Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) set a Sept. 20 deadline for the National Archives to provide the documents — as House Republicans threaten to launch an impeachment inquiry into Biden's role in his son Hunter and brother James Biden's foreign business dealings.
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.
The far-right justices on Wisconsin's Supreme Court just can't handle the fact that liberals now have the majority for the first time in 15 years, so they're in the throes of an ongoing meltdown—and their tears are delicious. On this week's episode of "The Downballot," co-hosts David Nir and David Beard drink up all the schadenfreude they can handle as they puncture conservative claims that their progressive colleagues are "partisan hacks" (try looking in the mirror) or are breaking the law (try reading the state constitution). Elections do indeed have consequences!
Number of rain days in Portland, Maine during our meteorological summer (June through August): 46
Number of times the temperature in Portland hit 90 this summer: 0
Reported incidents of unruly passengers (mostly narcissistic, drunk MAGA assholes probably) on flights last summer and this summer, respectively, according to the FAA: 586 / 747
Percent chance that Trump's Fulton County trial will be televised: 100%
-
Mid-weekRapture Index: 185 (including 3 supernatural events and 1 clown barber for Christ). Soul Protection Factor 18 lotion is recommended if you’ll be walking amongst the heathen today.
JEERS to the return of the do-nothings. That stench you smelled yesterday was Congress ramping up for another stretch of incompetence, intransigence and invective. Among the things they're not expected to get done: all the things they say they're expecting to get done.
CHEERS to a feisty day in The Lege. Here's a partial transcript of yesterday's opening impeachment hearing for disgraced Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is being charged with all kinds of crimey business:
"Y'all y'all y'all!"
"Well, y'all y'all y'all!"
"Barbeque barbeque barbeque!"
Chaplain of the the Texas legislature
"Oh yeah?!! Well, remember the Alamo, y'all!"
"Y'all y'all y'all Sam Houston Lone Star cattle rustlin'!"
"Stetson armadillo, y'all! And another thing: Tumbleweeds barbeque, y'all!"
"Well, yeehaw, y'all! Ropin' and ridin' them doggies, cowboy!!!"
"Walker Texas Ranger y'all! Yeeeeeeeeee-haw!!!"
"Oil, y'all! Black gold! Texas tea!”
[Plaster rains from the ceiling as all the legislators start shooting their guns in the air]
The hearings will continue this morning just as soon as the GOP legislators are cut loose from their bonds in their billionaire benefactors' S&M dungeons.
TALLY HO!to remembering a literal moment in time. One year ago today the British Empire, which now consists of England, Wales, Stonehenge, parts of Ireland, the cat in front of 10 Downing Street and, representing Scotland, a giant plate of haggis, welcomed their new Tory prime minister to office. Her job: last longer than her failed Tory predecessor Boris Johnson. The new kid was Liz Truss:
> 1996 graduate of Merton College in Oxford
Hello, you must be going.
> 1996-2005: worked for Shell Oil and Cable & Wireless.
>Won a seat in the House of Commons in 2010
> 2016-2022: served as Justice Secretary, Lord Chancellor, Secretary to the Treasury, International Trade Secretary, and Foreign Secretary.
> Wants Russia to be booted from Ukraine and knocked down to a lower peg economically.
> One CNN commentator described her as “a political chameleon who has gone from a radical who called for the abolition of the monarchy to a flag-bearer of the Euroskeptic right wing of the Conservative Party.”
> Technically a Christian, but sleeps in on Sunday morning.
Ol’ Liz lasted a whopping 44 days, and is now in the history books as the U.K. prime minister who served the shortest term. I’d wish her a happy anniversary, but apparently she sleeps in every morning now.
CHEERS to picking up a House seat in 2024. Seems them 'Publicans down thar Alabama-way just ain't too bright—either that or what we have here is a failure to communicate. But maybe the third time's the charm, as another federal court has ordered the white supremacist party to allow Black Alabamans into the political system:
A federal court blocked a newly-drawn Alabama congressional map because it didn’t create a second majority-Black district, as the Supreme Court had ordered earlier this year.
This goes on the knee.
In a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel, which had overseen the case before it reached the Supreme Court, the judges wrote that they were “disturbed” by Alabama’s actions in the case. “We are deeply troubled that the State enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” the judges, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote.
So now it's up to a special master to redraw the districts. Memo to Alabama Democrats: if the special master turns out to be Governor Kay Ivey sporting glasses and a fake mustache, call the police and have 'em check for a body in her basement.
JEERS to today's lame game. The object is simple: guess which progressive Democrat(s) said these things about the 45th president's theft of classified documents from the United States government:
"Enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."
"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information."
Pulled out of the Mar-A-Lago bathroom towel dispenser.
"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information."
"That is the most confidential stuff. Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."
"Classified information; he should go to jail for that for many, many years."
"He must pay a very big price for this, as others have before him. This should never to happen again!!!"
Ha! Fooled ya! Those were all said by the 45thpresident—a MAGA Republican—between 2016 and 2020. And you know what? I suggest we listen to him. That'll teach that evil, document-stealing 45th president to mess around with the no-nonsense, justice-dispensing 45th president.
-
Ten years ago in C&J: September 6, 2013
CHEERS to boldly going where no one has gone before (well, if you don't count the invisible pod people colonizing in Louie Gohmert's head). The spacecraft Voyager 1, which was launched 36 years ago, is breaking up with us and leaving usfor another solar system:
The plutonium-powered probe is more than 11 1/2 billion miles from the sun, cruising through what scientists call interstellar space — the vast, cold emptiness between the stars, the space agency said.
Even today it’s still sending signals to its home planet.
Voyager 1 actually made its exit more than a year ago, according to NASA. But it’s not as if there’s a dotted boundary line out there or a signpost, and it was not until recently that the space agency had the evidence to convince it of what an outside research team had claimed last month: that the spacecraft had finally plowed through the hot plasma bubble surrounding the planets and escaped the sun’s influence.
The split is amicable: we get to keep the photo album and it gets to keep the 8-track player.
-
And just one more…
CHEERS to U.S. Mint'y freshness. The new American Women Quarter is here! The new American Women Quarter is here! Yes indeed, the latest in the series of U.S. quarters celebrating accomplished American women was released earlier this month, and this one comes to you from Texas starrrrrrrrrrring…..Jovita Idar!
Jovita Idar was a Mexican-American journalist, activist, teacher, and suffragist.
Striking design by U.S. Mint Artist John P. McGraw.
She made it her mission to pursue civil rights for Mexican Americans and believed education was the foundation for a better future. Idar wrote many news articles in various publications, speaking out about racism and supporting the revolution in Mexico. Throughout her life, Idar remained on the front lines of change and advocated fiercely for the rights of women and Mexican Americans.
The quarter depicts Jovita Idar with her hands clasped. Within her body are inscriptions representing some of her greatest accomplishments and the newspapers for which she wrote.
The quarter is now in wide release everywhere but Texas. They’re still working on Governor Abbott’s mandate that each one be individually wrapped in razor wire.
Have a happy humpday. Floor's open...What are you cheering and jeering about today?
-
Today's Shameless C&J Testimonial
"Why am I not surprised that Neal Katyal made it a priority to get to a neopagan ritual? Pray that these folks come to the light and realize that the only path is through and to the Cheers and Jeers kiddie pool. We are all fallen and need Bill in Portland Maine, and to repent as a Nation."
Republican lawmakers may seek to force a vote on impeaching President Biden — and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy could be ousted if he gets in their way, Rep. Matt Gaetz warned on Tuesday. Gaetz (R-Fla.) expressed frustration with the slow pace of GOP-led efforts to impeach the 80-year-old president and members of his administration during...
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 Republican Party Chairperson 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 said Protasiewicz must recuse herself from any Wisconsin redistricting case and the commission's letter only "muddies the waters."
"The Judicial Commission decided Justice Protasiewicz could not be sanctioned for what she said on the campaign trail," Vos said in a statement. "The Commission did not address whether she can sit on a case after accepting $10 million in campaign funds from the Democrat Party — the interested party in the redistricting case. Nor did they address whether she may sit on a case having made commitments for how she would rule that are inconsistent with the obligation to be impartial."
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.
The Texas State Senate transformed into a court of impeachment for the first time in nearly 50 years. Suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton pleaded not guilty to 16 charges including bribery, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and abuse of the public's trust. Amna Nawaz discussed the trial with Tony Plohetski of the Austin American-Statesman.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
"Texas Senate rejects all motions to dismiss Ken Paxton impeachment charges" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.
The Texas Tribune is your source for in-depth reporting on the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. Readers make that possible. Support authoritative Texas journalism with a donation now.
The Texas Senate on Tuesday rejected all of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s efforts to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him, moving forward with the first removal proceeding against a statewide elected official in more than a century.
The rapid-fire series of votes on 16 pretrial motions made clear that senators want to at least hear the evidence against Paxton before deciding his fate. And the vote counts provided an early gauge of how willing GOP senators may be to remove a fellow Republican from statewide office.
While the House vote to impeach Paxton was overwhelming and bipartisan, the Senate offers a different political landscape. Its Republican members are more in line with Paxton's brand of conservatism, and he has more personal connections in the chamber where he once served and his wife remains a member.
The pretrial motions required a majority vote, but the most support a motion to dismiss received was 10 out of 30 senators — all Republicans — and that motion sought to throw out a single article.
Six Republican senators supported every motion in a nod of support for Paxton: Paul Bettencourt of Houston, Donna Campbell of New Braunfels, Brandon Creighton of Conroe, Bob Hall of Edgewood, Lois Kolkhorst of Brenham and Tan Parker of Flower Mound. Half of those senators — Bettencourt, Campbell and Parker — are up for reelection next year.
Five Republicans — Brian Birdwell of Granbury, Bryan Hughes of Mineola, Charles Perry of Lubbock, Charles Schwertner of Georgetown and Kevin Sparks of Midland — voted in favor of at least one motion to dismiss.
The remaining seven Republicans voted with all 12 Democrats against each motion. Those senators were Pete Flores of Pleasanton, Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, Joan Huffman of Houston, Mayes Middleton of Galveston, Robert Nichols of Jacksonville and Drew Springer of Muenster.
Setting the tone, the Senate denied Paxton’s first two motions by votes of 24-6 and 22-8.
The first motion asked the Senate to throw out every article of impeachment for lack of evidence. Twelve Republicans joined all Senate Democrats in the vote to essentially move forward with a trial.
The second motion asked senators to exclude evidence from before January, when Paxton’s current four-year term began. That motion struck at the heart of one of Paxton’s main arguments — that he cannot be impeached for any actions allegedly taken before he was reelected last year. Paxton's defenders have repeatedly cited the so-called forgiveness doctrine to criticize the House impeachment as illegal.
The House impeached Paxton in May, alleging a yearslong pattern of lawbreaking and misconduct. He was immediately suspended from his job, and the Senate trial, which started at 9 a.m. Tuesday, will determine whether he is permanently removed from office.
There were two dozen pretrial motions. A simple majority was required to approve 16 of them because they sought to dismissal all or some of the articles of impeachment. The presiding officer, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, was allowed to rule on the other motions unilaterally.
Notably, Patrick granted Paxton's motion that prevents the suspended attorney general from being forced to testify in the trial. The House impeachment managers had opposed the motion, arguing that if Paxton wanted to avoid self-incrimination, he could take advantage of his Fifth Amendment right from the witness stand.
As the Senate proceeds to a trial, a two-thirds vote is required to convict Paxton. That means that if all 12 Democrats vote to convict, half the remaining 18 Republican with a vote would have to join them. Paxton's wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, is disqualified from voting but allowed to attend the trial.
Trial deliberations are private, so the process of voting on the pretrial motions followed a dry routine Tuesday morning. Senators submitted their votes in writing, the Senate secretary announced each senators' votes from the front mic, reading them off in random order, and Patrick verified each vote from the dais.
The motion to dismiss that got the most support — 10 votes‚ sought to individually dismiss Article 8. That article accuses Paxton of disregarding his official duties by pursuing a taxpayer-funded settlement with former top staffers who reported concerns about his relationship with Paul to the FBI in 2020.
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Texas Senate voted Tuesday to deny all of Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s motions to dismiss the impeachment charges against him, clearing the way for a historic trial.
Paxton had each article of impeachment read to him aloud in the chamber afterward Tuesday. Paxton's lawyer, Tony Buzbee, responded "not guilty" to each count.
House lawyer Rusty Hardin objected to Buzbee's interjections, but Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is acting as "judge" of the impeachment trial, sustained.
"Absolutely not guilty," Buzbee said on the next count.
Paxton, a close ally to former President Donald Trump who led several lawsuits in December 2020 to challenge election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, won reelection in 2022 but was ultimately suspended from office in May when the GOP-controlled House voted, 121-23, to impeach him on 20 articles that range from bribery to abuse of public trust.
Most of the articles deal with Paxton using his office to benefit Austin real estate developer and 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.
Paxton faces trial by a jury of 31 state senators stacked mostly with his ideological allies.
The closest vote Tuesday was along a 20-10 margin.
Patrick ruled that Paxton cannot be compelled to testify. The seven Republican senators who voted against all of Paxton’s pretrial motions to dismiss were Pete Flores, Kelly Hancock, Joan Huffman, Phil King, Mayes Middleton, Robert Nichols and Drew Springer.
Meanwhile, five Republicans – state Sens. Brian Birdwell, Bryan Hughes, Charles Schwertner, Kevin Sparks and Charles Perry – voted for some, but not all, of Paxton’s pretrial motions.
A supermajority of 21 is needed to convict, meaning the Senate requires at least nine Republican voters to convict, assuming all 12 Democrats vote to do so.
Patrick on Tuesday also went over scheduling for the historic impeachment trial. He said it would run from 9 a.m. until at least 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. It will not continue on Saturday this week, but it could run to Saturday next week. There will be 20-minute breaks every 90 minutes.
The lieutenant governor also emphasized rules that Paxton’s wife, Texas Sen. Angela Paxton, would not get a vote for her husband’s trial.
The Senate was not immediately taking up the three charges related to the 2015 felony securities fraud case or a fourth related to Paxton's ethics filings in the impeachment trial, according to the Associated Press. Paxton had said he expected to be acquitted and that the charges are based on "hearsay and gossip, parroting long-disproven claims."
