AG Ken Paxton on glide path to impeachment

102,065 Views | 971 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So this is the quality of the legal work Ken Paxton did on behalf of Texas: Covering up for the buddy who facilitated his affair:
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/16/ken-paxton-impeachment-evidence-senate/

Among the new claims: Top deputies in the attorney general's office persistently warned Paxton that Paul was a "crook" and that there was no merit to his claims that he had been unfairly treated by law enforcement, and that the two met at least 20 times in spring and summer 2020, sometimes discussing the FBI investigation into Paul's faltering real estate empire.

Paxton "blindly accepted Paul's conspiracy," impeachment managers alleged. "Senior Staff urged Paxton to stay away. But when it came to Paul, Paxton was immune to reason."

Paul was arrested in June on federal felony charges of lying to financial institutions to secure business loans.

Responding to Paxton's pretrial motions that seek to dismiss all 20 articles of impeachment, including four that will not be included in the Sept. 5 impeachment trial, House managers also detailed multiple actions in which Paxton allegedly sought to use his office to benefit Paul.

They alleged that Paxton conducted a "sham criminal investigation" into Paul's "adversaries," routinely overriding concerns from agency staff who told him that Paul was a "criminal" and that Paxton needed to "get away."

Instead, House managers alleged, Paxton became increasingly "entangled in Paul's web of deceit" and "went to great lengths" to hide his relationship with Paul using a burner phone and secret email accounts, ditching his security detail and using the fake Uber name to be "ferried to his lover's or Paul's properties more than a dozen times."

In response to Paul's favors including allegedly employing the woman and paying to remodel Paxton's home Paxton "continually abused the power of his office to advance Paul's aims," House managers alleged.

In one instance, Paxton allegedly told agency staff that he did not want the office to assist law enforcement "in any way" with an investigation into Paul, who Paxton claimed was being "railroaded" and needed "unprecedented" access to sensitive information about his case.

After meeting with "alarmed" senior staff, Paxton allegedly demanded files about Paul's criminal case that included an unredacted FBI letter that identified individuals involved in a 2019 raid on Paul's home and businesses.


"Paxton held onto the file for more than a week," House managers wrote. "Ultimately, OAG did not disclose the information to Paul. But Paxton did."

In another instance, Paxton was accused of issuing a legal opinion that staved off a pending foreclosure sale of Paul's businesses at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. House investigators cited two agency employees who said they were forced to work through the night to produce the opinion while Paxton frequently called them.

Paxton "sounded like someone was holding him hostage," one of the staffers told investigators.

The opinion, which Paxton allegedly edited himself, was published at 1 a.m. Aug. 2, 2020, and said foreclosure proceedings posed a public health threat despite the state's "open for business" mantra throughout the pandemic, managers said.


The next day, managers alleged, Paul cited the opinion to successfully delay the foreclosures.

"It is hard to imagine a more blatant abuse of Paxton's office," House managers wrote.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?


Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?


Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........

My question concerned whether the senators would do their duty regardless of the politics. The politics may cut both ways. Would they consider that the politics of acquitting a crook might come back to bite them? Or would they acquit the crook because they are afraid of a loud minority (and an oil man near Cisco)?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Woman in alleged affair, aide, whistleblowers may testify at Ken Paxton impeachment trial
Senate trial rules require the witness lists to remain private, but several likely candidates have emerged.
AUSTIN The names of witnesses for Ken Paxton's impeachment trial must be submitted to the Texas Senate by Tuesday, but the public won't know who they are until they're called to testify.
Such witness lists are not public, according to trial rules drawn up by the senators. However, former agency staffers, a woman alleged to have had an affair with Paxton and a recently indicted campaign donor are among several likely candidates as all were named in recent legal filings submitted by Paxton's defense team and the lawyers who will present the case against the attorney general.
The Dallas Morning News has identified 13 people who may testify in Paxton's upcoming trial that begins Sept. 5. These individuals are named in the articles of impeachment, evidence filed by House impeachment lawyers and other documents as potential key witnesses.

The Texas House voted overwhelmingly to approve 20 articles of impeachment against the attorney general in May. Most of the articles accuse Paxton, a Republican who was re-elected to a third term in November, of misusing his power to help a campaign donor.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/22/who-will-testify-in-texas-ag-ken-paxtons-impeachment-trial/
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:




incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?


Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........

My question concerned whether the senators would do their duty regardless of the politics. The politics may cut both ways. Would they consider that the politics of acquitting a crook might come back to bite them? Or would they acquit the crook because they are afraid of a loud minority (and an oil man near Cisco)?
You have a strange notion of duty. You would remove from office a man very recently elected by the voters who were well aware of the allegations against him. You would do that knowing that law enforcement was investigating him, and that he would ultimately have his day in court. You presume to determine his guilt before the jury ever deliberated. You would do this ostensibly in the name of statesmanship when it fact it was nothing but an effort to assuage your own aversion to people you find unacceptably conservative.

Again, there is no dilemma for any elected official if those elected officials simply respected the legal processes underway, let them play out until their conclusion before starting an impeachment process.

But nope. We got RINOS who would rather fight against their own, just to gain some misguided notion of moral high ground. That's not statesmanship. That's virtue posture. That's not good politics. It's purposely acquiring enemies amongst your own who will never cease finding a way to pay you back, in order to gain goodwill with enemies who will never do anything to help you.

Dumbassery at it finest.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:




incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?


Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........

My question concerned whether the senators would do their duty regardless of the politics. The politics may cut both ways. Would they consider that the politics of acquitting a crook might come back to bite them? Or would they acquit the crook because they are afraid of a loud minority (and an oil man near Cisco)?
You have a strange notion of duty. You would remove from office a man very recently elected by the voters who were well aware of the allegations against him. You would do that knowing that law enforcement was investigating him, and that he would ultimately have his day in court. You presume to determine his guilt before the jury ever deliberated. You would do this ostensibly in the name of statesmanship when it fact it was nothing but an effort to assuage your own aversion to people you find unacceptably conservative.

Again, there is no dilemma for any elected official if those elected officials simply respected the legal processes underway, let them play out until their conclusion before starting an impeachment process.
Your sense of duty - if it is a Republican don't impeach or convict no matter what he does.

You are a professional Republican and a Paxton devotee. Your "duty" is to preserve and defend Republicans. Thankfully, yours is a minority opinion
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You seem to be a gallows salesman.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:




incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?


Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........

My question concerned whether the senators would do their duty regardless of the politics. The politics may cut both ways. Would they consider that the politics of acquitting a crook might come back to bite them? Or would they acquit the crook because they are afraid of a loud minority (and an oil man near Cisco)?
You have a strange notion of duty. You would remove from office a man very recently elected by the voters who were well aware of the allegations against him. You would do that knowing that law enforcement was investigating him, and that he would ultimately have his day in court. You presume to determine his guilt before the jury ever deliberated. You would do this ostensibly in the name of statesmanship when it fact it was nothing but an effort to assuage your own aversion to people you find unacceptably conservative.

Again, there is no dilemma for any elected official if those elected officials simply respected the legal processes underway, let them play out until their conclusion before starting an impeachment process.

But nope. We got RINOS who would rather fight against their own, just to gain some misguided notion of moral high ground. That's not statesmanship. That's virtue posture. That's not good politics. It's purposely acquiring enemies amongst your own who will never cease finding a way to pay you back, in order to gain goodwill with enemies who will never do anything to help you.

Dumbassery at it finest.
My question concerned whether the senators would do their duty regardless of the politics. Shouldn't they ignore the politics and come to a just decision? That may mean acquittal. But let the decision be regardless of political exigencies
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


Ken Paxton and the Texas Constitution
Shame on those Republicans working to delegitimize the impeachment process.

Republicans once believed in the rule of law. My party had confidence in the U.S. and Texas constitutions and the processes and freedoms they recognize and protect. That's why it's shocking to see some Republicansthrough a coordinated effort of texts, emails and social-media postsworking to delegitimize the impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Ken Paxton. It points to an important question: Do we trust the processes outlined in our Texas Constitution or not?
As a sitting governor who was once wrongly indicted, I know that processes can be abused. But that isn't what I see here. The majority of House Republicans voted to impeach Mr. Paxton, as is authorized in the Texas Constitution. Those members saw allegations of wrongdoing against a fellow Republican and felt the charges deserved a full investigation and trial. They followed their oath to uphold the Constitution, and that alone warrants careful consideration by the Senate. We should be praising, not vilifying, them for taking their responsibilities seriously.
The Texas Senate is constitutionally authorized to act as a jury in the coming trial. Only the Senate can give these allegations the full and fair hearing they deserve, and it would be a disservice to the state not to fulfill that obligation. By moving forward with the trial, the Senate will both do its duty and answer voters' legitimate questions about the allegations against Mr. Paxton.
I've spent my adult life working at almost every level of public service, and it continues to hold true that you're only as good as the people around you. By all accounts, the people around Mr. Paxton were outstanding and principled conservatives who felt duty-bound to report what they witnessed, after they had advised the attorney general that his actions were illegal or unethical. They stood for the rule of law.
These were Mr. Paxton's own handpicked inner circle. I can tell you firsthand those staffing decisions aren't made lightly. Throughout my time in office, I hired and worked directly with dozens of men and women who served on my senior staff. These were my political hires, people I trusted to stand by me in the trenches. While we may not have agreed on everything, they always gave me their earnest, well-founded counsel.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ken-paxton-and-the-texas-constitution-ag-rule-of-law-impeachment-4da7792c?mod=opinion_lead_pos10


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:




incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?


Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........

My question concerned whether the senators would do their duty regardless of the politics. The politics may cut both ways. Would they consider that the politics of acquitting a crook might come back to bite them? Or would they acquit the crook because they are afraid of a loud minority (and an oil man near Cisco)?
You have a strange notion of duty. You would remove from office a man very recently elected by the voters who were well aware of the allegations against him. You would do that knowing that law enforcement was investigating him, and that he would ultimately have his day in court. You presume to determine his guilt before the jury ever deliberated. You would do this ostensibly in the name of statesmanship when it fact it was nothing but an effort to assuage your own aversion to people you find unacceptably conservative.

Again, there is no dilemma for any elected official if those elected officials simply respected the legal processes underway, let them play out until their conclusion before starting an impeachment process.
Your sense of duty - if it is a Republican don't impeach or convict no matter what he does.

You are a professional Republican and a Paxton devotee. Your "duty" is to preserve and defend Republicans. Thankfully, yours is a minority opinion
not within the GOP, it's not. And, if the last election is any guide, not a majority opinion within general election voters.

The impeachment was arrogance personified and is extremely bad politics for everyone except Democrats. It harms your agenda as well as mine.

Remember: In Texas, the minority caucus determines who will be the speaker of the majority party. The moderates of the majority party always ally with the minority party to stifle the voice of the right/left. In the past, the Dem speaker was always a centrist. And in the modern age of GOP control over the Tx house, the GOP speaker has always been one of them more liberal Republicans in the caucus.

Phelan HAD to impeach Paxton to hold onto his Democrat voting block. They demanded it, because there's little chance any of the investigations going on against Paxton were going to end up getting him convicted of anything, at least not in time to stop him from finishing out his term.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Anyone that votes against Ken Paxton in this impeachment is risking their entire political career and we will make sure that is the case,"

Now overt threats against Republican senators who vote to convict Paxton. The Paxton PAC has identified 6 ethically weak senators for defeat if they vote wrong.

Paxton PAC is lobbying some senate jurors. Let's see who they are targeting: urged viewers to apply pressure to six GOP senators: Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, Bryan Hughes of Mineola, Charles Schwertner of Georgetown, Charles Perry of Lubbock, Drew Springer of Muenster and Mayes Middleton of Galveston.
Note the overt threat: "Anyone that votes against Ken Paxton in this impeachment is risking their entire political career and we will make sure that is the case,"
PRESSURE MOUNTS ON TEXAS SENATORS AHEAD OF KEN PAXTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
SENATORS WHO WILL ACT AS JURORS IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE BEING LOBBIED AND TARGETED BY POLITICAL GROUPS.
Political pressure is intensifying around Republican state senators who will serve as the jurors in the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

"Anyone that votes against Ken Paxton in this impeachment is risking their entire political career and we will make sure that is the case,"

Now overt threats against Republican senators who vote to convict Paxton. The Paxton PAC has identified 6 ethically weak senators for defeat if they vote wrong.

Paxton PAC is lobbying some senate jurors. Let's see who they are targeting: urged viewers to apply pressure to six GOP senators: Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, Bryan Hughes of Mineola, Charles Schwertner of Georgetown, Charles Perry of Lubbock, Drew Springer of Muenster and Mayes Middleton of Galveston.
Note the overt threat: "Anyone that votes against Ken Paxton in this impeachment is risking their entire political career and we will make sure that is the case,"
PRESSURE MOUNTS ON TEXAS SENATORS AHEAD OF KEN PAXTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
SENATORS WHO WILL ACT AS JURORS IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE BEING LOBBIED AND TARGETED BY POLITICAL GROUPS.
Political pressure is intensifying around Republican state senators who will serve as the jurors in the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Entirely appropriate. As will be a primary challenge against Phelan. He will of course likely survive it, but he'll have to spend the money to do so.

boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Impeach his crooked ass. If he resigns he'll slither back again.
Astros in Home Stretch Geaux Texans
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:


LOL and there are some who think this impeachment is going to burnish the image of the GOP.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

More new evidence disclosed. DMN

New Paxton impeachment files detail interventions, secret trips, donor's 'shell' companies
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
AUSTIN Shell companies. Secret Uber trips. Payments to a man previously convicted of fraud.
Thousands of pages of documents released late Thursday purport to reveal the depth of the relationship between Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, the real estate developer at the center of the attorney general's impeachment case.
The slew of exhibits, filed by lawyers leading the impeachment case against Paxton, include interview transcripts, texts and emails, lawsuit filings and financial statements. The three volumes total almost 4,000 pages.
The documents provide new details of Paul and Paxton's ties, include legal filings alleging many of Paul's businesses were "shell" companies and reveal more insight into accusations that Paxton tried to conceal visits to a woman with whom he allegedly had an affair. The evidence goes to the heart of the impeachment allegations against the attorney general: that Paxton used his power to help Paul thwart a federal investigation into his business, which had been raided by the FBI in 2019, and that Paul bribed Paxton by funding a home remodel and giving a job to the woman.
The attorney general was impeached in May based on these allegations and faces a trial in the Texas Senate, beginning Sept. 5, to determine whether he is removed from office.
In one of the most consequential newly-released documents, Paxton's second-in-command at the time wrote that he repeatedly told the attorney general that Paul was using the agency as a "smokescreen" to divert from his own legal troubles. Paxton rebuffed the concerns, according to the memo, expressing camaraderie with Paul because they had both been the targets of law enforcement probes.
Paxton faces criminal securities fraud charges that have been pending for years.
Paxton "talked about his personal case, and told me I don't understand what it feels like to be the target of a 'corrupt investigation,'" then-First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer wrote in a memo dated Sept. 30, 2020.
"I believe that Paul is seeking to use the name and authority of this agency to manipulate our office into conducting a criminal investigation of federal prosecutors and possible law enforcement agents without any supporting evidence, solely for his personal benefit," Mateer added.
Newly-public text messages in the document dump show Paxton sent around $121,000 from his blind trust to a building company linked to an associate of Paul's who'd spent time in prison for fraud. The transfer was made at the same time that Mateer and other top deputies reported Paxton to the FBI for alleged bribery and abuse of office.
The filings further detail Paxton's alleged affair with a woman named Laura Olson and her employment with Paul's company. Olson was to earn $65,000 annually working for Paul, according to contract documents in the filings.
And never-before-seen documents released by ridesharing company Uber appear to show Paul created an alias account for Paxton under the name "Dave P." The impeachment lawyers say Paxton used this account to visit a woman with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair.
Paxton has denied any wrongdoing. In their own tranche of recent filings, Paxton's defense team have argued the impeachment articles against their client should be thrown out and said any evidence detailing behavior before this year should not be considered. They also denied that Paxton ever solicited or received a bribe, and argued the impeachment lawyers have not proved that he did.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/08/18/impeached-texas-ag-ken-paxton-uber-records-affair-in-thousands-of-pages-of-new-exhibits/



incredibly weak case for impeachment, if that's all the article can share.




What is the standard for conviction?
usually a majority of 12 of your peers say Guilty, that leads to a conviction
Isn't the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous

I don't think there is a standard in impeachment trials
beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective..

Unanimous vote is a good standard

I doubt that is required in impeachment, probably a super majority or maybe just a simple majority.

Impeachment is not conviction

House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted

The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.

Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?


Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........



If, and only if, the allegations are true then his conduct in office is despicable.

If not impeachment then what sanction would you impose? (Aside from "let the voters decide" which is fair.)
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.