Posted on 04/19/2025 12:56:12 PM PDT by RandFan
Cornyn is a RINO. That is all that needs to be constantly said about Cornyn.
Reliable for whom ?
If the author means D.C. over the citizens of Texas, I must agree with the premise.
That's why I am going all in on Paxton.
“Sen. John Cornyn has long been a reliable conservative in Congress.”
At least 54% of the time. If a democrat dropped below 90% liberal the party would take them out, either at the polls or by lawfare.
“ Sen. John Cornyn has long been a reliable conservative in Congress.”
Bwahaha. The gun-grabbing RINO uniparty dirtbag is about as reliable as a the Lucas electrical system in a 1963 MG.
Fixed it.
Just like Paul Ryan and drunk Boehner.
They are all part of the grifting class. Our eyes have been opened. We now know. If something seems out of place or nonsensical, someone somewhere is on the grift.
If by TX GOP you mean voters then yes I agree. If you mean the TX GOP party, then you would be wrong. They are massively corrupt
Which we now know is a fight between grifters and taxpayers.
The Bush name is no longer universally loved in Texas. (I drank the Bush Cool-Aid in the past but no more) To win he would have to convincingly politically distance himself from his grand father Bush 1, his uncle Bush II, and his father. That would not be easy. Yes he has one a state wide election. The race for attorney general will be under a microscope of political analysis. I am a political junkie. I do not know the true political beliefs of George P. That is a problem for me.
Save your money for 4 years and give to whomever tries to primary Murkowski. Assuming it's possible in that state.
He can never get past his name and fortunately is unelectable
“Sen. John Cornyn has long been a reliable conservative in Congress.”
B.S. warning in the first line.
Tim Scott …… didn’t know he supports RINO’s.
Trump must be pissed.
Yes. My impression is that he's like Linda Graham. He'll vote Conservative when it's time for him to get reelected.
“Sen. John Cornyn has long been a reliable conservative in Congress” Absolutel BS, sort of like saying we have a conservative supreme court.
What I gather so far is that the Republican caucus in Austin is split between RINOS and conservatives. Despite having am 88-62 Republican majority in the state House of Representatives, the RINOs align with the Democrats to control the Speakership.
In the most recent battle for the Speaker of the Texas House, there were two candidates: Dustin Burrows (RINO and friend of the outgoing Speaker Dade Phelan) and David Cook (conservative). Cook was endorsed by AG Ken Paxton and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. Nobody with prominent name recognition endorsed Burrows.
Burrows won the Speaker's race with a vote of 85-55 and 9 not voting. Democrats crossed over to put Burrows into the Speaker chair, because he will align with the Democrats' agenda.
Paxton represents the conservatives and Cornyn represents the RINOs, which is why the prior House under Phelan filed impeachment proceedings against their own party and Paxton.
Here is a conversation I just had with the Perplexity AI on the issues surround Ken Paxton. I must add that in the previous weeks of experimenting with AIs, I feel like Captain Kirk talking to Nomad. 
The most recent battle for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives occurred at the start of the 2025 legislative session and was marked by intense Republican infighting and unprecedented public acrimony.
Key Players:
Dustin Burrows’ election as Speaker of the Texas House in 2025 capped a bitter, highly publicized battle within the Republican Party, highlighting the ongoing struggle between establishment and hardline conservative factions and setting the stage for a session defined by both internal party tensions and high-stakes legislative priorities.
Dustin Burrows was endorsed primarily by a coalition of Democrats and a minority of Republicans in the Texas House. He secured the speakership with the support of 49 Democrats—including the entire El Paso House delegation—and 36 Republicans. Many Democrats favored Burrows over his opponent, David Cook, because Burrows committed to maintaining the tradition of bipartisan cooperation and including both parties in legislative leadership, while Cook and his backers wanted to exclude Democrats from leadership roles.
Burrows did not receive endorsements from the hard-right faction of the Republican Party or from most GOP leadership figures. In fact, prominent conservatives such as Attorney General Ken Paxton and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick either opposed his candidacy or expressed skepticism, emphasizing their expectation that Burrows advance a conservative legislative agenda despite his reliance on Democratic support.
In summary, Burrows’ path to the speakership was paved by Democratic endorsements and support from establishment or moderate Republicans, rather than from the party’s conservative wing.
No, there were no prominent statewide Republican officials or high-profile figures with broad name recognition who went on the record publicly endorsing Dustin Burrows for Speaker during the 2025 Texas House leadership contest. In fact, the opposite occurred: major statewide leaders such as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton either criticized Burrows’ candidacy or openly supported his opponent, David Cook. The Texas GOP establishment, including the Republican Party of Texas leadership, also opposed Burrows and threatened political retribution against Republicans who voted for him.
Burrows’ support came mainly from a coalition of Democrats and a minority of House Republicans, not from well-known statewide officeholders or influential conservative activists. The most notable local endorsement on record is from Lubbock County GOP Chair David Bruegel, who praised Burrows as more conservative than Cook and supportive of West Texas priorities. However, Bruegel is a regional party official, not a figure with broad statewide name recognition.
In summary, Burrows won the speakership without public endorsements from prominent, widely recognized Texas political figures.
Dade Phelan allowed an impeachment vote against Ken Paxton because he believed Paxton was "too corrupt to remain in power" and felt it was necessary to hold a powerful statewide official accountable for alleged abuses of office. The House General Investigating Committee, under Phelan's leadership, unanimously recommended impeachment after investigators concluded Paxton had broken numerous state laws, misspent office funds, and misused his power to benefit a friend and political donor. Phelan, at the height of his speakership, took a calculated risk, knowing it would provoke a fierce backlash within the Republican Party but believing that upholding ethical standards was paramount.
Phelan later defended his decision by citing the seriousness of the allegations, including bribery, malfeasance, and an extramarital affair, and argued that most House Republicans agreed with the need to impeach Paxton. Ultimately, Phelan's choice was framed as a stand for accountability and integrity, even though it triggered a significant political battle that threatened his own career.
Prominent Republican Figures and Circles Aligned with or Endorsing Dade Phelan
Despite fierce opposition from the far-right faction of the Texas GOP, Dade Phelan retained significant support from the party’s traditional "old guard," business-oriented conservatives, and several high-profile Republican figures:
Statewide and Nationally Recognized Endorsements:
These endorsements and alliances reflect the divide within the Texas GOP, with Phelan representing the business-minded, establishment wing, as opposed to the hardline conservatives led by figures like Ken Paxton, Dan Patrick, and Donald Trump.
There is no credible evidence supporting the claim that Karl Rove worked with Dade Phelan to orchestrate the impeachment of Ken Paxton as a strategy to remove Paxton as a threat to John Cornyn’s reelection bid.
The available reporting and public records indicate:
In summary, while the Texas GOP is deeply divided and both Rove and Phelan are aligned with the party’s establishment wing, there is no credible evidence that Rove and Phelan conspired to impeach Paxton to protect Cornyn’s Senate seat. This story remains unsubstantiated by any reputable source.
The narrative that the impeachment was orchestrated to protect Cornyn has circulated in some political circles and social media, but it lacks substantiation from credible investigative journalism or official statementsCan this lack of substantiation be attributed to media self-censorship of stories they don't want to publicize?
There is no credible evidence that the lack of substantiation for the narrative—that Ken Paxton’s impeachment was orchestrated to protect John Cornyn—can be attributed to media self-censorship. In fact, Texas media and national outlets provided extensive, detailed, and at times critical coverage of the impeachment process, including live analysis, in-depth reporting, and coverage of both pro- and anti-Paxton perspectives. The Texas House’s actions and the evidence against Paxton were widely reported, as were criticisms from Paxton’s supporters who labeled the proceedings a “sham” and accused political opponents of ulterior motives.
While self-censorship can occur in some media environments due to political, commercial, or social pressures, there is no indication from the reporting on the Paxton impeachment that Texas or national media systematically avoided or suppressed credible stories about a conspiracy involving Karl Rove, Dade Phelan, and John Cornyn. Instead, the reason such claims lack substantiation is that they have not been supported by credible investigative journalism or official documentation, not because of deliberate media self-censorship.
In summary, the absence of substantiation for this narrative is due to a lack of credible evidence, not media suppression or self-censorship in this case.
Yes, the Texas Senate acquitted Ken Paxton by a wide margin on all 16 articles of impeachment brought by the House. The most votes any article received for conviction was 14, which was well short of the 21 votes required to remove him from office. Only two Republican senators joined Democrats in voting to convict on some articles. As a result, Paxton was found not guilty and reinstated as Texas Attorney General.
A wide rejection of impeachment articles in the Senate does not necessarily mean the House's impeachment was purely about political positioning and not about actual crimes. The impeachment process in Texas, as elsewhere, is both legal and political, and the outcomes in each chamber can reflect different priorities, alliances, and standards of evidence.
Key points to consider:
The Senate’s acquittal does not prove the House acted solely out of political motivation, nor does it disprove the existence of serious allegations. It highlights the complexity and political nature of impeachment, where different bodies can reach different conclusions for a variety of reasons—legal, evidentiary, and political.
It is plausible to speculate that political alliances and rivalries influenced the Texas House impeachment of Ken Paxton, especially given the well-documented alignment between House Speaker Dade Phelan and establishment Republican figures such as Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Karl Rove, Harlan Crow, and Dick Weekley—many of whom are also closely associated with Senator John Cornyn and have been antagonistic toward Paxton. These establishment figures have historically supported Cornyn and have viewed Paxton, a prominent figure in the party’s pro-Trump, anti-establishment wing, as a political rival and potential threat to Cornyn’s reelection prospects.
However, while these relationships and rivalries provide context for the political climate in which the impeachment occurred, there is no direct evidence in credible reporting that the impeachment was explicitly orchestrated by Cornyn's allies in the House solely to clear the field for Cornyn’s reelection bid. The impeachment was based on a House investigation into allegations of corruption and abuse of office by Paxton, and the vote included support from a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats.
The subsequent wide rejection of impeachment articles in the Senate reflects the deep divisions within the Texas GOP, with the Senate more aligned with the party’s pro-Trump faction, which supports Paxton and opposes the establishment wing. This outcome demonstrates the complex interplay of legal, ethical, and political considerations rather than serving as definitive proof of a coordinated effort by Cornyn’s allies to eliminate a rival.
In summary, while it is plausible that establishment Republicans’ alignment and antagonism toward Paxton contributed to the impeachment effort, and that political positioning played a role, there is no substantiated evidence that the process was a deliberate scheme to benefit Cornyn’s reelection campaign. The events are best understood as part of a broader and ongoing power struggle within the Texas Republican Party.
It is reasonable to acknowledge that if a scheme to impeach Ken Paxton for the benefit of John Cornyn’s reelection existed, those involved would not publicly admit to it or leave clear evidence. Political maneuvering, especially of the type often described as “backroom deals,” is typically conducted privately and is designed to avoid detection and direct documentation. This is a well-established feature of political history, as seen in examples ranging from 19th-century impeachment trials to modern campaign finance tactics.
However, the standard for credible reporting and historical analysis is based on available evidence—documents, testimony, leaks, or corroborated accounts. Journalists and historians rely on such evidence to distinguish between plausible speculation and substantiated fact. While the absence of evidence does not prove that no secret scheme existed, it also does not confirm one did. Many political actors have incentives to keep such dealings secret, but over time, significant conspiracies often leave some trace—through whistleblowers, leaks, or inadvertent disclosures.
In summary:
It is reasonable to infer that political alignment played a significant role in the impeachment and acquittal of Ken Paxton, but the claim that the House impeachment was solely targeted to keep Paxton from challenging Cornyn—and that the Senate "foiled that plot"—remains speculative and is not fully supported by the available evidence.
What the Evidence Shows
It is reasonable to infer that the House’s and Senate’s actions reflected their respective political alignments, and that weakening Paxton may have been a factor for some Cornyn-aligned House members. However, the narrative that the entire impeachment was a targeted plot to protect Cornyn, and that the Senate specifically acted to foil it, goes beyond what the evidence directly supports. The reality is best understood as a reflection of deep and ongoing factional conflict within the Texas GOP.
The Texas House began its formal investigation into Ken Paxton in March 2023, after Paxton requested state funds to pay a $3.3 million settlement to whistleblowers who had accused him of misconduct. The House General Investigating Committee conducted the inquiry quietly for several months before publicly revealing the investigation and recommending impeachment on May 25, 2023. The House then voted to impeach Paxton on May 27, 2023.
In summary, the House investigation lasted about two to three months before articles of impeachment were filed.
The last legislative session of the Texas Legislature in 2023 ended on May 29, 2023. This was the final day (Sine Die) of the 88th Regular Session.
Investigations that lead to impeachments can vary widely in length depending on the circumstances, complexity, and urgency of the case. In the case of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Texas House General Investigating Committee began its formal investigation in March 2023 and recommended impeachment on May 25, 2023. The House voted to impeach Paxton on May 27, 2023. This means the investigation lasted about two to three months from initiation to the filing of articles of impeachment.
Looking more broadly, the duration of impeachment investigations can range from a few weeks to several months or even years, depending on the evidence-gathering process, political considerations, and the urgency perceived by the legislative body. In Paxton’s case, the process was relatively swift, likely due to the high-profile nature of the allegations and the pressure to act before the legislative session ended.
In Paxton’s case, the process was relatively swift, likely due to the high-profile nature of the allegations and the pressure to act before the legislative session ended.Where was that pressue to act coming from? Who was pushing for Paxton's impeachment?
The pressure to act on Ken Paxton’s impeachment came primarily from within the Texas House itself, especially after Paxton requested state funds to settle a $3.3 million whistleblower lawsuit brought by former senior aides who accused him of corruption and abuse of office. This request raised alarm among House members, who were concerned they were being asked to participate in a cover-up.
The House General Investigating Committee, led by Rep. Andrew Murr (R-Junction), responded by launching a secret investigation in March 2023 to determine the merit of the whistleblower claims. The findings, released in May, were described as explosive and indicated Paxton had likely broken numerous state laws, misspent office funds, and misused his power to benefit a political donor.
The urgency was heightened by the timing: the legislative session was about to end, meaning the House had only a narrow window to act if it wanted to hold Paxton accountable before adjourning. This led to a rapid sequence of events—the committee’s public airing of the allegations, the filing of impeachment articles, and the House vote to impeach Paxton just days before the session closed.
In summary, the push for Paxton’s impeachment was driven by the House General Investigating Committee, concerned House members, and a sense of duty to address serious allegations before the session ended—not by outside pressure, but by internal alarm over the gravity of the misconduct and the potential for legislative complicity if they failed to act.
Major Texas newspapers and local media did not formally call for Ken Paxton’s ouster in the form of editorials or explicit demands for his removal during the impeachment process. Instead, coverage focused on reporting the allegations, trial proceedings, and the political implications, providing detailed analysis and context rather than advocacy.
Media outlets such as The Texas Tribune, Dallas Morning News, KERA, and Texas Standard offered extensive coverage of the impeachment, outlining the charges, evidence, and arguments from both sides, as well as the political divisions within the Republican Party. Their reporting included live updates, in-depth analysis, and summaries of the revelations from the trial, but did not take an editorial stance demanding Paxton’s removal.
The coverage did, however, highlight the seriousness of the allegations, the bipartisan nature of the House impeachment vote, and the concerns raised by lawmakers about Paxton’s conduct. Some reporting included quotes from House members and legal experts emphasizing the importance of accountability and the gravity of the charges, but these were presented as part of news analysis rather than editorial campaigns.
In summary, while Texas media provided comprehensive and sometimes critical coverage of Ken Paxton’s impeachment, there is no evidence from the search results that major newspapers or local outlets explicitly called for his ouster in their editorial positions during the process.
Yes, it is plausible to infer that the Texas House was acting largely on its own volition to impeach Ken Paxton, rather than responding to widespread public or media outcry. The evidence supports several key points:
The process was shaped by internal concerns about Paxton’s conduct and the looming legislative deadline, rather than by a broader political outcry from the public or media.It could also be said that the process was shaped by internal concerns about Paxton's popularity and the looming Presidential election and the following mid-term reelection bid of ally John Cornyn.
It is plausible to suggest that the Texas House’s impeachment of Ken Paxton was influenced not only by internal concerns about his conduct and the legislative deadline, but also by political calculations related to Paxton’s popularity and the looming electoral landscape—including the 2024 presidential election and John Cornyn’s upcoming reelection bid. Several factors support this interpretation:
-PJ
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) today released the following statement after the U.S. Senate voted to acquit former President Trump in his second impeachment trial:“The January 6th attack on the Capitol was horrific and appalling. Those who planned and participated in the violence that day should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I agree with Speaker Pelosi that a 9/11-type of investigation is called for to examine and address the confluence of causes for those shocking events and to help prevent them from ever happening again.
“This trial reminded us that too many public officials, including the President, have used reckless and incendiary speech. In these politically-polarized times, we all need to be more careful with our words and how they may be perceived by others. ...
***
(emphasis added)
“Sen. John Cornyn has long been a reliable conservative in Congress”
When you start out with a lie, it’s all downhill from there.
Cornyn has long been a reliable RINO. 🙄
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.