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 trial in the Texas Senate is to begin at 9AM (Austin time) on September 5, 2023.   

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 (Austin time) on September 5, 2023.   

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>

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.

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> While the impeachment hearing was underway, Representative Geren commented that Paxton had called several Representatives, in what he termed an attempt to intimidate them into voting against impeachment.  Later, Paxton purportedly provided documentation to Senators outlining why the charges were invalid.  In response, Democrat Representative Eddie Morales argued that those actions should result in additional articles of impeachment for witness intimidation and jury tampering.

The last Committee meeting during the Regular Session took place the following day, May 28, 2023, and would issue 12 more subpoenas, this time naming the entities involved (one of which was the rideshare company [[Uber]]).<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/minutes/html/C2802023052819001.htm</ref>  Later that day, the House would pass a resolution (136-4 with the Speaker not voting by custom, along with eight other Representatives, seven of whom later claimed "away from the chamber" or "vote failed to register"; five Representatives also claimed that their vote was registered incorrectly) naming 12 "managers" (chosen by the Speaker) to manage the upcoming trial.  The managers chosen would include, along with all the aforementioned members of the Committee (the chair and vice-chair to chair the managers as well), the following House members:<ref>https://journals.house.texas.gov/HJRNL/88R/HTML/88RDAY75FINAL.HTM</ref>

The last Committee meeting during the Regular Session took place the following day, May 28, 2023, and would issue 12 more subpoenas, this time naming the entities involved (one of which was the rideshare company [[Uber]]).<ref>https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/minutes/html/C2802023052819001.htm</ref>  Later that day, the House would pass a resolution (136-4 with the Speaker not voting by custom, along with eight other Representatives, seven of whom later claimed "away from the chamber" or "vote failed to register"; five Representatives also claimed that their vote was registered incorrectly) naming 12 "managers" (chosen by the Speaker) to manage the upcoming trial.  The managers chosen would include, along with all the aforementioned members of the Committee (the chair and vice-chair to chair the managers as well), the following House members:<ref>https://journals.house.texas.gov/HJRNL/88R/HTML/88RDAY75FINAL.HTM</ref>

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).

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==

While the impeachment hearing was underway, Representative Geren commented that Paxton had called several Representatives, in what he termed an attempt to intimidate them into voting against impeachment.  Later, Paxton purportedly provided documentation to Senators outlining why the charges were invalid.  In response, Representative Eddie Morales argued that those actions should result in additional articles of impeachment for witness intimidation and jury tampering.

The impeachment of Paxton has resulted in a split between Texas Republicans.  Both sides within the Republican Party of Texas 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.

On June 6, 2023, it was announced that Tony Buzbee, a prominent [[Houston]] trial attorney in his own right, will lead Paxton’s impeachment defense.<ref>https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/06/ken-paxton-impeach-tony-buzbee/</ref> Not surprisingly, Buzbee claims that the whole process was a "sham" and that "the Senate will not vote" to remove Paxton from office, with the only question remaining as to whether the articles will be dismissed early (similar to both United States Senate trials after both Trump impeachments) or a protracted trial will take place (Buzbee has bragged that, if the latter, they have plans to call "66 witnesses" and the trial will last an entire year).  Dan Cogdell, another trial attorney, also joined Paxton's defense team.  In addition, no fewer than six staff members at OAG, including its Solicitor General and Deputy Solicitor General, have taken leaves of absence from their duties in order to support Paxton and assist in his defense.<ref>http://quorumreport.com/quorum_report_daily_buzz_2023/six_employees_in_the_office_of_the_attorney_genera_buzziid31633.html</ref> 

 

*One side believes that notwithstanding Paxton's efforts and success against Federal overreach, his outside legal issues are a '''''distraction''''' to the Republican party in Texas reaching its overarching goal of maintaining Texas as a politically conservative state and a desirable location for businesses and individuals to live and work.  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 for both those involved and the state as a whole.

*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 his legal isues (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".

Paxton has issued a report denying the charges, claiming that his actions to fire the staffers were justified due to their insubordination.<ref>https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/executive-management/Internal%20Report.pdf</ref>.  Later he added a report from an outside law firm, further supporting his actions.<ref>https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Report.pdf</ref>

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 Collin County Republican Party passed a resolution condemning the impeachment; however, it has chosen not to publicly post it.  On the other hand, the Republican Party of Texas posted their resolution condemning the impeachment.<ref>https://texasgop.org/paxtonimpeachment/</ref>

The Collin County Republican Party passed a resolution condemning the impeachment; however, it has chosen not to publicly post it.  On the other hand, the Republican Party of Texas posted their resolution condemning the impeachment.<ref>https://texasgop.org/paxtonimpeachment/</ref>

Governor Abbott has not publicly commented on the matter.  His only action has been to appoint John Scott, a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Secretary of State, as the interim replacement for Paxton.<ref>https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-appoints-john-scott-as-interim-attorney-general-of-texas</ref> Notwithstanding that Scott is politically loyal to Abbott, one of his first actions was to continue Paxton's policy of suing the Biden Administration for Federal overreach, this time over its attempts to rewrite Title IX to force schools to adopt favorable transgender policies or lose Federal education funding.<ref>https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/texas-launches-lawsuit-against-bidens-unlawful-title-ix-guidance-forcing-transgender-policies</ref>

Governor Abbott has not publicly commented on the matter.  His only action has been to appoint John Scott, a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Secretary of State, as the interim replacement for Paxton.<ref>https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-appoints-john-scott-as-interim-attorney-general-of-texas</ref> Notwithstanding that Scott is politically loyal to Abbott, one of his first actions was to continue Paxton's policy of suing the Biden Administration for Federal overreach, this time over its attempts to rewrite Title IX to force schools to adopt favorable pro-transgender policies or lose Federal education funding.<ref>https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/texas-launches-lawsuit-against-bidens-unlawful-title-ix-guidance-forcing-transgender-policies</ref>

== Retaliation by [[Gambling]] Industry? ==

== Retaliation by [[Gambling]] Industry? ==