ReportWire

Tag: Impeachment

  • A member of the secret panel studying Wisconsin Supreme Court justice’s impeachment backed her rival

    A member of the secret panel studying Wisconsin Supreme Court justice’s impeachment backed her rival

    [ad_1]

    MADISON, Wis. — One of the former Wisconsin Supreme Court justices tapped to investigate impeaching newly elected Justice Janet Protasiewicz for taking Democratic Party money accepted donations from the state Republican Party when he was on the court.

    The former justice, Republican David Prosser, gave $500 to the conservative candidate who lost to Protasiewicz, did not recuse from cases involving a law he helped pass as a lawmaker and was investigated after a physical altercation with a liberal justice.

    Prosser is one of three former justices tapped by the Republican Assembly speaker to investigate the criteria for taking the unprecedented step of impeaching a current justice. Speaker Robin Vos has floated impeachment because Protasiewicz accepted nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party and said during the campaign that heavily gerrymandered GOP-drawn legislative electoral maps were “unfair” and “rigged.”

    The impeachment threat comes after Protasiewicz’s win this spring handed liberals a majority on the court for the first time in 15 years, which bolstered Democratic hopes it would throw out the Republican maps, legalize abortion and chip away at Republican laws enacted over the past decade-plus.

    It also comes at the same time that Assembly Republicans passed a sweeping redistricting reform bill Vos described as an “off ramp” to impeachment and Senate Republicans voted to fire the state’s nonpartisan elections director. Both moves take on heightened importance in Wisconsin, one of a handful of swing states where four of the past six presidential elections have been decided by less than a point.

    Vos won’t say who he’s chosen for the secret, three-judge impeachment review panel, but Prosser confirmed to The Associated Press that Vos asked him to participate. None of the other eight living former justices, six of whom are conservatives, have told the AP they have been picked. Justices are officially nonpartisan in Wisconsin, but in recent years the political parties have backed certain candidates. Others, like Prosser, formerly served in partisan positions.

    A former liberal justice, Louis Butler, said he was not asked. Four former conservative justices — Jon Wilcox, Dan Kelly, 7th U.S. Circuit Court Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Louis Ceci — told the AP they were not asked.

    Ceci, 96, is the oldest living former justice. He served on the court from 1982 to 1993 and served one term as a Republican in the state Assembly in the 1960s.

    Ceci, interviewed at his suburban Milwaukee home in a retirement high-rise, said he doesn’t know anything about the impeachment threats Protasiewicz faces beyond what he reads in newspapers. Vos has not approached him about serving on the panel, he said.

    A seventh former justice, Janine Geske, told the Wisconsin State Journal she was not asked. Vos said former Justice Michael Gableman, whom Vos fired from leading an investigation into the 2020 election, was not on it.

    The most recently retired justice, conservative Patience Roggensack, declined to comment to the AP.

    “I can’t talk to you right now,” she said Thursday, adding that she was on her way to a college class before hanging up.

    Roggensack and Prosser voted to enact a rule allowing justices to sit on cases involving campaign donors. In 2017, a year after Prosser left the court, Roggensack voted to reject a call from 54 retired justices and judges to enact stricter recusal rules.

    Roggensack, in 2020, sided with the conservative minority in a ruling that fell one vote short of overturning President Joe Biden’s victory in the state. And she endorsed Dan Kelly, the conservative opponent to Protasiewicz in this year’s election. Prosser donated $500 to Kelly, who replaced Prosser on the court after he retired.

    Prosser served on the Supreme Court from 1998 to 2016 and also spent 18 years before that as a Republican member of the Assembly — two years as speaker.

    There were numerous times during Prosser’s years on the court where he did not recuse himself from cases involving issues he had voted on as a member of the Legislature.

    Prosser did recuse himself from cases involving the constitutionality of a cap on medical malpractice damages because he was speaker of the Assembly when the cap was instituted. But in 2004 he changed course and authored the majority opinion upholding the law he helped pass. He dissented from a 2005 Supreme Court ruling overturning the law.

    Prosser also refused a request to recuse in 2015 from considering three cases related to an investigation into then-Gov. Scott Walker and conservative groups that supported him. The groups in question had spent $3.3 million to help elect Prosser in 2011.

    He defended hearing the cases, saying that because the money was spent four years earlier, enough time had passed to make them irrelevant.

    Prosser then voted with the majority to shut down the investigation.

    Prosser was also embroiled in one the court’s most contentious periods in 2011, accused by a liberal justice of attempting to choke her. Impeachment was never raised as a possibility, even though police investigated but no charges were filed. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission recommended the court discipline him but nothing happened because the court lacked a quorum when three justices recused.

    In 2016, Prosser received $25,000 of in-kind contributions from the Wisconsin Republican Party. Less than three weeks later he resigned with nearly three years left on his term.

    Vos said Prosser’s past wouldn’t affect his ability to fairly offer advice on how to proceed.

    “First of all, all he is doing is giving advice on whether or not someone ought to recuse and the criteria for impeachment,” Vos said. “That has nothing to do with what happened before when he was on the Supreme Court.”

    Prosser said the charge given to him by Vos was investigating “whether there’s a legitimate reason for impeaching” Protasiewicz.

    When asked whether he thinks the panel should include liberals, Prosser said, “I’m really not going to answer that question.”

    “I really don’t know what the process is going to be, who’s going to be doing the writing,” Prosser said. “I just really don’t know.”

    No matter who is on the impeachment review panel, Democrats say the process is a joke.

    “The entire concept of having a secret panel deliberating in secret to advise an Assembly speaker on an unconstitutional impeachment on a justice who has yet to rule on a case is a farce,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler. “This is a charade.”

    Vos said impeachment may be warranted if Protasiewicz doesn’t step down from hearing two Democratic-backed redistricting lawsuits seeking to undo Republican-drawn legislative maps.

    Vos argues that Protasiewicz has prejudged the cases. She never said how she would rule on any lawsuit.

    Under the Wisconsin Constitution, impeachment is reserved for “corrupt conduct in office or for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor.”

    It is up to each justice to decide whether recusal in a case is warranted, and the conservative majority of the court adopted a rule saying that justices don’t have to recuse if they accepted money from parties arguing a case. Other current justices have also been outspoken on hot-button issues before they joined the court and all but one have taken money from political parties.

    When asked Thursday if the panel would include liberals, Vos dodged the question.

    “I’m trying to have people who are respected as smart,” Vos said. “And I think that you will find very quickly that the people that we asked are both of those categories. Hopefully they come back to us with their recommendations so that the Legislature has even more good information to act on whether or not it’s required for us to proceed with some kind of impeachment proceedings.”

    ___

    This story has been corrected to show that Sykes is a circuit court judge, not a district court judge.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Todd Richmond contributed to this report from Milwaukee.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Romney cites a dysfunctional House as one reason for retirement

    Romney cites a dysfunctional House as one reason for retirement

    [ad_1]

    Romney cites a dysfunctional House as one reason for retirement – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Utah Sen. Mitt Romney announced Wednesday he will not run for reelection in 2024. Romney is not on board with the latest talk of presidential impeachment, saying he sees no evidence that the proceedings launched by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy meet the standard. CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion has the latest from Capitol Hill.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP House leaders meet on Biden impeachment inquiry

    GOP House leaders meet on Biden impeachment inquiry

    [ad_1]

    GOP House leaders meet on Biden impeachment inquiry – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Republican House leaders held a closed-door meeting Wednesday to discuss their impeachment inquiry into President Biden. The White House has insisted there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the president. Nikole Killion reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden White House strategy for impeachment inquiry: Dismiss. Compartmentalize. Scold. Fundraise.

    Biden White House strategy for impeachment inquiry: Dismiss. Compartmentalize. Scold. Fundraise.

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — On Capitol Hill, House Republicans were all-in Wednesday on House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement of an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Down Pennsylvania Avenue, the president was holding forth at the White House on the importance of bipartisanship in fighting cancer — and ignoring shouted questions about impeachment.

    It was a clear sign of Biden’s broader reelection pitch: the idea that if he simply does his job and governs, Americans will see the results and reward him with four more years. Never mind all that pesky impeachment talk across town.

    Just an hour earlier, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had dismissed the inquiry as a “political stunt” and deflected questions about the details to the White House Counsel’s Office.

    House Republicans? “We think they should work with us on legitimate issues — things that actually matter to the American people,” she said.

    The we’re-all-better-than-this attitude is central to the White House strategy for countering impeachment proceedings being launched ahead of the 2024 election by Republicans who are trying to link Biden to the business dealings of his son, Hunter. This as the GOP tries to shift attention away from Donald Trump’s own legal troubles.

    The White House has been preparing for a potential impeachment essentially since Republicans won control of the House in the November elections. It has roughly two dozen staff members in the counsel’s office detailed to the matter. The new chief counsel, Ed Siskel, is a former Obama administration attorney who helped craft the response to the congressional investigations into the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

    The White House impeachment playbook so far has been: Dismiss. Compartmentalize. Scold.

    That is, shrug off the charges as baseless, stay focused on policy, leave the impeachment question to the lawyers and chide those who give much credence to it all.

    After McCarthy’s announcement this week that the House would move forward toward impeachment, the counsel’s office sent a memo to news leaders scolding them over coverage so far.

    “It’s time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies,” the memo said.

    Still, the impeachment inquiry is a tricky matter for Biden because the thing is so personal, focused on his relationship with his 53-year-old son, a source of pain and pride whose questionable choices have landed the president here.

    The White House has said that Joe Biden was not involved in his son’s business affairs. And so far, despite months of investigations, Republicans have unearthed no significant evidence of wrongdoing by the elder Biden, who spoke often to his son and as vice president did stop by a business dinner with his son’s associates. Hunter Biden is not a public figure. Hunter Biden’s attorneys are on message, too.

    “Rather than waste time and taxpayer dollars on this political sideshow, Mr. McCarthy should lead the Congress to do real work of governing,” Abbe Lowell said in a statement. “Americans deserve better.”

    Before now, most of the questions from reporters fielded by the president on the topic were about a criminal investigation into Hunter’s business dealings running parallel to the House investigations. His responses were brief and upbeat: He’s done nothing wrong; we support him.

    While the overall White House strategy is not expected to change, this week’s announcement of a formal inquiry shifts the dynamics somewhat. It will be harder to just shrug off questions. And the Biden reelection campaign is starting to blast out fundraising emails and texts denouncing the probe.

    Even the donation pitches reflect the broader strategy. An email from Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday made this plea to potential donors: “It’s clear: They’re going to throw everything they have at Joe, because they know they can’t run against our record. If you’re waiting for a moment to show your support for him, trust me when I say: This is it.”

    Threats of impeachment used to be rare so there’s not much basis for comparison. While Trump was twice impeached, neither was about personal conduct. The inquiry into Biden is more akin to the late 1990s impeachment of President Bill Clinton led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In that endeavor, the White House stonewalled, making then-special counsel Lanny Davis the public face of its response. By his account, it worked.

    “Take a look at how things went for Speaker Gingrich and the GOP House members after the midterm congressional elections in November 1998,” Davis emailed Wednesday. “They lost five seats to the Democrats, defying U.S. history.”

    He predicted McCarthy would suffer the same fate, praising the White House response so far.

    “The Biden White House has begun to speak forcefully to rebut the misinformation and false innuendo that is the only basis Speaker McCarthy and House leaders can express as the basis of a House inquiry.”

    Andrew Jackson was the other president impeached. Trump is the only president to face it twice — acquitted both times — and he is the first to face criminal charges in four separate indictments, including for trying to overturn the 2020 election he lost to Biden.

    Rep. Ted Lieu, a top Democrat, said Wednesday there are no similarities between the Democratic impeachments of Trump and the Republicans’ pursuit of Biden.

    “We had mountains of evidence,” he said. “That’s why articles of impeachment … were passed. and that’s why we had a bipartisan vote of U.S. senators to convict Donald Trump.” Lieu added that while the Democratic majority didn’t ultimately have enough support to remove Trump from office, they were able to get a handful of members from the other side to join them.

    McCarthy said that House investigations so far “paint a picture of a culture of corruption” around the Biden family as Republicans probe the business dealings of Hunter Biden from before the Democratic president took office.

    “These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption, and they warrant further investigation by the House of Representatives,” McCarthy said at the Capitol.

    Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., says he doesn’t want the inquiry to last into election season. “I hope not. I hope we can get it through as quickly as possible. I’m an impatient person. We wouldn’t have to do impeachment inquiry if this administration would cooperate with us.”

    As impeachment talk swirled elsewhere, Biden and first lady Jill Biden gathered with top administration officials on Wednesday afternoon to talk about battling cancer, one of the president’s top goals. Their elder son, Beau, died of brain cancer.

    After the Bidens finished speaking, reporters erupted with questions about the impeachment inquiry. Four boom mics dangled above the table, ready to catch any response from the president.

    He didn’t respond.

    ___=

    Associated Press Writers Chris Megerian, Stephen Groves, Farnoush Amiri and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Conservative Pundit Offers Expletive-Laden Reason Behind GOP’s Impeachment Push

    Conservative Pundit Offers Expletive-Laden Reason Behind GOP’s Impeachment Push

    [ad_1]

    Conservative commentator Charlie Sykes said Republicans are trying to “flood the zone with shit” with their newly announced impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

    “To speak pure Steve Bannon: The goal here is to flood the zone with shit to devalue impeachments by making sure that everybody is impeached.”

    He was quoting former Trump adviser Bannon, who once said the media, not Democrats, are Republicans’ real opponents, and “the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”

    “We’re about to go into a very, very messy month,” Sykes said. “This is going to be Kevin McCarthy’s month from hell. Unfortunately, he appears willing to drag the rest of the country with him.”

    House Republicans have been investigating allegations of corruption against Biden in connection to his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings. They have not produced any evidence of wrongdoing by the elder Biden.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House to send letter to news execs urging outlets to ‘ramp up’ scrutiny of GOP’s Biden impeachment inquiry ‘based on lies’ | CNN Business

    White House to send letter to news execs urging outlets to ‘ramp up’ scrutiny of GOP’s Biden impeachment inquiry ‘based on lies’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The White House plans to send a letter to top US news executives on Wednesday, urging them to intensify their scrutiny of House Republicans after Speaker Kevin McCarthy launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, despite having found no evidence of a crime.

    “It’s time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies,” Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office, wrote in the letter, according to a draft copy obtained by CNN.

    The letter, which said an impeachment inquiry with no supporting evidence should “set off alarm bells for news organizations,” will be sent to executives helming the nation’s largest news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, CBS News, and others, a White House official familiar with the matter said.

    The correspondence comes one day after McCarthy announced that he had directed three House committees to begin an impeachment inquiry into Biden. House Republicans, most of whom have denied that disgraced former President Donald Trump committed any wrongdoing, have long sought to baselessly portray Biden as a corrupt, crime-ridden politician engaged in sinister activities.

    While news organizations have published innumerable fact checks on the matter, they have also often failed to robustly call out the mis- and disinformation peddled by Republicans in their coverage, frustrating officials in the Biden White House who believe that the news media should be doing more to dispel lies that saturate the public discourse.

    In its letter Wednesday, the White House will ask news organizations to be more clear-eyed in their coverage of the impeachment inquiry, and not to fall prey to the traps of false equivalency in reporting.

    “Covering impeachment as a process story – Republicans say X, but the White House says Y – is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable,” Sams wrote.

    “And in the modern media environment, where every day liars and hucksters peddle disinformation and lies everywhere from Facebook to Fox, process stories that fail to unpack the illegitimacy of the claims on which House Republicans are basing all their actions only serve to generate confusion, put false premises in people’s feeds, and obscure the truth,” Sams added.

    McCarthy launched the impeachment inquiry Tuesday without a formal House vote in a bid to appease Republicans on his far-right, including those who have threatened to oust the California Republican from his speakership if he does not move swiftly enough on such an investigation.

    The Republican House-led investigations into Biden have yet to provide any direct evidence that the president financially benefited from Hunter Biden’s career overseas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy launches impeachment probe

    McCarthy launches impeachment probe

    [ad_1]

    McCarthy launches impeachment probe – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he is directing House committees to open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Investigations by House Republicans into Hunter Biden have so far not uncovered any direct evidence of wrongdoing by the president. Nancy Cordes reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kevin McCarthy Is a Hostage

    Kevin McCarthy Is a Hostage

    [ad_1]

    The speaker’s abrupt impeachment probe against Biden is the latest sign that he’s still fighting for his job.

    Chip Somodevilla / Getty

    As Kevin McCarthy made his televised declaration earlier today that House Republicans were launching an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, the House speaker stood outside his office in the Capitol, a trio of American flags arrayed behind to lend an air of dignity to such a grave announcement. But McCarthy looked and sounded like a hostage, and for good reason.

    That the Republican majority would eventually try to impeach Biden was never really in doubt. The Atlantic’s Barton Gellman predicted as much nearly a year ago, even before the GOP narrowly ousted Democrats from control in the House. McCarthy characterized the move as “a logistical next step” in the party’s investigation into Biden’s involvement with his son Hunter’s business dealings, which has thus far yielded no evidence of presidential corruption. But intentionally or not, the speaker’s words underscored the inevitability of this effort, which is as much about exacting revenge on behalf of the twice-impeached former President Donald Trump as it is about prosecuting Biden’s alleged misdeeds.

    From the moment that McCarthy won the speakership on the 15th vote, his grip on the gavel has seemed shaky at best. The full list of concessions he made to Republican holdouts to secure the job remains unclear and may be forcing his hand in hidden ways nine months later. The most important of those compromises, however, did become public: At any time, a single member of the House can force a vote that could remove McCarthy as speaker.

    The high point of McCarthy’s year came in June, when the House overwhelmingly approved—although with notably more votes from Democrats than Republicans—the debt-ceiling deal he struck with Biden. That legislation successfully prevented a first-ever U.S. default, but blowback from conservatives has forced McCarthy to renege on the spending provisions of the agreement. House Republicans are advancing bills that appropriate far less money than the June budget accord called for, setting up a clash with both the Democratic-controlled Senate and the White House that could result in a government shutdown either when the fiscal year ends on September 30 or later in the fall.

    GOP hard-liners have also backed McCarthy into a corner on impeachment. The speaker has tried his best to walk a careful line on the question, knowing that to keep his job, he could neither rush into a bid to topple the president nor rule one out. Trump allies like Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Matt Gaetz of Florida have been angling to impeach Biden virtually from the moment he took office, while GOP lawmakers who represent districts that Biden won—and on whom the GOP’s thin House advantage depends—have been much cooler to the idea. McCarthy has had to satisfy both wings of the party, but he has been unable to do so without undermining his own position.

    Less than two weeks ago, McCarthy said that he would launch a formal impeachment only with a vote of the full House. As the minority leader in 2019, McCarthy had castigated then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi for initiating an impeachment probe against Trump before holding a vote on the matter. “If we move forward with an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told the conservative publication Breitbart, “it would occur through a vote on the floor of the people’s House and not through a declaration by one person.” By this morning, the speaker had reversed himself, unilaterally announcing an impeachment inquiry just as Pelosi did four years ago this month. (McCarthy made no mention of a House vote during his speech, and when reporters in the Capitol asked about it, a spokesperson for the speaker told them no vote was planned.)

    The reason for McCarthy’s flip is plain: He doesn’t have the support to open an impeachment inquiry through a floor vote, but to avoid a revolt from hard-liners, he had to announce an inquiry anyway. Substantively, his declaration means little. House Republicans have more or less been conducting an impeachment inquiry for months; formalizing the process simply means they may be able to subpoena more documents from the president. The effort is all but certain to fail. Whether it will yield enough Republican votes to impeach Biden in the House is far from clear. That it will secure the two-thirds needed to convict the president in the Senate is almost unthinkable.

    McCarthy’s announcement won praise from only some of his Republican critics. Barely an hour later, Gaetz delivered a preplanned speech on the House floor decrying the speaker’s first eight months in office and vowing to force a vote on his removal if McCarthy caves to Democrats during this month’s shutdown fight. He called the speaker’s impeachment announcement “a baby step” delivered in a “rushed and somewhat rattled performance.” A longtime foe of McCarthy’s, Gaetz was one of the final holdouts in the Californian’s bid to become speaker in January, when he forced McCarthy to grovel before acquiescing on the final ballot. “I am here to serve notice, Mr. Speaker,” Gaetz said this afternoon, “that you are out of compliance with the agreement that allowed you to assume this role.”

    If McCarthy has become a hostage of the House hard-liners, then Gaetz is his captor—or, more likely, one of several. Publicly, the speaker has dared Gaetz to try to overthrow him, but caving on impeachment and forsaking a floor vote suggests that he might not be so confident.

    The speaker is as isolated in Washington as he is in his own conference. Senate Republicans have shown no interest in the House’s impeachment push, and they are far more willing to adhere to the terms of the budget deal that McCarthy struck with Biden and avert a government shutdown. Perhaps McCarthy believed that by moving on impeachment now he could buy some room to maneuver on the spending fights to come. But the impetus behind today’s announcement is more likely the same one that has driven nearly all of his decisions as speaker—the desire to wake up tomorrow morning and hold the job at least one more day.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • What’s ahead now that Republicans are opening an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden

    What’s ahead now that Republicans are opening an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he is launching an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, yielding to mounting pressure from former President Donald Trump and his allies in what’s shaping up as an election-year clash between Congress and the White House.

    In a statement Tuesday, McCarthy said the House investigations into the Biden family this year have uncovered a “culture of corruption” that demands deeper review.

    “These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption,” McCarthy said.

    McCarthy said he will direct the chairmen of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Ways and Means committees to lead the impeachment inquiry. The panels have been working together for months on various probes related to the Biden family.

    A look at what happens next as House Republicans inch closer to possible impeachment charges against Biden:

    An impeachment inquiry is an investigation of possible wrongdoing by a federal official, such as the president of the United States, Cabinet officials or judges. The process is written into the Constitution and is the most powerful check that Congress has on the executive branch.

    While the House of Representatives wields the power to impeach a federal official, only the Senate has the ability to convict and remove an individual from office.

    To date, no president has ever been forced from the White House through impeachment. But former Republican President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 as the House was preparing to take a vote on impeachment articles against him.

    Since gaining the House majority in January, House Republicans have aggressively investigated Biden and his son, claiming evidence that they engaged in an influence peddling scheme. The allegations echo those that former President Donald Trump has made for years against Biden and his family.

    Republicans have focused much attention on an unverified tip to the FBI that alleged a bribery scheme involving Biden when he was vice president. The bribery claim, which emerged in 2019 and was part of Trump’s first impeachment, relates to the allegation that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor in order to stop an investigation into Burisma, the oil-and-gas company where Hunter Biden was on the board.

    Democrats have reiterated that the Justice Department investigated the Burisma claim when Trump was president and closed the matter after eight months, finding “insufficient evidence” to pursue it further. Other countries were also pushing for the firing of the Ukrainian official, viewing him as corrupt. And a former business partner of Hunter Biden’s has testified to Congress that the bribery allegation is untrue.

    Nonetheless, three House committees have been pursuing lines of inquiry related to the president and his son, including the ways that Hunter used the “Biden brand” to advance his business with foreign clients. They’ve also delved deeply into the Justice Department investigation into the younger Biden, citing whistleblower testimony, to suggest that Hunter has received special treatment.

    And while Republicans have sought to directly connect Hunter Biden’s financial affairs to his father, they have failed to produce evidence that the president directly participated in his son’s work, though he sometimes had dinner with Hunter Biden’s clients or said hello to them on calls.

    Not necessarily. While all inquiries opened in recent history have resulted in the impeachment of a president, Republicans have been treading carefully around the term and its potential political implications.

    To impeach Biden, the House would have to approve at least one impeachment charge against him, which requires a majority vote. An impeachment inquiry can also be closed without charges being brought.

    McCarthy has said an impeachment inquiry is necessary to ensure Congress can use the full weight of its oversight authority to pursue its investigation of the Biden family.

    “Everyone should understand, impeachment is not the goal,” Rep. Darrell Issa, a senior Republican on House Judiciary Committee, one of the panel’s tasked with investigating Biden, told reporters recently. “Impeachment is a way of saying this is not a legislative oversight, but in fact an oversight of possible wrongdoing.”

    Regardless, the inquiry will loom over Biden as the probe potentially drags into next year when the president, who is running for reelection, confronts a Republican field led by Trump, who was impeached twice.

    House Republicans — led by Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee — have obtained thousands of pages of financial records from various members of the Biden family and their associates through subpoenas to the Treasury Department and various financial institutions.

    Comer has repeatedly claimed — without substantial evidence — that there is enough in those documents to draw a clear line between Hunter Biden trading on his father’s name and policy decisions Biden made while vice president. No such connection has been proven.

    Comer also joined forces in June with the Republican chairmen of the Judiciary, and Ways and Means committees to launch a larger investigation into the yearslong Justice Department probe of Hunter Biden. The FBI and IRS have been investigating Hunter Biden for years and the case appeared headed toward a plea deal this summer until a judge rejected the terms of that agreement.

    The breakdown happened after two IRS agents claimed in congressional testimony that the Justice Department improperly interfered in the case, which was first opened in 2018.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland last month appointed the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden as a special counsel, likely extending the investigation further.

    McCarthy said he’s asked Comer to take the lead on the impeachment inquiry, working alongside House Judiciary chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.

    While McCarthy had previously said the House would hold a vote to launch the inquiry, he made no such promise on Tuesday.

    The Constitution does not require a vote to start an impeachment inquiry, and neither do the rules governing the House. But authorizing resolutions have been passed in previous presidential impeachments.

    It’s not clear McCarthy would have enough votes in the House to approve an impeachment resolution. Some House Republicans are opposed to launching an inquiry, saying there is insufficient evidence against the president.

    Once an impeachment inquiry is complete, the House has traditionally tasked the Judiciary Committee — the panel authorized to introduce articles of impeachment — to hold hearings and draft impeachment charges.

    There are no rules to how long an impeachment inquiry can or must last. The probe into Biden could last as short as a few months or as long as a year, depending on what McCarthy and Republican leadership believe is the right time to conclude or move to articles of impeachment.

    The only real deadline would be the end of this Congress, which is Jan. 2, 2025.

    If Republicans decide there is enough evidence of wrongdoing and abuse of power by Biden to move forward, the Judiciary Committee would likely mark up the articles of impeachment. If those articles are voted out of committee by a simple majority, it would come to the House floor where a majority vote would be required to impeach Biden.

    Only three other presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Trump, who was impeached twice.

    The impeachment charges would then move to the Senate, where Democratic leaders would likely have no choice but to hold a trial.

    The trial is similar to what’s seen in the legal system, with the senators acting as jurors and select House members acting as prosecutors, or impeachment managers. The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over that process. If the Senate approves an article of impeachment with a two-thirds vote of “guilty,” the president is convicted and removed from office. If all the articles are rejected, the president is acquitted.

    If Biden were convicted by the Senate, he would be the first president to ever be removed from office. But such an outcome seems far-fetched, given that Democrats have a 52-48 majority.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Speaker McCarthy announces impeachment inquiry into President Biden

    House Speaker McCarthy announces impeachment inquiry into President Biden

    [ad_1]

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday announced an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, saying that House Republicans have in recent months uncovered credible allegations about his conduct.

    “Today I am directing our House committees to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden,” McCarthy told reporters on Capitol Hill. He said the move would give the panels “the full power to gather all the facts and answers for the American people.”

    Punchbowl News reported earlier that the California Republican was poised to tell House Republicans this week that launching an impeachment inquiry into Biden is the “logical next step” in the GOP’s probes of the president and his son Hunter.

    House Republicans are probing the business dealings of Hunter Biden but so far have not produced evidence linking him to the president.

    Ian Sams, a White House spokesman, said in a message on X that Republicans “have turned up no evidence of wrongdoing” by President Biden and noted that McCarthy had previously called for a House vote before opening an inquiry.

    “Extreme politics at its worst,” wrote Sams.  

    In July, McCarthy said that GOP probes of the Bidens were “rising to the level of impeachment inquiry.”

    With Congress staring down a Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government or risk a partial shutdown, McCarthy has been feeling some heat from his right flank. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican who is critical of McCarthy, was planning to deliver a speech Tuesday intended to lay groundwork for a potential move to oust him as speaker, according to the New York Times.

    McCarthy’s announcement comes as the 2024 White House campaign is heating up. Speaking on MSNBC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, called House Republicans an arm of former President Donald Trump’s 2024 election campaign.

    “They are succumbing to the pressure from Donald Trump and from their right-wing MAGA base,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How an extramarital affair factors into Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial

    How an extramarital affair factors into Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial

    [ad_1]

    AUSTIN, Texas — How much does an extramarital affair matter to whether Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton keeps his job? An answer may arrive soon.

    The question hangs over the Republican’s impeachment trial that resumes Tuesday and is approaching the final stretch of testimony before a jury of state senators decides whether Paxton should be removed from office on charges of corruption and bribery. Most of the senators are Republicans and one is his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, although she will not have a vote in the verdict.

    But she has attended the entire trial so far, including Monday, when she sat in the Senate chamber as one of her husband’s former employees gave an account of the affair in the most public detail to date: How the relationship took a toll on staffers, how she urged Paxton to consider the risks and how she asked him to tell his wife about the woman.

    “Just because somebody has an affair doesn’t mean they’re a — quote — ‘criminal’ does it?” Tony Buzbee, Paxton’s attorney, asked when it was the defense’s turn to respond.

    “I would not associate that directly,” said Katherine Cary, a former chief of staff in Paxton’s office, who is now one of six ex-employees to testify against their former boss since the trial began last week.

    The exchange capped one of the most distinctive moments of witness testimony so far after five days of former Paxton aides giving various — but at times overlapping — accounts of how one of Texas’ most powerful figures allegedly abused his power to help a local real estate developer named Nate Paul, who was under FBI investigation at the time. Paul was indicted this summer on charges of making false statements to banks. He has pleaded not guilty.

    Paul, who once gave Paxton a $25,000 campaign contribution, also employed the woman with whom Paxton had the affair.

    A verdict in the trial could come as early as this week.

    The affair is one of 20 articles of impeachment, alleging that Paul received favorable access as Paxton benefited from Paul employing the woman. Jeff Mateer, Paxton’s former second-in-command, testified last week that the relationship connected the dots as to why Texas’ top lawyer appeared so determined to help Paul look into claims that he had been wronged by FBI agents and a judge.

    Lawmakers leading the impeachment have also previously alleged that Paxton, who was elected to a third term in November despite years of criminal charges and alleged scandal, had a political motivation to hide the affair.

    “The affair is important because it goes to Ken Paxton’s political strength. He knows that with his folks he is family values,” Democratic state Rep. Ann Johnson said in May, moments before the House overwhelmingly voted 121-23 to impeach Paxton.

    Cary, the former chief of staff, said on the witness stand Monday that she told Paxton the affair carried political and ethical risks. She alleged that Paxton at first lied about who the woman was and that the affair took a toll on staff who were forced to worked long and odd hours as the relationship unfolded.

    She said Angela Paxton sometimes called the office with questions about her husband’s schedule and that the conversations made staff uncomfortable.

    “I told General Paxton quite bluntly it wasn’t my business who he was sleeping with, but when things bleed over into the office and into the state work, it becomes my business,” she said.

    When it came to Angela Paxton, Cary said, “My heart broke for her.”

    Ken Paxton, who has pleaded not guilty, is not required to be present for testimony and was again not in the Senate on Monday.

    Angela Paxton took notes at her desk as Cary testified about the affair that began in 2018, the year Angela was won her senate seat. She cruised to reelection last year and said on the eve of the impeachment trial that she would seek third term, making the announcement alongside Ken Paxton at a Labor Day picnic near their home in suburban Dallas.

    Before becoming a senator, Angela Paxton would entertain crowds at her husband’s political events with a guitar and song, singing, “I’m a pistol-packin’ mama and my husband sues Obama.” She and all senators are under a gag order to not speak about the impeachment trial while the proceedings are ongoing.

    A two-thirds majority — or 21 senators — is required for conviction. That means that if all 12 Democrats vote against Paxton, at least nine Republicans would have to join them.

    “Imagine if we impeached everyone in Austin who had an affair,” Buzbee said. “We’d be impeaching people for the next 100 years.”

    ___

    Find AP’s full coverage of the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton at: https://apnews.com/hub/ken-paxton

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A decision in Texas AG’s Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial could happen as soon as this week

    A decision in Texas AG’s Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial could happen as soon as this week

    [ad_1]

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial on abuse of power charges could be in the hands of the jury as soon as this week

    ByPAUL J. WEBER Associated Press

    September 11, 2023, 11:39 AM

    State Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, left, listens to testimony during day five of the impeachment trial for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, her husband, in the Senate Chamber at the Texas Capitol, Monday, Sept. 11, 2023, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

    The Associated Press

    AUSTIN, Texas — AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ‘s impeachment trial on abuse of power charges could be in the hands of the jury as soon as this week, the presiding officer said Monday.

    The second week of the historic proceedings began with testimony from another of Paxton’s former aides who reported him to the FBI in 2020 and accused the Republican of misusing his office to help a donor. Paxton, who has pleaded not guilty, was again not in the Texas Senate for the testimony.

    The trial may not reach a third week. Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is presiding over the trial, said each side has so far used about half its allotted time for arguments and that the case could go to the jury later this week.

    Patrick also said there will be no more days off until the trial is resolved, raising the possibility that a decision could come over the weekend.

    The jury is the Republican-controlled state Senate, where Paxton was once a senator before becoming attorney general in 2015 and still has conservative allies. His wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, is also one of 31 senators in the chamber but is not allowed a vote in the trial.

    Paxton was indicted on felony securities fraud charges in 2015 and has been under FBI investigation since an extraordinary revolt by his top deputies five years later. Taking the witness stand Monday, Mark Penley, one of those former deputies, was the latest to recount allegations of Paxton pressuring them to help a local developer named Nate Paul, who had given Paxton a $25,000 campaign contribution and was under FBI investigation.

    Paul, who was indicted this summer on charges of defrauding banks, had accused FBI agents and a judge of wrongdoing. Penley said he wanted no part of it.

    “That we would investigate a federal magistrate judge, and federal prosecutors, is insane,” Penley said.

    ___

    Find AP’s full coverage of the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton at: https://apnews.com/hub/ken-paxton

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy juggles government shutdown and Biden impeachment inquiry as House returns to messy fall

    McCarthy juggles government shutdown and Biden impeachment inquiry as House returns to messy fall

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is a man who stays in motion — enthusiastically greeting tourists at the Capitol, dashing overseas last week to the G7 summit of industrial world leaders, raising funds back home to elect fellow Republicans to the House majority.

    But beneath the whirlwind of activity is a stubborn standstill, an imbalance of power between the far-right Republicans who hoisted McCarthy to the speaker’s role yet threaten his own ability to lead the House.

    It’s a political standoff that will be tested anew as the House returns this week from a long summer recess and McCarthy faces a collision course of difficult challenges — seeking to avoid a government shutdown, support Ukraine in the war and launch an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

    “They’ve got some really heavy lifting ahead,” said the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, John Thune of South Dakota.

    McCarthy is going to “have his hands full trying to figure out how to navigate and execute,” he said.

    Congress has been here before, as has McCarthy in his nearly two decades in office, but the stakes are ever higher, with Republicans powered by an increasingly hard-right faction that is refusing to allow business as usual in Washington.

    With former President Donald Trump‘s backing, McCarthy’s right-flank pushed him into the speaker’s office at the start of the year only after he agreed to a long list of conservative demands — including the ability to call a quick vote to “vacate the chair” and remove him from office.

    That threat of an abrupt ouster hovers over McCarthy’s every move, especially now.

    To start, Congress faces a deadline to fund the government by the end of the month, or risk a potentially devastating federal shutdown. There’s just 11 working days for Congress to act once the House resumes Tuesday.

    Facing a backlash from conservatives who want to slash government funding, McCarthy may be able to ease the way by turning to another hard-right priority, launching a Biden impeachment inquiry over the business dealings of the president’s son, Hunter Biden.

    For McCarthy, running the two tracks — a government funding process alongside an impeachment drive — is an unusual and politically fraught undertaking.

    But starting a formal impeachment inquiry into Biden could help to appease Republican allies of Trump, who has emerged as the GOP frontrunner to confront Biden in the 2024 election for the White House.

    “He’s being squeezed,” Brad Woodhouse, a veteran Democratic operative, said of McCarthy. Woodhouse is now a senior adviser to the Congressional Integrity Project, which is preparing to criticize Republicans over the Biden impeachment.

    The White House has said Biden is not involved in his son’s business dealings.

    But Trump’s allies among House Republicans are working furiously to unearth any links between Biden and his son’s business as they portray Hunter Biden as trading on the family name for financial enrichment and work to erode public support for the president ahead of the presidential election.

    Republicans have not yet been able to produce evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.

    White House spokesman Ian Sams said, “Speaker McCarthy shouldn’t cave to the extreme, far-right members who are threatening to shut down the government unless they get a baseless, evidence-free impeachment of President Biden. The consequences for the American people are too serious.”

    Meanwhile, what should have been a fairly prescribed process to fund the government after McCarthy and Biden negotiated a more than $1 trillion deal earlier this summer over the debt limit appears to be falling apart. Even a stopgap measure to simply keep government funding at existing levels for a few months while Congress tries to finish the spending bills is a nonstarter for McCarthy’s right flank.

    Conservatives powered by the House Freedom Caucus are insisting federal spending is rolled back to 2022 levels and they want to add other priorities to the legislation.

    If not, they say they will oppose a temporary measure, called a continuing resolution, or CR, to keep government running.

    “We must rein in the reckless inflationary spending, and the out-of-control federal bureaucracy it funds,” the Freedom Caucus wrote in a statement at the end of August.

    With command of dozens of votes, the hard right can deny McCarthy the support he needs to pass a Republican bill on its own. But relying on Democrats for votes would bring other problems for McCarthy if he is seen as disloyal to his ranks.

    The conservatives want to beef up border security and address what Republicans deride as the “weaponization” of the Justice Department’s prosecutions, including of those charged in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. They also want to end what they call the Pentagon’s “woke” policies as the Defense Department tries to provide diversity, equity and inclusion to service personnel.

    Signaling the hard road ahead, Trump-ally Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., mockingly reposted one of McCarthy’s recent videos welcoming tourists at the Capitol.

    “Kevin thinking this was the video we needed at this moment is depressingly revealing,” Gaetz said on social media.

    “We need a SPEAKER not a GREETER.”

    Congress also has a pending request from the White House to provide an additional $40 billion on three fronts — some $21 billion in military and humanitarian relief for Ukraine as it battles the Russian invasion; $12 billion to replenish federal disaster aids after floods, fires and other problems, including to curb the flow of deadly fentanyl at the southern U.S. border with Mexico.

    McCarthy has vowed there won’t be any “blank check” for Ukraine as he works to appease skeptical Republicans who want to end U.S. involvement in overseas affairs, particularly involving Russia.

    While the shutdown is the more pressing problem for McCarthy, the Biden impeachment inquiry is his bigger political gamble.

    McCarthy has signaled an impeachment inquiry is coming. But there is “no date circled on the calendar,” said a person familiar with his thinking and granted anonymity to discuss it.

    Not all House Republicans are eager for impeachment proceedings. “We can waste our time on issues that are not important, or we can focus on issues that are,” Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., said Sunday on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki.”

    Trump faces his own more serious charges of wrongdoing, including the federal indictments over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election he lost to Biden and his refusal to return classified documents stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate. He has been indicted four times this year.

    Watching from the Senate, which has been working to pass all 12 of the regular bills needed to fund government operations through committees ahead of floor votes starting next week, Republicans hope cooler heads in the House will prevail on all fronts.

    Several Republicans have made no secret of their disinterest in impeachment proceedings against Biden.

    And GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski said those who don’t think a federal shutdown of government operations is a big deal ought to visit her state of Alaska and see “real life.”

    During a previous government shutdown, Murkowski said crab fisherman couldn’t get out in the water because federal permits could not be issued.

    “You know, we’ve got a lot of things going on here in the Congress right now,” she said. “So the House is going to have to sort through their priorities and hopefully, they’re going to be priorities that are in the best interests of the operations of good governance.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ken Paxton’s wife Angela attends his impeachment trial as witness says his alleged affair is “relevant”

    Ken Paxton’s wife Angela attends his impeachment trial as witness says his alleged affair is “relevant”

    [ad_1]

    Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton on Tuesday had so far attended both days of the impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton, her husband who has been accused, among other things, of misusing his office to cover up an alleged affair — and of using his relationship with a campaign donor to benefit the alleged affair. 

    The Texas Senate is deciding whether to convict Ken Paxton on 16 articles of impeachment, which include bribery, misuse of public office and unfitness of office. If he is convicted of any one of them, he will be removed as attorney general and could be barred from running for office again. 

    While Ken Paxton is not being impeached for the alleged affair, his former top aide, Jeff Mateer, testified Wednesday that he believed it is “relevant” to the accusations in the articles of impeachment. Paxton is accused of abusing his office to benefit Austin, Texas, real estate developer Nate Paul. In return, the articles of impeachment allege, Paul hired the woman with whom Ken Paxton was allegedly having an affair. 

    In addition to being present at the hearing, Angela Paxton shared a kiss with Ken Paxton before it began. 

    Texas Attorney General Impeachment
    Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton, right, is hugged by his wife State Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney before the impeachment trial for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Senate Chamber at the Texas Capitol, Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2023, in Austin, Texas.

    Eric Gay / AP


    What does Ken Paxton’s alleged affair have to do with his impeachment?

    Mateer testified that in 2018, Ken Paxton revealed the affair in a meeting with senior campaign staff and the staff of the attorney general’s office. Angela Paxton helped organize and attended the meeting, according to Mateer. He said Ken Paxton “asked for forgiveness” and described it as “emotional and sympathetic.”

    Mateer said he believed that Ken Paxton had “repented” and he assumed going forward that the affair was over. When he learned the alleged affair had resumed, he said it “answered one of the questions I kept struggling with.”

    “Why would General Paxton jeopardize all this great work that we’ve been doing in the Office of the Attorney General?” Mateer continued. “Why would he be engaged in these activities on behalf of one person, all these different things?” 

    Mateer said that when he learned the woman with whom Paxton allegedly had the affair was employed by Paul, he resigned the following Friday

    In evidence released by the House impeachment managers, Andrew Wicker, a former top aide to Ken Paxton who came on in 2019, said he had been told about an “intervention” about the alleged affair. 

    Wicker, who has been described as a “second son” to Ken Paxton, told House impeachment managers that while Ken Paxton’s home was being renovated — renovations which the House impeachment managers allege were paid for by Paul — the attorney general stayed at the Omni Barton Creek in Austin. Wicker said the security detail had been called off, so he would personally pick up Ken Paxton and take him to work.

    In 2020, Wicker’s family was also staying at the Omni Barton Creek when they ran into Ken Paxton and a woman at the elevator. 

    “No words were said,” Wicker said. “General Paxton walked out, shook my hand, shook my father’s hand and the lady walked out. Didn’t acknowledge us or say anything. Just, you know, walked out.”

    According to Wicker, when he described the encounter to communications staffer Marc Rylander, he said, “Great, she’s back.”

    Can Angela Paxton vote as a juror in the impeachment trial? 

    Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is presiding over the trial, noted on the first day of the impeachment trial that there have been special rules put in place for Angela Paxton, who under normal circumstances would serve as a juror as she is a state senator. Since she is married to Ken Paxton, she will not be a juror and she cannot be party to any private deliberations. 

    Over the summer, Angela Paxton said she would be present every day of her husband’s impeachment trial. “As a member of the Senate, I hold these obligations sacred and I will carry out my duties, not because it is easy, but because the Constitution demands it and my constituents deserve it,” Angela Paxton said in a statement in June. 

    The Texas state Constitution states that “each member of the Senate shall be in attendance when the Senate is meeting as a court of impeachment.”

    A two-thirds majority — 21 of the 31 senators — is needed to remove Ken Paxton from office, and Republicans currently have a 19-12 majority in the chamber. Although she will not be voting, her presence means there are still 31 senators on the floor, effectively giving a vote against removing Ken Paxton. 

    What has Angela Paxton said about the alleged affair?

    Patrick has put in place a gag order about the trial, which Ken Paxton referenced at a picnic over the weekend in Collin County. Other than when she said she would attend the trial, Angela Paxton has not addressed the allegations. 

    She introduced her husband at that picnic, describing him as “the love of my life, my best friend, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.”

    Who is Angela Paxton?

    Prior to her election to the state senate in 2018, Angela Paxton was a math teacher and a school counselor. She and Ken Paxton met when they were students at Baylor University, and they have said that June 1 is what they call “I Love You Day,” or the anniversary of the day they first told each other they love each other. 

    The Paxtons have four children and three grandchildren. Angela Paxton was put up for adoption when she was born, something she has said has influenced her strong anti-abortion views. 

    “I’m blessed to be an adoptive child and to be here,” she said in a 2016 speech. “I have been very aware my whole life that that might not have been the case … but this young woman chose life for me.”

    The Paxtons were among the founders of the Stonebriar Community Church in Frisco, where Angela Paxton mentored young women on how to dress modestly but with style, according to Texas Monthly. The couple now belongs to the Plano megachurch Prestonwood Baptist Church. 

    A staunch conservative, Angela Paxton was known on the campaign trail for singing a song that included the lyrics: “I’m a pistol-packing mama whose husband sues Obama.” 

    The 2018 primary was. at that point, the most expensive in the state’s Senate history, according to the Texas Tribune. But she was backed by Patrick, the lieutenant governor, who said she had “been a friend for years.” 

    Angela Paxton’s district went for former President Donald Trump by more than 9 points in 2016. But she won by barely 2 points in 2018 against Democrat Mark Phariss, who had sued the state of Texas after being denied a marriage license, according to the Texas Tribune. Despite Angela Paxton’s win, the GOP lost its supermajority in the state Senate and lost 12 House seats. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wisconsin Democrats combat impeachment of court justice with $4M effort

    Wisconsin Democrats combat impeachment of court justice with $4M effort

    [ad_1]

    MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Democratic Party on Wednesday launched a $4 million effort to pressure Republicans to back down from impeaching a new liberal state Supreme Court justice being targeted after she criticized GOP-drawn legislative electoral maps and spoke in favor of abortion rights.

    After investing nearly $10 million in electing Justice Janet Protasiewicz, the effort is meant to protect what Democrats hailed as a major political victory. The judge’s election tipped the balance of power in the state Supreme Court, giving Democrats the upper hand in state’s fights over abortion and redistricting.

    “Republicans are holding a political nuclear football,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said in reference to impeachment.

    The effort will include digital and television ads, in-person voter outreach, and a website tracking where every Republican lawmaker stands on impeachment.

    Protasiewicz is part of a 4-3 liberal majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. The escalating fight over her seat has implications for the 2024 presidential election in the battleground state. In 2020, the conservative-controlled Supreme Court came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s win in the state. More fights over election rules that will be in place for the 2024 election are pending, and any disputes over the winner could be decided once again by the state Supreme Court.

    Protasiewicz began her 10-year term in August after winning her election by 11-points in April, aided with nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party. During the campaign, Protasiewicz spoke in favor of abortion rights and called GOP-drawn maps “unfair” and “rigged.”

    Protasiewicz never promised to rule one way or another on redistricting or abortion cases.

    Her win gave liberals a majority on the court for the first time in 15 years, boosting hopes among Democrats that it will overturn the state’s 1849 abortion ban, throw out the Republican maps and possibly undo a host of Republican priorities.

    Unable to defeat Protasiewicz in the election, Republican lawmakers are now talking about impeaching her because of her comments during the race and her acceptance of the money from the Democratic Party.

    Republicans have raised impeachment as a possibility if Protasiewicz does not recuse herself from consideration of two redistricting lawsuits filed in her first week in office last month. The GOP-controlled Legislature asked for her to step aside from the cases.

    Protasiewicz on Tuesday gave attorneys until Sept. 18 to react to the fact that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which investigates complaints against judges, dismissed complaints against her alleging her campaign comments on redistricting violated the state judicial code.

    A lawsuit in a county court seeking to overturn Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban was filed before Protasiewicz won the election. That case is expected to eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

    Wikler said Tuesday that impeaching Protasiewicz would be “an absolute political, moral and constitutional disaster” that would “rewrite our system of government, to rip away what the founders intended, to rip away the principle of co-equal branches of government and replace it with an autocracy of the Legislature.”

    He said the state party was joining with other as-yet-unnamed groups in a $4 million public relations campaign to pressure Republicans to back down.

    Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Brian Schimming dismissed the effort, saying Democrats were trying to “divert attention away from the hyper-partisan and wildly inappropriate prejudgements of Janet Protasiewicz.”

    The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 65-34 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. It would take only 50 votes to impeach. It takes 22 votes to convict in the Senate, the exact number of seats Republicans hold.

    If the Assembly impeaches her, Protasiewicz would be barred from any duties as a justice until the Senate acted. That could effectively stop her from voting on redistricting without removing her from office and creating a vacancy that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would fill.

    If there is a vacancy before December, that would trigger another Supreme Court election on the same date as Wisconsin’s presidential primary in April 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Complaints over campaign comments by Wisconsin Supreme Court justice are dismissed

    Complaints over campaign comments by Wisconsin Supreme Court justice are dismissed

    [ad_1]

    MADISON, Wis. — MADISON, Wis. (AP) —

    A state judiciary disciplinary panel has rejected several complaints lodged against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz that alleged she violated the judicial code of ethics for comments she made during the campaign. It’s a setback to Republicans who argued those remarks could warrant impeachment.

    Protasiewicz on Tuesday released a letter from the Wisconsin Judicial Commission informing her that “several complaints” regarding comments she had made during the campaign had been dismissed without action.

    The commission’s actions are private unless released by one of the parties involved. Protasiewicz received permission from the commission to release its May 31 letter to her, which she then provided to The Associated Press.

    Protasiewicz’s win in April flipped majority control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court from conservative to liberal for the first time in 15 years. Democrats heavily backed her campaign, during which Protasiewicz criticized Republican-drawn electoral maps and spoke in favor of abortion rights.

    In recent weeks, Republican lawmakers have been floating the possibility of impeaching Protasiewicz over her comments calling the legislative maps they drew “unfair” and “rigged.”

    Protasiewicz never promised to rule one way or another on redistricting or abortion cases.

    She took office in August, and in her first week, two lawsuits seeking to overturn the Republican-drawn legislative electoral maps were filed by Democratic-friendly groups. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to hear the cases, and Protasiewicz has not responded to a motion from the Republican-controlled Legislature that she recuse herself from the cases.

    Protasiewicz sent the commission’s order Tuesday to attorneys in the redistricting cases, ordering them to respond by Sept. 18 on how it affects the request that she recuse herself from the lawsuits.

    A lawsuit in a county court seeking to overturn Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban was filed before Protasiewicz won election. That case is expected to eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

    The Wisconsin Republican Party in February released one complaint filed against Protasiewicz by Randall Cook, a Republican supporter. His complaint alleged that Protasiewicz had declared how she would rule on cases related to abortion and redistricting, in violation of provisions of the state judicial code.

    “Wisconsin has never seen a Supreme Court Justice so brazenly declare how she would rule on a case before it ever came to the Court, and we had hoped the principles of equal justice would be seriously considered by the Judicial Commission, despite their liberal bias,” Wisconsin Supreme Court Chairman Brian Schimming said in a statement. “It was clearly asking too much.”

    In the letter to Protasiewicz, Judicial Commission Executive Director Jeremiah Van Hecke referred to “several complaints” it had received and dismissed without action. The letter said the complaints pertained to comments she had made at a Jan. 9 candidate forum and several interviews in December and January.

    The complaints also alleged that she had made false comments about her opponent, Republican-backed Dan Kelly, in two campaign ads and in social media posts, according to the commission’s letter.

    The commission did not give a reason for why it dismissed the complaints, but Van Hecke said that it had reviewed her comments, the judicial code of ethics, state Supreme Court rules, and relevant decisions by the state and U.S. supreme courts.

    In one of the cases cited, a federal court in Wisconsin ruled there is a distinction between a candidate stating personal views during a campaign and making a pledge, promise or commitment to ruling in a certain way.

    Protasiewicz declined to comment on the commission’s action.

    The nine-member Judicial Commission is one of the few avenues through which people can challenge the actions of Supreme Court justices. It is tasked with investigating judges and court commissioners who are accused of violating the state’s judicial code of conduct. Its members include two lawyers and two judges appointed by the Supreme Court and five non-lawyers appointed by the governor to three-year terms.

    Republican members of the state Senate judiciary committee on Tuesday and last month grilled judicial ethics commissioners up for reappointment about when justices and judges should recuse themselves from cases, especially if they call a case “rigged,” a clear allusion to Protasiewicz’s campaign remarks.

    Republicans, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, allege Protasiewicz has prejudged redistricting cases pending before the Supreme Court because of comments she made during her campaign. They also say she can’t fairly hear the cases because she took nearly $10 million in campaign donations from the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which did not file the lawsuits but has long pushed for new maps.

    Vos did not respond to a message requesting comment on the commission’s decision.

    The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 65-34 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. It would take only 50 votes to impeach. It takes 22 votes to convict in the Senate, the exact number of seats Republicans hold.

    If the Assembly impeaches her, Protasiewicz would be barred from any duties as a justice until the Senate acted. That could effectively stop her from voting on redistricting without removing her from office and creating a vacancy that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would fill.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Todd Richmond contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress returns to try to stave off a government shutdown while GOP weighs impeachment inquiry

    Congress returns to try to stave off a government shutdown while GOP weighs impeachment inquiry

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — After months of struggling to find agreement on just about anything in a divided Congress, lawmakers are returning to Capitol Hill to try to avert a government shutdown, even as House Republicans consider whether to press forward with an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

    A short-term funding measure to keep government offices fully functioning will dominate the September agenda, along with emergency funding for Ukraine, federal disaster funds and the Republican-driven probe into Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings.

    Time is running short for Congress to act. The House is scheduled to meet for just 11 days before the government’s fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, leaving little room to maneuver. And the dealmaking will play out as two top Republicans, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, deal with health issues.

    The president and congressional leaders, including Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, are focused on passage of a months-long funding measure, known as a continuing resolution, to keep government offices running while lawmakers iron out a budget. It’s a step Congress routinely takes to avoid stoppages, but McCarthy faces resistance from within his own Republican ranks, including from some hardline conservatives who openly embrace the idea of a government shutdown.

    “Honestly, it’s a pretty big mess,” McConnell said at an event in Kentucky last week.

    Here are the top issues as lawmakers return from the August break:

    KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OPEN

    When Biden and McCarthy struck a deal to suspend the nation’s debt ceiling in June, it included provisions for topline spending numbers. But under pressure from the House Freedom Caucus, House Republicans have advanced spending bills that cut below that agreement.

    Republicans have also tried to load their spending packages with conservative policy wins. For example, House Republicans added provisions blocking abortion coverage, transgender care and diversity initiatives to a July defense package, turning what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort into a sharply contested bill.

    But Democrats control the Senate and are certain to reject most of the conservative proposals. Senators are crafting their spending bills on a bipartisan basis with an eye toward avoiding unrelated policy fights.

    Top lawmakers in both chambers are now turning to a stopgap funding package, a typical strategy to give the lawmakers time to iron out a long-term agreement.

    The House Freedom Caucus has already released a list of demands it wants included in the continuing resolution. But they amount to a right-wing wish list that would never fly in the Senate.

    The conservative opposition means McCarthy will almost certainly have to win significant Democratic support to pass a funding bill — but such an approach risks a new round of conflict with the same conservatives who in the past have threatened to oust him from the speakership.

    Democrats are already readying blame for the House GOP.

    “The last thing the American people deserve is for extreme House members to trigger a government shutdown that hurts our economy, undermines our disaster preparedness, and forces our troops to work without guaranteed pay,” said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.

    In a letter to his colleagues Friday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote that the focus when the Senate returns Tuesday will be “funding the government and preventing House Republican extremists from forcing a government shutdown.”

    It leaves McCarthy desperate to get the votes to keep government offices running and avoid the political blowback. As he tries to persuade Republicans to go along with a temporary fix, McCarthy has been arguing that a government shutdown would also halt Republican investigations into the Biden administration.

    “If we shut down, all of government shuts it down — investigations and everything else — it hurts the American public,” the speaker said on Fox News last week.

    IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

    Since they gained the House majority, Republicans have launched a series of investigations into the Biden administration, with an eye towards impeaching the president or his Cabinet officials. They have now zeroed in on the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and his overseas business dealings, including with Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

    The inquiries have not produced evidence that President Biden took official action on behalf of his son or business partners, but McCarthy has called impeachment a “natural step forward” for the investigations.

    An impeachment inquiry by the House would be a first step toward bringing articles of impeachment. It is not yet clear what that may look like, especially because the speaker does not appear to have the GOP votes lined up to support an impeachment inquiry. Moderate Republicans have so far balked at sending the House on a full-fledged impeachment hunt.

    But Donald Trump, running once again to challenge Biden, is prodding them to move ahead quickly.

    “I don’t know how actually how a Republican could not do it,” Trump said in an interview on Real America’s Voice. “I think a Republican would be primaried and lose immediately, no matter what district you’re in.”

    UKRAINE AND DISASTER FUNDING

    The White House has requested more than $40 billion in emergency funding, including $13 billion in military aid for Ukraine, $8 billion in humanitarian support for the nation and $12 billion to replenish U.S. federal disaster funds at home.

    The request for the massive cash infusion comes as Kyiv launches a counteroffensive against the Russian invasion. But support for Ukraine is waning among Republicans, especially as Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism of the war.

    Nearly 70 Republicans voted for an unsuccessful effort to discontinue military aid to Ukraine in July, though strong support for the war effort remains among many members.

    It is also not clear whether the White House’s supplemental request for U.S. disaster funding, which also includes funds to bolster enforcement and curb drug trafficking at the southern U.S. border, will be tied to the Ukraine funding or a continuing budget resolution. The disaster funding enjoys wide support in the House, but could be tripped up if packaged with other funding proposals.

    LEGISLATION ON HOLD

    The Senate is expected to spend most of September focused on funding the government and confirming Biden’s nominees, meaning that major policy legislation will have to wait. But Schumer outlined some priorities for the remaining months of the year in the letter to his colleagues.

    Schumer said the Senate would work on legislation to lower the costs of drugs, address rail safety and provide disaster relief after floods in Vermont, fires in Hawaii and a hurricane in Florida.

    Senators will also continue to examine whether legislation is needed to address artificial intelligence. Schumer has convened what he is calling an “AI insight forum” on Sept. 13 in the Senate with tech industry leaders, including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, the CEO of X and Tesla, as well as former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.

    HEALTH CONCERNS

    Senate Republicans will return next week to renewed questions about the health of their leader, McConnell.

    McConnell, 81, faces questions about his ability to continue as the top Senate Republican after he has frozen up twice during news conferences in the last two months since falling and suffering a concussion in March. During the event in Kentucky last week, he fell silent for roughly 30 seconds as he answered a question from a reporter.

    Dr. Brian Monahan, the Capitol’s attending physician, said Thursday that McConnell is cleared to work. But the question of whether McConnell — the longest-serving party leader in Senate history — can continue as Republican leader has sparked intense speculation about who will eventually replace him.

    Meanwhile, the health of California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 90, has visibly wavered in recent months after she was hospitalized for shingles earlier this year. She suffered a fall at her San Francisco home in August and visited the hospital for testing.

    And in the House, Rep. Steve Scalise, the No. 2 Republican, disclosed last week that he has been diagnosed with a form of blood cancer known as multiple myeloma and is undergoing treatment.

    Scalise, 57, said he will continue to serve and described the cancer as “very treatable.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A look at the 20 articles of impeachment against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

    A look at the 20 articles of impeachment against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

    [ad_1]

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton faces an impeachment trial in the state Senate starting Tuesday on articles overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives.

    Paxton, a Republican and star of the conservatives legal movement, was suspended from office in May when the GOP-controlled House voted 121-23 to impeach him on 20 articles ranging from bribery to abuse of public trust. Most of the articles deal with Paxton using his office to benefit a wealthy donor, Nate Paul, prompting eight of the attorney general’s top deputies to report him to the FBI in 2020.

    Three other charges date back to Paxton’s pending 2015 felony securities fraud case, including lying to state investigators. The Senate is not immediately taking up those charges and a fourth related to Paxton’s ethics filings in the impeachment trial.

    Paxton has said he expects to be acquitted and that the charges are based on “hearsay and gossip, parroting long-disproven claims.”

    Here’s look at the 20 articles of impeachment:

    DISREGARD OF OFFICIAL DUTY

    ARTICLE 1 – Protection of charitable organization

    Paxton is accused of failing to act as a public protector of charitable organizations by directing his employees in the attorney general’s office to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the Roy F. & JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation against entities controlled by Paul, harming the Austin charity in an effort to benefit the wealthy donor.

    ARTICLE 2 – Abuse of the opinion process

    Paxton is accused of misusing his official power to issue written legal opinions. He allegedly had employees prepare an opinion that protected some of Paul’s properties from being sold in foreclosure. Paxton concealed his actions by asking a Senate committee chairperson to seek that opinion. He’s also accused of directing employees to reverse their legal conclusion to help Paul.

    ARTICLE 3 – Abuse of the open records process

    Paxton is accused of misusing his official power by allegedly interfering with his office’s handling of a public records request dealing with the files of a criminal investigation into Paul.

    ARTICLE 4 – Misuse of official information

    Paxton is accused of misusing his power to administer public information law by improperly obtaining previously undisclosed information held by the attorney general’s office to benefit Paul.

    DISREGARD OF OFFICIAL DUTY

    ARTICLE 5 – Engagement of Cammack

    Paxton is accused of misusing official powers by hiring attorney Brandon Cammack to investigate a baseless complaint made by Paul. That led to Cammack issuing more than 30 grand jury subpoenas in an effort to help Paul.

    ARTICLE 6 – Termination of whistleblowers

    Paxton is accused of violating the state’s whistleblower law by retaliating against employees who reported his alleged unlawful acts to law enforcement, terminating them without good cause or due process. He’s also accused of engaging in a public and private campaign to impugn those employees’ professional reputations or prejudice their future employment.

    MISAPPLICATION OF PUBLIC RESOURCES

    ARTICLE 7 – Whistleblower investigation and report

    Paxton is accused of misusing public resources by directing employees to conduct a sham investigation into terminated employees’ whistleblower complaints and publish a report containing false or misleading statements in Paxton’s defense.

    DISREGARD OF OFFICIAL DUTY

    ARTICLE 8 – Settlement Agreement

    Paxton is accused of misusing his official powers by concealing his wrongful acts in connection with the whistleblower’s complaints by entering into a settlement with the whistleblowers that provides for payment from public funds. The settlement halted the wrongful termination suit and delayed the discovery of facts and testimony at trial, to Paxton’s advantage. That allegedly prevented voters from making an informed decision about his reelection in 2022.

    CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY

    ARTICLE 9 – Paul’s employment of a woman with whom Paxton has acknowledged having an affair

    It is alleged that Paxton benefited from Paul’s decision to hire the woman. In exchange, Paul allegedly received favorable legal assistance from, or specialized access to, the attorney general’s office.

    ARTICLE 10 – Paul’s providing renovations to Paxton home

    It is alleged that in exchange for providing the renovations, Paul received favorable legal assistance from, or specialized access to, the attorney general’s office.

    OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

    ARTICLE 11 – Abuse of judicial process

    Paxton is accused of abusing the process to thwart justice in the securities fraud case against him. It is alleged that Paxton concealed facts from voters with protracted delay of that trial, preventing voters from making an informed decision about his election. The Senate is not, at least initially, taking up this article in Paxton’s impeachment trial.

    ARTICLE 12 – Abuse of judicial process

    It is alleged that Paxton benefited from donor Jeff Blackard’s lawsuit that interfered with payment of the prosecutors in Paxton’s securities fraud case. That allegedly delayed the case, including discovery of facts and testimony at trial, and deprived voters of a chance to make an informed decision when voting for attorney general.

    The Senate is not, at least initially, taking up this article in Paxton’s impeachment trial.

    FALSE STATEMENTS IN OFFICIAL RECORDS

    ARTICLE 13 – State Securities Board investigation

    Paxton is accused of making false statements to the State Securities Board in connection with its investigation of his failure to register with the board as an investment adviser required by state law.

    The Senate is not, at least initially, taking up this article in Paxton’s impeachment trial.

    ARTICLE 14- Personal financial statements

    Paxton is accused of failing to fully and accurately disclose financial interests in his financial statements filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

    The Senate is not, at least initially, taking up this article in Paxton’s impeachment trial.

    ARTICLE 15 – Whistleblower response report

    It is alleged that Paxton made or caused to be made multiple false or misleading statements in the lengthy written report issued by his office in response to whistleblower allegations.

    ARTICLE 16 – CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACY

    Paxton is accused of conspiring or attempting to conspire with others to commit acts described in one or more articles.

    ARTICLE 17 – MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC RESOURCES

    Paxton is accused of misusing his official powers by causing employees to perform services for his benefit and the benefit of others.

    ARTICLE 18 – DERELICTION OF DUTY

    Paxton is accused of violating the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes and public policy against public officials acting contrary to the public interest by engaging in acts described in one or more articles.

    ARTICLE 19 – UNFITNESS FOR OFFICE

    Paxton is accused of engaging in misconduct, private or public, of such character as to indicate his unfitness for office, as shown by the acts described in one or more articles.

    ARTICLE 20 – ABUSE OF PUBLIC TRUST

    Paxton is accused of using, misusing or failing to use official powers to subvert the lawful operation of the state government and obstruct the fair and impartial administration of justice, bringing the attorney general’s office into scandal and eroding public confidence in state government, as shown by the acts described in one or more articles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ashley Etienne and Terry Sullivan on whether there will be a fall impeachment season

    Ashley Etienne and Terry Sullivan on whether there will be a fall impeachment season

    [ad_1]

    Ashley Etienne and Terry Sullivan on whether there will be a fall impeachment season – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Democratic strategist and CBS News contributor Ashley Etienne and Republican strategist Terry Sullivan join “Face the Nation” to discuss what to expect in the political world this fall — and what their thoughts on calls from some Republicans to impeach President Biden.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas AG Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial is in the hands of Republicans who have been by his side

    Texas AG Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial is in the hands of Republicans who have been by his side

    [ad_1]

    AUSTIN, Texas — Billionaires, burner phones, alleged bribes: The impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is going to test the will of Republicans senators to oust not only one of their own, but a firebrand who has helped drive the state’s hard turn to the right for years.

    The historic proceedings set to start in the state Senate Tuesday are the most serious threat yet to one of Texas’ most powerful figures after nine years engulfed by criminal charges, scandal and accusations of corruption. If convicted, Paxton — just the third official in Texas’ nearly 200-year history to be impeached — could be removed from office.

    Witnesses called to testify could include Paxton and a woman with whom he has acknowledged having an extramarital affair. Members of the public hoping to watch from the gallery will have to line up for passes. And conservative activists have already bought up TV airtime and billboards, pressuring senators to acquit one of former President Donald Trump‘s biggest defenders.

    “It’s a very serious event but it’s a big-time show,” said Bill Miller, a longtime Austin lobbyist and a friend of Paxton. “Any way you cut it, it’s going to have the attention of anyone and everyone.”

    The build-up to the trial has widened divisions among Texas Republicans that reflect the wider fissures roiling the party nationally heading into the 2024 election.

    At the fore of recent Texas policies are hardline measures to stop migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, battles over what is taught in public schools, and restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights — many of which are championed loudest in the Senate, where Republicans hold a dominant 19-12 majority and have Paxton’s fate in their hands.

    The Senate has long been a welcoming place for Paxton. His wife, Angela, is a state senator, although she is barred from voting in the trial. Paxton also was a state senator before becoming attorney general in 2015 and still has entanglements in the chamber, including with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will preside over the trial and loaned $125,000 to Paxton’s reelection campaign.

    If all 12 Democrats vote to convict Paxton, they would still need at least nine Republicans on their side. Or the Senate could vote by a simple majority to dismiss the charges altogether. It was a GOP-dominated House that decided by an overwhelming majority that Paxton should be impeached.

    “You’re seeing a fracture within the party right now,” said Matt Langston, a Republican political consultant in Texas. “This is going to impact the leadership and the party for a long time.”

    The trial also appears to have heightened Paxton’s legal risks. The case against him largely centers on his relationship with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer who was indicted this summer after being accused of making false statements to banks to secure $170 million in loans.

    Last month, federal prosecutors in Washington kicked a long-running investigation of Paxton into a higher gear when they began using a grand jury in San Antonio to examine his dealings with Paul, according to two people with knowledge of the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because of secrecy rules around grand jury proceedings. The grand jury’s role was first reported by the Austin American-Stateman.

    Chris Toth, the former executive director of the National Association of Attorneys General, said Paxton has for years weathered scandals unique among top state lawyers. He said the outcome of the trial will send a message about what is acceptable to elected officials across the country.

    Impeachment managers in the GOP-controlled Texas House filed nearly 4,000 pages of exhibits ahead of the trial, including accusations that Paxton hid the use of multiple cellphones and reveled in other perks of office.

    “There’s very much a vile and insidious level of influence that Ken Paxton exerts through continuing to get away with his conduct,” Toth said.

    Part of Paxton’s political durability is his alignment with Trump, and this was never more apparent than when Paxton joined efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Like Trump, Paxton says he is a victim of politically motivated investigations.

    But James Dickey, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, said the base of the GOP sees Paxton’s impeachment as different from legal troubles facing Trump.

    “Exclusively, the actions against President Trump are from Democrat elected officials and so it can’t avoid having more of a partisan tone,” he said. “Therefore, Republican voters have more concern and frustration with it.”

    Patrick, in a rare television interview last month, was explicit in what the trial is and is not.

    “It’s not a criminal trial. It’s not a civil trial,” he told Houston television station KRIV. “It’s a political trial.”

    ___

    Bleiberg reported from Dallas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link