re: Texas AG Ken Paxton sets his sights on The Regime

quote:

---

Sounds like something you heard from one of the lying buffoons on npr.

---

Pretty much.

Paxton’s defense IIRC was a mix of “What I did was in following with state law” and “I didn’t hide anything and got re-elected anyway, so it is considered part of a prior term and not subject to impeachment if it was a crime.”


I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that what he did was a crime or that the past term act in question wouldn’t have nullified the impeachment if it were a crime.

quote:

---

LINK here is a youtube video of drew wicker testimony. it was from him that the bribery charge came. for 3 years we have been told by the media that paxton was bribed by nate paul over those granite countertops. how easy it would have been to just go to paxtons house and look in the windows and verify. maybe the media just wanted the accusation. rusty hardins teams tried hard to keep those photos out when they should have been seeking the truth.

---

You are playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess.

As I stated about 10 posts before your post, the crime is not the granite. The crime is doing something on behalf of Nate Paul for renovation work. Paxton didn’t pay anything before Oct 1st and the work was completed in July. On top of that, how did he make the correct payment before the invoice was created?

quote:

---

You still somehow manage to make the most stupid post in every thread you participate in

---

Not in this one. You posted in it.

Did you hear the about Paxton claiming that the owner of the company gave him the 100,000 shares as a gift because God told him to?

quote:

---

cost taxpayers millions of dollars,

---

So we paid Lawyers millions of dollars. Those hourly rates must have quite the markup

quote:

---

Not in this one. You posted in it.

---

A DA decides to charge you you as an accessory to manslaughter for the soldiers killed in the Afghanistan withdrawal because you voted for Joe biden.

You should have to spend the time, money, and resources going to court, right?

quote:

---

You should have to spend the time, money, and resources going to court, right?

---

This was an impeachment proceeding. He was impeached by the Texas House.

Two Republican Senators voted guilty.

So you think it was all made up?

quote:

---

These are relatively stupid questions without more of a foundation. What other stupid points would you like to attempt?

---

You don't know the foundation facts either. So you make up a couple of your own set of foundation facts, and call him stupid.

What would you call that?

quote:

---

Pretty sure that’s not possible. I looked into filing a lawsuit against the DOD and FAA and was told I had to go to DC.

---

You were lied to

quote:

---

So you’re too stupid to understand how none of that is a response to you saying people should be excited to go to court to prove their innocence.

---

I didn't say they should be excited to so to court. And this is not a run- of- the- mill- case.

He's the frickin AG and he's hiding from subpoenas.

quote:

---

Paxton’s defense IIRC was a mix of “What I did was in following with state law” and “I didn’t hide anything and got re-elected anyway, so it is considered part of a prior term and not subject to impeachment if it was a crime.”

---

Let me add a little clarity. The defense team made a motion to remove some articles based on what you stated, but this was voted down by the senate and was never applicable to the case once it actually got going..

quote:

---

I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that what he did was a crime or that the past term act in question wouldn’t have nullified the impeachment if it were a crime.

---

I’m not sure what to say here. Either you didn’t watch the trial, you don’t understand law, or likely both.

Let’s recap:
Paxton went to his team to get help for Nate Paul
Paxton’s team reliably and consistently pushed back on what he wanted by using precedence and established law. It’s not illegal to disagree with your subordinates, but It does raise the question of why Paxton would be working against his own staff that he hired
Paxton then tried to hire an outside attorney to help. Again, his team pushed back and said no.
Paxton hired this lawyer, Cammack, anyway without anybody else’s knowledge on the whistleblower team (trying to be as accurate as possible here - it appears other people were involved in the office but testimony didn’t provide a lot of info here or I missed it)
Once the attorney was hired, he was basically reporting to Paul with Cammack keeping Paxton informed
cammack began issuing grand jury subpoenas (which he had no authority to be doing). In order for this to happen. A local district attorney must request this power which was never done. There was even evidence of somebody in the ag office telling the da in question that cammack had received these abilities when he had not
The whistleblower team met and uncovered what Paxton had done (basically circumvented his office to help Paul). They immediately sent two cease and desist letters to cammack to stop what he was doing.
US Marshall’s came to cammack office to serve the cease and desist subpoenas and question him. He immediately called Paxton. Paxton eventually called him back and told him to not speak to them without legal representation,
Cammack and Paxton met after the cease and desist, and Paxton told cammack to continue his work.
At a later meeting, Paxton and 1st lieutenant Webster informed cammack he was fired and he would have to eat the invoice for the work he performed.

To sum up, Paxton tried to work within the process, but when that failed, he began working outside the process that he is in charge of overseeing. He hired an unqualified lawyer, Cammack, and instructed him to get subpoenas which he had no authority to do (not to mention he had no prosecutorial experience). The information coming from Paul coincidentally had the names of the people from the sealed federal indictment (which Paxton had in his possession for about ten days). While there is no direct evidence presented at trail that Paxton revealed the contents of the sealed subpoena, it begs the question, how did Paul and his lawyer come about this information to match exactly what was in the sealed subpoena? I would say that is strong circumstantial evidence.

I’m not sure why it is so hard for people to grasp this concept: the government has the power to subpoena, and individuals do not. Paxton gave this ability to Paul and got caught. That is illegal, as is the bribery, as is the anointing powers to an attorney that should not possess those powers. We haven’t even got to the coverup part where Paxton paid months after the fact that work had already been completed and the invoice for the work arriving the day after the payment was made.

Let’s just say that I bribed you and you gave me some money to not say something I knew to be true about you. If I give you the money back to you, that does not alleviate me from the bribery I committed against you. That is the scenario Paxton finds himself in.

For you not to see a single illegality says more about you than anything.