Texas Senate rejects all motions to dismiss Ken Paxton impeachment charges

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 390 points –
Texas Senate rejects all motions to dismiss Ken Paxton impeachment charges
texastribune.org

The Texas Senate on Tuesday rejected all of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s efforts to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him, moving forward with the first removal proceeding against a statewide elected official in more than a century.

The pretrial motions required a majority vote. The most support a motion to dismiss received was 10 out of 30 senators.

36

You are viewing a single comment

Havent been following this, Im sure the article will clear up what the impeachment's about

The House impeached Paxton in May, alleging a yearslong pattern of lawbreaking and misconduct.

thank you Texas Tribune for clearing that up.

The Texas Tribune has written dozens of fantastic articles on this topic. Many of which were linked in this very article. I'm curious how you missed all of them. Here's a good one:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/18/ken-paxton-impeachment-evidence/

forgive me for not reading every linked article on a site

As we say in Texas you're all hat and no cattle good sir. Bless your heart.

Hope this clears it up.

Why was Paxton impeached?

At the center of Paxton's impeachment is his relationship with a wealthy donor that prompted the attorney general's top deputies to revolt.

In 2020, the group reported their boss to the FBI, saying Paxton broke the law to help Austin real estate developer Nate Paul fight a separate federal investigation. Paul allegedly reciprocated, including by employing a woman with whom Paxton had an extramarital affair.

Paul was indicted in June on federal criminal charges that he made false statements to banks to get more than $170 million in loans. He pleaded not guilty.

Paul gave Paxton a $25,000 campaign donation in 2018 and the men bonded over a shared feeling that they were the targets of corrupt law enforcement, according to a memo by one of the staffers who went to the FBI. Paxton was indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015 but is yet to stand trial.

The eight deputies who reported Paxton — largely staunch conservatives whom he handpicked for their jobs — went to law enforcement after he ignored their warnings to not hire an outside lawyer to investigate Paul’s allegations of wrongdoing by the FBI. All eight were subsequently fired or quit and four of them sued under the state whistleblower act.

Paxton is also accused of pressuring his staff to intervene in other of Paul's legal troubles, including litigation with an Austin-based nonprofit group and property foreclosure sales.

What did Paxton get in return?

In return, the impeachment prosecutors say Paul bankrolled renovations to one of Paxton's homes and facilitated his affair.

Paxton privately acknowledged the affair with a state Senate aide in 2018 and told a small group of staff that it was over. But the impeachment prosecutors say Paxton carried on with the woman, who Paul hired in Austin so she could be closer to the attorney general. The developer also allegedly set up an Uber account under a pseudonym that Paxton used to discreetly see the woman.

After Paxton's staff revolted, the attorney general rushed to cover up that Paul had paid for costly renovations to his million-dollar Austin home, according to the prosecutors. Paxton's lawyers released documents showing he paid a company tied to Paul hours after his deputies went to the FBI.

The problem isn't that they are being too general. The problem is that they are, among other things, a print magazine. Listing every incident in which Paxton has violated the law would fill a year of issues without leaving room for so much as a contents page.

they could summarize beyond "lawbreaking and misconduct". Or could have saved some space by not saying anything instead, instead of using these words to say nothing.

From what I now they've not been very informative on what the issue is.

You don't "now" much then.

Dude typos happen on mobile.

I'm more forgiving of typos when they don't pair with blatantly, absurdly, false statements.

No comma between absurdly and false. Not downvoting you, just helping you avoid typos!

"absurdly" is being used as an appositive there, and so a comma is necessary.

  1. An appositive that is not necessary for sufficient identification (a nonrestrictive appositive) is set off by a comma or commas.

http://www.german-latin-english.com/grammarappositives.htm#:~:text=Most%20appositives%20are%20nouns%20in,which%20they%20are%20in%20apposition.

Only mentioning anything because it's that kind of comment section, and my English Teaching degree needs to be useful somewhere.

Aren't you a nice person.

It's just like I'm on Reddit!

? The other guy went off twice. Three times if you include other people.

1 more...