A Texas political candidate has been arrested on charges of sending fake hate messages to himself on social media.

Taral Patel, the Democratic candidate for Fort Bend Precinct 3 Commissioner, was arrested by Texas Rangers and is being charged with Online Impersonation and Misrepresentation of Identity.

Authorities allege that Patel spent months sending a stream of racist and derogatory comments to himself, impersonating a supporter of incumbent Republican Commissioner Andy Meyers.

DISGRUNTLED ATHLETIC DIRECTOR ACCUSED OF FRAMING PRINCIPAL  WITH AI-GENERATED RACIST, ANTISEMITIC RECORDING

According to the arrest record for Patel, the investigation was launched in October 2023 after Meyers requested authorities to look into who was responsible for the vitriolic comment made at Patel.

Patel previously posted a collage of hateful comments ostensibly sent by Meyers supporters, claiming the messages represented a “deep and misguided fear” among the Republican Party.

“As your Democratic candidate for County Commissioner, I am always open to criticism of my policy positions and stances on issues,” Patel said in the September 2023 post on Facebook. “However, when my Republican opponents supporters’ decide to hurl racist, anti-immigrant, Hinduphobic, or otherwise disgusting insults at my family, faith community, colleagues, and me – that crosses a line.”

SCAMMERS ARE USING FAKE NEWS, MALICIOUS LINKS TO TARGET YOU IN AN EMOTIONAL FACEBOOK PHISHING TRAP

Fort Bend County Commissioner W. A. “Andy” Meyers, Precinct 3, participates in the commissioners’ court meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2019, in Richmond. (Brett Comer/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Law enforcement reported that Patel used an image of a real Fort Bend resident as his profile picture without the individual’s consent.

Fort Bend County Republican Party Chairman Bobby Eberle released a statement reacting to Patel’s arrest, calling the situation “deeply concerning.” 

“Whether Republican or Democrat, such tactics should be unequivocally condemned by all who value integrity and accountability in politics,” Eberle said. “This is not a partisan issue, and the good people of Fort Bend County should be able to trust that when allegations are made, they are sincere.”

He concluded, “Fort Bend County residents deserve better leadership than someone who will create a fake account and post manufactured racist attacks — attempting to turn neighbor against neighbor — for political gain.”

For all the conjecture and wishcasting about who or what could knock President Biden or Donald Trump out of the 2024 presidential race, their rematch was never much in doubt. Instead, in a measure of just how dispiriting the contest is, the only real question has been a relatively inconsequential one: Who will be Trump’s running mate?

That question should be: Who would want to be his running mate? Trump, after all, rewarded former Vice President Mike Pence for his four years of emasculating sycophancy by abandoning him to the mercies of the mob that wanted to hang Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, and telling an advisor, “Maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Pence, in a rebuke of his own, says he won’t vote for “anyone that puts themselves over the Constitution.”

Pence’s sorry treatment at Trump’s hands apparently is no turnoff, however, for ambitious Republicans coveting proximity to power and possession of Air Force Two, should Trump be elected again. There is no shortage of veep wannabes for the disgraced former president to choose from.

And there’s no shortage of press guessing either. The quadrennial veepstakes speculation has been revving up and will go into overdrive over the next month, given Trump’s talk that he’ll wait to name his choice at the Republican National Convention in mid-July. “I have sort of a pretty good idea,” he teased Fox News on Thursday, and media speculators lately are betting on Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida or North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — MAGA men all, easily meeting the job requirement of being duly obsequious.

The whole speculative exercise is silly and always has been. For evidence, consider how often reporters and pundits have been surprised over the past half-century.

In August 1988, I was huddled with other Washington reporters around a newsroom TV to watch George H.W. Bush unveil his vice presidential pick. To our shock, and nearly every pundit’s as well, he named the boyish Sen. Dan Quayle. “Bush not only didn’t name the best senator,” a co-worker exclaimed, “he didn’t name the best senator from Indiana!” (That was Richard Lugar).

Bush himself was something of a surprise VP choice when Ronald Reagan tapped him at the 1980 Republican convention, given the two men’s poisonous rivalry for the nomination. Reagan landed on Bush only after Reagan failed in his bid to produce a stunner for the ages: a supposed “dream ticket” with former President Gerald R. Ford in the vice presidential slot, promising a sort of co-presidency if they won.

In 1984 virtually no media types who tried to anticipate Walter Mondale’s Democratic running mate had among their top bets the relatively obscure Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York, but Mondale made her the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket. Because presidential candidates typically look for a partner who complements them — say, by their age, region or experience — Bill Clinton in 1992 pulled a fast one by selecting Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee, a fellow southerner, boomer and moderate Democrat.

Eight years later, when Gore was Democrats’ 2000 standard bearer, few journalists had Connecticut’s Sen. Joe Lieberman as a leading contender, but he became the first Jewish nominee on a major-party ticket. The big-time stumper that year, however, was on the Republican side: George W. Bush passed over the prospects that advisor Dick Cheney was vetting and tapped Cheney himself.

John McCain, needing to jump-start his 2008 campaign, brushed aside prominent Republican governors and senators that journalists (and McCain advisors) were promoting as veep contenders and settled for shock value on novice Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. “Sarah who?” was the near-universal reaction. America sure found out.

The thing is, the only person who actually knows the choice for No. 2 is No. 1. And No. 1 can and often does reconsider.

That’s especially true when we’re talking about the ever-erratic Trump, who considers himself his own best strategist. He appears to approach the veep selection like a reality show episode, weighing whether would-be apprentices are out of “central casting” (but not so much as to outshine the star of the show) and how to stoke suspense for the finale.

Trump would probably like nothing better than to foil the media guessing game, and even his advisors’ script, and spring a last-minute twist. Heck, not being a dog lover, he might even give the nod to Kristi Noem. The South Dakota governor was considered a prime prospect until last month, when she was written off after she copped to executing Cricket, the family dog.

In 2016, Pence, Trump’s opposite in just about every way, didn’t dominate in the speculation but complemented the presidential candidate well. For the thrice-married former casino mogul, obsessed then with winning over evangelical voters, the pious Pence was just the partner Trump needed. In a signal of how he’d hire and fire as president, he announced the Pence pick in a tweet.

Trump no longer needs help getting evangelicals’ support. This time he’s said to be interested in Black men’s support, and perhaps snatching more of it from Biden by picking, say, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida or Ben Carson, his former Housing secretary.

Who knows? Only Trump.

But that won’t stop us from speculating. It never has.

@jackiekcalmes

A judge in Missouri ruled that state lawmakers who passed a bill restricting abortion access were not attempting to force their religious beliefs on everyone in the state, despite claims from religious leaders.

The case brought by more than a dozen Christian, Jewish and Unitarian Universalist leaders who support abortion access was rejected in Judge Jason Sengheiser’s ruling on Friday.

The religious leaders sought a permanent injunction last year to prevent Missouri from enforcing its abortion ban and a declaration that provisions of the law violate the state Constitution.

One section of the statute that was challenged reads: “In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life, that all men and women are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life.’”

MISSOURI’S ABORTION LAW FACES CHALLENGE IN COURT OVER CLAIMS OF RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE

Sengheiser wrote in his ruling that there is similar language in the preamble to the Missouri Constitution, which states that there is “profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”

The other challenged provisions do not include any explicit religious language, the judge ruled.

“While the determination that life begins at conception may run counter to some religious beliefs, it is not itself necessarily a religious belief,” Sengheiser wrote. “As such, it does not prevent all men and women from worshipping Almighty God or not worshipping according to the dictates of their own consciences.”

The Americans United for Separation of Church & State and the National Women’s Law Center, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the religious leaders, said in a joint statement that they were considering their legal options following the judge’s ruling.

“Missouri’s abortion ban is a direct attack on the separation of church and state, religious freedom and reproductive freedom,” the statement read.

Attorneys representing the state, however, argued that just because some supporters of the law oppose abortion for religious reasons does not mean that the law imposes their beliefs on other people in the state.

Sengheiser said that the state has historically attempted to restrict and criminalize abortion, pointing to statutes more than 100 years old.

SUPREME COURT RULES IN ABORTION MEDICATION CASE, FINDS GROUP LACKED STANDING TO CHALLENGE FDA APPROVAL

Abortion rights activists rally at the Washington Monument before a march to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, May 14, 2022. (JOSE LUIS MAGANA/AFP via Getty Images)

“Essentially, the only thing that changed is that Roe was reversed, opening the door to this further regulation,” he said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, which allowed states to make their own abortion laws.

Shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned two years ago, then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Gov. Mike Parson, both Republicans, filed paperwork to immediately enact a 2019 law prohibiting abortions except in cases of medical emergency. That law included a provision that made it effective only if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

The law makes it a felony punishable by five to 15 years in prison to perform or induce an abortion, and doctors who violate the law could lose their medical licenses. Women who undergo abortions cannot be prosecuted under the law.

Missouri, which already had some of the more restrictive abortion laws in the U.S., had a significant decline in the number of abortions performed. Residents instead traveled to the neighboring states of Illinois and Kansas to undergo the procedure.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.