Article

2023-09-10 -Land of the Free

Case against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton at state Senate trial is falling apart

[American Thinker] Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's state Senate impeachment trial is underway in the heart of Texas, and the prosecution's case appears to be crumbling before our eyes. While media outlets have long portrayed Paxton as a controversial figure, the trial's proceedings reveal a different story — one of weak evidence and a politically motivated agenda.

The central accusation against Paxton revolves around allegations that he abused his office to benefit a friend and donor, Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor. However, a closer look at the prosecution's case reveals a glaring lack of concrete evidence to support these claims.

The witnesses called by the prosecution have yet to provide any solid testimony pointing to Paxton's wrongdoing. Instead, they have consistently stated that they did not witness Paxton engage in illegal activities. Furthermore, the documents presented as evidence are circumstantial, failing to establish a clear link between Paxton's actions and any criminal intent.

One notable piece of evidence the prosecution presents is a text message from Paxton to Paul, where Paxton says, "I'm here for you." While the message may raise eyebrows, it fails to provide any context or specifics regarding Paxton's actions. It is plausible that Paxton was merely offering moral support to a needy friend rather than engaging in corrupt activities.

According to The Federalist:

Posted by Besoeker 2023-09-10 01:10|| || Front Page|| [24 views ] Top

#1 The whole thing is a hit job from day one. The Dems and the establishment Repubs cut a deal to squash him. Kinda like what they did to the Tea Party.
They both agree that if it's not under their control, it needs to be broken.

Posted by ed in texas 2023-09-10 09:09|| 2023-09-10 09:09|| Front Page Top

#2 Everything these days is tending towards zero threshold. I think soon, the DOJ will just send out letters to random people telling them they have probably committed a crime and will be indicted soon.

We're headed from "burden of proof" to "burden to prove you are innocent," the exact opposite of what the Founders intended.

Posted by M. Murcek 2023-09-10 09:14|| 2023-09-10 09:14|| Front Page Top

#3 Ah, but my wife, who thinks he is guilty of many things, observed, "Well, this is not a criminal trial. The senators can vote on evidence or politics."

I think that supports Ed's statement (#1).

Posted by Bobby 2023-09-10 10:24|| 2023-09-10 10:24|| Front Page Top

#4 In an impeachment case, the defendant’s popularity is important as the evidence. They certainly can remove him without evidence, but voters are awake an engaged. Getting the Liz Cheney treatment will become a more and more common occurrence going forward.

Posted by Super Hose 2023-09-10 10:56|| 2023-09-10 10:56|| Front Page Top

#5 Bernalillo DA piles on, won't enforce NM dem gubberner's unconstitutional anti-2A "health emergency.

This is how politicians who understand the law can check and balance those that don't.

Posted by M. Murcek 2023-09-10 12:06|| 2023-09-10 12:06|| Front Page Top

#6 I think the gubner understands the law well enough. She just disagrees with it, and so it goes away.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2023-09-10 12:45|| 2023-09-10 12:45|| Front Page Top

#7 No wonder that harridan Pelosi said that Trump will have a chance to "prove his innocence".

Posted by DooDahMan 2023-09-10 12:47|| 2023-09-10 12:47|| Front Page Top

#8 /\ "prove his innocence."

The classic Stalin model.

Posted by Besoeker 2023-09-10 13:27|| 2023-09-10 13:27|| Front Page Top