Changes

The '''Paxton Impeachment''' is the ongoing current [[impeachment and removal|impeachment and proposed removal]] of [[conservative]] [[Texas]] Attorney General [[Ken Paxton]] from office.

The '''Paxton Impeachment''' is the ongoing current [[impeachment and removal|impeachment and proposed removal]] of [[conservative]] [[Texas]] Attorney General [[Ken Paxton]] from office.

The impeachment of Paxton has resulted in a split between [[conservative]] Republicans and others who are dependent on the [[Texas oligarchy]].  Both sides recognize that Paxton's actions and lawsuits against [[Biden Administration]] officials and Federal agencies, claiming overreach into state matters, have had a fair level of success in the courts, and are beneficial to overarching Republican goals of keeping the state politically conservative and desirable as a relocation destination for businesses and individuals (and, as a side benefit, maintaining Republican control over state politics, which the Republicans have managed to accomplish for nearly two decades).  Both sides also recognize that he has had long-standing legal and other issues involving very serious matters:

The impeachment of Paxton has resulted in a split between Republicans.  Both sides in the Republican party recognize that Paxton's actions and lawsuits against [[Biden Administration]] officials and Federal agencies, claiming overreach into state matters, have had a fair level of success in the courts, and are beneficial to overarching Republican goals of keeping the state politically conservative and desirable as a relocation destination for businesses and individuals (and, as a side benefit, maintaining Republican control over state politics, which the Republicans have managed to accomplish for nearly two decades).  Both sides also recognize, though, that Paxton has had long-standing legal and other issues involving very serious matters, including the following which made up most of the related articles of impeachment:

*alleged securities fraud (the subject of a trial which has been ongoing for almost his entire tenure as AG, and remains in the pre-trial motion phase),

*alleged securities fraud (the subject of a trial which has been ongoing for almost his entire tenure as AG, and remains in the pre-trial motion phase),

*alleged purchase of political influence by a donor,

*alleged purchase of political influence by a donor,

*One side believes that notwithstanding Paxton's efforts and success against Federal overreach, his outside issues are a '''''distraction''''' to overarching Republican goals.  Though realizing that Democrats might not discipline one of their own for similar conduct, this side believes it needs to take "the high road" (especially given that Evangelical Christians who hold to Judeo-Christian moral values -- at least in theory -- are a major part of its voter base, as opposed to secular and amoral -- if not immoral -- members of the Democrat voter base) and show its base (along with independent voters it wants to court at the next election) that they are willing to take action against one of their own, regardless of that person's effectiveness or success in maintaining conservative Texas values, for actions which are improper -- if not illegal.  This side points out that, earlier in May 2023, the entire Republican membership of the House voted (with no abstentions or absences) to expel [[Bryan Slaton]] for his actions involving inappropriate conduct by providing alcohol to an under-age intern<ref>The intern was 19 at the time.  Under Texas law, a person under age 21 can only be provided alcohol by his/her parents or spouse.</ref>, then having sexual relations with her, and then attempting to cover up the matter, in what was a one-time incident, while Paxton's actions are long-standing, on-going, and have far more serious repercussions.

*One side believes that notwithstanding Paxton's efforts and success against Federal overreach, his outside issues are a '''''distraction''''' to overarching Republican goals.  Though realizing that Democrats might not discipline one of their own for similar conduct, this side believes it needs to take "the high road" (especially given that Evangelical Christians who hold to Judeo-Christian moral values -- at least in theory -- are a major part of its voter base, as opposed to secular and amoral -- if not immoral -- members of the Democrat voter base) and show its base (along with independent voters it wants to court at the next election) that they are willing to take action against one of their own, regardless of that person's effectiveness or success in maintaining conservative Texas values, for actions which are improper -- if not illegal.  This side points out that, earlier in May 2023, the entire Republican membership of the House voted (with no abstentions or absences) to expel [[Bryan Slaton]] for his actions involving inappropriate conduct by providing alcohol to an under-age intern<ref>The intern was 19 at the time.  Under Texas law, a person under age 21 can only be provided alcohol by his/her parents or spouse.</ref>, then having sexual relations with her, and then attempting to cover up the matter, in what was a one-time incident, while Paxton's actions are long-standing, on-going, and have far more serious repercussions.

*The other side believes that the actions were taken '''''because of''''', and hopefully to '''''stop''''', Paxton's efforts and success against Federal overreach, and that the lawsuits (along with the impeachment) are part of a plot by [[dark money]] [[globalist]]s who allegedly control most Texas Republican officials.  Those who hold to the latter view generally believe the entire process is "an ambush without notice to voters", and have also alleged that Texas Governor [[Greg Abbott]] (Paxton's predecessor as Attorney General) may have been jealous of Paxton or viewed him as a younger potential rival, and as a result used his fundraising power from the [[Texas oligarchy]] to swing nearly 60 Texas House Republicans into supporting impeachment.  They also believe that Lieutenant Governor [[Dan Patrick]], who presides as President of the Texas Senate when it is in session and during any trial for removal, has "stacked the deck" against Paxton in deciding who will determine the rules and what those rules will be, notably by having the chair be "a non-lawyer Abbott-loyalist".

*The other side believes that the actions were taken '''''because of''''', and hopefully to '''''stop''''', Paxton's efforts and success against Federal overreach, and that the lawsuits (along with the impeachment) are part of a plot by [[dark money]] [[globalist]]s who allegedly control most Texas Republican officials.  Those who hold to the latter view generally believe the entire process is "an ambush without notice to voters", and have also alleged that Texas Governor [[Greg Abbott]] (Paxton's predecessor as Attorney General) may have been jealous of Paxton or viewed him as a younger potential rival, and as a result used his fundraising power from the [[Texas oligarchy]] to swing nearly 60 Texas House Republicans into supporting impeachment.  They also believe that Lieutenant Governor [[Dan Patrick]], who presides as President of the Texas Senate when it is in session and during any trial for removal, has "stacked the deck" against Paxton in deciding who will determine the rules and what those rules will be, notably by having the chair be "a non-lawyer Abbott-loyalist".

On the Texas Democrat side, Harold Dutton, one of the senior Democrats in the House, spoke against this impeachment, but ultimately showed himself as Present Not Voting, later making a statement that this was an internal Republican issue and Democrats should stay out of it.  The remaining Democrat House members almost unanimously voted for impeachment and support the move to remove Paxton, hoping that his successor (even if a Republican) will stop or at least slow down the tide of suits against the Biden Administration.

On the Texas Democrat side, Harold Dutton, one of the senior Democrats in the House, spoke against this impeachment, but ultimately showed himself as Present Not Voting, later making a statement that this was an internal Republican issue and Democrats should stay out of it.  The remaining Democrat House members almost unanimously voted for impeachment and support the move to remove Paxton, hoping that his successor (even if a Republican) will stop or at least slow down the tide of suits against the Biden Administration.

The events surrounding this action have occurred amid an alleged pattern of other purported political misuse of prosecutorial power, such as the indictment against [[Donald Trump]] (which took place on the same day that a key figure in the Paxton impeachment was arrested on Federal charges).  Even the [[liberal]] ''[[New York Times]]'' observed that impeachment of Paxton was “unexpected — as of a week ago [prior to the vote to impeach] there was little public indication that an impeachment could be imminent.”<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/28/us/texas-republicans-ken-paxton-legislature.html</ref>

The events surrounding this action have occurred amid an alleged pattern of other purported political misuse of prosecutorial power, such as the indictment against [[Donald Trump]] (which took place on the same day that a key figure in the Paxton impeachment was arrested on Federal charges).  Even the [[liberal]] ''[[New York Times]]'' observed that impeachment of Paxton was “unexpected — as of a week ago [prior to the vote to impeach] there was little public indication that an impeachment could be imminent.”<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/28/us/texas-republicans-ken-paxton-legislature.html</ref>

The driving force behind this is apparently a grudge held by the #3 [[Texas oligarchy|oligarch in Texas]], Dick Weekley, who spent more than $5M against Paxton in his March 2022 primary only to be humiliated by Paxton's victory, and who has "given money to all those voting for impeachment ... [and] given close to 2 million dollars to the impeachment managers. Most telling he gave and raised millions to Paxton’s primary opponent, Eva Guzman."<ref>https://twitter.com/houston_cf/status/1666085107684503555?s=20</ref>

The driving force behind this is apparently a grudge held by numerous [[Texas oligarchy|oligarchs in Texas]], among them Dick Weekley, who spent more than $5M against Paxton in his March 2022 primary only to be humiliated by Paxton's victory, and who has "given money to all those voting for impeachment ... [and] given close to 2 million dollars to the impeachment managers. Most telling he gave and raised millions to Paxton’s primary opponent, Eva Guzman."<ref>https://twitter.com/houston_cf/status/1666085107684503555?s=20</ref>

==Background==

==Background==

On the following day, May 25, 2023, the Committee met again and issued two preservation letters, to DPS and the Texas Facilities Commission.  It also approved the resolution drafting articles of impeachment against Paxton.<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/minutes/html/C2802023052515451.htm</ref>  Later that day, Committee Chair Murr addressed the House, providing a copy of both the proposed resolution and the hearing transcript from the May 24 meeting, and announced that once the House had the opportunity to review the provided information, he would call up the resolution for the House to consider.<ref>https://journals.house.texas.gov/HJRNL/88R/HTML/88RDAY71FINAL.HTM</ref>  At that time, four House members had parliamentary inquiries of the Speaker recorded in the House Journal.

On the following day, May 25, 2023, the Committee met again and issued two preservation letters, to DPS and the Texas Facilities Commission.  It also approved the resolution drafting articles of impeachment against Paxton.<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/minutes/html/C2802023052515451.htm</ref>  Later that day, Committee Chair Murr addressed the House, providing a copy of both the proposed resolution and the hearing transcript from the May 24 meeting, and announced that once the House had the opportunity to review the provided information, he would call up the resolution for the House to consider.<ref>https://journals.house.texas.gov/HJRNL/88R/HTML/88RDAY71FINAL.HTM</ref>  At that time, four House members had parliamentary inquiries of the Speaker recorded in the House Journal.

On May 26, 2023, in response to questions regarding the process in general, and specifically involving a section of the Texas Government Code involving unlawful actions by a state official prior to election, the Committee issued a memorandum explaining the process and why the Code section was not applicable.<ref>https://house.texas.gov/_media/pdf/committees/GI-Impeachment-Memo.pdf</ref>  Mainly, the argument for removal comes down to three points: 1) impeachment and removal are not intended to punish the offender, but to protect the State (and an offender is still subject to civil and criminal actions), 2) the Code only applies to '''''statutory''''' removal, while this action is brought under '''''Texas Constitutional''''' process, and 3) both the Ferguson and Carillo impeachments involved matters which took place prior to their elections.

On May 26, 2023, in response to questions regarding the process in general, and specifically involving a section of the Texas Government Code involving unlawful actions by a state official prior to election, the Committee issued a memorandum explaining the process and why the Code section was not applicable.<ref>https://house.texas.gov/_media/pdf/committees/GI-Impeachment-Memo.pdf</ref>  Mainly, the argument for removal comes down to four points: 1) impeachment and removal are not intended to punish the offender, but to protect the State (and an offender is still subject to civil and criminal actions), 2) the Code only applies to '''''statutory''''' removal, while this action is brought under '''''Texas Constitutional''''' process, 3) both the Ferguson and Carillo impeachments involved matters which took place prior to their elections, and 4) although some of the allegations against Paxton were known beforehand, the ''extent'' of the corruption was not, and therefore voters were not able to make a sufficiently informed decision whether or not to keep him in office notwithstanding the allegations.

The resolution for articles of impeachment was brought before the House on May 27, 2023.<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HR02377I.pdf#navpanes=0</ref>  For over four hours the Committee laid out the basis behind the impeachment charges.  Committee Chair Murr took questions from various Representatives, who also spoke both for and against the resolution.  Eventually, the House voted 121-23 (with two Present Not Voting, one Excused Absence, and two Absent) to impeach AG Paxton (notably, but according to custom involving major issues, Speaker Phelan voted to impeach).  One member who voted to impeach, later entered a Statement of Vote in the House Journal that, had each article been subject to a separate vote, he would not have voted for three of the articles, specifically Articles XII, XIII and XIV.  The two "absent" members also recorded Statements of Vote indicating that had they been present, they would have voted to impeach.<ref>https://journals.house.texas.gov/HJRNL/88R/HTML/88RDAY73FINAL.HTM</ref>

The resolution for articles of impeachment was brought before the House on May 27, 2023.<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HR02377I.pdf#navpanes=0</ref>  For over four hours the Committee laid out the basis behind the impeachment charges.  Committee Chair Murr took questions from various Representatives, who also spoke both for and against the resolution.  Eventually, the House voted 121-23 (with two Present Not Voting, one Excused Absence, and two Absent) to impeach AG Paxton (notably, but according to custom involving major issues, Speaker Phelan voted to impeach).  One member who voted to impeach, later entered a Statement of Vote in the House Journal that, had each article been subject to a separate vote, he would not have voted for three of the articles, specifically Articles XII, XIII and XIV.  The two "absent" members also recorded Statements of Vote indicating that had they been present, they would have voted to impeach.<ref>https://journals.house.texas.gov/HJRNL/88R/HTML/88RDAY73FINAL.HTM</ref>