Texas House RINOs Vote to Illegally Impeach Paxton

 

Texas House RINOs Vote to Illegally Impeach Paxton

By

James Scott Trimm

 

Saturday was a sad day for Texas Conservatives as the Texas House voted illegally to override the results of a Texas election and impeach Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.  

Under Texas Law a Texas official may not be impeached and removed from office for any act alleged to have been committed prior to his or her most recent election.  The Statute (Government Code, Title 6; Subtitle B Chapter 665  Subchapter D Sec. 665.081)  shown below states, under the heading "NO REMOVAL FOR ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE ELECTION TO OFFICE" as follows: "An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer's election to office."

Those supporting the impeachment have argued that the Statute is invalid because the power to impeach is granted to the Legislature in the Texas State Constitution, can can only be limited by a Constitutional Amendment, not merely by a Statute.  However the Texas State Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 11) under "RULES OF PROCEDURE" that "Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings." And since the Statute in question was passed by both Houses, it certainly constitutes "rules of its own proceedings" which it has "determined" for itself.  In other words, the Legislature must follow its own rules, and the laws that it has passed governing its own operations are binding upon itself according to the Texas State Constitution.

 

The allegations made against Ken Paxton were all made prior to his most recent election last November.  These allegations were used by his Primary opponents and his General Election opponent in their campaigns against him in both the Texas Primary and in the General Election. Millions of dollars were spent by his opponents putting these allegations before the public  

Here are some initial findings (from my friend Tom Glass) about what the Texas Supreme Court has said about the anti-disenfranchisement provision. This is from In re Brown, 512 S.W.2d 317, 320-21 (Tex. 1974)

"Judge Brown raises several objections to the proceedings as a whole which require discussion. First, petitioner says that his re-election to his office after the commission of the things for which he was charged operates as a complete defense to any disciplinary action. He relies upon Article 5986, Vernon's Ann.T.C.S., which says: 

No officer in this State shall be removed from office for any act he may have committed prior to his election to office. 

 Article XV, Section 7, of the Texas Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the removal of officers for whom the modes of removal are not provided in the Constitution. This proceeding is authorized by the Constitution, and for that reason Article 5986 is not applicable. However, the spirit of that statute was applied to a proceeding to remove a judge pursuant to Article XV, Section 6, of the Texas Constitution in the case of In re Laughlin, 153 Tex. 183, 265 S.W.2d 805, 808 (1954). The rule was there stated:

 'Neither may removal (of judges) be predicated upon acts antedating election, not in themselves disqualifying under the Constitution and laws of this State, when such acts were a matter of public record or otherwise known to the electors and were sanctioned and approved or forgiven by them at the election. This holding is in harmony with the public policy declared by the Legislature with respect to other public officials. Article 5986, R.C.S.' 

 The rationale for the doctrine is the sound reason that the public, as the ultimate judge and jury in a democratic society, can choose to forgive the misconduct of an elected official. Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 666 (1924). The underlying basis for the principle is that the public can knowingly return one to office in spite of charges of misconduct. Public access to full information was the basis for this court's approval of the rule in Laughlin, supra, as appears from the portion quoted above. Matters of public record or matters which are otherwise known to the electors may be forgiven, says the opinion. Brown, In re, 512 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. 1974)"

 

Texas voters chose to reelect Ken Paxton, being fully aware of these allegations, and this is an illegal conspiracy of RINOS and Democrats to undo the results of a Texas election! 

 Moreover the Impeachment was done, in the words of Matt Rinaldi the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, 

...without considering any direct evidence, without allowing legislators to to interview or cross-examine witnesses, without placing witnesses under oath, without allowing members to talk to investigators, without making witness transcripts available to legislators, without subpoenaing witnesses with direct knowledge of allegations, and without allowing the Attorney General to present evidence or argument.  The result of this indefensible process was to impeach based solely on accusations, hearsay, rumor, innuendo, ans speculation.

This sham process involved secret meetings by a committee of just five House members, who simply delivered a report on Wednesday and held a vote on Saturday on Memorial Day weekend.  Neither the public, nor the vast majority of House members were even aware that such secret hearings were being held to impeach our Attorney General until this last Wednesday.  And rather than conduct hearings before the entire House, the House was simply asked to accept and ratify a report from just five members!

The following are the RINOS that voted with Democrats to illegally impeach Ken Paxton and take away your right to vote for Attorney General.  An "A" means they voted illegally to impeach, an "N" means they voted against this illegal impeachment:

It is time to clean "House" in Texas!