Image 01 Image 03

Texas AG Ken Paxton Impeached By State House In 121-23 Vote

Texas AG Ken Paxton Impeached By State House In 121-23 Vote

Paxton is suspended from office until a Senate trial determines his fate

Embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) had been impeached by the Texas state House. He is suspended from office until the Texas state Senate delivers its verdict and sentence on the impeachment charges.

The Texas state Senate holds his political fate in its hands. Paxton could be removed from office and barred from holding office again in the state of Texas, or he could be found not guilty and returned to office. Or, presumably, anything in between.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

In a historic move Saturday, the Texas House of Representatives voted 121-to-23 in favor of impeaching Attorney General Ken Paxton after considering the 20 articles of impeachment filed against him. Paxton faced several charges that ranged from bribery to abuse of public trust to obstruction of justice, reported journalists with the Associated Press.

“The evidence is substantial. It is alarming and unnerving,” Texas state Rep. Andrew Murr was reported saying in the proceedings’ closing statements by The Texas Tribune’s Patrick Svitek. Murr, a Republican, chairs the House General Investigating Committee. This unprecedented vote means Paxton will be temporarily removed from office, per The Texas Tribune’s news team, and a trial will take place in the state Senate next. Depending on the trial’s outcome, Paxton may be officially relieved of his duties. It’s worth noting that Paxton’s wife, Angela Paxton, is a state senator.

Paxton responded that he looks “forward to a quick resolution in the Texas Senate, where I have full confidence the process will be fair and just.”

The vote to impeach was 121-23, with three members absent.

Prior to the vote, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) defended Paxton.

As did Donald Trump.

However, it was to no avail. Paxton is now suspended from office until the Senate determines his fate on the impeachment.

Fox4 reports:

Now that Paxton is impeached, he is suspended from office pending a trial in the Senate.

Senators will act as jurors and decide whether to remove Paxton from office.

The Senate has until the end of session Monday to set a date for the trial.

If the Senate’s leader, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, does not do that, Governor Greg Abbott will have the power to call senators back.

Paxton issued a statement prior to the vote. Watch:

The Texas Tribune is posting live updates if you wish to follow this developing story.

[FS: This post has been updated to note that Paxton is suspended from office upon impeachment. Thanks, LI commenter leoamery!]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is like when the Biden indicted Marilyn Mosby.

Apparently, leftists CAN mess with Texas – particularly when the Republican Texas House Speaker Dade Phalen is drunk on his azz during session.

    diver64 in reply to LB1901. | May 28, 2023 at 1:30 pm

    I watched the video of Phalen and he sure looks and sounds like something is going on. Either drunk, having a stroke or something.

Never heard anything about this guy.
I think it is a cheap shot at Trump and Cruz, and yet another attempt to put us on our heels.
Good Lord, take a look around…do you really think Trump will lose again? Freaking Mitt Romney would whip Biden in a landslide.

I am sure it has nothing to do with that investigation into pfizer he began last month.

Kinda like how PV suicidaly ditching O’Keefe had nothing to do with him outing Pfizer and showing how they essentially own the regulators.

    scooterjay in reply to Dathurtz. | May 28, 2023 at 11:06 am

    He has been dragged out to club Trump…again.
    Karen no likey MAGA.

      What on earth are you talking about? This is about Paxton, a prominent conservative AG who has been pushing back against the left for years, being impeached. We’ve covered him here at LI, and he’s often making headlines for his suits against the Biden admin; I’m not sure how it is that you’ve never even heard of him, but most of our readers have.

        diver64 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 28, 2023 at 1:23 pm

        I can’t find specific information as to what exactly he is being impeached for just vague “corruption” and so on. Can you point to something so we can see what the actual charges are?

        scooterjay in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 28, 2023 at 6:27 pm

        I have heard the name. With revelations popping up almost hourly we are wasting precious time on this? Wish I were paid to scour media sources and glean articles, but I’m spending my day on a plumbing project. Have you attempted to do a home plumbing project lately? When you get to Lowes, Home Depot, wherever…the 1 1/2″ pipe fittings, common for drains, are unavailable and the entire aisle is crowded with those that proudly proclaim “Se habla Espanol”. They purchase supplies from retailers like Lowes as they are operating w/o a license…something I am required to carry by law if that were my trade.

    Louis K. Bonham in reply to Dathurtz. | May 28, 2023 at 2:38 pm

    No. It has to do with Paxton requesting a $3.5 million appropriation to settle a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit that had been filed against him. House wanted to know what it was all about before giving him the money, and what they uncovered (largely evidence developed in that case) is truly outrageous.

    Now, I am no fan of our RINO speaker (who owes his election to a coalition of Dems and RINO’s), and I have little doubt that Speaker Phelan has his own agenda going on here. Plus it is an open question whether 9 of 19 GOP senators would join with the 12 Dems and vote to remove, especially when Paxton was a state senator and his wife still holds that slot.

    But the ideas that the impeachment was due to Paxton going after big pharma, or election reform, or for calling for Phelan to resign after being apparently drunk on the job is just silly. Paxton’s ethical lapses have been well known for years, and this time they caught up with him.

I have read a few reports about this impeachment, but not a single one includes any detail, on any specific charges. Not one specific example of any specific action or inaction, out of 20 charges? Then there’s this rush-rush, right now vote. Is this a hit job?

Of course, we can try to look up and find the details of the impeachment, but also, one usually tends to assume that that’s the job of the reporters.

I suspect Paxton’s greatest sin was defeating RINO favorite son George P. Bush.

If the Bidens can survive and thrive with the evidence that they have taken millions from China and other foreign entities, then I think the TX legislators that voted to impeach Paxton have some explaining to do. Looks like TX may have a RINO problem.

    txvet2 in reply to Q. | May 28, 2023 at 2:24 pm

    I suspect a lot of the Republicans who voted for him have a Phelan problem – i.e., they’re scared to death that he’ll retaliate if they vote Nay. My rep, Carrie Isaac, stood up against the pressure and voted Nay. Phelan is also tight with the Dems, because he appointed several of them as committee chairs and they all hate Paxton anyway. I can’t figure out why the lege voted overwhelmingly twice (almost unanimously) to make him speaker.

Bye bye Texas, it was nice having you around.

Where’s the fucking Governor??

From TX Constitution Article 15 Section 6, Impeachment:

“Sec. 5. SUSPENSION PENDING IMPEACHMENT; PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT. All officers against whom articles of impeachment may be preferred shall be suspended from the exercise of the duties of their office, during the pendency of such impeachment. The Governor may make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy,† occasioned by the suspension of an officer until the decision on the impeachment.”

I recall hearing rumors/whispers about Paxton when I was still in El Paso. Most of this stuff was public prior to his re-election. IMO, the impeachment is driven more by bad blood with the Speaker Phelan (dude is a bit of a Machiavellian weasel) than the articles. Most of this was publicly reported before now so it wasn’t as if the members of the TX HoR were totally surprised here. Not that Paxton is pure as the driven snow, he ain’t, he’s an old school back slap, wheel/deal TX Politician. It was an opportunity to settle political scores and unfortunately Paxton handed his opponents the ammunition.

GravityOpera | May 28, 2023 at 5:19 pm

I clicked through on Cruz’s tweet to read the rest of the thread and ran across this:
In another shocking claim from the investigating committee, state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, said that less than an hour after the committee report recommending impeachment was released on Wednesday, Paxton began calling House members attempting to intimidate them into voting against 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 [Attorney] General Paxton personally, threatening them with political consequences in their next election,” Geren said.

The tweet from Cruz, by stating that the information was public before election day, appears to admit that the articles are true. This is further reinforced because instead of debunking the charges, as you would expect if they were false, he goes spineless and hides behind “respect the voters” BS. I strongly supported him in 2016 so this is a severe disappointment.

“Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” It is a lot of smoke when two-thirds of Republicans vote to impeach a Republican official.

    GravityOpera in reply to GravityOpera. | May 28, 2023 at 8:32 pm

    Oops, I can’t math today. About three-quarters, not two-thirds, of Republicans voted to impeach. I guess that explains the thumbs down votes.

    CommoChief in reply to GravityOpera. | May 28, 2023 at 8:51 pm

    ‘..calls from the AG Paxton threatening political consequences in the next election’

    Meh. Dude was working the phones and calling in political favors. Impeachment is a political action and this this is how the sausage gets made. If anyone thinks the Speaker and the rest of those pushing this were not also communicating with members as to their preferences they need to step back and rethink.

    Whether explicit or implicit everyone knew the deal for TX HoR members here. Either PO the Speaker or PO Paxton. Either way you now have a powerful enemy. Apparently they feared the Speaker more than the Attorney General.

      GravityOpera in reply to CommoChief. | May 29, 2023 at 6:17 pm

      Impeachment is (supposed to be) a judicial proceeding not a political one. Intimidation of the de-facto jury is something that should be assumed to be a confession. Otherwise you are running interference for the Democrats that refused to convict Clinton, but did vote to convict Trump.

        CommoChief in reply to GravityOpera. | May 29, 2023 at 7:26 pm

        No. The judiciary runs judicial proceedings. The legislature runs political proceedings. That’s basic, schoolhouse rock civics and if you don’t understand this simple point it undercuts everything else you are trying to communicate.

        If impeachment was a judicial proceeding then someone who was impeachment for X couldn’t be criminally liable for X because of double jeopardy. If a State Constitutional Officer is ‘convicted’ by the State Senate based on underlying criminal actions listed in the Articles of impeachment voted out of the State House are you telling us that criminal charges would be barred?

        Your logic is very unsound. You claim the d/prog who failed to vote to impeach Clinton in 1996 also voted to convict Trump. Firstly there are two parts to an impeachment action. The House acts analogous to a grand jury while the Senate acts analogous to a petit jury which is overseen by a Presiding Officer not a Judge.

        Secondly you are implicitly concerning the fact that impeachment is a political action by attempting to claim hypocrisy on the part of the d/prog for failing to vote consistently for both articles and conviction based upon those articles of impeachment. Your understanding of how an impeachment process works is flawed.

        Finally how many of the 206 d/prog who voted no in the HoR in ’96 remained in the HoR in December of 2019 some 23 years later? Hell how many are still alive for that matter?

          GravityOpera in reply to CommoChief. | May 29, 2023 at 8:46 pm

          You denied that impeachment is a de facto judicial proceeding then described the House as a grand jury and the Senate as a petite jury!

          TX Const. Art. 15 Sec. 3. …the Senators shall be on oath, or affirmation impartially to try the party impeached…

          If impeachment is merely a political proceeding then why is an oath of impartiality required and why does the Texas Constitution refer to it as a trial of the party impeached? Maybe you’re splitting hairs and claiming that impeachment is political, but, hopefully, recognizing that trying the impeachment isn’t?

          TX Const. Art. 15 Sec. 4. Judgement in cases of impeachment shall extend only to removal from office, and disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust or profit under this State. A. Party convicted on impeachment shall also be subject to indictment trial and punishment according to law.
          This is very similar to:
          US Const. Art. 1 Sec. 3. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

          That should answer the double jeopardy question.

          Democrats was used generally. I did not mean that specific individuals have been in office since Clinton’s presidency; I don’t know where you came up with that one. I apparently made the mistake of assuming that you were disgusted by the Democrats putting politics above truth and fitness for office during both the Clinton and Trump presidencies which would explain why that statement didn’t make any sense to you.

          Hopefully I’m reading it wrong, but under Section 8 there is another procedure for removing judges for causes not sufficient for impeachment. Apparently “wilful neglect of duty, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, oppression in office, or other reasonable cause” are not sufficient! What else is left?

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | May 29, 2023 at 10:02 pm


          You don’t seem to grasp that an analogy doesn’t mean equivalence. An Analogy is used to help those who don’t understand X by attempting to relate X to something within that person’s existing knowledge. The use of an analogy isn’t a concession of anything.

          Let’s keep it simple. Both putting someone into office by either election or appointment and removing that same person from office via impeachment are Political actions.

          The reason double jeopardy doesn’t apply to a successful impeachment and removal from office is b/c impeachment is a political action and not a judicial action. That wouldn’t be true if impeachment was also a judicial action.

          Many people misunderstand this point. Most of them are willing to admit their error when presented with the facts. You don’t seem willing to do that. Those who reject reason, facts and logic are by definition unreasonable. Another way to describe unreasonable (those who reject reason) is Cray Cray.

          My Father warned me that ‘there’s no dealing with the crazy, you just gotta leave them alone and move on’. So that’s what I’m gonna do here and let you be wrong on this point.

          GravityOpera in reply to CommoChief. | May 30, 2023 at 1:19 am

          When you describe the House and Senate as juries you are using an analogy which demonstrates how smart and knowledgeable you are.
          When I describe the House and Senate as juries I am being absolutely literal which demonstrates how ignorant and stupid I am.

          I’m glad you cleared that up for me.

          PS: Why are you so hung up on double jeopardy? I never even implied that it attached to impeachment. I even quoted the sections of both the Federal and Texas Constitutions that explicitly exempt impeachment under those constitutions from being considered double jeopardy so this obsession makes no sense.

          For anyone else reading this and is confused: CommoChief badly misinterpreted my intended meaning when I called impeachment a “judicial process” and is flailing about trying to debunk his own imagination.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | May 30, 2023 at 12:30 pm


          The first sentence of your first reply to me states:
          ‘Impeachment is (supposed to be) a judicial proceeding not a political one’

          Protest all you wish but until you restate your (false) premise that impeachment is a judicial proceeding to correct your mistake then everything that that comes after that false premise is on you.

          GravityOpera in reply to CommoChief. | May 30, 2023 at 8:45 pm


          Until you understand what an analogy is everything that follows is on you.

    diver64 in reply to GravityOpera. | May 29, 2023 at 6:15 am

    “…appears to admit that the articles are true. ”

    Not the way I see it. I think Cruz was saying the claims and allegations were known and people apparently decided they were a bunch of nonsense much like the charges and allegations against Trump. The difference is the National Dems were able to cheat enough to get Brandon into office.

      GravityOpera in reply to diver64. | May 29, 2023 at 6:34 pm

      Hillary Clinton “won” the popular vote with many voting for her simply because they hated Trump. That doesn’t mean she isn’t guilty as hell.

      Cruz did not deny the allegations and went with distractions instead. It is very similar to the tactics used by the left to protect criminals and drive the rioting of the last few years. Trayvon Martin is a great example. They showed pre-teen pictures and explained how he was a good kid just visiting his father when the swamp — oops, I mean the evil racist white hispanic — pursued, attacked, and murdered him.

      GWB in reply to diver64. | May 30, 2023 at 12:27 pm

      What Cruz does do is argue from a purely political point of view, and not in light of truth or justice or any of the things you might hope for:
      For the last nine years, Ken has been the strongest conservative AG in the country.
      IOW, “maybe he did these things, but he’s on our side.” That’s not acceptable as a standard.

      markm in reply to diver64. | May 30, 2023 at 11:16 pm

      About half of the articles of impeachment are about various stratagems Paxton allegedly used to delay the public finding out about his wrongdoing until after the election.

The House used Nancy Pelosi rules: secret processing, with no opportunity for defense. You can make anybody look bad that way, especially if you lie.

    Louis K. Bonham in reply to Valerie. | May 29, 2023 at 4:04 pm

    If it’s all just a lie, then why did Paxton ask for an appropriation of over $3 million of taxpayer funds to settle the whistleblower retaliation suit?

    That’s what prompted the inquiry that has now led to his impeachment. And the evidence from the whistleblower retaliation suit — which is the factual guts of the impeachment case — isn’t made up.

    Again, the way it was played in the House was a political hit by Phelan, who also needs to go. But politics ain’t beanbag.

after considering the 20 articles of impeachment filed against him
But just the articles, not any of the evidence supporting them. That was all considered in committee, and evidetly not laid out before the House in its entirety.

The evidence is substantial.
Then why didn’t you present it?

If the House portion of impeachment is equivalent to a grand jury, then what grand jury ever asked 3 of its members to listen to the presentment by the DA, and they’ll just vote on whatever those 3 have agreed to say?

I’m not defending Paxton. There’s some definite politician stink on him. But if you really want to bring the fire, actually bring it and don’t hide it behind the committee’s skirts.