To be clear - and to be fair - I agree with your position of actual new rules that deal with 'sub rosa' quid pro quo.

But the issues of 'quid pro quo' are not in direct equivalence with the issues and rules of simply 'abusing the office'.

As an example, lets say the state of Texas was so absolutely bat **** crazy to elect me as AG. And lets halfway through my term I have a lapse in my faculties on the same order some of my colleagues think have occurred already with me in the last two years.

If I get it onto my head that the AG Office has to intervene on a constant, involved, and meaningful manner with any legal matter of any friend of mine -- with NO benefit passing to me whatsoever, nor any benefit passing to anyone but my friend through the office of the AG -- it is hard to fathom that that pattern of action is *not* an abuse of the office.

Again, I agree with your comment as it stands to combatting 'sub rosa' forms of benefit -- such as that to Hunter because of Pop's position with no other issue between them.

But in the Paxton instance it seems very clear to me a pattern existed that was an abuse of office. Much like the example above with me as the crazy AG would be. And the rules clearly allow for a removal of myself in that example as they currently stand. In Paxton's case, the issue isnt one of a lack of rules, but a lack of political backbone in the way that I think it went down.