re: Paxton NOT GUILTY- Acquitted on Arts.1-10 and 15-20, arts 11-14 dismissed.

Hey EKG...so what do you think happens to that $3.3m settlement that Paxton has worked up with the whistleblowers?

Think that is dropped now after all of this or will the House now have to vote on that after all they spent on this?

Would be great if the "whistleblowers" get nothing after they cried on the stand.

You watch, they will take it back to court and get even more. The lawsuit was against the state and not Ken paxton. House was just using that as the excuse to do the impeachment.

quote:

---

Hey EKG...so what do you think happens to that $3.3m settlement that Paxton has worked up with the whistleblowers?

---

It’s ironic, actually.

Like it or not …per state law, Texas—not Paxton—was on the hook to pay the whistleblowers; the Texas House didn’t like that. They insisted Paxton should settle the lawsuit using his own private funds. AG attorneys said, “nope,” pissing off several Texas lawmakers. This was likely the impetus that charged up the House inquiry into Paxton, setting the impeachment hearing into motion.

Fact is, under the Texas Whistleblower Act, employees can only sue a government agency, not an individual person, for firing them after reporting a crime. That means any fees Paxton would pay must come from state funds, not from his own pocket.

It’s law. Already decided by the Texas Legislature. So the House never should’ve thrown a tantrum over it to begin with (i.e., Texas should’ve paid the amount [per law] and moved on). If certain lawmakers were against the law, they should’ve brought it up in the lege session, not simply refused to comply.

quote:

---

“There is no legal mechanism by which the whistleblowers in this case could hold Ken Paxton personally liable, or recover damages directly from him,” said TJ Turner, an attorney for David Maxwell, who ran the attorney general’s law enforcement division before being fired. “Like it or not, this is how the law works.”

Chris Hilton, a lawyer for the attorney general’s office, told lawmakers the same thing during a committee hearing in February, when Paxton was asked if he’d be willing to pay the settlement out of his campaign fund.

“There is no whistleblower case where an individual has paid anything because the individual is not liable under the terms of the statute,” Hilton said.

---

My gut feeling is that Texas and the whistleblowers will settle quietly, closing the chapter.
If the House continues to make an issue out if it, they’ll have to battle it out amongst each other in the 2025 lege session.

This was the nail in the coffin of the Bush crime family

quote:

---

So, whistleblowers sued for wrongful termination. Paxton was just found not guilty of that. However, the state still has to pay? Is this what is being said?

---

I’m honestly not at all sure how it breaks down legally (I’m not an attorney).

I think it’s likely this particular portion of the impeachment process (the whistleblower settlement) never should’ve been included as one of the filed articles of impeachment to begin with. The matter—per statute—was already addressed via Texas law.

But the torch and pitchfork wielding mob still would’ve gone after him for various other issues they trumped up in the other articles.

quote:

---

This was likely the impetus that charged up the House inquiry into Paxton, setting the impeachment hearing into motion

---

Come on, the impetus was that he beat a Bush.

Go scorched earth, Ken.

Just watch