Ken Paxton is dirty? NO FUCKING WAY!

[TexasEd 8267]

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I think it’s just as likely this is all because Paxton did not support school vouchers. 

[kevwun 16444]

Nah, more House members will vote for his removal than did for vouchers.  Abbott can throw all the fits about vouchers that he wants, but he's never going to have the votes for it.

Edited May 26, 2023 by kevwun

[Chooky 13341]

Look at Goeb. Look at the state of him. 

[TexasEd 8267]

20 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

Her husband has openly cheated on her. Literally one of the charges he is being impeached on is having a donor hire his mistress. 

Lol cheat on your wife and she has a vote on getting you fired from the job keeping you out of jail. 

Great FAFO move. 

[TwiceHorn 32094]

9 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

Abbott probably has a pair, but they’re for decorative purposes only.

Neuticals, I believe they are called.

 

Correction, neuticles. www.neuticles.com

[TwiceHorn 32094]

52 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

From my years of posting here, I probably know more than the average non-Texan about this cockeyed cockwomble.

But this thread really reminded me that Paxton is a straight up thug.
 

 

And check out the size of the stack of documents seen being carried during one of the hearings!



That’s a lot of shenanigans!

 

As a lawdog that lives and dies on heaps of paper, that are now almost entirely pdfs (or .docx, thanks USPTO!), that heap of dead trees makes me cringe.

[atomheartbevo 90665]

33 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

And isn’t Paxton’s wife in the state senate? The gop state senators will take that into consideration. Vote her husband out and don’t ever expect her cooperation with you again.

Like was said, they have a handle on the numbers and wouldn’t do this if they didn’t have enough votes. Her vote won’t matter if all the Dems plus a bunch of Republicans support it. I thought he even cheated on her with one of her staff members, but that maybe somebody else. Still, one of the impeachment articles is about his mistress.

4 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I think it’s just as likely this is all because Paxton did not support school vouchers. 

This has been building. You’d think after the securities fraud that Paxton would have been careful, but he was reckless as hell.

I think @DalTxHornFan is right, there is another shoe that’s about to drop.

[Pescado_Rojo 19592]

6 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

OK, but my Spidey sense is that there may be another shoe about to drop.  The R's may be trying to get out ahead of it.  No special knowledge other than age informed by experience.

I'm wondering if he was laundering other R politician's money through Paul's group and all that shit is about to drop? 

[Chooky 13341]

Hey everyone. Look at Texas. There's a spat between our criminally indicted Attorney General and our drunk speaker of the house. Grab a seat and stare into our unflushed toilet. Hee haw!

Edited May 26, 2023 by Chooky

[atomheartbevo 90665]

1 minute ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I'm wondering if he was laundering other R politician's money through Paul's group and all that shit is about to drop? 

Whatever it is, they are trying to get ahead of it and be in control.  Reading around this morning, they have really been lining this thing up for quite some time, possibly even last year before this session started. Paxton really was blindsided.

 If Paxton didn’t know, I’m guessing they had help from the feds. I’m gonna laugh if people were wearing wires around Paxton.

[YGIFS 19458]

This playbook was absolutely already written up months ago, even years ago.  There are 3 head-scratchers:

1.  Why didn't they drop this other shoe before the primaries and let George P. win?  He would have worked amicably with Abbott and others and been a solid, non-embarrassing AG.  

2.  What kind of dead-man's switch does Paxton have in place to detonate on the way outta office? 

3.  I'm 90% sure no other elected officials were involved with Paxton and Nate Paul (other than just some customary, legit donations under the maximums via regular donation channels).  But how will Paxton balance a deal that keeps him in office or keeps him relevant enough that he cannot be punished for his laundering efforts?  This will be a high-wire tightrope act on an E4 guitar string.  

[SydneyCarton 49520]

13 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I'm wondering if he was laundering other R politician's money through Paul's group and all that shit is about to drop? 

Pretty sure they would make them less likely to impeach him?

[SydneyCarton 49520]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

This playbook was absolutely already written up months ago, even years ago.  There are 3 head-scratchers:

1.  Why didn't they drop this other shoe before the primaries and let George P. win?  He would have worked amicably with Abbott and others and been a solid, non-embarrassing AG.  

2.  What kind of dead-man's switch does Paxton have in place to detonate on the way outta office? 

3.  I'm 90% sure no other elected officials were involved with Paxton and Nate Paul (other than just some customary, legit donations under the maximums via regular donation channels).  But how will Paxton balance a deal that keeps him in office or keeps him relevant enough that he cannot be punished for his laundering efforts?  This will be a high-wire tightrope act on an E4 guitar string.  

Oh hey there:

 

paxton is his own different level of POS, but let’s not pretend that that bootlicking dipshit isn’t still an embarrassment. 

 

[SydneyCarton 49520]

15 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

I lean hard R, but I've never been a fan of Paxton.  Just way too much stink on him.  And there is no amount of money that would be worth advocating on behalf of Nate Paul.  I'm not saying that Nate Paul is tied up with the Mexican drug syndicates or anything like that.

 

15 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

I didn't support him in the primary, but I also wasn't going to vote for some flunky former ACLU staffer in the general election.

Ah, yes. The “I don’t like this guy, but voting for a a literal criminal into a position of power is better than voting for someone who fights for civil liberties. Because fuck democrats and people who focus their entire lives and careers around fighting for the liberties of others.”

And the irony that you probably claim you’re all about being a Patriot and Liberty. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19592]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Pretty sure they would make them less likely to impeach him?

"He WHAT?? I went to him for investment advice, but I had no idea what he was doing was illegal! As soon as we found out we impeached him and called you guys" 

[Chooky 13341]

It still amazes me. George Pee Bush's claim of validation is when Trump complimented him at the insulting expense of his entire family. He even made a koozie depicting the entire exchange, as we know. And these are the people who use the word "cuck" and "snowflake." Standing silent and idle while Trump insults your family has become somewhat of a GOP rite of passage. Trump's endorsement comes in the form of disparaging your father or your wife. And they line up for it.

"Mr. President, we'd be really appreciative if you could find the time to call my father a useless piece of shit. Thank you in advance." These people are fascinating. 

[TexasEd 8267]

45 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Whatever it is, they are trying to get ahead of it and be in control.  Reading around this morning, they have really been lining this thing up for quite some time, possibly even last year before this session started. Paxton really was blindsided.

 If Paxton didn’t know, I’m guessing they had help from the feds. I’m gonna laugh if people were wearing wires around Paxton.

I see what you did there.

[YGIFS 19458]

24 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

"He WHAT?? I went to him for investment advice, but I had no idea what he was doing was illegal! As soon as we found out we impeached him and called you guys" 

A former CRE analyst of mine used to work for Nate & WCC many years ago.  When I started getting wind, very quietly, about Nate and Ken, I asked him about his time there.  He was there briefly and never really talked about it.  I had known about Nate adjacently for years but never gave him much thought.  But then some investors from Mexico who are prominently involved in Texas CRE started talking about Nate, I listened.  They have also done business with the Trump Organization, so then I really listened. 

So my analyst says one day he's combing over a deal that Nate needs underwriting/due diligence on.  This guy is solid, competent, not the brightest bulb-but he's got a moral compass to him.  So he tells me he's going over the spreadsheets and rewriting some stuff before it goes out to investors in a PPM.  But he doesn't feel good about it.  So he shares his concerns with some co-workers.  They all tell him basically, "This is a test.  Nate puts IRR projections and other stuff in there to see if we'll catch it.  It's about loyalty.  So take it to him and he'll correct it and you'll get rewarded."  So my guy takes it to Nate, and like a true confidence man, Nate thanks him and basically asks for his loyalty going forward if he can help fix this one deal.  My guy knew straight away something was rotten in Denmark.  It was very much a "if you go along with this deal, I'll have many more deals for you going forward.  I just need you to help with this one thing and I'll be your best friend."  He resigned the following week.  Months later in real time chronology, I started learning of Nate's shit.  Years later, Trump and Ken Paxton and other confidence men. 

In this day and age, it should be easier to sniff out bullshit with accessible data.  But the song remains the same.  People like Ken, and Trump, and Nate---they still have the gift.  The game is not for me to gain your confidence.  I arrange it so that you feel compelled to try to earn mine.  A game as old as time.  With one exception, you steal money from Mexico---they wait in the tall grass until you're out of office and then they go to work on you.  I wonder what about Ken and Nate's conversations with these people led them to believe they were just goofing around?  

[StassneyHorn 6788]

On a personal note, it’s hilarious that Nate is from Victoria.  This fuckin town

[Bullneck 19548]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

His Surly handle is briskettexan.  

Legit LOL

[C-Man 27806]

Now that it appears this MF'er is going to get impeached and removed from office at the very least, I want him sent to fucking prison or perhaps even worse.

Somebody get me up to speed on protocol -- it just needs to a simple majority in the House to impeach and then the Senate votes to remove him from office if they get to 2/3 of the vote? Is that correct? How would the vacant AG position be filled -- Abbott gets to pick the replacement?

[cactusflinthead 27628]

2/3 both chambers 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by cactusflinthead

[Foosters 18286]

Quote

Since 2017, (The ACLU) has supported the constitutional rights of the NRA, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity Foundation, anti-Semitic protesters, Trump supporters, Trump himself, Republican challengers to a Democratic gerrymander, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, and conservative and anti-gay student groups, to name but a few. We have filed multiple Supreme Court briefs with the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, and the Institute for Justice.

The ACLU is not supposed to be political. Yes, I'm sure the individual attorneys within the org vote blue by a pretty good margin, but they'll take up any case.

Up to you to figure out why the majority of the cases they take involve pushing back against the party that bills itself as the one for individual freedom and liberty.

[YGIFS 19458]

They won't get 2/3rds in the Senate.  

That's where Mexico joins the call.  

[kevwun 16444]

I thought it was majority in the House and 2/3 in the Senate.  He gets suspended as soon as the House votes to impeach though.

[Bullneck 19548]

 

The replies are mindblowing.

 

 

 

[C-Man 27806]

9 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

2/3 both chambers 

 

 

Is AP wrong in this story: https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-paxton-impeachment-1eaccf00ce80d26c4fc94eab1672e1bd

Quote

Impeachment requires a majority vote of the state’s usually 150-member House chamber, which Republicans now control 85-64, since a GOP representative resigned ahead of an expected vote to expel him.

 

[Huckleberry 34720]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

The ACLU is not supposed to be political. Yes, I'm sure the individual attorneys within the org vote blue by a pretty good margin, but they'll take up any case.

Up to you to figure out why the majority of the cases they take involve pushing back against the party that bills itself as the one for individual freedom and liberty.

People who are anti-ACLU reveal themselves as ignorant at best. In today's world for an educated person not to know what they do requires almost willful ignorance but it's possible.

If they actually know what the ACLU does and are still against them then they're quite literally fascists. 

[SydneyCarton 49520]

17 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

People who are anti-ACLU reveal themselves as ignorant at best. In today's world for an educated person not to know what they do requires almost willful ignorance but it's possible.

If they actually know what the ACLU does and are still against them then they're quite literally fascists. 

He can be both a literal fascist and ignorant, sir. 

[cactusflinthead 27628]

27 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I thought it was majority in the House and 2/3 in the Senate.  He gets suspended as soon as the House votes to impeach though.

 

26 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Is AP wrong in this story: https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-paxton-impeachment-1eaccf00ce80d26c4fc94eab1672e1bd

 

I'd like a clarification.

Looking at this

Sec. 3. IMPARTIAL TRIAL BY SENATE; CONCURRENCE OF TWO-THIRDS REQUIRED. When the Senate is sitting as a Court of Impeachment, the Senators shall be on oath, or affirmation impartially to try the party impeached, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present.

(Feb. 15, 1876.)

And this

Sec. 665.054. REMOVAL VOTE. (a) The governor shall remove from office a person on the address of two-thirds of each house of the legislature.

(b) The vote of each member shall be recorded in the journal of each house.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.

That's the only spot I can find in either that states what it has to get in the House. 

This appears to be what Ken is going with on at least some of it.

SUBCHAPTER D. OTHER REMOVAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec. 665.081. NO REMOVAL FOR ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE ELECTION TO OFFICE. (a) An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer's election to office.

(b) The prohibition against the removal from office for an act the officer commits before the officer's election is covered by:

(1) Section 21.002, Local Government Code, for a mayor or alderman of a general law municipality; or

(2) Chapter 87, Local Government Code, for a county or precinct officer.

[hobbes2702 13498]

45 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

People who are anti-ACLU reveal themselves as ignorant at best. In today's world for an educated person not to know what they do requires almost willful ignorance but it's possible.

If they actually know what the ACLU does and are still against them then they're quite literally fascists. 

He readily admits to voting for Paxton so fascism seems like his thing.

[Nivek 17420]

So instead of declaring innocence we are just going with "yeah, but it's also illegal to toss me out for the crimes I committed" defense?   Your Republican Party.

[The Dog 44862]

Interesting thread on "why did this take so long?"

 

[texasdago 7772]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

He rocks.  For our non-Texas members that are unfamiliar with Mr. David Komie Esq. this is the badass @hookemATL is referring to.

 

Yeah, but I wonder if we would be best served with an AG who's on top of it.

[Beau Vine 55875]

12 hours ago, UTCzech III said:

his friends call him Kenny, but he got no friends

 

Oh, stop. You gonna make me bust out cryin'.

[Beau Vine 55875]

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

 Brisket’s billboard says “the attorney that crop dusts opposing counsel during cross”

You seriously think Brisket could limit his billboard slogan to only nine words?

[Gengs1 2583]

Article with great timeline wtc

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/25/texas-impeachment-attorney-general-ken-paxton/

 

nothing will happen, will be prayed for, he will learn his lessons and file a

suit against someone who got an abortion or sex change and all forgotten 

[NAVY 6970]

Just wow. 
 

 

[Beau Vine 55875]

2 hours ago, Chooky said:

Hey everyone. Look at Texas. There's a spat between our criminally indicted Attorney General and our drunk speaker of the house. Grab a seat and stare into our unflushed toilet. Hee haw!

[Beau Vine 55875]

 

35 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Interesting thread on "why did this take so long?"

 

What is this?

Does this guy actually think that "being complicit in a coverup that the Feds are now investigating" would dissuade a group of Republicans?  Shit, they've got training videos and a list of best practices for exactly that sort of thing at the national GOP headquarters.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Beau Vine

[Foosters 18286]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

What is this?

Does this guy actually think that "being complicit in a coverup that the Feds are now investigating" would dissuade a group of Republicans?  Shit, they've got training videos and a list of best practices for exactly that sort of thing at the national GOP headquarters.

Aren't the two leading GOP candidates for president promising to defund the FBI? 

[Beau Vine 55875]

 

[chainsaw 10305]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13741]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

SUBCHAPTER D. OTHER REMOVAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec. 665.081. NO REMOVAL FOR ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE ELECTION TO OFFICE. (a) An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer's election to office.

(b) The prohibition against the removal from office for an act the officer commits before the officer's election is covered by:

(1) Section 21.002, Local Government Code, for a mayor or alderman of a general law municipality; or

(2) Chapter 87, Local Government Code, for a county or precinct officer.

What exactly would "before election to office" mean? Does that date get reset at each election for a politician, or is the date set from when they originally were elected without a break?

I can understand the spirit that the legislature wants to respect the will of the people BUT that logic incorrect assumes that the public has the full information regarding the acts leading to impeachment/removal. If interpreted in the way that Paxton wants, an elected official could quietly do horrendous acts just before an election, and then openly brag about those acts the day after the election. That's not the spirit of this law.

[YGIFS 19458]

I think of that Cormac McCarthy novel passage.  “It’s not a question of whether you’re going out, Counselor.  Now it’s just a matter of who you’re taking out with you.”  
 

as coincidence would have it, the Counselor in the story, and his betrothed, were taken out by some rather questionable folks from down South.  

[Chooky 13341]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

People who are anti-ACLU reveal themselves as ignorant at best. In today's world for an educated person not to know what they do requires almost willful ignorance but it's possible.

If they actually know what the ACLU does and are still against them then they're quite literally fascists. 

I prefer a crushing, systematic hammer where there's no recourse or path from discrimination or wrongdoing. I prefer that for you. And them. But if that sword ever falls on my neck, me, I'm gonna need some goddamn options and pronto. That's my preference. That's a good system. The fuck you system. But if that system fucks me, then it's time to consider a brief system that fucks you. Never fuck me, basically. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Chooky

[Beau Vine 55875]

47 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What exactly would "before election to office" mean? Does that date get reset at each election for a politician, or is the date set from when they originally were elected without a break?

I can understand the spirit that the legislature wants to respect the will of the people BUT that logic incorrect assumes that the public has the full information regarding the acts leading to impeachment/removal. If interpreted in the way that Paxton wants, an elected official could quietly do horrendous acts just before an election, and then openly brag about those acts the day after the election. That's not the spirit of this law.

Considering that the acts he's being impeached for occurred while he was acting as AG, presumably in the official duties of the AG, it seems it would be hard to argue that they occurred "before election to office."

Seems like you could make the "before election to office" claim if he were being impeached over the securities fraud stuff.

 

But IANAL. 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

On 5/24/2023 at 7:44 PM, HenryJames said:

 

 

Some body remind me, is it white smoke means they've selected a new AD?

 

 

[Beau Vine 55875]

Isn't it ironic that a guy who built a career screaming about left-wing radicals is going down...

And he got taken down by an angry mob from the right, which he never saw coming.

[YGIFS 19458]

I mean a literal dumpster fire as our state undergoes a metaphorical dumpster fire.  All leading up to Sine Die and a dumpster of a special session.  
 

well I don’t believe in the simulation agent Kujan.   But I fear it.