Why Ken Paxton Was Acquitted https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-ken-paxton-was-acquitted/ar-AA1gRmh8 WSJ One-party dominance in a democracy means the main political debates occur in the ruling party, including personal political feuds. That explains the overwhelming decision by Republicans in the Texas state Senate on Saturday to acquit Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on 16 articles of impeachment filed by the Republican Texas House. Mr. Paxton’s defenders are spinning that he was saved by a populist national conservative groundswell to put an end to the “Bush era” in Texas. What a joke. There is no longer a Bush era in Texas or anywhere else. George P. Bush, Jeb Bush’s son, lost to Mr. Paxton in the 2022 primary for AG. What really happened Saturday is that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who runs the state Senate, chose to rescue Mr. Paxton in a rebuke to his rival, House Speaker Dade Phelan. All politics is very local here. We wrote at the beginning of the Senate trial that Mr. Patrick looked like he might examine the evidence with an open mind. He had kept quiet during the House debate. But we were wrong. It’s now obvious the fix was in from the start and that Mr. Patrick lobbied his fellow GOP Senators to unite against the House articles of impeachment. Only two GOP Senators voted to convict Mr. Paxton, and one of them is 78-year-old Robert Nichols, an independent-minded committee chairman. Mr. Patrick’s bias was on display immediately after the Senate trial ended when he blamed it all in highly personal fashion on Mr. Phelan. “The Speaker and his team rammed through the first impeachment of a statewide-elected official in Texas in over 100 years while paying no attention to the precedent,” Mr. Patrick said. He added that the impeachment should never have happened and that he would move to rewrite the state constitution so it doesn’t happen like this again. Mr. Patrick also went on the attack against Mr. Phelan, calling for “a full audit of all taxpayer money spent by the House from the beginning of their investigation in March to today.” It’s revealing that Mr. Patrick’s statement dealt entirely with the impeachment process, not with Mr. Paxton’s behavior. The Texas House impeachment did happen relatively fast, but it came after months of investigation and with compelling evidence. Mr. Paxton triggered the probe by seeking $3.3 million from the Legislature to settle a lawsuit brought by whistleblowers on his staff alarmed by Mr. Paxton’s dealings with real-estate developer and campaign donor Nate Paul. The House voted 121-23 in favor of impeachment, with 60 Republicans in the majority. The acquittal is perhaps a satisfying victory for Mr. Patrick over his House rival, but it may not play out so well for Texas Republicans in the longer run. A federal investigation into Mr. Paxton is continuing amid reports that a grand jury has been empaneled. One-party rule has often led to abuses of unchecked power and corruption in U.S. state governments, as we’ve learned in Albany, Springfield and Trenton. If voters draw that lesson from Mr. Paxton’s acquittal, the GOP’s political dominance could be in jeopardy as Texas demographics change. Texas voters still lean right, but evidence of corruption can overcome ideology when the party in power dismisses it as unimportant. A precedent worth noting is when lobbyist Jack Abramoff and aides to then Majority Leader Tom DeLay abused their power. Mr. DeLay was never charged, but the scandal helped Democrats retake the House majority in 2006. Texas Republicans do not want to become the conservative version of Albany Democrats.
Ken Paxton tells Tucker Carlson that Democrat Joe Biden -- sleepy, senile, doddering old Joe -- somehow ordered over 70% of Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives to vote to impeach Paxton. No wonder Tucker looks so confused. Ken Paxton lashes out at Biden administration, Texas House over impeachment https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-administration-texas-house-over-impeachment/
One of the key tasks of the Texas AG's office is to represent Texas government agencies which are being sued. This article takes an in-depth look at how Ken Paxton is deliberately not doing the job he was hired to do. The many times Ken Paxton refused to defend Texas agencies in court The Texas attorney general said he’s “back to work” after his recent acquittal, but his office has repeatedly declined to fulfill one of its key duties: representing state agencies who are being sued. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/21/texas-ken-paxton-refused-represent-state-agencies/
Several Paxton whistleblowers vowing 'not to go away' The two Republicans said they plan to continue their efforts to hold Paxton accountable for what they say was the systemic abuse of his office. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/s...away/287-642a25e2-0f47-41eb-9570-977917cb4993 AUSTIN, Texas — Several of the so-called whistleblowers came out swinging Monday against their former boss, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, vowing “not to go away” and to continue their efforts to hold him accountable for what they say was the systemic abuse of his office on behalf of a friend and campaign donor. Whistleblowers Blake Brickman and Mark Penley, both self-described conservative Republicans, spoke on the same day that their attorneys filed a motion with the Texas Supreme Court seeking to lift the stay on their case and have it sent back to Travis County District Court. A third whistleblower, Ryan Vassar, was also there during the press conference. “The political trial is over,” Brickman said. “It’s time for the case to return to a real court.” The impeachment trial ended nine days ago when the Republican-dominated Texas Senate acquitted Paxton on 16 impeachment articles accusing him of corruption, bribery and systematically using his office to benefit his friend and benefactor Nate Paul – allegations that Paxton vehemently denies. The internal feud in the Republican Party has only escalated in the ensuing days. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presided over the trial, blasted House Speaker Dade Phelan and the House of Representatives for what he says was a weak and rushed impeachment case. In fact, within moments of the verdict, Patrick read a prepared statement in which he attacked the House for impeaching Paxton. Meanwhile, Phelan has accused Patrick of rigging the trial. He wrote in an op-ed in the Beaumont Enterprise, his hometown paper, that “fix was in from the start” and that he stands “by the belief that Paxton’s conduct is beneath the office he holds.” Over the weekend, the State Republican Executive Committee overwhelmingly approved a resolution demanding Phelan step down. Paxton also has called for Phelan to resign. Speaking to reporters Monday, Brickman accused a high-ranking official in the Texas Attorney General’s Office of being untruthful when he testified that it was the whistleblowers who first sought to settle the case. “While we were expecting a ruling from the Supreme court, (the office of Attorney General) reached to us out of the blue and asked if we were interested in settling,” Brickman said. Brickman said a letter has been sent to all 31 members of the Texas senate and Patrick, along with an affidavit and evidence, refuting that testimony. Penley and Brickman praised House impeachment managers for presenting what they described as ample evidence of Paxton’s unfitness for office. They thanked the 14 senators, including Republican Senators Kelly Hancock and Bob Nichols, “for not wilting under political pressure and enabling Ken Paxton’s lawlessness. They said it was the dozens of grand jury subpoenas issued against Paul’s business and law enforcement enemies by an outside lawyer working on the Attorney General’s behalf that prompted them to go to the FBI in September 2020. Within 45 days of going to the FBI, Paxton’s office fired five of the eight whistleblowers. Three others resigned. Penley, Brickman, Vassar and former Texas Ranger David Maxwell filed the whistleblower lawsuit that led to the settlement. “It had nothing to do with politics by any of us,” Penley said. “What this had to do was we saw his illegal and unethical behavior. We had a duty. We had a responsibility to report it to law enforcement.” Brickman said the evidence showed Paxton “continually and repeatedly used the power of his office to benefit Nate Paul by circumventing the open records process, by interfering in Paul’s litigation with the charitable trust, by issuing a rushed opinion that Paul used to try and prevent foreclosure of his properties, by ordering OAG enforcement division to investigate FBI agents, state securities officials and even the federal magistrate judge that were investigating Paul.” Brickman also brought up the allegations that Paul paid for renovation work at Paxton’s home. Testimony showed Paxton paid for the renovation work after the whistleblowers went to law enforcement. Records produced during the trial showed the $121,000 invoice was created a day after Paxton paid for the work. Brickman also brought up the Uber account created by Paul that records show Paxton used to visit his then-mistress Laura Olson, and that Paul gave Olson a job. Brickman and Penley criticized Patrick for what they said were decisions that key pieces of evidence and testimony be left out of the trial. “I know that Lt. Gov. Patrick at his sole discretion was the decider that Ken Paxton did not have to testify (and) that Laura Olson did not have to testify,” Brickman said. Brickman blasted Patrick for accepting a multi-million donation from Paxton supporters on the eve of trial, and for the “shocking” prepared remarks he gave shortly after the verdict attacking the House. If the case is returned to district court, Brickman promised they would seek to depose Paxton’s wife, State Sen. Angela Paxton, about what she knew about the renovations to the home. He also said they said they will force Paxton, Paul, Olson and others to take the stand and testify or plead the fifth. It remains to be seen if the state legislature will approve the $3.3 million settlement but it seems unlikely at this point. Brickman said he is hopeful that the Supreme Court will reject Paxton’s argument that as an elected official he is not subject to the provisions of the state’s whistleblower act. “This is a particularly ironic position given this page on the OAG’s own website promoting the very law the office now attacks,” Brickman said. Brickman told reports Monday that the FBI investigation of Paxton’s conduct remains ongoing. He also pointed out that investigation started when President Trump was still in office and to a person each of the whistleblowers were conversative Republicans. “These allegations are from the top eight people in Ken Paxton’s office, so for him to claim that this is some political witch hunt… is absolutely ludicrous,” Brickman said. During the trial, Paxton’s defense team repeatedly pointed out that none of the whistleblowers had been questioned under oath by House investigators. Penley responded Monday that at the trial all of them had testified under oath and that Paxton’s team had access to the statements they’d given to House investigators. “When does Ken Paxton go under oath” said Penley, Paxton’s one-time handpicked deputy attorney general for criminal justice. “He’s out doing radio talk shows and going to friendly venues where he won’t be pressed on the evidence.” Don Tittle, an attorney representing Penley, said in an interview with WFAA, that he believes massive political pressure was the decisive factor in Paxton’s acquittal. “There were billboards in Austin, in which there were basically threats made against any Republican Senator that voted to convict. You will get an opponent,” Tittle said. “Look, that's witness tampering or jury tampering in any other venue, right. In a state court or federal court, people would be prosecuted for that. But, again, this was not a real trial. It was a political trial.” The road to Paxton’s impeachment began with a $3.3 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by the whistleblowers. Lawmakers were outraged when Paxton asked the Legislature to approve the settlement. That prompted a House committee to begin secretly investigating Paxton and the allegations involved in the lawsuit. The investigation became public shortly before the end of the legislative session. And with mere days remaining in the session, the Republican-led House impeached Paxton on 20 articles of impeachment alleging a pattern of corruption and misuse of his office. He was ultimately tried on 16 of those counts. After voting to acquit Paxton, Senators voted to dismiss the remaining four counts related to pending criminal charges accusing Paxton of securities fraud. “This has been an incredibly difficult three years on our families,” Brickman said. “But we’re strengthened by the book of John where Jesus said the truth will set you free.”
Paxton continues to try to rip off the state... AG Ken Paxton seeks impeachment back pay. State's accountant says he won't cut check. https://www.statesman.com/story/new...rt-back-pay-texas-ag-impeachment/70974536007/
Ken Paxton's legal troubles are far from over. Get ready for the Feds. The interesting part is his impeachment trail provided all the evidence necessary in-depth for criminal prosecution. Texas AG Ken Paxton faces other legal troubles after being acquitted in impeachment https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-ag-ken-paxton-faces-legal-troubles-after/story?id=103642758
The circus continues... I will note that many legal experts have already stated his complaint has no validity whatsoever. Legal documents are public record and when their are charges against you --- your home address is typically on the document. If Ken is upset now... just wait until he sees the public paperwork on the upcoming DOJ federal charges. Ken Paxton to file criminal doxing complaints against 12 House impeachment managers https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-pol...laints-against-12-house-impeachment-managers/ Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Monday morning he intends to file criminal complaints against the 12 state representatives who led his impeachment trial. He claims they threatened him by publishing his personal information, including his home address, in a document release last week and broke a new state law. “The impeachment managers clearly have a desire to threaten me with harm when they released this information last week,” Paxton said in a statement. “I’m imploring their local prosecutors in each individual district to investigate the criminal offenses that have been committed.” Texas House releases new evidence not admissible during Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial Paxton said he will file the complaints in each of the managers’ eight home counties. KXAN reached out Monday morning to all 12 state representatives for comment and will update this story once any responses are shared. Paxton said the lawmakers violated House Bill 611, which created a new criminal offense for doxing when it passed the legislature earlier this year. The law states, “A person commits an offense if the person posts on a publicly accessible website the residence address or telephone number of an individual with the intent to cause harm or a threat of harm to the individual or a member of the individual ’s family or household.” According to its language, violating this law could result in a Class B misdemeanor charge. The Texas Senate acquitted Paxton last month on all 16 articles of impeachment approved by the House of Representatives. The House impeachment managers released piles of evidence last week, including many items deemed inadmissible during the 10-day impeachment trial. The hundreds of pages of documents provide more information about the Paxtons’ home renovations central to one of the impeachment articles, as well as a behind-the-scenes transcript that details why Laura Olson — the woman Paxton is accused of having an extramarital affair with — ultimately didn’t testify after being called to the witness stand.
Paxton tries to get his buddies to defund his prosecution. Judge tells them to hand over the money. Harris County judge sides with special prosecutors in AG Ken Paxton criminal case pay dispute Special prosecutors accused officials in Collin County of trying to “derail” the prosecution by defunding it. https://www.khou.com/article/news/l...pute/285-5351be14-616f-4b09-a540-04d5a303ce61
Let's see what's up with Ken Paxton's sugar daddy Nate Paul. Nate Paul, the businessman at the center of Ken Paxton’s impeachment, charged with four new federal crimes During the impeachment trial, whistleblowers testified they believed Paul to be a criminal and were concerned that Paxton was essentially turning the keys of the office over to him. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment-ken-paxton/
So a woman in Texas got a court order allowing her to get an abortion because complications in the pregnancy are almost certainly going cause her harm and it is a certainty that the fetus will not survive. Ken Paxton immediately responds threatening to prosecute any doctor who provides the needed medical service. This is GOP's war on women -- not much different than living in an extremist Muslim country. Texas AG threatens to prosecute doctors in emergency abortion https://www.reuters.com/legal/texas...rgency-abortion-despite-state-ban-2023-12-07/ Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday threatened to prosecute any doctors involved in providing an emergency abortion to a woman, hours after she won a court order allowing her to obtain one for medical necessity. Paxton said in a letter that the order by District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin did not shield doctors from prosecution under all of Texas's abortion laws, and that the woman, Kate Cox, had not shown she qualified for the medical exception to the state's abortion ban. Paxton said in a statement accompanying the letter that Guerra Gamble's order "will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas' abortion laws." The letter was sent to three hospitals where Damla Karsan, the doctor who said she would provide the abortion to Cox, has admitting privileges. "Fearmongering has been Ken Paxton's main tactic in enforcing these abortion bans," Marc Hearron, senior counsel at Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Cox, said in a statement. "He is trying to bulldoze the legal system to make sure Kate and pregnant women like her continue to suffer." Cox, 31, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area filed a lawsuit on Tuesday seeking a temporary restraining order preventing Texas from enforcing its near-total ban on abortion in her case, saying her continued pregnancy threatened her health and future fertility. Guerra Gamble said she was granting the order at a hearing Thursday morning. Cox's lawyers have said her lawsuit is the first such case since the U.S. Supreme Court last year allowed states to ban abortion. Cox's fetus was diagnosed on Nov. 27 with trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality that usually results in miscarriage, stillbirth or death soon after birth. Cox, who is about 20 weeks pregnant, said in her lawsuit that she would need to undergo her third Caesarian section if she continues the pregnancy. That could jeopardize her ability to have more children, which she said she and her husband wanted. "The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability, is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice," said Guerra Gamble in Austin, Texas, state court, at Thursday's hearing. The judge's ruling applies only to Cox, and does not expand abortion access more broadly. Cox's lawyer, Molly Duane of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told reporters on a call after the hearing that Guerra Gamble's order allowed Cox to obtain the abortion. She declined to provide any details about Cox's immediate plans, citing concerns for her and her doctors' safety. "I want to emphasize how unforgivable it is that Kate had to beg for healthcare in court," Duane said. "No one should have to do this and the reality is 99 percent of people cannot." The state's abortion ban includes only a narrow exception to save the mother's life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function. Cox said in her lawsuit that, although her doctors believed abortion was medically necessary for her, they were unwilling to perform one without a court order in the face of potential penalties including life in prison and loss of their licenses. Johnathan Stone, a lawyer for the state, had said at Thursday's hearing that Cox had not shown she qualified for the exception. He said showing that would require a more through hearing on evidence, rather than a temporary restraining order. Cox's husband, Justin Cox, and Dr. Karsan are also plaintiffs in the case. Karsan is also one of 22 plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit seeking a broader order protecting Texas women's right to abortions their doctors deem medically necessary, in which the state's highest court heard arguments last week. The court has not ruled in that case.