Changes

Where the sides differ is why these actions '''''are taking place at this time''''':

Where the sides differ is why these actions '''''are taking place at this time''''':

*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.

*One side believes that notwithstanding Paxton's efforts and success against Federal overreach, his outside legal issues are a '''''distraction''''' to the Republican Party of Texas reaching its overarching 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 the predominantly 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".

*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".