Ken Paxton’s impeachment on Saturday is the biggest political earthquake in Texas this century. The fault lines between conservative and reactionary Republicans are now exposed. Some initial thoughts:
This is more excellent and comprehensive commentary. Hope this gets around. I'm not expecting an honest and open adjudication, though, in the senate. I'm looking for speeches and posturing that are sufficient for Patrick to claim he held due process, and hide behind that.
Jim, thanks for your praise, which I value so much. I am a ludicrous believer in the power of legislative bodies to do their jobs, which is why I worked in and around them for the 30+ years. This will be a tough call for the Senate, assuming as we both do that Dan Patrick's goal is the rescue his wayward friend from the consequences of his own actions.
Thanks for reading, Danielle! The good news is, he's already been removed from office — temporarily. The bad news is, it's too soon to tell is it's permanent. So much depends of whether Dan Patrick puts his thumb on the scale in the Senate.
Holly, thanks for subscribing and for your comments. You're right, it does need a 2/3 vote in the Senate — "of the Senators present," which means of those who have not recused themselves. (The law requires that ALL the Senators be in their chairs during the impeachment.) This could turn out to be hugely important, as I will discuss in my NBAQs. Stay tuned!
Deece , Watching Coke Stevenson’s grandson run a kangaroo court, without the benefit of anything approaching due process, presenting thrice baked heresay evidence , barely notifying the members of the facts ,then impeaching a sitting state wide office holder with nonexistent opposition made me think of three things. First, for an impeachment this important there was apparently little investigation or research done to bolster such an action. I know the committee said they had been working on different issues ever since Paxton hit up the Legislature for settlement money. This explanation sounds hollow and rehearsed. Second, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It is a political act used to remove bad office holders without waiting for the next election. You still need to make a case supported by strong evidence. Probable cause , beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion are all immaterial.
Remember, this is political trial with removal from office as the goal and sanction.
Finally, be prepared and show some modicum of fundamental fairness. It. Is essential to keep the populace informed and not to put on a Soviet like show trial. Hitting that line between political and legal is difficult and it appeared to me the House did a minimal job of it. The die was cast before Murr approached the front mic.
What will the Senate do? Whatever Patrick says to do. It looks unlikely he could cut a legislative deal on property taxes or ,charter schools . So, as he always does, he will make a decision based solely on how it will benefit him most.
In all of my years, I don’t think I have seen a Texas office holder more corrupt and hypocritical and deserving of impeachment than Paxton . Nevertheless, If anyone could have understood the need for fair treatment and sensible rules it would it would have been Chairman Murr’s grandfather.
Thanks for your comments, Chuck. The impeachment presentations covered neither Chairman Murr nor the House itself in glory. They seemed to aim for a baseline standard — "was there probable cause to refer articles to the Senate?" — as Chairman Dutton pointed out.
The real question is, what will the Senate do? I agree it will do whatever Patrick wants it to do. The question is: what does Patrick want? How much of his own political capital does he want to invest in hauling Paxton back from the brink of political extinction.
And with the House's neat little "appraisal caps and sine die" trick yesterday, how much political capital does Patrick have for now?
Chuck, please keep sharing your thoughts with our community here. You add so much value!
This is more excellent and comprehensive commentary. Hope this gets around. I'm not expecting an honest and open adjudication, though, in the senate. I'm looking for speeches and posturing that are sufficient for Patrick to claim he held due process, and hide behind that.
Jim, thanks for your praise, which I value so much. I am a ludicrous believer in the power of legislative bodies to do their jobs, which is why I worked in and around them for the 30+ years. This will be a tough call for the Senate, assuming as we both do that Dan Patrick's goal is the rescue his wayward friend from the consequences of his own actions.
Thanks Deece, excellent analysis and questions to ponder - as always.
Thanks, Tim, You've been a big fan of Life Its Ownself from the get-go, and I appreciate your comments.
It was an amazing day and I am forever grateful of your play by play narrative, with the opportunity to ask questions about the process.
It could not have happened to a more deserving recipient than Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr.! Impeachment!
We now await the decision of the Senate.
What news is there of Abbott’s pick for Harris Co overseer of elections, (a disgrace to our right to vote)?
I am glad you enjoyed the Substack Chat we did on Saturday. It was a good way to follow the impeachment, and I enjoyed sharing it with a community.
No news yet of the Harris Co. situation. I will look into it and put some thoughts in my NBAQ.
Thank you!! It’s help clarify my understanding of situation!! Let’s wait for the grand finally!!
Thank you, Maria! I hope you will follow my thrill-packed and occasionally fact-checked coverage of the Paxton drama!
Thank you, Deece. My only question is…what are the odds of this troglodyte actually being removed from office?
Thanks for reading, Danielle! The good news is, he's already been removed from office — temporarily. The bad news is, it's too soon to tell is it's permanent. So much depends of whether Dan Patrick puts his thumb on the scale in the Senate.
I assume it needs a 2/3 vote in the Senate? Is that within the realm of possibility? Can Abbott block it? Great post.
Holly, thanks for subscribing and for your comments. You're right, it does need a 2/3 vote in the Senate — "of the Senators present," which means of those who have not recused themselves. (The law requires that ALL the Senators be in their chairs during the impeachment.) This could turn out to be hugely important, as I will discuss in my NBAQs. Stay tuned!
Deece , Watching Coke Stevenson’s grandson run a kangaroo court, without the benefit of anything approaching due process, presenting thrice baked heresay evidence , barely notifying the members of the facts ,then impeaching a sitting state wide office holder with nonexistent opposition made me think of three things. First, for an impeachment this important there was apparently little investigation or research done to bolster such an action. I know the committee said they had been working on different issues ever since Paxton hit up the Legislature for settlement money. This explanation sounds hollow and rehearsed. Second, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It is a political act used to remove bad office holders without waiting for the next election. You still need to make a case supported by strong evidence. Probable cause , beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion are all immaterial.
Remember, this is political trial with removal from office as the goal and sanction.
Finally, be prepared and show some modicum of fundamental fairness. It. Is essential to keep the populace informed and not to put on a Soviet like show trial. Hitting that line between political and legal is difficult and it appeared to me the House did a minimal job of it. The die was cast before Murr approached the front mic.
What will the Senate do? Whatever Patrick says to do. It looks unlikely he could cut a legislative deal on property taxes or ,charter schools . So, as he always does, he will make a decision based solely on how it will benefit him most.
In all of my years, I don’t think I have seen a Texas office holder more corrupt and hypocritical and deserving of impeachment than Paxton . Nevertheless, If anyone could have understood the need for fair treatment and sensible rules it would it would have been Chairman Murr’s grandfather.
Thanks for your comments, Chuck. The impeachment presentations covered neither Chairman Murr nor the House itself in glory. They seemed to aim for a baseline standard — "was there probable cause to refer articles to the Senate?" — as Chairman Dutton pointed out.
The real question is, what will the Senate do? I agree it will do whatever Patrick wants it to do. The question is: what does Patrick want? How much of his own political capital does he want to invest in hauling Paxton back from the brink of political extinction.
And with the House's neat little "appraisal caps and sine die" trick yesterday, how much political capital does Patrick have for now?
Chuck, please keep sharing your thoughts with our community here. You add so much value!