Ken’s In Trouble

Outside the Capitol - while impeachment debate carries on in the House - two small, opposing groups goaded each other over Paxton. #txlege

"Ken is my hero," a Paxton fan shouted.

"He's a criminal," the others responded. pic.twitter.com/h4h7WGyn7Y

— William Melhado (@williammelhado) May 27, 2023

And not getting much support, either.

(Threatening the people who will decide his tenure in office? This guy’s as dumb as Trump!)

Attorney General Ken Paxton called several lawmakers and threatened them with political consequences if they voted for his impeachment, according to state Rep. Charlie Geren. https://t.co/RyQFH9epsQ

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) May 27, 2023

A member of the House General Investigative Committee said Attorney General Ken Paxton called several lawmakers and threatened them with political consequences if they voted for his impeachment. 

“I would like to point out that several members of this House while on the floor of this House, doing the state business, received telephone calls from general Paxton personally, threatening them with political consequences in their next election,” state Rep. Charlie Geren said. 

Geren’s claims came as part of the opening remarks of the House’s impeachment hearings. Geren spent most of his time refuting Paxton’s claims that the impeachment is a political witch hunt and that the whistleblowers who sued him were “political” appointees. 

Geren reiterated what the committee said in its articles of impeachment: That it would not have scrutinized the issue had he not requested that the Legislature sign off on a $3.3 million lawsuit settlement to the former employees. 

“We are here today because the attorney general asked the state Legislature to fund a multimillion-dollar settlement,” Geren said. “There was no investigation prior to this time. We wanted to look further into the reasons behind that.” 

Geren then argued that the lawsuit settlement was an attempt by Paxton to conceal potential wrongdoing. 

“This settlement served to stave off a trial, including a discovery process that could have brought new info to light,” he said.

Ken’s  “defense”  is that voters knew all this in 2020. Whenever someone says all the information is already available, it usually means they want to keep any further information from getting out.

It’s what I call the ‘hang them out and judge them later’ policy,” said state Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, who under House rules was allotted 30 minutes to respond to the committee’s report. 

Smithee said that he was not making a statement on Paxton’s guilt but rather was condemning the process. 

“What you have in this case is triple hearsay. … It is hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay,” he said. 

After Smithee closed his speech, applause broke out from some in the gallery overlooking the House floor. 

Another lawmaker, state Rep. Tony Tinderholt, compared Paxton to former President Donald Trump, who Tinderholt said was subject to one of “the most egregious impeachments in the history of the United States.” 

Tinderholt also cited recent statements in which Trump and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz separately condemned the investigation and said they support Paxton.

Yeah, comparing Paxton to Trump is not really helpful. And attacking the process is not really a defense. (And hearsay only matters in a court of law where rules of evidence apply. And what you think is hearsay, ain’t necessarily so.)

Trump and Cruz didn’t offer defenses, either. Although Trump is probably going to call Paxton’s phone calls “perfect.”