this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
131 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19138 readers
3356 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

AUSTIN — After a historic 10-day trial, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was acquitted Saturday by the state Senate on 16 charges of bribery, unfitness for office and abuse of office. He was immediately reinstated, ending a suspension that began in May with his impeachment by the state House.

The verdict could propel the conservative Republican’s political future at home and potentially on the national stage.

Senators had deliberated in private for more than eight hours before returning to the chamber to individually declare their decision in public on a form and then by voice. The process took about an hour and a half, a nearly full gallery looking on as the “yay” and “nay” votes were sounded over and over. Many resulted in the same 14-16 margin, with only two Republicans siding with the dozen Democrats; 21 votes were required for conviction.

Paxton, 60, was not present for any of it.

His impeachment centered on his effort to obtain $3.3 million in state funding to settle a lawsuit by senior aides. Some of those aides had become whistleblowers, so distressed by his interactions with wealthy Austin developer Nate Paul that they reported their boss to the FBI. Several testified for the prosecution, and they were in the gallery on Saturday to hear the senators’ verdict.

Some political observers said the acquittal showed that Texas Republicans have unified after the divisiveness that resulted in Paxton’s impeachment.

“It’s a demonstration of unity that we haven’t seen in a while,” said Jim Henson, who directs the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. “You have an example of somebody who has successfully fought the system in the face of pretty strong evidence. It will be emboldening to people.”

The trial began Sept. 5, less than a year after the attorney general was reelected by a large margin to his third term — helped in no small part by the endorsement of former president Donald Trump.

Prosecutors argued that Paxton had turned his powerful office over to Paul and that the developer was using it to go after his enemies. But the defense team slammed the proceeding as a political witch hunt orchestrated by Paxton’s rivals. His conservative backers amplified that claim both in and outside of Texas.

In recent days, Trump surrogates and allies pressured Republican senators not to impeach Paxton, posting names and phone numbers of potential impeachment swing voters and urging Paxton supporters to phone their offices. Conservative activists threatened to mount primary challenges to those who voted to convict, as they already have against Republicans in the House.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee blasted the GOP senators on Saturday. “The vote … to acquit an indicted felon under an FBI investigation is emblematic of how extreme Republicans have gotten in state legislatures,” its statement said, alluding to separate felony charges he faces. “If you believe in the rule of law and that politicians shouldn’t be able to buy themselves out of breaking the law, it’s time to elect Democrats up and down the ballot in Texas and across the country.”

The prosecution called 15 people to the stand during the trial, compared to just four called by the defense. With Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick presiding, each side had 27 hours to make opening and closing arguments, present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

Paxton did not testify and in fact was absent for all but the very start and end of the trial.

The deliberations were rife with potential conflicts of interest. Paxton’s career includes six terms in the Texas House and two years in the Senate, serving in the seat that his wife now holds, so he knows many of its members. One was caught up in the articles of impeachment: Sen. Bryan Hughes (R), accused of helping Paxton exploit his office to aid Paul, who in turn hired a woman with whom Paxton was having an affair. The woman, Laura Olson, later worked for Sen. Donna Campbell (R).

Republican Sen. Angela Paxton attended the trial but was barred from voting on the charges her husband faced. She was again in the chamber on Saturday, and as the counting progressed, she smiled at colleagues. After tracking the count on each charge, Paxton took off her reading glasses and rested her chin on her hand.

Initially, Ken Paxton faced 20 charges. The Senate’s impeachment rules committee set aside four involving his private business dealings that House investigators alleged were obstruction of justice and false statements in official records. Before adjourning, senators voted to dismiss all of them.

Separately, Paxton is still contending with felony securities fraud charges — he was indicted months after he took office as attorney general in 2015 — but that case has languished as lawyers fought over where he should be tried. A hearing is scheduled in Houston on Oct. 6.

Before the Texas House impeached Paxton by an overwhelming margin in May, the only two officials to have been impeached in state history were a governor in 1917 and a district judge in 1975. Both were accused of misuse of public funds. Both were removed from office.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Were they really independent if this is all it takes? I've known so-called "independents" which were just people who sided with Republicans on everything except their cultural politics. They're not really independents, they're embarassed Republicans who are afraid to admit to themselves that they don't give a shit that some people will be discriminated against or attacked so they can hopefully pay less taxes. Say what you will about them, but at least Libertarians are up front that they don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.