Connect with us

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Watson’s assault case might unravel a test of courtroom litigation competence

Published

5 years ago

on

After a dramatic mayoral election meltdown, Attorney Tony Buzbee  faces another challenge ―this time in a district court

Rusty Hardin, an attorney, is not well-known to me, as my usual interest is in politicians and leaders or perhaps, politics and leadership. However, I do recall a few of his litigation endeavors. For instance, when the former Houston Oilers quarterback, Warren Moon, was acquitted by a Fort Bend County jury of choking and beating his wife. And in 2004, when an NBA Hall of Famer, Calvin Murphy, got off scot-free from charges that he sexually abused five of his ten daughters. Also in 2008, when the wife of the televangelist, Joel Osteen, walked away from a case involving a flight attendant who accused her of assault. As well as in 2012, when former MLB pitching legend, Roger Clemens, faced federal charges of lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Hardin represented Clemens in the Washington D.C. trial where a jury acquitted him of all charges after eight weeks of testimony.

In December 2019, the Houston-based millionaire, Tony Buzbee, was humiliated at the polls, losing his bid to unseat Houston Mayor, Sylvester Turner. He played down his loss, arrogantly defying a customary concession stating, “We didn’t really lose, we just ran out of time.” Today, attorney Buzbee is facing another challenge; a courtroom battle over a high-profile case that he initiated. The problem might not be the case but rather the counsel on the other side, Rusty Hardin.

There were reports over a number of lawsuits filed against Houston Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson, accusing him of sexual or civil assault. The accusation started a media blitz. Tony Buzbee who turned out to be the attorney for the plaintiffs, shuttled between social media and local news outlets to amplify the allegations made by his clients. He packaged his information and released it at intervals to generate suspense—the type that would get the accused’s attention and lure him to the negotiation table.

Tony Buzbee who turned out to be the attorney for the plaintiffs, shuttled between social media and local news outlets to amplify the allegations made by his clients.

As of April 9, a total of 22 civil lawsuits have been filed against Watson and recorded on the Harris County District Clerk’s website accusing him of a range of actions during massage appointments over the past year; from refusing to cover his genitals to forced oral sex. But Watson blatantly denied the allegations in the lawsuits, which did not name any of the women.

Matters rather got interesting after attorney Hardin finally filed an answer on April 19, to the 22 lawsuits filed against Deshaun Watson. Hardin accused all the women suing Watson of lying. “Today we answered the lawsuits filed against our client Deshaun Watson. Therefore, the answer to the question of whether we are saying that all 22 plaintiffs are lying about the allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Watson is a resounding yes.”

In the weeks after this allegation, it appeared that Buzbee spent more time on internet newsfeeds than with his clients. Outrageous headlines related to these incidents dominated the news in different composition formats.

Around March 23, Tony Buzbee announced his proposed lawsuits on Instagram, bragging on social media that more sexual assault allegations would follow. Within a week or so, 16 women had already made similar allegations of misconduct in 16 separate lawsuits. At some point, the number of accusers rose to 22.

Buzbee’s media campaign paid off as Watson dominated the local news, more so than COVID-19, generating interest, negative attention, and anxiety, especially among sports fans.

Buzzbee, familiar with a clique of Houston’s local media, built his case around social media, exclusively branding each lawsuit and accusation, aiming to promote a showdown. He organized a press conference on April 6, when one of the 22 women accusing Watson publicly narrated her allegations of sexual assault. But Hardin hit back, revealing that her lawyer had asked for a $100,000 settlement before filing the lawsuit.

Those familiar with Hardin’s litigation pattern would attest to his investigative prowess; the ability to gather every available piece of information to substitute a volatile mixture of myth and innuendo with undiluted facts.

Watson did what most celebrities in his predicament would do; he maintained his composure and opted for a good lawyer who knew the difference between social media conviction and the courtroom litigation route. Attorney Hardin’s first task was to investigate the case. Those familiar with Hardin’s litigation pattern would attest to his investigative prowess; the ability to gather every available piece of information to substitute a volatile mixture of myth and innuendo with undiluted facts.

Interestingly, Buzbee had at the time paraded a bevy of nameless accusers, citing the need to shield their identity as victims. Hardin quickly accused Buzbee of using anonymous allegations to destroy Mr. Watson. He claimed in a statement, that he tried to get Buzbee to identify his clients, but he was asked to file a motion. Hardin did that and obtained a judgment. In two separate hearings on April 9, state court judges agreed with Watson’s legal team, which argued that Watson could not defend himself if his accusers, who all filed their civil lawsuits under the name Jane Doe, were allowed to remain anonymous.

Earlier this month, Watson’s accusers amended their petitions to disclose their names. A new lawsuit was added at the Harris County District Clerk’s office by a freelance makeup artist who detailed two separate incidents that occurred during massage sessions in September and November, when Watson allegedly assaulted and harassed her “by exposing himself, touching her with his penis and groping her”.

Hardin’s response to the individual petition signals what might be the beginning of an imminent contentious courtroom duel. Buzbee appears battle-ready. The former Recon Marine Officer began his legal career as an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP in Houston, and in 2000, he founded Buzbee Law Firm. He spends more time promoting himself than his practice, and it has paid off. For instance, the New York Times Magazine described him as “One of the most successful trial lawyers in the country.” The New York Times Magazine based their endorsement for Buzbee in his role in the litigation against BP, following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Hardin remains a household name in the legal community. He is not new to the Harris County Court districts, joining the Houston legal confraternity in 1975 as an assistant district attorney and starting his practice after 15 years. Hardin is familiar with the streets, the intersections, and even the traffic lights within Houston’s downtown, the abode of the civil courthouses. He could close his eyes and identify the courtrooms, seating arrangement, and possibly, the presiding judges.

The jury process could equally leave a shocking outcome because there is no specified way to gauge how the panel will likely view any case.

All indications show that the major focus, in this case, may shift from the allegations to a clash between two legal luminaries. It might boil down to Buzbee’s media crusade versus Hardin’s dogged courtroom litigation aptitude. Buzbee, it appears, invests most of his time promoting his clients’ allegations to draw a favorable public opinion.

However, the unpredictability of court litigation might equally unload surprises. It is a complicated process where the standards of right and wrong are stifled by what one can prove. The jury process could equally leave a shocking outcome because there is no specified way to gauge how the panel will likely view any case. Hardin is already requesting a jury trial.

♦ Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Anthony Obi Ogbo

When Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike

Published

2 weeks ago

on

December 28, 2025

By

“Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

When President Trump announced his authorized United States air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day, there was an immediate burst of celebration on Nigerian social media. For a country exhausted by years of kidnappings, massacres, and territorial insecurity, the announcement sounded like long-awaited international support. Memes circulated, praise poured in, and some Nigerians hailed Trump as a decisive global sheriff finally willing to act where others hesitated.

But after the initial euphoria settled, a sobering assessment emerged: the strike appeared less like a strategic military intervention and more like a made-for-television spectacle designed to burnish Trump’s international strongman image.

This was not the first time the United States has launched air strikes in Africa or the Sahel under the banner of counterterrorism. From Libya to Somalia, from Syria to Yemen, U.S. “precision strikes” have often been announced with confidence and celebrated with press briefings—only for the targeted groups to regroup, mutate, and, in some cases, expand their reach. In Nigeria itself, years of foreign-backed security assistance have failed to decisively neutralize Boko Haram or its ISIS-affiliated offshoots. Instead, violence has fragmented, spread, and grown more complex.

No verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated

The Nigerian strike followed a familiar pattern. U.S. officials framed it as a blow against ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), a group aligned with the global ISIS network. Trump’s language suggested a decisive intervention—an act of muscular diplomacy signaling that America still projects power where it chooses. Yet no verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated, leadership structures dismantled, or operational capacity degraded.

What followed was a digital smokescreen. Social media accounts, many anonymous and unverified, began circulating gruesome images of dead bodies and destroyed villages—photos long associated with banditry in Nigeria’s northwest. These images were quickly repurposed to “prove” the success of Trump’s strike. However, this is where the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

Trump’s mission, as publicly stated, was to target ISIS. Not bandits. Not kidnappers. Not rural criminal gangs. ISIS is a transnational terrorist organization with ideological, financial, and operational links across continents. Bandits, by contrast, are primarily armed criminal groups—motivated by ransom, cattle theft, and territorial control, not global jihad. Conflating the two may be politically convenient, but it is analytically dishonest.

Killing or displacing bandits does not equate to dismantling ISIS. In fact, indiscriminate or poorly targeted air strikes often worsen the situation, pushing criminal groups to radicalize, splinter, or align with extremist factions for protection and legitimacy. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in conflict zones where military force substitutes for intelligence-driven strategy.

A truly successful counterterrorism raid is not measured by dramatic announcements or viral images. It is measured by clear, verifiable outcomes, including the confirmed elimination of high-ranking commanders, disruption of recruitment and financing networks, seizure of weapons caches, and—most importantly—sustained reductions in civilian attacks. None of these benchmarks has been credibly demonstrated in the aftermath of Trump’s Nigerian air strike.

Instead, Nigeria wakes up to the same grim reality: villages remain vulnerable, highways unsafe, and communities terrorized. The strike did not change the security equation. It did not empower Nigerian forces. It did not restore civilian confidence. And it certainly did not neutralize ISIS as a strategic threat.

This air strike offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

In that sense, the air strike was not merely ineffective—it was a failure dressed in the language of strength, executed for optics, and amplified for political gain. It offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

If the goal is truly to eliminate ISIS and its affiliates in West Africa, the path is neither theatrical nor unilateral. It requires robust intelligence sharing, sustained training, and real-time coordination with Nigerian and regional forces. It demands targeted arms assistance, logistical support, and investments in surveillance capabilities that allow local militaries to act decisively and lawfully. Above all, it requires a long-term commitment to strengthening state capacity—not fleeting air shows announced from afar.

Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise. And celebration without results is self-deception. Trump’s Nigerian air strike may have produced headlines, but history will remember it for what it was: a failed mission masquerading as success.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Trump’s Nigeria Strike: Bombs, Boasts, and the Illusion of Victory

Published

2 weeks ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

“With Obama, Al-Qaeda was not eliminated by noise; it was suffocated by intelligence.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

It has now been confirmed that the United States acted in collaboration with Nigeria in the recent strike on Islamic State elements in northwest Nigeria. That cooperation deserves recognition. Intelligence-sharing between Washington and Abuja is necessary, overdue, and welcome. Terrorism is transnational; defeating it requires allies, not isolation.

But let us be clear: bombs alone do not defeat terror. And Donald Trump’s strike—trumpeted loudly on social media before facts, casualties, or strategy were disclosed—was less a turning point than a performance.

Trump’s announcement was a classic spectacle: “powerful,” “deadly,” “perfect strikes.” No numbers. No clarity. No accountability. Just noise. It was the same choreography America has deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia—places where U.S. airpower landed hard, headlines screamed victory, and instability deepened afterward. Violence escalated. Militancy adapted. Civilians paid the price.

History is unkind to airstrikes sold as solutions.

Nigeria knows this better than anyone. Long before Trump’s tweet, the Nigerian military had already conducted multiple operations in the same terror corridor. At least five major strikes and offensives stand out:

  • First, Operation Hadarin Daji, launched to dismantle bandit and terror camps across Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto, involving sustained air and ground assaults.
  • Second, Operation Tsaftan Daji, which targeted terrorist hideouts in the Kamuku and Sububu forests—precisely the terrain now in the headlines.
  • Third, repeated Nigerian Air Force precision strikes in the Zurmi–Shinkafi axis, neutralizing commanders and destroying logistics hubs.
  • Fourth, joint operations with Nigerien forces, disrupting cross-border supply routes used by ISIS-linked groups.
  • Fifth, recent coordinated offensives involving intelligence-led raids, special forces insertions, and follow-up ground clearing in the northwest.

These were not symbolic gestures. They were Nigerian-led, Nigerian-funded, Nigerian-executed. And yet, there were no fireworks on social media. No flag-waving hysteria. No intoxicated praise of Nigerian commanders as saviors of civilization.

Why? Because there is a dangerous segment of Nigerians who suffer from what can only be called the American Wonder mentality—a colonial hangover that applauds anything louder simply because it comes from Washington. The same Nigerians who ignore their own soldiers dying in silence suddenly abandon Christmas meals to celebrate Trump’s tweets, typing incoherent praise, mangling grammar, and mistaking spectacle for substance.

It is embarrassing. And it is intellectually lazy.

Terrorism is not defeated by volume or virality. It is defeated by intelligence—quiet, patient, unglamorous work. The United States knows this. Barack Obama understood it. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled through social media theatrics or chest-thumping declarations. It was weakened through intelligence fusion, financial disruption, targeted operations, local partnerships, and relentless pressure on leadership networks—mostly without fanfare.

Obama did not tweet. He acted. So what actually works against groups like ISIS in Nigeria?

First, intelligence supremacy. Human intelligence from local communities, defectors, and infiltrators matters more than bombs. Terror groups survive on secrecy. Break that, and they collapse.

Second, financial and logistical strangulation. Terrorists run on money, fuel, arms, and food. Cut access to smuggling routes, illicit mining, ransom flows, and cross-border trade, and their operational capacity withers.

Third, community stabilization and governance. Terrorism thrives where the state is absent. Roads, schools, policing, and justice systems matter. People who trust the state do not shelter terrorists.

Fourth, regional coordination, not episodic strikes. Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso must sustain joint pressure, not reactive operations driven by headlines.

Airstrikes can support these strategies—but only as tools, never as substitutes.

Trump’s strike may have killed militants. It may have disrupted camps. That is commendable. But it is not a solution. It is a moment. And moments, without strategy, fade.

If Nigerians truly want terror defeated, they should stop worshiping foreign loudness and start demanding disciplined intelligence, consistent policy, and respect for the men and women already fighting on the ground.

Real victories are quiet. Real security is built, not tweeted.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Texas’ 18th Congressional District Runoff: Amanda Edwards Deserves This Seat

Published

3 weeks ago

on

December 18, 2025

By

“Her persistence and long-term investment make a clear case: she has earned this opportunity.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

In the special election to fill Texas’s 18th Congressional District, no candidate won a majority on November 4, 2025, leading to a January 31, 2026, runoff between Democratic frontrunners Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards. Menefee, Harris County Attorney, led the field with roughly 29% of the vote, while former Houston City Council member Edwards finished second with about 26%. Both are vying to represent a district left vacant after the death of U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.

The 18th Congressional District is far more than a geographic area. Anchored in Houston’s historic Black communities, it is a political and cultural stronghold shaped by civil rights history, faith institutions, and grassroots activism. Sheila Jackson Lee represented this district for nearly three decades (1995–2024), becoming more than a legislator—she was a constant presence at churches, funerals, protests, and community milestones. For residents, her leadership carried spiritual weight, reflecting stewardship, protection, and a deep, almost pastoral guardianship of the district. Her tenure symbolized continuity, cultural pride, and a profound connection with the people she served.

Houstonians watched as Jackson Lee entered the 2023 Houston mayoral race, attempting to transition from Congress to city leadership. Despite high-profile endorsements, including outgoing Mayor Sylvester Turner and national Democratic figures, she lost the December 9, 2023, runoff to State Senator John Whitmire by a wide margin. Following that defeat, Jackson Lee filed to run for re-election to her U.S. House seat, even as Edwards—who had briefly joined the mayoral race before withdrawing—remained in the congressional primary.

At that time, Jackson Lee’s health was visibly declining, yet voters still supported her, honoring decades of service. She defeated Edwards in the 2024 Democratic primary before announcing her battle with pancreatic cancer. Her passing in July 2024 left the seat vacant.

Edwards, already a candidate, sought to fill the seat, but timing and party rules intervened. Because Jackson Lee died too late for a regular primary, Harris County Democratic Party precinct chairs selected a replacement nominee. Former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, a retired but widely respected figure, narrowly edged out Edwards for the nomination, effectively blocking her despite her prior campaigning efforts. Turner won the general election but died in March 2025, triggering a special election in 2025, in which Edwards advanced to a runoff.

The January 31, 2026, runoff will hinge on turnout, coalition-building, and key endorsements. Both candidates led a crowded November field but fell short of a majority, with Menefee narrowly ahead. Endorsements such as State Rep. Jolanda Jones’ support for Edwards could consolidate key Democratic blocs, particularly among Black women and progressive voters. In a heavily Democratic district where voter confusion and turnout patterns have been inconsistent, the candidate who best mobilizes supporters and unites constituencies is likely to prevail.

Amanda Edwards’ case is compelling. Although both candidates share similar values and qualifications, her claim rests on dedication, consistency, and timing that have been repeatedly denied. She pursued this seat with focus and purpose, maintaining a steady commitment to the district and its future. Her path was interrupted by the prolonged political ambitions of Jackson Lee and Turner—figures whose stature reshaped the race but delayed generational transition. Edwards did not step aside; she remained visible, engaged, and prepared. In a moment demanding both continuity and renewal, her persistence and long-term investment make a clear case: she has earned this opportunity.

This race comes down to trust, perseverance, and demonstrated commitment. Amanda Edwards has consistently shown up for the district, even when political circumstances repeatedly delayed her chance. Her dedication reflects readiness, respect for the electorate, and an unwavering commitment to service. Voting for Amanda Edwards is not only justified—it is the right choice for Houston’s 18th Congressional District.

♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending