Posted on 05/27/2023 3:26:34 PM PDT by Coronal
Defying a last-minute appeal by former President Donald Trump, the Texas House voted overwhelmingly Saturday to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, temporarily removing him from office over allegations of misconduct that included bribery and abuse of office.
The vote to adopt the 20 articles of impeachment was 121-23.
The stunning vote came two days after an investigative committee unveiled the articles — and two days before the close of a biennial legislative session that saw significant right-wing victories, including a ban on transgender health care for minors and new restrictions on public universities' diversity efforts.
The vote revealed substantial divisions within the Texas Republican Party — the largest, richest and most powerful state GOP party in the United States. Although the party has won every statewide election for a quarter-century and has controlled both houses of the Legislature since 2003, it has deep underlying fissures, many of them exacerbated by Trump’s rise.
Few attorneys general have been as prominent as Paxton, who made a career of suing the Obama and Biden administrations. One of Trump’s closest allies in Texas, along with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Paxton unsuccessfully sued to challenge the 2020 presidential election results in four states.
Attention next shifts to the Texas Senate, which will conduct a trial with senators acting as jurors and designated House members presenting their case as impeachment managers.
Permanently removing Paxton from office and barring him from holding future elected office in Texas would require the support of two-thirds of senators.
Impeachment was supported by 60 Republicans, including Speaker Dade Phelan. All votes in opposition came from Republicans
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
Your reading comprehension skills are pretty weak.
You should just wait until Trump tells you what to think about this guy. It puts less stress on your brain that way.
Your reading comprehension skills are pretty weak.
/\
Deflection/slander, how prog of you
Awwww, don’t go away butt hurt, just go away
/-)
Texas Rejected Use of Dominion Voting System Software Due to Efficiency Issues
Evaluations show Texas officials had concerns about Dominion Voting Systems product’s efficiency and reliability when
they rejected their use in January of this year.
BRAD JOHNSONNOVEMBER 19, 2020
I watched paxtons 3 hour vid detailing the dangers of dominion.
Diagrams and illustrations from dominions own manuals were an eye opener.
He handed them their as$.
The Swamp strikes again.
Yes! They will do anything to get rid of someone who dares to do something like this. Rinos will be the death of the Republican party and conservative voices. That’s why Ken got so much support and won the election. People know who is on our side.
Interesting point here that I hadn't noticed before. I assume its some kind of weird clause in the TX state constitution.
I've NEVER heard of an elected official being "temporarily" relived of duty just because the House passed an impeachment resolution on the floor and sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Clinton and Trump certainly weren't (it wasn't like Al Gore became "acting President" while Slick Willie's Senate trial was under way). Even in the case of Blago being overwhelmingly impeached when he was Governor of Illinois, the impeachment resolution passing didn't "temporarily" suspend him as Governor (I believe he even managed to appoint Roland Burris to the Senate WHILE impeached!) It wasn't until the Senate CONVICTED him that he was actually removed.
Since the default "punishment" for an impeachment conviction is removal from office, it seems to be that "TEMPORARILY" removing the elected official BEFORE the Senate has rendered a verdict is effectively saying "the accused is Presumed Guilty UNTIL Proven Innocent in a court of law", a reversal of the usual standards of justice in this country, and IMO, therefore blatantly unconstitutional.
In any case, there's no doubt George Pee Bush is licking his chops over Paxton being "temporarily" removed from office!
The uniparty strikes back. He’s one of the good guys, so they go after him. Just like the did Trump and countless other good people. No room for good in today’s government.
Keep in mind that impeachment is a political process, not a legal (criminal) one. I assume temporarily removing the accused from office pending the Senate trial is to insure the accused does not use his or her office to influence the outcome. Since this is not a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is not a constitutional issue. Not saying I approve, just pointing out the reality.
Again, I've never seen this done in ANY past impeachment.
I don't think Republicans would have gotten very far in arguing "Clinton must be TEMPORARILY removed as President until the Senate can have a trial and render a verdict, otherwise he might use his authority as chief law enforcement officer of the United States and the powers of the Presidency to try and sway the outcome and pressure the Senate to keep him in power"
(Ironically, I would say Clinton DID try that with his "Wag the Dog" war strategy AND giving a State of the Union address DURING his impeachment trial! Anyway...)
Hell, Pelosi didn't even attempt to make that argument for "temporarily removing" Trump either time they impeached him (except to say Trump needed to be impeached ASAP the second time, then have a "trial" AFTER he had ALREADY left office).
"Temporarily" removing either President would have been likely would have been laughed out by legal experts, and rightly seen as the House trying to tarnish them in the public eye as "Presumed Guilty until proven innocent".
Paxton can make a great case for double standards after all this over. Texas seems to be the ONLY state that "temporarily" removes politicians BEFORE they've been convicted!
The Bushes own Texas. They can do as they damn well please. Who will tell them nay.
As you said in your first post, this is probably something unique to Texas. The Constitution controls impeachment at the federal level. If Texas has temporarily removed the accused in previous impeachment proceedings, it would be hard for him to argue double standards about this. Whether it is common in other states would be irrelevant to this case. It’s called federalism.
I believe other states have a similar (temporary suspension) mechanism during impeachment trials. Last year, didn’t members of the NC House wonder out loud about impeaching members of the state supreme court if the court forced the recusal of a Republican justice from a case involving an amendment to the state constitution, specifically noting that the action would temporarily suspend those justices while the state senate took its sweet time with the impeachment trial? (In the end, the Democratic justices did not recuse the GOP justice and the NC House did not impeach anyone.) And a quick Google search makes me think that Utah and Iowa also have automatic (temporary) suspension of impeached officers.
First time I've EVER heard of it is Texas doing so, though you may be right Utah and Iowa have similar clauses.
Obviously being from Illinois, the biggest example I can think of at the state level was when Blago was impeached during his tenure as Governor (probably people from other states remember that one too, it was pretty shocking and unprecedented at the time).
There was ZERO talk of "temporarily suspending" Blago as Governor BEFORE the Senate has rendered a verdict, even though everyone KNEW he did what he was accused of, and he had been impeached overwhelmingly (117-1!) There wasn't even talk by the state legislature of finding a way to "suspend" him as Governor AFTER he did the unthinkable and actually DID appoint a U.S. Senator while under a "cloud of suspicion" for taking brides, and having been impeached for soliciting bribes for that very appointment. Rather, they tried to resolve the "problem" on the reverse end by simply refusing to seat Blago's 100% legally-appointed candidate, Roland Burris. The RATS didn't get very with that one (gotta hand it to Blago, it took some brass balls to do that!)
I agree that the federal government's system should have no affect on how state governments set up their own methods, but there's a reason why nobody has bothered to "temporarily suspend" a single federal official in the 200+ years of impeachments in the United States. Dumb and unconstitutional, IMO. Ironically I would oppose impeaching Biden if such a clause were in effect -- I don't even want to risk Heels Up Harris being "acting President" for a few weeks while the Senate puts sleepy Joe on trial. No doubt she'd be in a vengeful mood and issue some godawful "Executive Orders" during her reign as "acting President". Bleh!
Some patriotic Texas Republican needs to move to scrap this stupid "temporary suspension" clause. Innocent UNTIL proven guilty!
That clause is written into the Texas State Constitution, so it would require a Constitutional amendment.
The Bushes own Texas and the McCains own AZ. Where the hell does that leave our nation!!!
Up s**t creek without a paddle.
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.