Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
326 bytes removed ,  13:52, June 23, 2023
m
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1: −
The '''Paxton Impeachment''' is the ongoing current [[impeachment and removal|impeachment and proposed removal]] of [[conservative]] [[Texas]] Attorney General [[Ken Paxton]] from office.  The trial in the Texas Senate is to begin at 9am on Sept. 5, and 3 senators have objected to the rules which have not been publicly disclosed as of June 21, 2023.<ref>https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/20/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-senate-rules/</ref> The senators who voted against the pro-impeachment rules, which includes excluding Sen. Angela Paxton from participating and voting, were Senators Sarah Eckhardt (D-Austin), [[conservative]] Bob Hall (R-Edgewood), and [[Ken Paxton]]'s wife, Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney).<ref>https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-rules/285-1a6ea7d6-3529-4ad4-91e6-6100d3d6c464</ref>
+
The '''Paxton Impeachment''' is the ongoing current [[impeachment and removal|impeachment and proposed removal]] of [[conservative]] [[Texas]] Attorney General [[Ken Paxton]] from office.  The trial in the Texas Senate is to begin at 9am on September 5, 2003.   
−
 
  −
Ken Paxton was a leading possible challenger to the [[RINO]] Gov. Abbott for his reelection campaign in 2026, when [[Trump]] is expected to endorse an opponent against Abbott.  Gov. Abbott has been notably silent about the ambush impeachment of Paxton despite widespread criticism of this by many [[conservative]]s.  Rather than appoint a potential rival [[George P. Bush]] to this key position, Abbott appointed a loyalist to him, the former Texas Secretary of State John Scott.
      
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.
 
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.
Line 151: Line 149:     
The Senate was to have announced the rules on June 20, 2023.  However, after numerous delays continuing into the following day, the rules were finally announced.<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/881/billtext/pdf/SR00035F.pdf#navpanes=0</ref> Notably, the Senate will meet on September 5, 2023, to sit as the Court of Impeachment, and that Articles XI, XII, XIII, and XIV will be held in abeyance (i.e. not considered at that time).  Witnesses will be required to testify in person and subject to cross-examination, the House managers and their attorneys will be limited to 24 hours to present their case (unless extended by agreement) and the standard of proof for any Article (all of which will be voted on separately) will be [[beyond a reasonable doubt]].  Also, Senator Hughes (if called as a witness or if he agrees to testify voluntarily) will not be subject to recusal as a juror; Senator Angela Paxton will be counted solely as present for purposes of counting the number of votes but cannot participate in any deliberations or vote on any matter.  Finally, although removal from office will be automatic if any Article is agreed on by the 2/3 vote required, a separate vote will be held to determine if removal will extend to any future office.
 
The Senate was to have announced the rules on June 20, 2023.  However, after numerous delays continuing into the following day, the rules were finally announced.<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/881/billtext/pdf/SR00035F.pdf#navpanes=0</ref> Notably, the Senate will meet on September 5, 2023, to sit as the Court of Impeachment, and that Articles XI, XII, XIII, and XIV will be held in abeyance (i.e. not considered at that time).  Witnesses will be required to testify in person and subject to cross-examination, the House managers and their attorneys will be limited to 24 hours to present their case (unless extended by agreement) and the standard of proof for any Article (all of which will be voted on separately) will be [[beyond a reasonable doubt]].  Also, Senator Hughes (if called as a witness or if he agrees to testify voluntarily) will not be subject to recusal as a juror; Senator Angela Paxton will be counted solely as present for purposes of counting the number of votes but cannot participate in any deliberations or vote on any matter.  Finally, although removal from office will be automatic if any Article is agreed on by the 2/3 vote required, a separate vote will be held to determine if removal will extend to any future office.
 +
 +
The senators who voted against the rules were (in addition to Senator Paxton) liberal senator Sarah Eckhardt (D-Austin) and conservative Senator Bob Hall (R-Edgewood).<ref>https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-rules/285-1a6ea7d6-3529-4ad4-91e6-6100d3d6c464</ref>  Eckhardt later made a public statement of her vote, stating that the rules were too permissive, allowing an Article to be dismissed beforehand by only a simple majority vote but requiring a 2/3 vote for affirmation, and further that the rules gave Patrick too much control over the proceedings (as Patrick and Paxton are political allies, Eckhardt sees it as a potential avenue for quick dismissal without the merits being heard and debated).
    
==Reactions==
 
==Reactions==
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
8,856

edits

Navigation menu