When the jury decides you should go to trial as charged, what do you think your chances are?
Fair enough. However…
House impeachment managers make their case
In opening statements, House impeachment managers outlined what they said was a pattern of “deceit” and alleged crimes committed by Attorney General Ken Paxton as he sought to benefit his friend and donor, real estate investor Nate Paul.
The misconduct, they alleged, “turned the keys” of the attorney general’s office over to Paul, who returned the favor by helping Paxton hide an alleged extramarital affair, among other alleged favors that Paxton tried to conceal.
In a 17-minute speech, state Rep. Andrew Murr (R-Junction) also pushed back against some of Paxton’s key defenses, including his claims that he can’t be impeached for conduct that predated his most recent election, and his attorneys’ arguments that his conduct was either in line with his office’s duties or does not warrant impeachment.
Murr argued that Paxton’s conduct need not be criminal to justify his removal from office.
“We don't have to show some type of quid pro quo to establish that his conduct warrants impeachment,” Murr said. “Wrongs justifying impeachment don’t have to be crimes. Wrongs justifying the impeachment are broader than that because they have the purpose of protecting the state, not punishing the offender.”That last point goes to Patrick’s comments in ruling Paxton couldn’t be forced to testify. The right argument is that Paxton is separately under criminal investigation, and can’t be forced to waive his 5th amendment rights in this proceeding. Patrick cited several examples, including statements from House prosecutors, to show this proceeding had enough similarities to a criminal trial to keep Paxton off the stand involuntarily. I don’t think Patrick was poisoning the well, or offering fellow GOP senators an out to not vote for conviction. I think he thought he was reasoning like a lawyer (he even cited a Supreme Court case, probably inaptly). But the House is right: this isn’t a criminal proceeding.
If it was, surely Paxton would have sought a 2 year delay on the basis alone of the 4000 pages the House released earlier.
Paxton’s lawyers, Buzbee and Dan Cogdell, responded with a spirited but tedious defense in their allotted hour — delving into specific details of various impeachment articles to argue that the case against Paxton is a “whole lot of nothing” and based on “nothing of significance.”
“Is there proof beyond all reasonable doubt for you to convict Ken Paxton?” Cogdell asked senators, who are acting as jurors. “And I suggest to you that it is crystal clear that there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I have one simple ask: do the right thing.”That’s the criminal standard, but this is not a criminal case. Either they are playing for the cameras, or they’re trying to give enough Republicans cover to save Paxton’s ass. I don’t think it will work, because I think the only question now is: will they bar Paxton from ever holding state office again? If they don’t, he just runs in ‘24, and everyone wonders what impeachment was for.
So odds are, Paxton is toast and his backers need some excuse for his failure. Like failure to adhere to the non-applicable criminal standards.
Buzbee made sweeping promises that he and his legal team will disprove accusations in the impeachment articles and provide additional evidence that will show the allegations to be based on assumptions, not facts. Throughout their opening statements, Buzbee and Cogdell railed against media coverage, saying it unfairly characterized Paxton’s actions. Buzbee also criticized the Senate for imposing a gag order on both parties, hampering his ability to answer allegations, and questioned if Paxton could get a fair trial.Tony Buzbee’s a blowhard. I’m not holding my breath he can prove anything.
And as the House pointed out, innuendo is a perfectly fine standard for conviction in a political process.
No comments:
Post a Comment