lies, Greg; MAGA and wanna-be MAGAs are good at that.
Manny, as Lane Lewis said in his defense of Kim Ogg on Tuesday, everyone has an opinion. You are entitled to yours.
CL, I used “pseudo” as the prefix for a reason. I have never claimed to be a journalist of any kind, but (in part because I had a mirror blog on the Chron for several years) I am often perceived as one by people. My point in saying what I said is that in order to do the interviews I do, which includes interviews with Republicans, I need the people I want to talk to trust that I will treat them fairly. That has made me sometimes be circumspect about things I say and actions I take, such as making endorsements. It’s far from perfect and I know I have been inconsistent at times, but it has generally worked for me.
Lane Lewis, who, as Democratic Chair, locked the doors to the Democratic Headquarters and refused to even talk to the DREAMERS. That Lane Lewis?
I am not shy about stating my opinion. But I am curious are you stating that what Greg is saying is an opinion or factual? So, what I say is an opinion about the resolution.
Kuff, let me ask you how often you have bad-mouthed Dave Wilson. Have you ever bothered to ask him to talk to you? Whitmire reaches out to people like Dave, but he deserves what kind of language?
How often have I had to come here and defend Latinas and Latinos because of the wording that you used? Diana Davila, what exactly did she do that was illegal? If you knew some of HISD’s history, you would have known that courts had ruled that they did not violate the law. But the easy way is to go with the flow of media.
When you mentioned Yolanda Navarro Flores, I kept stating that they were not the ones doing anything wrong. Who got indicted? Who pleaded guilty when he ran for city council? Your buddy, Jay Ayer.
I do admit you have not censured me yet, which goes a long way on your behalf.
Below is a link to the resolution:
https://issuu.com/houstonbusinessconnections/docs/resolution_to_formally_admonish_district
By the way, Kuff, who were the people indicted from HISD? I did not notice any of the five that were the target of the media and you.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/more-charges-filed-hisd-corruption-probe
If one knows how contracts work in organizations like HISD and HCC, one can figure out who is probably behind it.
It seems that my signature is not on the admonishment, but I spoke in favor at the first committee meeting.
Manuel Barrera
Manny, when Kuff said you were entitled to your opinion, I’m sure he was referring to your comment, “Interesting, as I have never considered Kuff as a fair broker.”. I think most readers of this blog would disagree with your comment. The fact that he allows you, me, and everyone else to post our thoughts, even when we disagree with him, is proof of that. All he asks is that we be respectful.
As far as the underlying reason for (not the actual verbiage of) the resolution against DA Kim Ogg, I stated my opinion. Like Kuff said, everybody has one.
Greg if I cared what people think of my opinion, I would not give them. Most of the time, I am right as I research things first. I look for several sources as it is becoming harder to rely on just one, even ones like the New York Times.
By the way I was wrong on only one person who won, that would be Ramirez, but I did state it would be close. Not in this blog.
I have heard that there may be a story behind the election that one day may come out.
As to Whitmire’s win, George H W Bush won over 400 electoral votes and lost when he ran again. Whitmire has a lot of promises to keep, hope he succeeds.