On a side note, is there something physically wrong with the guy? His face has features consistent with a stroke victim.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Texas Senate bars Angela Paxton from voting in husband AG Ken Paxton's impeachment trial https://t.co/dHro5txVNn via @houstonchron

— Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) June 22, 2023

---

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.

---

when you say the voters knew about the Hunter Biden issue, 95% of the voters in this country had no idea until well after the election

As far as Paxton goes, if he did wrong then he should be held accountable.

---

I agree. Saying that the voters knew about Joe Biden or Paxton is a ludicrous, specious argument.

"The voters found me innocent" argument is preposterous and insulting.

---

I have no opinion about Paxton (that I can share), but I think the rule is good for stability's sake. Otherwise it would be like Election Day every day.

---

"All felonies commuted by election "?

---

Not commuted, but no longer a factor in removal from office. I think there's a logic to it.

---

If he ever goes to trial & is found guilty, should it be a factor if he committed the crimes before the last election?

---

I'm not sure. The more I look into it, the more ambiguous it seems. My guess is that the forgiveness doctrine is inapplicable because impeachment of an AG is governed by the Texas Constitution. Whether Patrick and the Senate will see it that way is a whole other question.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/26/impeachment-of-the-attorney-general-under-the-texas-constitution/

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

when you say the voters knew about the Hunter Biden issue, 95% of the voters in this country had no idea until well after the election

As far as Paxton goes, if he did wrong then he should be held accountable.

---

I agree. Saying that the voters knew about Joe Biden or Paxton is a ludicrous, specious argument.

"The voters found me innocent" argument is preposterous and insulting.

---

I have no opinion about Paxton (that I can share), but I think the rule is good for stability's sake. Otherwise it would be like Election Day every day.

---

"All felonies commuted by election "?

---

Not commuted, but no longer a factor in removal from office. I think there's a logic to it.

---

If he ever goes to trial & is found guilty, should it be a factor if he committed the crimes before the last election?

---

THAT is the appropriate time to consider impeachment. Not totally out of the blue six months after winning a statewide election in which the allegations were key issues of the campaign well-known to the voters. By your logic, impeachment is merely a process for the arrogant to intervene to make sure the voters don't elect the wrong guy.

---

Your argument is an election wipes the slate clean

---

Well, that is a fair interpretation of what the law says. But I'm actually quite a bit more reasonable than that. If a candidate murders someone, or robs a bank but isn't ID'd as a suspect until after an election, I'd say it's reasonable to put an impeachment AFTER CONVICTION.

But the context here is the opposite. Nearly all of the items on the list have been central campaign issues in primary and general for several cycles in a row. The new stuff is all allegations.

The proper way to do an impeachment is a Watergate, or the way McCarthy is handling the Biden stuff. You do NOT have a secret committee without warning pop out a list of warmed over allegations and surprise everyone with an impeachment. It's really, really bad politics to do it that way. It guarantees division in the party. And it actually benefits the accused.

I'm hearing odds of conviction are about 50-50....context being that outcome is uncertain.
That is yet another sign of an impeachment poorly done.
Your man Phelan is a dumb-ass.

hmmmmm looks like Texas taxpayers footed the bill for Ken Paxton's real estate buying spree. He traveled w/ a state police security detail to a Maui resort town at a taxpayer cost of $18k, then a few months later his "blind" trust bought a $400k property there #txlege https://t.co/esSz8FFnR7 pic.twitter.com/i8fhSz2PRg

— Justin Miller (@by_jmiller) June 30, 2023

boognish_bear said:

---

hmmmmm looks like Texas taxpayers footed the bill for Ken Paxton's real estate buying spree. He traveled w/ a state police security detail to a Maui resort town at a taxpayer cost of $18k, then a few months later his "blind" trust bought a $400k property there #txlege https://t.co/esSz8FFnR7 pic.twitter.com/i8fhSz2PRg

— Justin Miller (@by_jmiller) June 30, 2023

---

Got a Whitewater feel to it

I get Hawaii, Florida, Utah but OKLAHOMA???. Maybe minerals?

...

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

hmmmmm looks like Texas taxpayers footed the bill for Ken Paxton's real estate buying spree. He traveled w/ a state police security detail to a Maui resort town at a taxpayer cost of $18k, then a few months later his "blind" trust bought a $400k property there #txlege https://t.co/esSz8FFnR7 pic.twitter.com/i8fhSz2PRg

— Justin Miller (@by_jmiller) June 30, 2023

---

Got a Whitewater feel to it

---

Hardly.

It is not improper for an elected official to use personal wealth to buy real estate. Indeed, none is implied in the WSJ article. Neither is there any allegation in the article that Paxton use public monies to acquire the properties, nor that he traveled to those locations on taxpayer funds.

There is only a presumption that the taxpayers may have funded the cost of his security detail to travel with him. I do not know what are the rules on that, but that's the worst case here.

Very weak spin by that Twitter account.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

hmmmmm looks like Texas taxpayers footed the bill for Ken Paxton's real estate buying spree. He traveled w/ a state police security detail to a Maui resort town at a taxpayer cost of $18k, then a few months later his "blind" trust bought a $400k property there #txlege https://t.co/esSz8FFnR7 pic.twitter.com/i8fhSz2PRg

— Justin Miller (@by_jmiller) June 30, 2023

---

Got a Whitewater feel to it

---

Hardly.

It is not improper for an elected official to use personal wealth to buy real estate. Indeed, none is implied in the WSJ article. Neither is there any allegation in the article that Paxton use public monies to acquire the properties, nor that he traveled to those locations on taxpayer funds.

There is only a presumption that the taxpayers may have funded the cost of his security detail to travel with him. I do not know what are the rules on that, but that's the worst case here.

Very weak spin by that Twitter account.

---

You missed the reference to Whitewater entirely.

It's not about the legality of Paxton's purchases

It's about mission creep. Whitewater... blue dress.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

hmmmmm looks like Texas taxpayers footed the bill for Ken Paxton's real estate buying spree. He traveled w/ a state police security detail to a Maui resort town at a taxpayer cost of $18k, then a few months later his "blind" trust bought a $400k property there #txlege https://t.co/esSz8FFnR7 pic.twitter.com/i8fhSz2PRg

— Justin Miller (@by_jmiller) June 30, 2023

---

Got a Whitewater feel to it

---

Hardly.

It is not improper for an elected official to use personal wealth to buy real estate. Indeed, none is implied in the WSJ article. Neither is there any allegation in the article that Paxton use public monies to acquire the properties, nor that he traveled to those locations on taxpayer funds.

There is only a presumption that the taxpayers may have funded the cost of his security detail to travel with him. I do not know what are the rules on that, but that's the worst case here.

Very weak spin by that Twitter account.

---

You missed the reference to Whitewater entirely.

It's not about the legality of Paxton's purchases

It's about mission creep. Whitewater... blue dress.

---

The problem there is that the two examples you cited actually were serious ethical issues: Whitewater actually was a corrupt deal, and the Blue Dress actually was evidence for a sexual act committed on government time, on government property, with an INTERN, followed by a never-ending blizzard of obstruction and subornation.

This most recent addition to Paxton's list is actually not an ethical issue at all. The guy has the money to purchase what he purchased. It is implied that he traveled on public funds, but no evidence provided that he did. Just the untidy issue of who paid for his security team to travel with him on a private trip. Ok. Fair question to ask. But does his security go with him on his vacations? I would assume so, not that taxpayers have to like the fact that the Obama kids brought friends along on a taxpayer trip abroad, or that the whole WH security team had to travel to Crawford Tx numerous times for extended visits, etc....

I've never been terribly worked up about the travel stuff. Very ticky-tacky class politics nonsense. Waste of time and never goes anywhere. It's harrassing fire at best, more designed to keep the impeachment in the news than do any real harm.

One would hope they've got better drip-drip-drip stuff than this. If not, it belies a very weak case.

Texas AG Paxton traveled to China in a secretive trip including meetings with government officials and did so against the advice of his staff who expressed worry over potential Chinese Communist Party influence, per @FoxNews https://t.co/kIMVATe0Dc #TxLege

— Scott Braddock (@scottbraddock) July 3, 2023

“We will not bow to [the House’s] evil, illegal, and unprecedented weaponization of state power in the Senate chamber,” Buzbee says #txlege

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 4, 2023

boognish_bear said:

---

Texas AG Paxton traveled to China in a secretive trip including meetings with government officials and did so against the advice of his staff who expressed worry over potential Chinese Communist Party influence, per @FoxNews https://t.co/kIMVATe0Dc #TxLege

— Scott Braddock (@scottbraddock) July 3, 2023

---

LOL Paxton travels to China with a bi-partisan delegation of US Attorneys General and it's an ethical issue?
Secretive? How big and bipartisan does an entourage from a association of statewide elected officials have to be before it's no longer "secretive?"

Probably a smart move

Ken Paxton will not testify at impeachment trial, defense attorney says
The Texas Senate could compel the suspended attorney general to testify, but members of his defense team say they will fight those efforts.

The lead attorney for suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton said his client will not testify in his upcoming impeachment trial in the Texas Senate.
Paxton's defense lawyer, Tony Buzbee, made the announcement in a late Monday night statement on the eve of the July Fourth holiday. The Senate could still try to force Paxton to testify, but the statement makes clear Paxton would fight such efforts.
"We will not bow to their evil, illegal, and unprecedented weaponization of state power in the Senate chamber," Buzbee said of the House. A spokesperson for the chamber did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the defense team's statement.
The House voted to impeach Paxton in late May, accusing him of a yearslong series of crime and misconduct. Most of the 20 articles of impeachment center on allegations from former deputies that Paxton misused his office to help a wealthy campaign donor and Austin real-estate investor, Nate Paul.
Paxton was immediately suspended from office, and the Senate has scheduled a Sept. 5 trial on whether to permanently remove him.
Late last month, the Senate approved rules for the trial that gave the presiding officer Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick for now the "power to compel the attendance of witnesses." The presiding officer can also issue subpoenas at the request of one of the parties or its lawyers.

The rules ran counter to a number of things Paxton's lawyers had lobbied for, including prohibitions on witness subpoenas and live testimony.

After the House impeached him, Paxton said he was looking forward to a fair trial in the Senate. While Buzbee's statement exclusively criticizes the House, it marks the first time Paxton has demonstrated any kind of resistance to the Senate's handling of his impeachment.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/04/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-impeachment/

On his 2022 personal financial disclosure, which was due Friday, Paxton says he’s seeking TEC advisory opinions on how to respond to two sections, one on rental income and the other on real estate generally. Comes after this @WSJ report last week: https://t.co/VgN0zMM13T pic.twitter.com/szQM3RHXmp

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 5, 2023

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

hmmmmm looks like Texas taxpayers footed the bill for Ken Paxton's real estate buying spree. He traveled w/ a state police security detail to a Maui resort town at a taxpayer cost of $18k, then a few months later his "blind" trust bought a $400k property there #txlege https://t.co/esSz8FFnR7 pic.twitter.com/i8fhSz2PRg

— Justin Miller (@by_jmiller) June 30, 2023

---

Got a Whitewater feel to it

---

Hardly.

It is not improper for an elected official to use personal wealth to buy real estate. Indeed, none is implied in the WSJ article. Neither is there any allegation in the article that Paxton use public monies to acquire the properties, nor that he traveled to those locations on taxpayer funds.

There is only a presumption that the taxpayers may have funded the cost of his security detail to travel with him. I do not know what are the rules on that, but that's the worst case here.

Very weak spin by that Twitter account.

---

You missed the reference to Whitewater entirely.

It's not about the legality of Paxton's purchases

It's about mission creep. Whitewater... blue dress.

---

The problem there is that the two examples you cited actually were serious ethical issues: Whitewater actually was a corrupt deal, and the Blue Dress actually was evidence for a sexual act committed on government time, on government property, with an INTERN, followed by a never-ending blizzard of obstruction and subornation.

This most recent addition to Paxton's list is actually not an ethical issue at all. The guy has the money to purchase what he purchased. It is implied that he traveled on public funds, but no evidence provided that he did. Just the untidy issue of who paid for his security team to travel with him on a private trip. Ok. Fair question to ask. But does his security go with him on his vacations? I would assume so, not that taxpayers have to like the fact that the Obama kids brought friends along on a taxpayer trip abroad, or that the whole WH security team had to travel to Crawford Tx numerous times for extended visits, etc....

I've never been terribly worked up about the travel stuff. Very ticky-tacky class politics nonsense. Waste of time and never goes anywhere. It's harrassing fire at best, more designed to keep the impeachment in the news than do any real harm.

One would hope they've got better drip-drip-drip stuff than this. If not, it belies a very weak case.

---

Tell me how the dress directly related to real estate purchases. You didn't come close in this post.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

hmmmmm looks like Texas taxpayers footed the bill for Ken Paxton's real estate buying spree. He traveled w/ a state police security detail to a Maui resort town at a taxpayer cost of $18k, then a few months later his "blind" trust bought a $400k property there #txlege https://t.co/esSz8FFnR7 pic.twitter.com/i8fhSz2PRg

— Justin Miller (@by_jmiller) June 30, 2023

---

Got a Whitewater feel to it

---

Hardly.

It is not improper for an elected official to use personal wealth to buy real estate. Indeed, none is implied in the WSJ article. Neither is there any allegation in the article that Paxton use public monies to acquire the properties, nor that he traveled to those locations on taxpayer funds.

There is only a presumption that the taxpayers may have funded the cost of his security detail to travel with him. I do not know what are the rules on that, but that's the worst case here.

Very weak spin by that Twitter account.

---

You missed the reference to Whitewater entirely.

It's not about the legality of Paxton's purchases

It's about mission creep. Whitewater... blue dress.

---

The problem there is that the two examples you cited actually were serious ethical issues: Whitewater actually was a corrupt deal, and the Blue Dress actually was evidence for a sexual act committed on government time, on government property, with an INTERN, followed by a never-ending blizzard of obstruction and subornation.

This most recent addition to Paxton's list is actually not an ethical issue at all. The guy has the money to purchase what he purchased. It is implied that he traveled on public funds, but no evidence provided that he did. Just the untidy issue of who paid for his security team to travel with him on a private trip. Ok. Fair question to ask. But does his security go with him on his vacations? I would assume so, not that taxpayers have to like the fact that the Obama kids brought friends along on a taxpayer trip abroad, or that the whole WH security team had to travel to Crawford Tx numerous times for extended visits, etc....

I've never been terribly worked up about the travel stuff. Very ticky-tacky class politics nonsense. Waste of time and never goes anywhere. It's harrassing fire at best, more designed to keep the impeachment in the news than do any real harm.

One would hope they've got better drip-drip-drip stuff than this. If not, it belies a very weak case.

---

Tell me how the dress directly related to real estate purchases. You didn't come close in this post.

---

I did. They both were clear evidence of crimes, presented to a sitting independent counsel rather than a new (separate) one.

Paxton's purchase of real estate is hardly evidence of a crime and for that reason is unlikely to be an issue at his impeachment.

Pro-Paxton group gives $3 million to impeachment trial judge Dan Patrick https://t.co/T0yvqINcYu #txlege

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 18, 2023

boognish_bear said:

---

Pro-Paxton group gives $3 million to impeachment trial judge Dan Patrick https://t.co/T0yvqINcYu #txlege

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 18, 2023

---

they should refuse that..

Texas AG Ken Paxton wants Democrats off impeachment jury, citing ‘bias’ https://t.co/eJrGp32jEV

— Dallas Morning News (@dallasnews) July 24, 2023

In new filing, House impeachment managers make clear they oppose Team Paxton’s motion to disqualify three Dem senators: https://t.co/RyOkqRXoEB #txlege

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 24, 2023

boognish_bear said:

---

In new filing, House impeachment managers make clear they oppose Team Paxton’s motion to disqualify three Dem senators: https://t.co/RyOkqRXoEB #txlege

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 24, 2023

---

smart moves by both.

Hardin's brief response avoided escalation which would have only emphasized the point of that Paxton's motion, which was to highlight that impeachment is a political rather than legal proceeding.

This is long… But interesting to see the back-and-forth between Paxton's office and Leach.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/07/26/exclusive-texts-show-lawmakers-were-pissed-off-at-ken-paxton-before-impeachment/

Exclusive: Texts show lawmakers were 'pissed off' at Ken Paxton before impeachment

Texts between a Collin County GOP lawmaker and the Texas attorney general's senior advisor show legislators were angry when Paxton's agency asked for $3.3 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit.

AUSTIN Rep. Jeff Leach was "pissed off."

He had just found out that Ken Paxton wanted $3.3 million to settle a lawsuit with a group of whistleblowers who'd accused him of corruption and retaliation. Leach, a Collin County Republican like Paxton, considered the Texas attorney general a friend one he fiercely defended in the past.

But asking the Legislature to pony up the money was too much. On Feb. 10, he texted Michelle Smith, Paxton's senior advisor, and urged the state's top lawyer to come to the Capitol and publicly explain himself.

"Legislators have questions and we want answers. If we get the satisfactory answers, then all will be fine," Leach wrote to Smith, according to copies of the messages The Dallas Morning News obtained through public records requests.

Political Points

Get the latest politics news from North Texas and beyond.

"I don't think y'all understand how pissed members are, including many of your conservative friends in the house and senate. I don't know a single legislator who believes taxpayers should be expected to be on the hook for this," he added.

Read the text messages in full here.

Smith balked.

"What happened to, 'I will work with him until the day I die?" she responded in the text thread, urging Leach to speak directly with Paxton. "If he's a friend get the full story."

"The Christian thing to do is to ask what's going on in Private. If you don't like the answer then do whatever public," she added later in that conversation.

"You're really gonna go there with me?!" Leach fired back. "This is on Ken. Not on me. I'm doing my job. I will be calling a public hearing and he and I can have the conversation on the record."

"You do you," Smith replied.

Spurred by the settlement funding request, a House ethics committee began reviewing the whistleblowers' allegations against Paxton by March, according to its investigators. In late May, the House voted overwhelmingly to impeach Paxton based on the committee's findings that the attorney general likely abused his power to help a campaign donor under FBI investigation.

Paxton's lawyers argue their client was robbed of the chance to defend himself before he was impeached.

But the text exchanges between Leach and Smith reveal for the first time the extent to which the attorney general was urged, even warned, that he needed to defend the settlement to lawmakers.

On May 27, the day Paxton was impeached, Leach stood at the microphone on the House floor and said he'd invited the attorney general to appear before the committee he chairs. The committee held 12 meetings that year, Leach said, and Paxton never showed up.

On Sept. 5, the Senate will convene a trial to determine whether Paxton is removed from office.

Faced with the most significant opportunity to speak on his behalf, he appears to have chosen silence. His lawyers say the attorney general will refuse to testify during the trial.

"The House has ignored precedent, denied him an opportunity to prepare his defense, and now wants to ambush him on the floor of the Senate," Tony Buzbee, a member of Paxton's legal team, said in a statement on July 3. "We will not bow to their evil, illegal, and unprecedented weaponization of state power in the Senate chamber."

Paxton's settlement

After Paxton's impeachment, The News requested all communications exchanged this year between Leach, a key North Texas lawmaker, and Smith, who has long been one of the attorney general's most dedicated allies.

Paxton's agency produced 26 pages of text messages sent between Jan. 10 and June 11.

The records provide insight into discussions between Paxton's inside circle and lawmakers leading up to the impeachment vote, and show that the attorney general was urged to personally and openly defend the settlement funding.

Smith did not return requests for comment for this story sent to her campaign email address. Representatives from the Office of the Attorney General and Paxton's impeachment lawyers also did not respond to questions.

Leach and Dick DeGuerin, a lawyer hired to present the case against Paxton, both declined to comment citing a gag order placed on all parties to the impeachment trial.

Paxton first publicly broached the settlement at the Capitol on Feb. 21, when the House appropriations committee held a meeting to discuss his agency's budget. That day, Paxton talked about his agency's wins. Lawmakers brought up the settlement.

Chris Hilton, chief of general litigation in the Office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, speaks to the press after the House Committee on General Investigating voted to recommend impeachment for Paxton in a hallway of Texas Capitol extension on May 23, 2023.(Lauren McGaughy / Lauren McGaughy)
Related:8 things to know about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
In a video recording of the hearing, the committee members quizzed the attorney general about whether Texas taxpayers should be on the hook to fund the settlement.

Paxton deferred most questions to the deputy sitting beside him. Chief of General Litigation Chris Hilton defended the $3.3 million funding request, saying the state would save money by putting the already-costly whistleblower lawsuit to bed.

"General Paxton, would you be willing to pay for it out of your campaign account?" Rep. Jarvis Johnson, D-Houston, asked at one point.

Paxton did not answer. In the hearing video, Paxton motioned to Hilton to respond.

"I don't want to speak for the attorney general," Hilton answered, reiterating Paxton had admitted no fault in the settlement. "I'll just say that there is no whistleblower case where any individual has paid anything because the individual is not liable under the terms of the statute."

Paxton personally addressed the settlement before the hearing, however.

Appearing on Mark Davis' conservative radio show the week before, the attorney general said his agency had to settle because Travis County, where the whistleblower lawsuit was filed, was too liberal a venue for him to get a fair shake.

If he thought the Austin-based judge would be impartial, he told Davis on Feb. 15, "then I would absolutely fight this to the bitter end, despite the cost."

Paxton's impeachment

By March 6, the messages between Leach and Smith devolved into veiled threats.

First, he accused her of begging him not to hold a public hearing on the settlement. She denied that, calling him a liar.

"Bring it, Michelle," Leach texted, to which she responded, "Ok don't ask me to."

"I won't be talked out of doing my job and fulfilling my oath," he said.

"I stood in 100-degree weather to get you elected. Never forget that," Smith replied. "You want to go against me go ahead."

Leach tried once more to get Smith to commit Paxton to appearing before the Committee on the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, which he chairs, to answer questions about the settlement.

"I will have a discussion with AG Paxton and get back to you," she responded.

It was the last time the two texted about the settlement funding, according to the public records the agency released to The News.

State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, talks on the phone while on the floor of the House chamber of the Texas Capitol in Austin on Thursday, May 4, 2023.(Juan Figueroa / Staff Photographer)
As the legislative session progressed, some state lawmakers became more vocal about their concerns. Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, publicly said funding the settlement was not a proper use of taxpayer money. When budget writers released their finalized proposals in mid-May, they didn't set aside any funding for the settlement.

On May 23, the House Committee on General Investigating recommended Paxton be impeached.

The committee members said he'd erred in firing the whistleblowers and that the corruption allegations against Paxton had merit. The investigating panel lobbed a number of other accusations against the attorney general, including bribery, conspiracy and unfitness for office.

Hilton showed up to that meeting demanding to be heard.

"They have not reached out to our office at any time during their investigation," Hilton told reporters outside the hearing room. "I'm here to testify."

The attorney general himself was not there, however, and Hilton wouldn't answer questions about his whereabouts.

Paxton's trial

Since impeachment, Smith has continued to work against those attempting to oust Paxton from power.

A former member of the Rockwall City Council and director for the conservative organization Concerned Women for America, according to a 2016 Texas Monthly story, Smith works for both Paxton's campaign and the agency he leads.

Amid his fight against securities fraud in 2017, she compared the attorney general's legal troubles to the persecution of Jesus Christ, according to court filings. She recently garnered headlines in the Houston Chronicle for helping set up a private meeting between Paxton and a GOP activist who his agency was prosecuting for unpaid child support.

She has rallied allies in social media posts where she barely masks her rage against the lawmakers she described as the "RINOs" Republicans in Name Only who voted to impeach the attorney general.

"Ken Paxton deserves due process," she wrote on Facebook on June 16. "Every state representative who went along with this sham, illegal impeachment, I hope Karma hits you hard."

Michelle Smith (bottom left) and Kelly Canon take a selfie with others prior to the start of a debate between Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at McFarlin Auditorium at SMU in Dallas, on Friday, September 21, 2018. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News/Pool)(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer)
It's unknown whether Smith passed along any of Leach's text messages to the attorney general or when Paxton first learned that lawmakers were considering calling for his removal from office. Since he was impeached, Paxton and his lawyers have spoken out against the process, calling it a sham meant to oust a duly-elected attorney general.

His agency also tried to make inroads with lawmakers. Senators, who will serve as jurors in his trial, found packets of documents detailing Paxton's defense on their desks the day after impeachment.

Before Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick instituted his gag order this month, Paxton's lawyers repeatedly cast doubt on the evidence against their client and the process itself.

They have filed a motion arguing the attorney general can't be forced to testify when he faces senators at his September trial.

Patrick has not made a decision regarding Paxton's request.

"I have to keep this a fair trial. The defendant deserves a fair trial," he told CBS News Texas on July 18.

boognish_bear said:

---

This is long… But interesting to see the back-and-forth between Paxton's office and Leach.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/07/26/exclusive-texts-show-lawmakers-were-pissed-off-at-ken-paxton-before-impeachment/

Exclusive: Texts show lawmakers were 'pissed off' at Ken Paxton before impeachment

Texts between a Collin County GOP lawmaker and the Texas attorney general's senior advisor show legislators were angry when Paxton's agency asked for $3.3 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit.

AUSTIN Rep. Jeff Leach was "pissed off."

He had just found out that Ken Paxton wanted $3.3 million to settle a lawsuit with a group of whistleblowers who'd accused him of corruption and retaliation. Leach, a Collin County Republican like Paxton, considered the Texas attorney general a friend one he fiercely defended in the past.

But asking the Legislature to pony up the money was too much. On Feb. 10, he texted Michelle Smith, Paxton's senior advisor, and urged the state's top lawyer to come to the Capitol and publicly explain himself.

"Legislators have questions and we want answers. If we get the satisfactory answers, then all will be fine," Leach wrote to Smith, according to copies of the messages The Dallas Morning News obtained through public records requests.

Political Points

Get the latest politics news from North Texas and beyond.

"I don't think y'all understand how pissed members are, including many of your conservative friends in the house and senate. I don't know a single legislator who believes taxpayers should be expected to be on the hook for this," he added.

Read the text messages in full here.

Smith balked.

"What happened to, 'I will work with him until the day I die?" she responded in the text thread, urging Leach to speak directly with Paxton. "If he's a friend get the full story."

"The Christian thing to do is to ask what's going on in Private. If you don't like the answer then do whatever public," she added later in that conversation.

"You're really gonna go there with me?!" Leach fired back. "This is on Ken. Not on me. I'm doing my job. I will be calling a public hearing and he and I can have the conversation on the record."

"You do you," Smith replied.

Spurred by the settlement funding request, a House ethics committee began reviewing the whistleblowers' allegations against Paxton by March, according to its investigators. In late May, the House voted overwhelmingly to impeach Paxton based on the committee's findings that the attorney general likely abused his power to help a campaign donor under FBI investigation.

Paxton's lawyers argue their client was robbed of the chance to defend himself before he was impeached.

But the text exchanges between Leach and Smith reveal for the first time the extent to which the attorney general was urged, even warned, that he needed to defend the settlement to lawmakers.

On May 27, the day Paxton was impeached, Leach stood at the microphone on the House floor and said he'd invited the attorney general to appear before the committee he chairs. The committee held 12 meetings that year, Leach said, and Paxton never showed up.

On Sept. 5, the Senate will convene a trial to determine whether Paxton is removed from office.

Faced with the most significant opportunity to speak on his behalf, he appears to have chosen silence. His lawyers say the attorney general will refuse to testify during the trial.

"The House has ignored precedent, denied him an opportunity to prepare his defense, and now wants to ambush him on the floor of the Senate," Tony Buzbee, a member of Paxton's legal team, said in a statement on July 3. "We will not bow to their evil, illegal, and unprecedented weaponization of state power in the Senate chamber."

Paxton's settlement

After Paxton's impeachment, The News requested all communications exchanged this year between Leach, a key North Texas lawmaker, and Smith, who has long been one of the attorney general's most dedicated allies.

Paxton's agency produced 26 pages of text messages sent between Jan. 10 and June 11.

The records provide insight into discussions between Paxton's inside circle and lawmakers leading up to the impeachment vote, and show that the attorney general was urged to personally and openly defend the settlement funding.

Smith did not return requests for comment for this story sent to her campaign email address. Representatives from the Office of the Attorney General and Paxton's impeachment lawyers also did not respond to questions.

Leach and Dick DeGuerin, a lawyer hired to present the case against Paxton, both declined to comment citing a gag order placed on all parties to the impeachment trial.

Paxton first publicly broached the settlement at the Capitol on Feb. 21, when the House appropriations committee held a meeting to discuss his agency's budget. That day, Paxton talked about his agency's wins. Lawmakers brought up the settlement.

Chris Hilton, chief of general litigation in the Office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, speaks to the press after the House Committee on General Investigating voted to recommend impeachment for Paxton in a hallway of Texas Capitol extension on May 23, 2023.(Lauren McGaughy / Lauren McGaughy)
Related:8 things to know about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
In a video recording of the hearing, the committee members quizzed the attorney general about whether Texas taxpayers should be on the hook to fund the settlement.

Paxton deferred most questions to the deputy sitting beside him. Chief of General Litigation Chris Hilton defended the $3.3 million funding request, saying the state would save money by putting the already-costly whistleblower lawsuit to bed.

"General Paxton, would you be willing to pay for it out of your campaign account?" Rep. Jarvis Johnson, D-Houston, asked at one point.

Paxton did not answer. In the hearing video, Paxton motioned to Hilton to respond.

"I don't want to speak for the attorney general," Hilton answered, reiterating Paxton had admitted no fault in the settlement. "I'll just say that there is no whistleblower case where any individual has paid anything because the individual is not liable under the terms of the statute."

Paxton personally addressed the settlement before the hearing, however.

Appearing on Mark Davis' conservative radio show the week before, the attorney general said his agency had to settle because Travis County, where the whistleblower lawsuit was filed, was too liberal a venue for him to get a fair shake.

If he thought the Austin-based judge would be impartial, he told Davis on Feb. 15, "then I would absolutely fight this to the bitter end, despite the cost."

Paxton's impeachment

By March 6, the messages between Leach and Smith devolved into veiled threats.

First, he accused her of begging him not to hold a public hearing on the settlement. She denied that, calling him a liar.

"Bring it, Michelle," Leach texted, to which she responded, "Ok don't ask me to."

"I won't be talked out of doing my job and fulfilling my oath," he said.

"I stood in 100-degree weather to get you elected. Never forget that," Smith replied. "You want to go against me go ahead."

Leach tried once more to get Smith to commit Paxton to appearing before the Committee on the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, which he chairs, to answer questions about the settlement.

"I will have a discussion with AG Paxton and get back to you," she responded.

It was the last time the two texted about the settlement funding, according to the public records the agency released to The News.

State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, talks on the phone while on the floor of the House chamber of the Texas Capitol in Austin on Thursday, May 4, 2023.(Juan Figueroa / Staff Photographer)
As the legislative session progressed, some state lawmakers became more vocal about their concerns. Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, publicly said funding the settlement was not a proper use of taxpayer money. When budget writers released their finalized proposals in mid-May, they didn't set aside any funding for the settlement.

On May 23, the House Committee on General Investigating recommended Paxton be impeached.

The committee members said he'd erred in firing the whistleblowers and that the corruption allegations against Paxton had merit. The investigating panel lobbed a number of other accusations against the attorney general, including bribery, conspiracy and unfitness for office.

Hilton showed up to that meeting demanding to be heard.

"They have not reached out to our office at any time during their investigation," Hilton told reporters outside the hearing room. "I'm here to testify."

The attorney general himself was not there, however, and Hilton wouldn't answer questions about his whereabouts.

Paxton's trial

Since impeachment, Smith has continued to work against those attempting to oust Paxton from power.

A former member of the Rockwall City Council and director for the conservative organization Concerned Women for America, according to a 2016 Texas Monthly story, Smith works for both Paxton's campaign and the agency he leads.

Amid his fight against securities fraud in 2017, she compared the attorney general's legal troubles to the persecution of Jesus Christ, according to court filings. She recently garnered headlines in the Houston Chronicle for helping set up a private meeting between Paxton and a GOP activist who his agency was prosecuting for unpaid child support.

She has rallied allies in social media posts where she barely masks her rage against the lawmakers she described as the "RINOs" Republicans in Name Only who voted to impeach the attorney general.

"Ken Paxton deserves due process," she wrote on Facebook on June 16. "Every state representative who went along with this sham, illegal impeachment, I hope Karma hits you hard."

Michelle Smith (bottom left) and Kelly Canon take a selfie with others prior to the start of a debate between Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at McFarlin Auditorium at SMU in Dallas, on Friday, September 21, 2018. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News/Pool)(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer)
It's unknown whether Smith passed along any of Leach's text messages to the attorney general or when Paxton first learned that lawmakers were considering calling for his removal from office. Since he was impeached, Paxton and his lawyers have spoken out against the process, calling it a sham meant to oust a duly-elected attorney general.

His agency also tried to make inroads with lawmakers. Senators, who will serve as jurors in his trial, found packets of documents detailing Paxton's defense on their desks the day after impeachment.

Before Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick instituted his gag order this month, Paxton's lawyers repeatedly cast doubt on the evidence against their client and the process itself.

They have filed a motion arguing the attorney general can't be forced to testify when he faces senators at his September trial.

Patrick has not made a decision regarding Paxton's request.

"I have to keep this a fair trial. The defendant deserves a fair trial," he told CBS News Texas on July 18.

---

I have a different take away from this: "that is a direct violation of OAG CSE policy. Nobody, not CSOs, not lawyers, can work on the case of a friend or relative. This is a really strict policy, I've seen an assistant attorney general hand off a case because she went to the same church as one party. And in child support enforcement the OAG represents the state, not the custodial parent nor the non-custodial parent.

Paxton can meet with the guy only if it was to say "I can't get involved." And he may have done just that, we don't know from this story. Should have declined the meeting. Appearance of impropriety and all that.

Happening this morning: Ken Paxton to appear in Houston court Thursday on pretrial matters in securities fraud case https://t.co/qjPHeWEIXZ #txlege

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) August 3, 2023

UPDATE: Attorneys for Ken Paxton and state prosecutors indicate that it may be possible to resolve state security fraud charges against him if he is convicted in a Senate impeachment. https://t.co/oFvhqBm3RT

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) August 3, 2023

A federal grand jury is reviewing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's ties to indicted Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, ⁦@AutulloAAS⁩ and ⁦@tplohetski⁩ report. https://t.co/FnBVBDQOZY via @statesman #txlege

— Lauren McGaughy 🌟 (@lmcgaughy) August 10, 2023

BREAKING: Texas AG Ken Paxton and now-indicted Austin investor Nate Paul set up a fake Uber account Paxton used to see his lover, revealing the extent of the men’s ties and benefits Paxton received by helping Paul as the FBI targeted him, a new impeachment trial filing says. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/eK4PnyrFur

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) August 16, 2023

The documents also provide greater detail than previously known about other “perks” Paxton allegedly received, including a remodel to his home, according to the new filings.

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) August 16, 2023

New: Texas House investigators are bringing new allegations against suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton, accusing him of engaging in a complex coverup to hide his relationship with real estate investor Nate Paul.https://t.co/wHP9oNAooH

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) August 16, 2023

First time I have seen an insider predict that Paxton will be convicted in Senate trial. There apparently are some new charges coming. Momentum seems to be on protection side. Will Republicans be smart enough to jettison Paxton? TBD

The End Is Near for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
He gloated when he got re-elected, but he seems sure to lose his impeachment trial.
By
Karl Rove
The highest-profile impeachment trial of a statewide official since that of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2009 will kick off Sept. 5. That's when the Texas Senate will try Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom the state House voted 121-23 to impeach in May. More than 70% of GOP representatives voted to impeach their fellow Republican, including all five GOP members from his home county.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-end-is-near-for-texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-impeachment-gop-mistress-charges-6d756be1?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

Seems like the walls are closing in on him

boognish_bear said:

---

Seems like the walls are closing in on him

---

You've got to "Know when to Fold 'em"

Paxton’s staff tried to warn Ken Paxton that Nate Paul was a “criminal”. The manager of Paxton’s home remodel was Raj Sagiraju who had been in prison for securities fraud. Sagiraju was working for Nate Paul at the time. https://t.co/MNv7zBZ8XU

Paul+Sagiraju at a foreclosure: pic.twitter.com/aqkPHKvnAn

— Jim Boyle (@JimGBoyle) August 17, 2023

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sec 665.081
No Removal for Acts Committed Before Election to Office
(a)An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer's election to office.
(b) The prohibition against the removal from office for an act the officer commits before the officer's election is covered by:
(1)Section 21.002 (References to Municipal Governing Body and to Members of Municipal Governing Body), Local Government Code, for a mayor or alderman of a general law municipality; or
(2)Chapter 87 (Removal of County Officers From Office; Filling of Vacancies), Local Government Code, for a county or precinct officer.



So. What, exactly, has Paxton done since November 2022 that warrants impeachment?

---

The election of Ken Paxton to AG happened in 2014 and he was sworn in in 2015. Each election doesn't wipe the slate clean.

So the question is, what has Paxton done since November 2014 that warrants impeachment?

---

No, the question is, does the rule of law truly exist in the state of Texas when the Attorney General who is supposed to uphold and defend it is under indictment for credible charges & who recently agreed to pay $3.3 million (of YOUR taxpayer dollars, folks) to staff members who accused him of corruption, but no one has acted on that indictment.

Based on this story, I'd say the answer to that question is a big, fat "no."

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/texas-news/ken-paxton-agrees-to-apologize-pay-3-3m-in-taxpayer-money-to-staffers-who-accused-him-of-corruption/3191800/

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has agreed to apologize and pay $3.3 million in taxpayer money to four former staffers who accused him of corruption in 2020, igniting an ongoing FBI investigation of the three-term Republican.

Under terms of a preliminary lawsuit settlement filed Friday, Paxton made no admission of wrongdoing to accusations of bribery and abuse of office, which he has denied for years and called politically motivated.

But Paxton did commit to making a remarkable public apology toward some of his formerly trusted advisers whom he fired or forced out after they reported him to the FBI. He called them "rogue employees" after they accused Paxton of misusing his office to help one of his campaign contributors, who also employed a woman with whom the attorney general acknowledged having an extramarital affair.