Quote:Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was just acquitted during an impeachment trial that wrapped up over the weekend, sat town with Tucker Carlson for his first interview since the proceedings.

During the interview, Paxton revealed that the Biden administration had a role to play in his impeachment.

"There were two of the four House investigating lawyers that worked at the Department of Justice in Washington. That’s not random," said Paxton.`

Paxton explained that in the House investigating committee, there’s five members, three of which are Republicans and two are Democrats.

"And they hired, I think it was four lawyers. Two of them came from the Biden DOJ. That’s not an accident. They were sent there."

Carlson noted that Paxton has filed 48 suits against the Biden administration, to which Paxton said "I think that was the motivation" to send these lawyers.

"We were causing a lot of trouble for the Biden administration. Even if we didn’t, we slowed them down. We were winning. Like, I think our number is 77 percent of our cases."

"So we are a huge problem for the Biden administration, and that was the way to get me out of the way."

Carlson questioned whether Paxton thought "that the effort to remove you from office really came from the Biden administration," to which Paxton said, "I really do."

"I think that’s where it was instigated. And then there were other groups in Texas."

Later in the conversation, Paxton noted the group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform, who had contributed "a lot of money" towards Eva Guzman, who had run against Paxton in 2022.

"And they thought that if they got enough people running against me, they could take me out of a primary, run me out of money by putting me into a runoff. And this group has spent a lot of money and they were certainly not only part of trying to get me defeated, but they were also very much a part of this effort," said Paxton.

Paxton said the group published articles and sent them to Karl Rove at the Wall Street Journal, who in turn published them in the outlet, "whereas we couldn’t get anything published in the Wall Street Journal, even before the gag order, we were turned down for our editorial."

Paxton told Carlson during the interview that he was "reenergized" to return to his office and continue work, which he has been blocked from doing for months.

"I’ve been thinking about what I want to do when I get back since the day I left and so I’m reenergized to do the things that I think the voters sent me to do."

Paxton said he ran again for Attorney General "because I was in the middle of so many big things," adding that "we’re trying to stop the Biden administration from ignoring the Constitution and just ram-rodding things through outside of the legislative process."

"If we don’t fight now, we’re gonna lose our freedom. We lose Texas, we lose everything."

Link

The ________ had the authority to investigate cases of treason, espionage, sabotage and criminal attacks on the _______. Party and _________..

a.FBI, Democrat, US
B Gestapo, Nazi, Germany
C. Both A and B
D: white extremists, Trump, Reeeeeeeee



Bonus:
Explain how the detention of jan 6 protestors is similar to Nacht und Nebel

It was legal.

Lawyers defended the process.

Biden administration 101: Eliminate all opposition.

Mixed feelings about Paxton and his impeachment.

I’m willing to acknowledge that he has been tireless in advocating for the rule of law. Many GOP’s, and almost all Dems, naturally resent him for that. I have no doubt that is a big part of why they targeted him.

Even so, the fact remains that Paxton has shown a great knack for making enemies, even among those who share his political views. In the Texas House of Representatives, the GOP members voted 60-23 in favor of impeachment. Karl Rove and the Wall Street Journal didn’t make that happen, LOL.

I just finished watching the interview.

First, I'm not a Texan. Don't know anything about TX politics.

Side Bar: I'm a Tennessean that lets Texans know how important TN was for TX, but that's another topic.


Second, if someone is sleezy I think it's hard for them to hide their sleeziness.


To me, Paxton came across as a stand-up guy who really is concerned about fighting for the rule of law.


The fact that the political establishment and MSM went after him just increases my confidence that I'm reading him right.

Just like he's excited to get back to work, I'm excited to see what he'll do next.

“They stopped counting votes on election night [Georgia…etc]…because they needed to figure out how many real votes there were so they can then figure out how many mail-in ballots to apply to the election”

I said this the next day this is what was happened. We have affidavits from eyewitness’s saying they saw pristine mail-in ballots with numerical numbers on them in perfect order being handled. We have videos of trucks arriving 2am with what looks like pallets of ballots being delivered

Karl Rove a liberal?

(09-21-2023 01:37 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Mixed feelings about Paxton and his impeachment.

I’m willing to acknowledge that he has been tireless in advocating for the rule of law. Many GOP’s, and almost all Dems, naturally resent him for that. I have no doubt that is a big part of why they targeted him.

Even so, the fact remains that Paxton has shown a great knack for making enemies, even among those who share his political views. In the Texas House of Representatives, the GOP members voted 60-23 in favor of impeachment. Karl Rove and the Wall Street Journal didn’t make that happen, LOL.

7 of his handpicked deputies accused him of corruption and either resigned or were forced out. The reason he was impeached was that he settled a civil trial with them for $3.3m, and he wanted the state to pay for it.

Paxton is a scoundrel, and he’s no more Conservative than any other Texas AG would have been. I wish he’d been convicted, and I’d wager that most most of those who exonerated him did so more out of fear than out of a sense of clearing a good man’s name.

(09-22-2023 05:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I just finished watching the interview.

First, I'm not a Texan. Don't know anything about TX politics.

Side Bar: I'm a Tennessean that lets Texans know how important TN was for TX, but that's another topic.


Second, if someone is sleezy I think it's hard for them to hide their sleeziness.


To me, Paxton came across as a stand-up guy who really is concerned about fighting for the rule of law.


The fact that the political establishment and MSM went after him just increases my confidence that I'm reading him right.

Just like he's excited to get back to work, I'm excited to see what he'll do next.

So you ignore the mountain of evidence against him bc he looks good in an interview? I actually live in Texas, and I’ll say that you guys in Tennessee are welcome to have Paxton. One interview can’t wash off the stink of his corruption. State House Republicans voted 60-23 to impeach him, despite a reasonable expectation of getting attacked for it. That should tell you something right there.

Eye opening interview.

(09-25-2023 04:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-22-2023 05:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I just finished watching the interview.

First, I'm not a Texan. Don't know anything about TX politics.

Side Bar: I'm a Tennessean that lets Texans know how important TN was for TX, but that's another topic.


Second, if someone is sleezy I think it's hard for them to hide their sleeziness.


To me, Paxton came across as a stand-up guy who really is concerned about fighting for the rule of law.


The fact that the political establishment and MSM went after him just increases my confidence that I'm reading him right.

Just like he's excited to get back to work, I'm excited to see what he'll do next.

So you ignore the mountain of evidence against him bc he looks good in an interview? I actually live in Texas, and I’ll say that you guys in Tennessee are welcome to have Paxton. One interview can’t wash off the stink of his corruption. State House Republicans voted 60-23 to impeach him, despite a reasonable expectation of getting attacked for it. That should tell you something right there.

Like I said, I don't live in TX and don't get into the inner workings of TX politics.

If they didn't convict someone who's guilty then that's on them and every one of them should be booted out of office or defeated in their next election.

I look at the fights Paxton goes after and it seems like he's on the right track.

As an outsider I see that those fights bring him a lot of enemies.

(09-25-2023 08:28 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 04:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-22-2023 05:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I just finished watching the interview.

First, I'm not a Texan. Don't know anything about TX politics.

Side Bar: I'm a Tennessean that lets Texans know how important TN was for TX, but that's another topic.


Second, if someone is sleezy I think it's hard for them to hide their sleeziness.


To me, Paxton came across as a stand-up guy who really is concerned about fighting for the rule of law.


The fact that the political establishment and MSM went after him just increases my confidence that I'm reading him right.

Just like he's excited to get back to work, I'm excited to see what he'll do next.

So you ignore the mountain of evidence against him bc he looks good in an interview? I actually live in Texas, and I’ll say that you guys in Tennessee are welcome to have Paxton. One interview can’t wash off the stink of his corruption. State House Republicans voted 60-23 to impeach him, despite a reasonable expectation of getting attacked for it. That should tell you something right there.

Like I said, I don't live in TX and don't get into the inner workings of TX politics.

If they didn't convict someone who's guilty then that's on them and every one of them should be booted out of office or defeated in their next election.

I look at the fights Paxton goes after and it seems like he's on the right track.

As an outsider I see that those fights bring him a lot of enemies.

that’s been my take from another outsider…

I like the fights that Paxton goes after. But I don't care for Paxton the person. When you have this many sleazy incidents surrounding you, and coming from this many places, you are sleazy.

Surely, among 27 million Texans there is somebody who will pursue the same policy agenda as Paxton has done, without the sleazy undercurrent. I don't understand why there hasn't been a stronger primary challenge.

Part of the problem is that the other republicans are too damn lazy (or something, not sure what) to take on these issues. I want republicans to be the party of common sense and to form a dedicated opposition to democrats. But for some reason they won't.

You could make a very similar argument about Donald John Trump. I like most (not all, but most) of the issues he pursues but the personality seems a bit sleazy to me. I guess part of it is that when a republican bucks the socialist/communism system, those in power are going to do everything they can to discredit him/her. After all, it was communists who invented the "show me the man and I'll find you a crime approach to criminal "justice."

(09-25-2023 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I like the fights that Paxton goes after. But I don't care for Paxton the person. When you have this many sleazy incidents surrounding you, and coming from this many places, you are sleazy.

Surely, among 27 million Texans there is somebody who will pursue the same policy agenda as Paxton has done, without the sleazy undercurrent. I don't understand why there hasn't been a stronger primary challenge.

Part of the problem is that the other republicans are too damn lazy (or something, not sure what) to take on these issues. I want republicans to be the party of common sense and to form a dedicated opposition to democrats. But for some reason they won't.

You could make a very similar argument about Donald John Trump. I like most (not all, but most) of the issues he pursues but the personality seems a bit sleazy to me. I guess part of it is that when a republican bucks the socialist/communism system, those in power are going to do everything they can to discredit him/her. After all, it was communists who invented the "show me the man and I'll find you a crime approach to criminal "justice."

I thought about that when I was typing my last reply.

What about Trump the business man? Probably sleezy. I recall the ultimatum he gave Tiffany's. Sell my your air space rights or I'll make my bldg as gaudy as possible. Your choice.

But he made a campaign promise to Evangelicals to stock the courts with conservatives and he lived up to that promise. And that alone sank Roe v. Wade.

Name any other upstanding hard core conservative, or even moderately upstanding, who did more to save the lives of innocent babies than him.


I'll take sleezy any day of the week over ineffective or disengaged.




And the GOP wonders why he's curb stomping everyone else who's even remotely thinking about running.

(09-25-2023 09:59 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I'll take sleezy any day of the week over ineffective or disengaged.

So will I. The problem is that the current RINO leadership is content with being ineffective or disengaged.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I've seen no indication that McConnell or McCarthy could lead a sex addict to a whorehouse.

I think part of the problem is that before one can be effective or engaged, one needs a platfrom with which he/she can be effective and engaged. The last time republicans really had a platform to which they were dedicated was 1994. How did that turn out, by the way?

Today's republican platform seems to be opposition to abortion and gay rights (which are loser issues nationally) and otherwise letting democrats get what they want, only spending less money on it (whcih makes them look greedy). Outside of that, I don't see much. And that's not much to run on.

Two things about that are particularly sad: 1) The inevitable end result of democrats pushing their poicies and republicans doing that is a socialist/communist regime. 2) There are so many far better policy options out there for repubicans to adopt and promote.

Keep it up and in 30-50 years, if not sooner, there will no longer be a republican party, and the USA will be so deeply into socialist/communist policies that its economy will crater and there will be no future. See Argentina for an example of what can happen to ruin a country. Seventh most prosperous economy in the world 100 years ago, and nothing remotely close today.

(09-25-2023 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 09:59 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I'll take sleezy any day of the week over ineffective or disengaged.

So will I. The problem is that the current RINO leadership is content with being ineffective or disengaged.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I've seen no indication that McConnell or McCarthy could lead a sex addict to a whorehouse.

I think part of the problem is that before one can be effective or engaged, one needs a platfrom with which he/she can be effective and engaged. The last time republicans really had a platform to which they were dedicated was 1994. How did that turn out, by the way?

Today's republican platform seems to be opposition to abortion and gay rights (which are loser issues nationally) and otherwise letting democrats get what they want, only spending less money on it (whcih makes them look greedy). Outside of that, I don't see much. And that's not much to run on.

Two things about that are particularly sad: 1) The inevitable end result of democrats pushing their poicies and republicans doing that is a socialist/communist regime. 2) There are so many far better policy options out there for repubicans to adopt and promote.

Keep it up and in 30-50 years, if not sooner, there will no longer be a republican party, and the USA will be so deeply into socialist/communist policies that its economy will crater and there will be no future. See Argentina for an example of what can happen to ruin a country. Seventh most prosperous economy in the world 100 years ago, and nothing remotely close today.

Exactly! And I'll go so far as to give them the 2016 "Repeal and Replace" mantra. Not a true platform, per se, but it was their campaign strategy to win the Senate and House. They had never considered that they would actually have to follow through.

Nevertheless, there have been a few uprisings within the Base that the GOP RINOs refused to accept. They really should've gotten the message with the TEA Party.

The way the RINO establishment treated those TEA Partiers who stayed true to their ideals was the last straw for me. Everything they've done since drives me farther and farther away.

Given that we only have 2 parties, I'll vote however I can to force the GOP to capitulate to the base.


Trump gave the GOP a gift in that they no longer have to include Abortion as part of their fight, at least at the federal level.

They can switch from "We oppose abortion" to "We support states rights."

(09-25-2023 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I like the fights that Paxton goes after. But I don't care for Paxton the person. When you have this many sleazy incidents surrounding you, and coming from this many places, you are sleazy.

Surely, among 27 million Texans there is somebody who will pursue the same policy agenda as Paxton has done, without the sleazy undercurrent. I don't understand why there hasn't been a stronger primary challenge.

The interesting thing is that Webster (the interim under Paxton) did just that and kept up the fights that Paxton goes after. And started issues that Paxton goes after.

And had Paxton been removed --- Webster wouldnt have had the some very real issue of 'renting the Office of the Texas Attorney General' out to Nate Paul on whatever issue Nate Paul was fending off. To the point of it being very visible, and to the point of it being a real problem with an abuse of office claim.

And knowing who the people are who would probably win the office in a special election, there is almost no chance of a person following a non-Paxton like agenda of winning.

Had a great opportunity here to: a) remove Paxton's sleaze from the office; b) continue Paxton's path in the types of acts Paxton pursues, bith in the interim and in the special election; c) put the Rs in Texas on the side of an actual 'lets not support abuse of office'. That is for c), the Texas Rs had the chance to actually look like they didnt support corrupt activities at the price of accepting corrupt actions.

Quote:Part of the problem is that the other republicans are too damn lazy (or something, not sure what) to take on these issues. I want republicans to be the party of common sense and to form a dedicated opposition to democrats. But for some reason they won't.

Bingo. Would be nice to see Rs in a 'law and order' support mode these days. Texas Rs had a chance to do that with little to no downside.

(09-25-2023 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Bingo. Would be nice to see Rs in a 'law and order' support mode these days. Texas Rs had a chance to do that with little to no downside.

Tanq, I think this is a difference between us. Not that I don't support law and order--I do, very strongly. But I think you see DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS as the side of law and order in their pursuit of Donald Trump, and I see those agencies as being led by corrupt political hacks who constitute a bigger threat to our democratic republic than Trump, Hillary, or Biden.

From what I have seen reported in the press, Paxton appears to be a sleazeball who should have been removed from office. But what I saw and heard of the impeachment proceedings did not prove a case for doing so. Admittedly I watched very little live as I found to be a boring chase through minutiae. But I did watch the highlights, such as they were, on news broadcasts, and they didn't really get me there.