Jump to content

wreckatx

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wreckatx

  1. Anyone else watching the tweets from TribFest? Patrick and Rs that voted to acquit are still fading a lot of heat. Wonder how long this will last?
  2. It’s also being reported that “at least a supermajority of senators” were opposed to the defense motion for directed verdict.
  3. Paxton’s mistress filed a motion to quash her subpoena and said she was going to plead the fifth and not provide any substantive testimony. Patrick dismissed her and refused to tell the senators that she was taking the fifth. The “compromise” was that he would say she was “deemed unavailable.” There is an exception to the hearsay rule that calls a witness who refuses to testify “unavailable.” This is what $3million gets you.
  4. Erin Epley. House investigator and former federal prosecutor.
  5. Well this has already happened. The senate rejected Paxtons motion to dismiss based on the forgiveness/prior term doctrine today. I believe that vote was 22-8.
  6. It's outrageous and (YGIFS posts aside) you're right that the extent of Paul and Paxton's relationship is still mystery to most people. Texas Monthly just put out a tongue-in-cheek piece on this topic. "On the surface, there’s little for the pair to bond over. Paul, the child of South Asian immigrants, was born in Victoria, Texas. He is a 36-year-old property developer and nightclub proprietor whom Forbes once estimated to own holdings worth $1.2 billion. Famously, he announced his property acquisitions by draping from his new buildings banners emblazoned with a slogan ripped from hip-hop mogul DJ Khaled: “Another One.” Paxton is a 60-year-old grandfather, evangelical, and career politician born in North Dakota who met his wife while the two were students at Baylor University, before Paul was born." "Perhaps in the course of discussing how unfair law enforcement could be to a couple of fellas just trying to make their way in the world, the two started to bare their souls. One can imagine Paxton, feeling the warm glow of budding brotherhood, complaining about the poky size and janky countertops of his kitchen or the employment troubles of a particular lady friend who lived in Southwest Austin, and Paul, flush with oxytocin, seeing an opportunity to help out his new buddy." I don't have any information, but I believe the DOJ is waiting until after the impeachment trial to take any more action, much like they will refrain from indicting close to an election so as not to appear to have political motives.
  7. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/29/ken-paxton-nate-paul-brandon-cammack-impeachment/ This is the least salacious, but most damning part of the impeachment investigation. I hope the senate understands it.
  8. As you were saying...what? I still think there will be a trial unless he resigns and maybe even then they still have one. Only other thing that I think would delay or prevent the trial would be if he were indicted by the feds. That would give Patrick cover to postpone the trial while the federal case progresses and leave Paxton suspended.
  9. And Angela Paxton is not going to recuse herself. Can’t say I’m surprised, but my god these people are shameless.
  10. This is great. At his press conference yesterday, Buzbee put up a picture of a receipt for remodel work to prove that KP didn’t get a free remodel from Nate Paul. Before now, there was no real proof that Nate was even involved in the remodel, just secondhand hearsay from a Paxton aide. Anyway, the construction company on the receipt is affiliated with-guess who?-Nate Paul. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ken-paxtons-home-renovation-payment-disclosure-shows-new-ties-to-donor-d2f7c899
  11. The only way this is true is if Paxton is resigning.
  12. I’m not sure it does. I’ll bet you 90 to nothing they are on some kind of paid leave.
  13. “Leave of absence” means they’re still on the payroll. First Paxton loaned the OAG to Nate to go after his adversaries and now Paxton is borrowing OAG staff to defend his impeachment. Meanwhile, Texas will be without its top appellate attorney and the chief of OAG General Litigation. Abbott should appoint an interim and all 6 of these assholes should be fired. It’s fucking outrageous.
  14. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2023/05/31/paxton-whistleblowers-triggered-his-removal-from-ags-office-but-will-they-get-paid/70269957007/ WHISTLEBLOWER SUIT Ex-aides have not seen any of $3.3M Future of payments to 4 in Paxton case is murky Ryan Autullo and Tony Plohetski Austin American-Statesman USA TODAY NETWORK Former aides who lost their jobs for exposing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s alleged misdeeds have yet to receive a penny of a $3.3 million settlement in a whistleblower suit, and the future of that payment remains as uncertain as Paxton’s political future. Earlier this year, four whistleblowers reached the conditional settlement with the attorney general’s office to resolve a wrongful termination lawsuit. Their legal filing, citing multiple instances in which Paxton allegedly misused his office to assist a campaign donor, was the foundation for an investigation in the Texas House that led to a 121-23 vote in favor of Paxton’s impeachment over the weekend. But the whistleblowers’ deal unraveled and was left for dead after state lawmakers refused to fund the settlement in the budget, reasoning that it would take Paxton off the hook without a full explanation from him on what happened. The 140-day legislative session ended Monday, and a special session, which began immediately, does not include reconsideration of the settlement payment. Paxton, who is suspended from office, awaits a trial in the Senate where he faces permanent removal. Meanwhile, the whistleblower lawsuit returns to litigation after the blown agreement and awaits a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court on a long-shot Paxton maneuver to stop the case. The attorney general’s office contends that the state’s whistleblower law does not protect people who report crimes to law enforcement if an elected official, like Paxton, is accused of participating in the crime. A lower court rejected that argument. If the Supreme Court affirms that finding, the whistleblowers will proceed in collecting evidence and potentially force Paxton to sit for a deposition. A trial has not been scheduled and it’s unclear if it would happen in the 19 months before the Legislature is set to reconvene for the 89th regular session. There is a growing sense in legislative and legal circles that lawmakers should fund the settlement or else risk discouraging other government employees from sounding the alarm on misconduct by state officers. There’s a further sense that the longer the case plays out, the more it could cost taxpayers. One of the 20 articles for which Paxton was impeached specifically dealt with retaliation, likely giving the whistleblowers an upper hand with the ongoing trial or any future settlement talks. Article 7 states Paxton misused public resources by directing employees to conduct a “sham investigation” into the whistleblowers’ complaints and to create a “a lengthy written report containing false or misleading statements in Paxton’s defense.” “I think it will get worse for the state if the case continues,” said employment lawyer Austin Kaplan. “The state could be facing a bigger bill down the road.” Kaplan, who represents clients on whistleblower matters, is not connected to the Paxton case. He added, “I think the Legislature has a duty to pay the state’s bills even if they don’t like it.” Paxton, meanwhile, faces the separate but related matter in the Senate impeachment trial. On Monday, the fivemember House General Investigating Committee announced seven additional members who will help present the case in the Senate. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced that seven senators will draft rules for the proceedings. A trial date has not been set but must start before the end of August. A two-thirds vote in the Senate is required to permanently remove Paxton from office. The whistleblowers — Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar — could be called to testify. The Legislature is not scheduled to convene again for a regular session until January 2025, when the whistleblower case might have been tried or resolved. But even then, if the whistleblowers were to prevail, any judgment above $250,000 is subject to legislative approval. Likewise, a pretrial settlement of that same dollar amount is subject to legislative approval. House Speaker Dade Phelan’s office did not respond for an American-Statesman request for comment. The whistleblowers’ lawyers declined to comment. Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to call multiple special sessions this summer in which the whistleblower settlement could come up for discussion. His office, which rarely takes questions from the media, did not respond to a request for comment. Rep. John Bucy, an Austin Democrat who voted in favor of Paxton’s impeachment, told the Statesman that the former attorney general office workers should get paid. “The whistleblowers who came forward and did the right thing should be paid the money owed to them,” Bucy said. “Whether those funds come from the state or from Attorney General Paxton remains to be seen. If the state fails to pay the whistleblowers, we risk discouraging future people from boldly calling out wrong when they see it.” The defendant in the lawsuit is the attorney general’s office, not Paxton as an individual, so it’s exceedingly unlikely he would fund the settlement on his own or through his campaign, which as of January had $2.3 million on hand. Chris Hilton, a top Paxton assistant in the attorney general’s office, told a House subcommittee in February that the office had spent nearly $600,000 from its budget defending the whistleblower case, and that it made fiscal sense to settle the lawsuit. He argued that the office would spend the equivalent of the $3.3 million settlement just to take the case to trial. “That’s if we win at trial. If we lose at trial, the damages exposure would obviously be higher than that,” he said. The settlement, had it been finalized, was to include a statement from Paxton saying he “accepts that plaintiffs acted in a manner that they thought was right and apologizes for referring to them as ‘rogue employees.’ ” Chuck Herring, an Austin lawyer who has handled whistleblower complaints, said it would make sense for lawmakers to take a second look at the settlement and consider approving the money now that Paxton has been punished through the House impeachment vote. “Now that he’s gone, you could say, ‘Let’s clean up the aftermath of his wrongdoing and give justice to the people he victimized,’ ” he said.
  15. I’m aware, but this investigating committee that is holding a hearing today was focused on the allegations made by the whistleblowers three years ago.
  16. Three years after the whistleblower’s report to law enforcement to be fair.
  17. So Ken calls for the Speaker to resign for being drunk on the house floor and about an hour later the House General Investigating Committee announces that it has been investigating KP and OAG and will announce findings in a meeting tomorrow. Nice timing Kenny.
  18. https://twitter.com/lmcgaughy/status/1661125746742394881?s=46 House General Investigating Committee just announced they have been investigating the Office of the Attorney General. Paxton was trying to get out in front.
  19. Shouldn’t Kenny remove the plank from his own eye first?
  20. DMN Article: AUSTIN — Texas budget negotiators want to ban Attorney General Ken Paxton from using state funds to pay a $3.3 million whistleblower settlement. This week, they adopted a provision that would bar the Office of the Attorney General from using state money to pay for any whistleblower lawsuits or claims, according to budget documents and a spokesperson with the Legislative Budget Board. The language could still change and ultimately needs sign-off from the Legislature and Gov. Greg Abbott to become law. The settlement is a hot topic this session as some GOP leaders balked at using taxpayer dollars to foot the bill. A rejection of the funds could send Paxton’s agency back to court with four former staffers who sued, alleging they were fired after accusing the Republican of bribery and abuse of office. Paxton’s agency did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, and Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood, who chair the legislative budget committees. The legislative session ends on Memorial Day. Late Tuesday, attorneys for the whistleblowers wrote to the budget negotiators calling the proposal “disastrous public policy” that would “unfairly punish our clients.” The state whistleblower act gives public employees who report corruption a safety net, and barring funding of the settlement would “give office holders a license to break the law,” the lawyers wrote on behalf of former top agency employees James “Blake” Brickman, Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan Vassar. The attorneys added that other government workers would not “risk their financial livelihood to report corruption if the Legislature hangs our clients out to dry.” The former top aides sued Paxton’s agency in late 2020 alleging they’d been fired after telling law enforcement Paxton abused the office to help campaign donor and Austin real estate developer Nate Paul. The FBI launched an investigation into the claims, but no charges have been filed. Paxton has denied all wrongdoing. In February, Paxton and the whistleblowers announced they’d reached a settlement agreement that required the agency to pay the former staffers $3.3 million and Paxton to apologize for calling the group “rogue employees,” among other things. The written agreement was contingent “upon all necessary approvals for funding.” Paxton asked the Legislature for the money, saying it was the most cost effective way to end what could be lengthy litigation. But House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, said it was “not a proper use of taxpayer dollars” and some on the House budget committee asked why the attorney general couldn’t use his campaign coffers to cover the cost. The budget provision’s consequences could be far more sweeping than this one case if they are adopted, an expert said. Blocking the ability of a state agency to pay whistleblower lawsuits could discourage its employees from reporting alleged wrongdoing, said Michael P. Maslanka, an associate professor at the University of North Texas Dallas College of Law. And by limiting the restriction to just one agency, the whistleblowers’ attorneys might even be able to sue the Legislature for infringing on their constitutional right to equal protection under the law, he added. “The government has to justify its actions, and if it treats one group differently than another group under the 14th Amendment [to the U.S. Constitution], they have to explain why,” Maslanka said, calling the budget proposal a “perverse result generated by a political dispute.”
  21. Yeah those are terrible takes. I went Saturday and Sunday and they were the best panic shows I’ve seen since the Houser days. The band sounds incredible. Going back tonight and can’t wait.
  22. Can you elaborate on this? What are you talking about?
  23. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/13/legislature-ken-paxton-whistleblower-settlement/
  24. Right? Meanwhile he gets all the benefit of the settlement agreement and the whistleblowers get nada. The legislature deserves some scorn here, too. They know that the only proper party defendant to a whistleblower suit is the employing governmental agency, but they are grandstanding and saying taxpayer dollars shouldn't fund the settlement WITH A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. Not to mention the fact that $3.3 million is a less than 1/2 of 1% of the attorney generals budget next year. The legislature's resistance to approving funding is not about saving the taxpayers money.
×
×
  • Create New...