Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
As someone who live in Texas for thirty years, I am genuinely shocked that the Texas GOP has managed to find someone who is too corrupt even, for them. I wouldn't have said that was possible.
I wouldn't be surprise to find out this is some kind of attempt to scapegoat him and draw the eyes away from the rest of their corruption. That's just the cynic in me thinking out loud though.
I think it's simpler.
As things are in Texas right now, anyone he is replaced with will be a conservative republican. There is zero political risk to republicans in removing him. His only constituency within the party is the furthest right loons... but they tend to abandon "losers" quickly and will happily latch onto the newest far right loon. All while keeping him around does represent a political cost to republicans. That cost has gotten high enough that they're willing to consider removing him.
They can remove him with no risk to their power and get rid of a headache at the same time.
The tipping point is that he tried to get the party to pay for the coverup for his crimes. He was spending their money instead of raking it in, and they decided to turn off the tap.
It's not that. Something is up. Republicans are ruthless, not benevolent. I have a feeling it's a lot worse than that. Do we know if the FBI is involved? They turned on him pretty quick and we all know how that goes.
FBI has been investigating him since 2020 with a real estate developer allegedly doing shady shit with Paxton. The real estate developer is under indictment. Federal grand jury heard testimony against Paxton last month. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/10/ken-paxton-grand-jury/
kp goin down for the big hurt, yeeehaw gettalong lil doggy
It’s been due (indicted years ago on fraud), but he managed to piss off his own party. It’s rare to see the modern GOP go after one of their fellow (R) bearing brothers.
I wonder what he did because he was a good sock puppet for the GOP.
He spent their money
When you're too crooked for Texas... Damn!
There's a lesson here for the people who want to use Trumpiness to attain political power: if you're not actually Trump, it won't work.
Whatever "it" is, Trump has "it." It's to the extreme detriment of our entire nation and world, but there we are. Ken Paxton definitely doesn't have "it." I haven't seen any sparkle of "it" in the other 2024 Presidential candidates (from either party).
The problem with trying to be Trump but not is that whatever deviation one makes will alienate Trump's cult and reveal the weakness of Trumpism from a political point of view for traditional Republican politicians. They'll turn on fake Trumps instantly.
I don't know if Trump is going to go down for his crimes, but a lot of his crew will be, because none of them have whatever "it" is. I hope that the juries will take their job seriously and ignore any non fact based stuff from Trump. Who knows. Twelve is a lot of people...
A glimmer of hope. No one is above the law.
Cops usually are.
Ugh. Sad but you got a point.
Billionaires, War-criminals (helps if they're former Presidents), Television doctors.
It's a club.
Havent been following this, Im sure the article will clear up what the impeachment's about
The House impeached Paxton in May, alleging a yearslong pattern of lawbreaking and misconduct.
thank you Texas Tribune for clearing that up.
The Texas Tribune has written dozens of fantastic articles on this topic. Many of which were linked in this very article. I'm curious how you missed all of them. Here's a good one:
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/18/ken-paxton-impeachment-evidence/
Hope this clears it up.
Why was Paxton impeached?
At the center of Paxton's impeachment is his relationship with a wealthy donor that prompted the attorney general's top deputies to revolt.
In 2020, the group reported their boss to the FBI, saying Paxton broke the law to help Austin real estate developer Nate Paul fight a separate federal investigation. Paul allegedly reciprocated, including by employing a woman with whom Paxton had an extramarital affair.
Paul was indicted in June on federal criminal charges that he made false statements to banks to get more than $170 million in loans. He pleaded not guilty.
Paul gave Paxton a $25,000 campaign donation in 2018 and the men bonded over a shared feeling that they were the targets of corrupt law enforcement, according to a memo by one of the staffers who went to the FBI. Paxton was indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015 but is yet to stand trial.
The eight deputies who reported Paxton — largely staunch conservatives whom he handpicked for their jobs — went to law enforcement after he ignored their warnings to not hire an outside lawyer to investigate Paul’s allegations of wrongdoing by the FBI. All eight were subsequently fired or quit and four of them sued under the state whistleblower act.
Paxton is also accused of pressuring his staff to intervene in other of Paul's legal troubles, including litigation with an Austin-based nonprofit group and property foreclosure sales.
What did Paxton get in return?
In return, the impeachment prosecutors say Paul bankrolled renovations to one of Paxton's homes and facilitated his affair.
Paxton privately acknowledged the affair with a state Senate aide in 2018 and told a small group of staff that it was over. But the impeachment prosecutors say Paxton carried on with the woman, who Paul hired in Austin so she could be closer to the attorney general. The developer also allegedly set up an Uber account under a pseudonym that Paxton used to discreetly see the woman.
After Paxton's staff revolted, the attorney general rushed to cover up that Paul had paid for costly renovations to his million-dollar Austin home, according to the prosecutors. Paxton's lawyers released documents showing he paid a company tied to Paul hours after his deputies went to the FBI.
The problem isn't that they are being too general. The problem is that they are, among other things, a print magazine. Listing every incident in which Paxton has violated the law would fill a year of issues without leaving room for so much as a contents page.
they could summarize beyond "lawbreaking and misconduct". Or could have saved some space by not saying anything instead, instead of using these words to say nothing.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Texas Senate on Tuesday rejected all of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s efforts to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him, moving forward with the first removal proceeding against a statewide elected official in more than a century.
Those senators were Pete Flores of Pleasanton, Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, Joan Huffman of Houston, Mayes Middleton of Galveston, Robert Nichols of Jacksonville and Drew Springer of Muenster.
That motion struck at the heart of one of Paxton’s main arguments — that he cannot be impeached for any actions he allegedly took before he was reelected last year.
He was immediately suspended from his job and the Senate trial, which started at 9 a.m. Tuesday, will determine whether he is permanently removed from office.
A simple majority was required to approve them, and Paxton’s team challenged all articles of impeachment both individually and altogether.
Notably, Patrick granted Paxton's motion that prevents the suspended attorney general from being forced to testify in the trial.
The original article contains 447 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!