re: Ken Paxton Seems Like a Decent Guy

quote:

---

Swill is a fraud

---

In what respect?

quote:

---

He’s a guy who had his palm unlawfullygreased by a sleazy real estate developer. The fact that he’s a conservative and interviewed by the shill, Carlson, doesn’t make him “decent”.

---

Why did the impeachment fail on EVERY charge? You Leftists believe anything DU or Daily Kos says.

quote:

---

cwill

---

quote:

---

He’s a guy who had his palm unlawfullygreased by a sleazy real estate developer

Let me know when he gets to $10 million.

---

Did he also make a play on some cattle futures?

I know a woman who made thousands back in the 1980’s with no experience, and she made some money in a shady land deal called Whitewater.

I realize you weren’t replying to me, but I’ll have a go.

quote:

---

I know you didn't watch the trial, one of the big problems with the prosecution's case was they charged Paxton with accepting a bribe in the form of a kitchen renovation. But Paxton's defense team had the 'receipts' - notably, photos of before and after that showed NO RENOVATIONS HAD EVER TAKEN PLACE. How's that for malicious prosecution?

---

I watched it. Most people did not, and they try to pretend like they did via news clips. If you watched it, then you know that both sides had news clip moments, and unfortunately, most people have made their decision based on isolated clips.

Having said that, people that make the granite/picture claims fail to understand what is actually taking place. The crime is not granite. The crime is doing something in exchange for something, so the granite is pretty irrelevant. Especially considering that wicker confronted Paxton about the granite. Let’s say I bribed you over something and you paid me $100 not to say anything. Later, I feel bad about it and give you your money back. By me giving you the money back doesn’t absolve me from the bribery. In Paxton’s case, he found out that people went to the authorities on Sept 30th 2020.. Within 48 hours, he had made payment to a company that was not authorized by the state of texas to do work at the time the work was performed and an invoice was created after he made payment.

For anybody that has done home improvement, you know you have to pay for materials in advance. Is it possible that didn’t happen? It’s possible, but I would say this should raise some eyebrows. It’s certainly possible it happened this way, but typically, you get estimates, change requests, and likely multiple invoices. Again, there is wiggle room here, but if those documents existed, you have to believe they would have been submitted as evidence. The collection of documents through out is much more powerful than payment and invoicing occurring multiple months after the work occurred.

Does that not seem suspicious to you? Just because you don’t follow best practices doesn’t mean you are guilty, but I would say the circumstantial evidence is strong here. When you combine it with the other evidence, it looks pretty bad.

If that were the only suspicious thing that took place, I would agree that wouldn’t be enough, but he, according to sworn testimony, lied to employees, worked outside the processes he was in charge of overseeing, didn’t communicate with his staff what was going on, oversaw the drafting of an opinion that went against established law, got his hands on a sealed subpoena for 10 days related to Nate Paul, oversaw grand jury subpoenas that coincidentally included the same people in the sealed Paul subpoena, and then fired the lawyer he hired to do this work without paying him.

This mess is clearly the result of Paxton’s actions. If people don’t do what you ask them to, you fire them. You don’t hire some amateur lawyer, and personally oversee the lawyer when neither of the people has prosecutorial experience. And you also don’t don’t allow somebody to be fired and not pay them when they did what was asked of him (Cammack was fired and told he would have to eat the invoice). Finally, you don’t fire people after they become protected.

And everybody seems to overlook what happened in plain sight (and I missed it too). 7 employees went to the FBI and I believe at least 4 individuals notified hr that they had done that. Once that happened, they were legally protected for 90 days. Well, all of the the individuals either resigned or were fired in around 45 days. If they were good lawyers, they would have known they were inviting a whistleblower lawsuit. Well, a suit was filed. Paxton has managed to get it stuck at the Texas Supreme Court. While it’s not illegal, it appears the point was to prevent him from having to testify. So it has sat in the wilderness for years.

So how did we get here? Paxton decided after the last election, he would settle the whistleblower suit. If he could settle it, the whole thing goes away and he never has to testify under oath. The problem with settling? First, he doesn’t have control over the purse strings. The legislature has to decide that. Second, he can’t force anyone to settle. When it got the house, I can only imagine what people thought. Why would you fire somebody legally and then settle the suit? I can think of two reasons. The first being, if the cost to settle is less than the amount you anticipate going to trial, that is a reason you would settle. The other reason would be that you would lose in court. I don’t recall testimony discussing the settlement being cheaper, so I don’t believe that was applicable. There could be other reasons, but those were the two that I came up with. The point is, you don’t fire people to settle with them. If they were fired legally, you fight that. If you know you will lose, you settle. I’ve probably oversimplified that - I’m sure there could be other circumstances, but none of those circumstances where addressed in testimony or evidence I was able to view.

I read the report on the AG’s site, and I’ll just say it didn’t line up with the whistleblower testimony at all. So why do an audit? Typically (generally speaking), an audit should be performed by a third party. The reason is that for an audit to have credibility, it should be unbiased, and it can’t be unbiased when one of the parties involved in the dispute is performing the audit. I’ll just say the report had lots of wholes. It claims Cammack had all the authority granted to him via the Travis County DA office. In fact, Webster testified to congress that he had seen the documentation personally, yet actual evidence does not appear in his report, but he does refer to Cammack being a special prosecutor for the TCDAO as an “unconverted fact” (with no evidence it actually was). It didn’t go into great detail about what the whistleblowers accused, but rather attacked those individuals. For example, it accused Ryan Vasser of illegally leaking grand jury subpoenas. While the statute they cited is true, it conveniently left out superseding statute that that basically said you are allowed to send information to your attorney. When you have to put something like letterhead changing being used as a justification for fraudulent documents, you are really reaching. Towards the end of the trial, one of the defense witnesses was on the stand and getting crossed by the tall male prosecutor (don’t recall his name). I think it may have been the hr guy on the stand. Anyway, one of his documents he wrote in evidence was missing ken Paxton on the letterhead, and the prosecutor asked him some questions: is this a legal document? Yes. Why isn’t this a fraudulent document? Anyway, my point is, when you are bitching about letterhead in an audit, you don’t have much to work with.

So here is a question for y’all - if the whistleblowers were guilty of those crimes, why were there never any changes brought? The AG office certainly had the authority. I can answer that one - Paxton would have had to testify under oath. In addition, why do you settle with people that break the law?

So - yeah - I watched the trial and look forward to your response.

quote:

---

And your hard on to convict an "R" doesn't make him guilty.

---

Not an "R", Ken Paxton.

quote:

---

See, we can play that game too.

---

But the only reason he was acquitted was political pressure, the evidence had no bearing.

quote:

---

The first photo was THREE years old and didn't have the date on it the second duplicate shows up and conveniently has the date on it.

---

are you as stupid in person as you act on here?

What this guy mostly posted (which virtually no one will read)...if you've been following the Paxton saga over the last several years and you take off your maga glasses you'll see this guy is corrupt. He was "acquitted" for political reasons...the national maga party put an enormous amount of pressure on them to acquit and threatened the Senators with challenges to their seats if they voted to impeach.

Always remember his own lieutenants, true believers all, turned him in and the republican controlled legislature impeached him.

Hi clownshow.