Impeachment of Ken Paxton

[Horn6721]

As someone not versed at all in law this seems astounding. Maybe it isn't as bad as it seems. Only the first part of the vid is what looks astonishing. The rest of the vid is just opinion. So they got the FBI involved because they "ThOUGHT" there was wrong doing?

 

[Mr. Deez]

A funny moment for me to watch. I've known AK since 2002. He went to Baylor Law a few years after I did. When he was a rookie lawyer, he went to court with me in Austin for experience. We've extensively talked politics. We've drunk beer together many times. Not only is he a conservative, he'd make most people here look like Joe Biden, and he'd make me look like Chairman Mao. He's a Shi'ite conservative.

 

[Horn6721]

11

 

[Monahorns]

Deez, you have written about how corrupt Paxton is, but in the court case no evidence was actually been brought against him (at least that is what I am hearing). What gives?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, you have written about how corrupt Paxton is, but in the court case no evidence was actually been brought against him (at least that is what I am hearing). What gives?

I know he's corrupt based on what people who have worked for him have told me. He didn't have to get impeached for me to know it. He's a dirty MoFo and sleazy guy. It doesn't help that he was slimy and corrupt before his contributor and his schlong got him impeached.

I didn't watch most of the trial - just a few minutes from time to time. However, they produced thousands of pages of documents as well as the testimony. There's "no evidence" like there's "no evidence" that Joe Biden didn't do anything wrong.

Do I think he'll be convicted by the Senate? Probably not, but it'll be a political acquittal much like Biden's will be.

 

[nashhorn]

So he’s like most politicians today. No I’m not saying it’s ok if everyone does it I’m just saying it’s getting to the point where everyone does it. I’d say convict them all but no one ever does.

 

[mchammer]

So he’s like most politicians today. No I’m not saying it’s ok if everyone does it I’m just saying it’s getting to the point where everyone does it. I’d say convict them all but no one ever does.

No honor among thieves.

 

[mb227]

ACQUITTED!!!!!!!

 

[mb227]

This was a sham proceeding from the get-go. The conduct needed to be in the current term. None of it was and the RINOs knew it. They proceeded anyhow and will all be primaried.

 

[Mr. Deez]

RINOs like Louie Gohmert and Chip Roy?

 

[mb227]

RINOs like Louie Gohmert and Chip Roy?

Considering the nonsensical letter from Tom Cotton on missiles, they can quickly become a RINO.

But...remind me again which of those four are in the Texas House? Oh right...not a single one of them. But they SHOULD realize it was a sham and that the alleged conduct did not occur in the current term.

 

[Garmel]

I don't know if he's guilty or not but I do know this all started when Paxton correctly went after Phelan for being drunk while on the job.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't know if he's guilty or not but I do know this all started when Paxton correctly went after Phelan for being drunk while on the job.

Also, he sent a bunch of lawsuits to DC over the covid stuff.

Deez, to your point, I trust you are correct. It's just that some of the right wing orgs in Texas are making claims that Paxton didn't do anything wrong. There were some gotcha videos. But there were hours of video they didn't show, so I knew to be skeptical.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Considering the nonsensical letter from Tom Cotton on missiles, they can quickly become a RINO.

But...remind me again which of those four are in the Texas House? Oh right...not a single one of them. But they SHOULD realize it was a sham and that the alleged conduct did not occur in the current term.

1. Who cares if they're in the House? The House agreed with them.

2. The conduct doesn't have to have occurred in the current term.

Nothing about Gohmert or Roy is RINO. They're very solid conservatives. They just have standards.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know if he's guilty or not but I do know this all started when Paxton correctly went after Phelan for being drunk while on the job.

Legislators get drunk all the time. Nobody's getting impeached over it or over anyone remarking about it. Long before any of that, Paxton had gotten the state sued by the whistleblowers, settled it for a few million dollars, asked the legislature to fund the settlement, and wouldn't defend it when the legislature rightly questioned it. That's what got the General Investigating Committee to start poking around.

 

[mb227]

1. Who cares if they're in the House? The House agreed with them.

2. The conduct doesn't have to have occurred in the current term.

Nothing about Gohmert or Roy is RINO. They're very solid conservatives. They just have standards.

Government Code Chapter 665.081(a) seems to disagree with you...

 

[Mr. Deez]

Also, he sent a bunch of lawsuits to DC over the covid stuff.

Deez, to your point, I trust you are correct. It's just that some of the right wing orgs in Texas are making claims that Paxton didn't do anything wrong. There were some gotcha videos. But there were hours of video they didn't show, so I knew to be skeptical.

Of course they're saying he didn't do anything wrong. It's the same reason Democrats in Congress say Biden didn't do anything wrong. They're politically sympathetic and favourable to him. I was too for a very long time. Then he showed me what a dirty crook he was, and since nobody has me by the balls, I don't have to pretend it's all good.

And I'm done voting for these guys, and that includes Paxton, Dan Patrick, and Charles Schwertner. They can **** all the way off.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Government Code Chapter 665.081(a) seems to disagree with you...

Two points on this. First, he was elected in 2002. This all occurred after that.

Second, even if you buy the argument that the statue applies to the most recent election (which it doesn't say), the statute doesn't apply to removal from office that's sought under the Constitution, as impeachment does. The Texas Supreme Court has suggested this, and the Texas Senate (which has the ultimate authority on the issue) rejected that argument when it denied Paxton's motion to dismiss on that basis.

 

[Garmel]

Phelan was drunk while speaking to the House so that was quite a bad look. To be honest I haven't done any research here to come up with a clear answer. However, this wouldn't be the first time the RINOs tries to take down an America First type of guy. The Texas Bushites are not to be trusted. How did the whistleblowers win? Did they have documents to back up their story?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Phelan was drunk while speaking to the House so that was quite a bad look.

I don't condone it and it is a bad look, but many of these guys drink a lot. It's a rough and stressful schedule. Hell, in '99 Tony Goolsby got drunk and yada, yada, yada, he ruined one of my suits. The point is that it's not a point of outrage. It's not going to trigger an impeachment.

To be honest I haven't done any research here to come up with a clear answer. However, this wouldn't be the first time the RINOs tries to take down an America First type of guy. The Texas Bushites are not to be trusted. How did the whistleblowers win? Did they have documents to back up their story?

And this is the problem. It became a pissing match between MAGA people and RINOs (though plenty of non-RINOs also supported impeachment, which should tell you something). The MAGA people won, and now a corrupt official can basically do whatever he wants, because he knows he can play the MAGA/RINO card and get away with whatever. Essentially ethics rules and standards don't apply to him anymore.

And honestly, I'm not a big fan of the Speaker or his team or frankly any Speaker of the last several years. Phelan and Straus were shills for the local government and public education lobbies. Tom Craddick whored for the oil industry to the point of pushing a backdoor state income tax, threw money at left wing academics, and gave Bob Perry his own personal justice system. And he was a major league *******. Pete Laney was the last speaker who was a reasonably honourable human being, and he was too liberal.

However, when an official is clearly corrupt, he should be called on it, and the politics of the people involved shouldn't matter. If they do, then we don't have a rule of law.

As for the litigation, I don't know what documented evidence was presented, but I do know that it was against Paxton's interests to throw $3M of taxpayer money at it. That's more money than he can authorize, which meant he was going to have to ask the legislature for it - very embarrassing. He wasn't going to do that if he thought the cases were meritless. He would have fought them.

 

[Garmel]

I don't condone it and it is a bad look, but many of these guys drink a lot. It's a rough and stressful schedule. Hell, in '99 Tony Goolsby got drunk and yada, yada, yada, he ruined one of my suits. The point is that it's not a point of outrage. It's not going to trigger an impeachment.



And this is the problem. It became a pissing match between MAGA people and RINOs (though plenty of non-RINOs also supported impeachment, which should tell you something). The MAGA people won, and now a corrupt official can basically do whatever he wants, because he knows he can play the MAGA/RINO card and get away with whatever. Essentially ethics rules and standards don't apply to him anymore.

And honestly, I'm not a big fan of the Speaker or his team or frankly any Speaker of the last several years. Phelan and Straus were shills for the local government and public education lobbies. Tom Craddick whored for the oil industry to the point of pushing a backdoor state income tax, threw money at left wing academics, and gave Bob Perry his own personal justice system. And he was a major league *******. Pete Laney was the last speaker who was a reasonably honourable human being, and he was too liberal.

However, when an official is clearly corrupt, he should be called on it, and the politics of the people involved shouldn't matter. If they do, then we don't have a rule of law.

As for the litigation, I don't know what documented evidence was presented, but I do know that it was against Paxton's interests to throw $3M of taxpayer money at it. That's more money than he can authorize, which meant he was going to have to ask the legislature for it - very embarrassing. He wasn't going to do that if he thought the cases were meritless. He would have fought them.

Phelan's career should be over. You can't be addressing the House looking and talking like you just came back from cocktail hour.

Okay, can you actually provide me proof that Paxton's corrupt? Just because he lost the whistleblower case isn't convincing. I keep hearing from the establishment crowd that he is but nobody can give me documents or anything.

 

[mb227]

Phelan's career should be over. You can't be addressing the House looking and talking like you just came back from cocktail hour.

Okay, can you actually provide me proof that Paxton's corrupt? Just because he lost the whistleblower case isn't convincing. I keep hearing from the establishment crowd that he is but nobody can give me documents or anything.

He didn't lose the case. ALL parties agreed to settle and one guy got 27 months towards his State pension. There was no trial on the merits and no admissions of wrongdoing (which must have pained the Texas Tribune to report).

 

[Garmel]

He didn't lose the case. ALL parties agreed to settle and one guy got 27 months towards his State pension. There was no trial on the merits and no admissions of wrongdoing (which must have pained the Texas Tribune to report).

Paxton had to apologize so I wouldn't say this was a good look for him.

 

[ViperHorn]

He will be gone (either voluntarily or by the voters) his next election. Between the narrowing Republican majority and the media blasting the trial, he is tainted.

 

[mb227]

Paxton had to apologize so I wouldn't say this was a good look for him.

The apology was NOT for the termination though. It was for calling them 'rogue employees.'

 

[Garmel]

I didn't know this case was still going. After winning impeachment fight, Paxton still faces felony fraud case and an FBI investigation

 

[mchammer]

I didn't know this case was still going. After winning impeachment fight, Paxton still faces felony fraud case and an FBI investigation

Are these true cases or thinly veiled political cases? I suspect the latter.

 

[Garmel]

Are these true cases or thinly veiled political cases? I suspect the latter.

Yeah, I don't know either. Could be.

 

[ViperHorn]

IIRC the state case was the "basis" of launching the Federal action (not that that matters to the current US AG).

 

[Mr. Deez]

Phelan's career should be over. You can't be addressing the House looking and talking like you just came back from cocktail hour.

Okay, can you actually provide me proof that Paxton's corrupt? Just because he lost the whistleblower case isn't convincing. I keep hearing from the establishment crowd that he is but nobody can give me documents or anything.

Of course I can't provide you with proof. I didn't handle the case, so I don't have documents or access to testimony. I base it on the outcome of the case and what I hear from people I've known for 15 - 25 years who are or have been close to him. I've never spoken to Paxton himself about any of it. I've talked to him a few times over the years, but it was always about legislation and only for brief periods (maybe 20 minutes at a time). He's kind of a weird guy and not very chatty.

Wouldn't bug me if Phelan's career was over. He is a mediocre speaker and not particularly conservative - like Joe Straus was. I also know Texans for Lawsuit Reform was a pretty big advocate for impeaching Paxton (especially behind the scenes). Other than perhaps the beer distributor lobby, there's probably no special interst group I despise more. To me, they're on a level with the public school lobby.