this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
376 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18672 readers
2693 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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/

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

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.