Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
boognish_bear said:
Can't read the paywalled article.
Does the bar on voting affect quorum?
If she's allowed to participate in the proceedings and be counted toward quorum, the bar on voting is not terribly relevant, as it would not affect the number of votes needed to convict.
She counts as to the # of votes required to convict e.g. 21 votes to convict even if she can't vote
Rules adopted seem fair. If Paxton is acquitted, so be it
So her "forced recusal" was just window dressing.
What other options did Senate have?
Tx constitution requires her presence.
Her presence apparently equates to a 'not guilty' vote. I can't blame Lt Gov for these 2 things.
She is excluded from deliberations, which may be significant. Allowing her in the room and giving her a voice would reflect poorly on the Senate.
The summary of the rules adopted by the Senate seem fair. I have no com.plaints. If they find Paxton 'not guilty', I believe that would be a wrong verdict, but I have no problem with their process (so far).
Coulda done nothing and let the voters decide whether or not they approve of her actions.
Coulda recused her completely out of the process and adjusted quorum to make acquittal harder.
That's just for starters.
Don't try the Boy Scout routine here. Impeachment is, and always has been, a political process. And on this particular question....the Senate virtue postured - took an action that had no material affect on the outcome just for the sake of appearances.
Phelan THOUGHT he'd be improving his position but he pretty badly miscalculated and put a lot of his caucus and the entire Senate GOP caucus cross-ways with their primary voters who are, justifiably, pretty steamed about this. They now face a lose-lose proposition that puts everyone in a far worse position than 60 days ago.
Tx constitution requires Sen Paxton to be in attendance.
Allowing a senator with a financial interest in the outcome to vote for acquittal would reflect poorly on the process.
You are defending another crooked politician. We'll see if House members are rewarded or punished for doing the right thing.
What is the "lose-lose proposition"?
LOL I'm not defending anything. Just noting the obvious: that the actions taken by the Senate w/r/t Sen. Paxton will have zero effect on the outcome, ergo the actions are nothing more than a virtue posture. (which of course is a fair assessment of the entire impeachment process).
The lose-lose is that Phelan's actions have divided the GOP, making it weaker for the next election. EX = Phelan will face a spirited primary challenge. Both he and his challenger will have to raise & spend a ****-ton more money than would normally be expected in what would otherwise be a non-contentious race. We're talking cumulatively a 7-digit number, easily, wasted to teach Phelan a lesson.....money that could be spent on other races. (he'll probably win anyway, but in raising money for his campaign, he sucks it away from others who will need it). And every single member of GOP house & senate causes will have to spend political capital justifying their votes (regardless whether pro or con). And raise more money to win a primary. (taking money away from contesting races against Dems).
And of course the Dems will have more basis to portray GOP as a "culture of corruption." They would of course had some of that issue had Phelan done nothing.....but GOP had won that argument (on Paxton) twice before in statewide elections, so doing nothing wouldn't have done any additional harm. But the impeachment option elevates the issue, ratifies it, then divides the party as noted above over not just guilt & innocence but cost/benefit, and...... Literally there is no upside anywhere. Regardless how one personally feels about the impeachment.....there is a political cost to it. But moderates don't care about cost. Anything that makes them feel morally superior must be done, no matter how idiotic and counterproductive such might be to their stated principles.
Dude. I have friends on both sides of this issue. I'm pissed at some of them over this, pleased with others. I do not appreciate being put in position of fighting with people I need to work with on IMPORTANT issues over minor BS issues decided by voters in a statewide election 6 months ago (where those minor BS issues at play were well known at that time). this is a complete waste of political capital on a grandiose virtue posture that is lose-lose all the way down to the ground, not an inch of upside anywhere. But it makes the moderates feel better to throw scheisse on conservatives then say "look, I am not one of those dirty people over there!" So here we are.
Interesting that you consider disapproval of criminal behavior to be ""virtue posture" and "minor BS issues". It's criminal behavior and should be condemned. You believe prosecuting Paxton's crimes are idiotic and counter productive? Culture of corruption indeed. Well, if you can't see it, you can't see it.
Republicans will be stronger if you weed out the bad actors. Put party loyalty aside for just 1 minute.
With regard to voters having determined the issue with the last election. Well, Biden was elected after the Hunter Biden issue surfaced, so by your reasoning Hunter shouldn't be prosecuted and Joe's conduct shouldn't be investigated? That's BS and you know it.
Well, it may be criminal, and it may not be. We don't know. Hasn't been much of an investigation at all. No special prosecutor, or anything like that. So far, all we know is there have been a lot of allegations and some settlements. Yes, there was an indictment on arcane regulatory issues in 2015, but voters have looked at that in 4 election cycles now and deemed it to be political gamesmanship = not a concern that harmed Paxton or the party at all. (because ordinary people kind a get the idea that if there were anything to the case, it would have already been put before a jury). Yes, we know the DOJ has launched an investigation of him. But they are widely known to investigate their political opponents, most especially the effective ones like Paxton, who stopped a Democrat functionary from doing an extra-legal mailout of 3m unsolicited ballots in Harris County in 2020, which probably saved the election for the GOP. So how much weight can we place on that? Dem prosecutors go after Republicans for sport (Carter Page, George Papadapolous, etc.....)
I don't see a bad actor. I see a really effective conservative who cannot be defeated at the ballot box being harassed with frivolous legal charges by partisan opponents who are willing to put their own interests ahead of the voters.
"
surfaced." No, the Hunter Biden documents did not "surface" before the election. They were alleged before the election. When evidence emerged, the press, with active coaching by FBI and CIA, went full-bore to call it Russian disinformation. Twitter dropped the accounts of anyone, of any stature, who tried to spread the story. Including the sitting President of the United States. Most voters did not know of the story, and most of those who did thought it was not credible (for understandable reasons). There has been no suppression with the Paxton allegations. Widely reported all across the media. splash splash splash. Voters did know of his issues. Early and often. Exact opposite of the way the Biden details were smothered.
And no, I do not support impeachment of Biden at this time. I do support further investigations. House hearings. Demands for special counsel, etc...... Impeachment of Garland for his obvious and ham-handed efforts to squelch the story. Impeachments should have a lot of lead up, to inform voters, to drive up support for it. Biden still has 40% (+/-, given the poll) support. To impeach, that support number should ideally start with a 2. None of that was done with Paxton, who still has strong support with voters. Literally came out of the blue, as far as voters are concerned. Looks like what it is - Dems and moderate Republicans going after the most effective statewide GOP Conservative, for fear if they don't get him, he will be impossible to beat in the 2026 Governor race.
I see you presuming guilt and proceeding to overturn the results of last fall's elections. Very hasty. It's worth opposing on principle (over the process and the politics of it). Why not wait until he's at least indicted on the new stuff? Is it really unprincipled to presume his innocence? Voters clearly did 6 months prior to the impeachment. All I see on your side is extreme arrogance, that you really don't give a rip about what the voters wanted because you know better. The GOP leaders who pulled this impeachment are utter duma$$es who are leading a perfect example of how NOT to do an impeachment.
