247

The Texas Senate on Tuesday rejected all of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s efforts to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him, moving forward with the first removal proceeding against a statewide elected official in more than a century.

The pretrial motions required a majority vote. The most support a motion to dismiss received was 10 out of 30 senators.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 99 points 1 year ago

As someone who live in Texas for thirty years, I am genuinely shocked that the Texas GOP has managed to find someone who is too corrupt even, for them. I wouldn't have said that was possible.

[-] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't be surprise to find out this is some kind of attempt to scapegoat him and draw the eyes away from the rest of their corruption. That's just the cynic in me thinking out loud though.

[-] LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

I think it's simpler.

As things are in Texas right now, anyone he is replaced with will be a conservative republican. There is zero political risk to republicans in removing him. His only constituency within the party is the furthest right loons... but they tend to abandon "losers" quickly and will happily latch onto the newest far right loon. All while keeping him around does represent a political cost to republicans. That cost has gotten high enough that they're willing to consider removing him.

They can remove him with no risk to their power and get rid of a headache at the same time.

[-] MC_Lovecraft@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

The tipping point is that he tried to get the party to pay for the coverup for his crimes. He was spending their money instead of raking it in, and they decided to turn off the tap.

[-] downpunxx@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

kp goin down for the big hurt, yeeehaw gettalong lil doggy

[-] malloc@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

It’s been due (indicted years ago on fraud), but he managed to piss off his own party. It’s rare to see the modern GOP go after one of their fellow (R) bearing brothers.

I wonder what he did because he was a good sock puppet for the GOP.

[-] Hoomod@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

He spent their money

[-] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 year ago

There's a lesson here for the people who want to use Trumpiness to attain political power: if you're not actually Trump, it won't work.

Whatever "it" is, Trump has "it." It's to the extreme detriment of our entire nation and world, but there we are. Ken Paxton definitely doesn't have "it." I haven't seen any sparkle of "it" in the other 2024 Presidential candidates (from either party).

The problem with trying to be Trump but not is that whatever deviation one makes will alienate Trump's cult and reveal the weakness of Trumpism from a political point of view for traditional Republican politicians. They'll turn on fake Trumps instantly.

I don't know if Trump is going to go down for his crimes, but a lot of his crew will be, because none of them have whatever "it" is. I hope that the juries will take their job seriously and ignore any non fact based stuff from Trump. Who knows. Twelve is a lot of people...

[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

A glimmer of hope. No one is above the law.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago
[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Ugh. Sad but you got a point.

[-] BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

Billionaires, War-criminals (helps if they're former Presidents), Television doctors.

It's a club.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Havent been following this, Im sure the article will clear up what the impeachment's about

The House impeached Paxton in May, alleging a yearslong pattern of lawbreaking and misconduct.

thank you Texas Tribune for clearing that up.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The Texas Tribune has written dozens of fantastic articles on this topic. Many of which were linked in this very article. I'm curious how you missed all of them. Here's a good one:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/18/ken-paxton-impeachment-evidence/

[-] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

The problem isn't that they are being too general. The problem is that they are, among other things, a print magazine. Listing every incident in which Paxton has violated the law would fill a year of issues without leaving room for so much as a contents page.

[-] blazera@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

they could summarize beyond "lawbreaking and misconduct". Or could have saved some space by not saying anything instead, instead of using these words to say nothing.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago

From what I now they've not been very informative on what the issue is.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You don't "now" much then.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago

Dude typos happen on mobile.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'm more forgiving of typos when they don't pair with blatantly, absurdly, false statements.

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

No comma between absurdly and false. Not downvoting you, just helping you avoid typos!

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 year ago
[-] BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

It's just like I'm on Reddit!

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

? The other guy went off twice. Three times if you include other people.

[-] autotldr 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Texas Senate on Tuesday rejected all of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s efforts to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him, moving forward with the first removal proceeding against a statewide elected official in more than a century.

Those senators were Pete Flores of Pleasanton, Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, Joan Huffman of Houston, Mayes Middleton of Galveston, Robert Nichols of Jacksonville and Drew Springer of Muenster.

That motion struck at the heart of one of Paxton’s main arguments — that he cannot be impeached for any actions he allegedly took before he was reelected last year.

He was immediately suspended from his job and the Senate trial, which started at 9 a.m. Tuesday, will determine whether he is permanently removed from office.

A simple majority was required to approve them, and Paxton’s team challenged all articles of impeachment both individually and altogether.

Notably, Patrick granted Paxton's motion that prevents the suspended attorney general from being forced to testify in the trial.


The original article contains 447 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
247 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3992 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