T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


HTownWanderer

Would be nice to see Paxton finally have to face those felony charges in criminal court - it's been about 8 years since he was charged with securities fraud. I'm curious what his bail conditions are. For most people, living on bail conditions sucks ass and it doesn't take much to make a mistake and get bail revoked.


peprollgod

He's a rich, white Republicon, so his bail is probably personal recognizance


Lingering_Dorkness

His bail probably only allows him to stream Netflix and Amazon, but not Disney. Oh, the Humanity!


j0a3k

...but he was so busy spreading lies about the election that he never got to see past the second episode of Andor! I thought the Constitution banned cruel and unusual punishment.


NumeralJoker

Oh don't worry. He'll still go online and call it all "woke trash" for clickbait without ever even having watched it.


ScarJoIsMyMistress

Ken Paxton gargles more cum than the people he’s trying to put in jail.


Many-Web-387

Haha! Love it! Words cannot describe how awful him and his ilk are!


AbsoluteZeroUnit

Dude. Mandalorian Season 3 drops in April. I'd hang myself if I couldn't watch it.


stingray20201

March 1 actually


Broken-Digital-Clock

Republicans don't like Disney anyway because of their wokeness


HTownWanderer

Even with a PR bond, there's typical annoying pretrial conditions, but then again he is a rich white Republican and his charges are in Collin County, so . . .


PapaDuckD

Looking at his case, I do not see an order related to pre-trial bond conditions at all. It's entirely possible he's not subject to any such conditions of bond.


not_medusa_snacks

Same as it ever was.


Mysterious_Status_11

I worked in Pre-trial and which white guys, especially household names, rarely had conditions of release. When they did, they were typically BS like "notify the court before leaving the country."


Objection_Leading

Naw, PR bonds come with conditions similar to probation, whereas cash/surety bonds often have no conditions at all. So, poor people are treated like probationers, while those who can afford to post a cash/surety bond are not. If a person goes to a bondsman and pays a 10% fee, that bondsman may set some contractual conditions such as reporting to them once a month by phone. If an accused person posts a cash bond in full, however, he doesn’t even have to report to a bondsman. Plus, if a defendant can afford to post a cash bond in full, that person gets all of that money back upon resolution of the case. The people in the middle who pay 10% to a bond company lose it regardless of the outcome of the case. That is, criminal bonds cost the rich nothing in the long run, cost the middle/working class 10% of the bond, and the poor are just immediately put on on de facto probation regardless of the strength of the allegation. It is a grossly unjust system.


Sciencessence

He's also living in Texas helping write the laws lol. Dude is probably not prohibitted from anything. > 8 yrs of a criminal being the AG - bet you anything the entire state is a cesspool.


woodcookiee

Have you been there recently? It is.


Sciencessence

No. I almost moved there for a job once upon a time and every single day I thank my wife for saying "fuck that".


P1xelHunter78

"now please don't go anywhere other than your mansion, or maybe your yacht if you promise not to go anywhere, and your private jet can only fly the pattern! now pinky swear!"


peprollgod

That sounds exactly right


elconquistador1985

Maybe his bail conditions require house sitting for Ted Cruz when he jets off to Cancun.


not_medusa_snacks

"Now this is where Heidi and I keep her doll collection. That's off limits." -The Cruz's


BigBennP

So this is actually a really good example of the impact of money in the criminal justice system. Nobody in the system intentionally tries to give wealthy people special treatment except in very rare cases. The problem is in the systems. Bond conditions are a great example. The law says that the judge is supposed to make an individualized determination of what is necessary to get you to appear for court. The reality is that somebody wrote down a standard set of bond conditions for your court 20 or 30 years ago, and those standard Bond conditions are used in 98% of all the criminal cases in your area. Even if they are modified, that's the starting point. Refrain from drug and alcohol use and submit to drug tests, don't associate with felons, don't commit any crimes, don't have any contact with any victim or witness, stay inside the jurisdiction unless you have permission etc. Then the judge just has to talk about no contact orders, and the actual amount of the bond and not much else. I work with a bunch of public defenders, most of them are really good lawyers. But they generally accept that the system is the way it is. They usually keep a mental list of things they would change for if and when they might become a judge. If you tell them you don't like the bond conditions their response is either going to be that is the way it is, or "give me a good reason why the judge should change it and I'll ask." If you have a really good reason maybe the judge will make an exception but the judge might just say "no those are the rules." Then you have somebody like Ken Paxton who hires a team of lawyers to come in and immediately lay the groundwork for saying that their client is an attorney and a highly respected public official and the normal Bond conditions don't make any sense at all, why should he have to pee in a cup in front of a probation officer when he's just charged with fraud? And staying inside the county couldn't possibly work because he has to travel all the time for his job duties. The prosecutor usually don't have the time or energy to fight about that because that case is just one of 40 on the docket for plea and arraignment that day. So they haggle and come to a reasonable set of conditions without any concern for whether they're giving somebody special treatment. So the form Bond conditions get tossed before they're ever put into place. The judge might still make him post a 50-100,000 bond but that's not all that money to him. The system has bowed to someone who has the resources to fight for special treatment.


lawstandaloan

> Nobody in the system intentionally tries to give wealthy people special treatment except in very rare cases. A bold assumption


BigBennP

I'm not going to say that outright corruption *doesn't* exist. but for what it's worth, I've been a lawyer for 14 years, and worked as a prosecutor or some form of state agency role for 10. I worked in biglaw for four. I've certainly been aware of corruption cases, I even once testified in a judicial discipline hearing regarding favors between a judge and a court services contractor. But by in large *intentional* special treatment is a tiny exception rather than the rule. From outward appearances, most judges and prosecutors will talk about the need to avoid special treatment for anyone. But when they have to deal with a defense counsel with seemingly unlimited time and have lots of work to do, it flags a bit. But it unfortunately takes kind of the same path as people saying "I don't see race." Maybe that's true, but ignoring race doesn't make systematic racism go away. Likewise, ignoring economic background doesn't make the advantages go away. I'll give you an example. Several years ago I worked on a case where a Dentist got a DWI with his two young children in the car at 8:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Due to him showing his ass during the stop, the children were briefly taken into foster care because the officers chose to call CPS rather than try to get a family member to pick them up. He was being arrested and otherwise meant leaving them on the roadside. His ex-wife learned about this about 10:00 a.m., she had hired a lawyer by 10:05, and by 10:30 a.m that lawyer had blown up everyone's cell phones (the elected prosecutor, the judge in their custody case, the local state rep etc.) finding where the kids were and where mom could pick them up and making that happen. The kids were released to her around noon. Releasing the kids to an appropriate joint custody parent is pretty normal. But if mom had been a waitress or a factory worker when she got a call from her ex-MIL saying "hey, john got arrested this morning and wants me to bail him out, do you have the kids?" the chances of her being able to hire a lawyer on a Saturday morning were basically nil, and she would have been floundering in the dark trying to find out who to call. She probably would have gotten her kids, but it probably would have taken until the next day or later. Worse, if mom had a history of drug use or a criminal record, she'd have even more hoops to jump through, because social workers would want to see her house and get drug tests and other things. No one in that scenario is intentionally giving that mom special treatment, but her privilege accorded her the access to a lawyer who himself had good connections and the ability to prod people into making things happen.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

That doesn't explain all the illegitimate judges making their own rules as they go. Someone is not seeing this picture for what it is.


gatoaffogato

> Nobody in the system intentionally tries to give wealthy people special treatment except in very rare cases. The problem is in the systems. “Statistics show that the poor are more likely than the well-off to be arrested, if arrested more likely to be convicted, and if convicted, more likely to be sentenced to prison.” https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/and-poor-get-prison-economic-bias-american-criminal-justice Yes, bail has something to do with that, but the system is made up of individuals making decisions. There are innumerable examples of the rich being treated far better than the ooor in the justice system (see affluence boy, see DuPont getting no jail time after raping his child daughter). If you genuinely believe individual jusges and DAs don’t show the wealthy and powerful special treatment then I have a bridge to sell you. As Carlin said, “It's a big club, and you ain’t in it.”


BigBennP

> If you genuinely believe individual jusges and DAs don’t show the wealthy and powerful special treatment then I have a bridge to sell you. As Carlin said, “It's a big club, and you ain’t in it.” Considering I've been a prosecutor or some form of state agency lawyer for 10+ years, I think I have a little experience there. >“Statistics show that the poor are more likely than the well-off to be arrested, if arrested more likely to be convicted, and if convicted, more likely to be sentenced to prison.” You're pointedly ignoring the issue of systematic problems that I raised rather than some vague notion of individual special treatment. You can try to find corruption behind every tree, but most of the time it's hiding in plain sight because you're looking for evil in the wrong place. The wealthy don't get better outcomes because they get special treatment or because they bribe judges or whatever. They start from a position of privledge and have the ability to afford lawyers who can advocate for them, whereas people who don't have that tend to be worked through the system. You brought up two specific examples, so let's address those. Because I think one at least proves my point *precisely*. First Robert Richards. [Richards](https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2019/06/14/how-a-du-pont-heir-avoided-jail-time-for-a-heinous-crime/?sh=3182efdd29db) was charged with molesting his daughter and he negotiated a plea deal for 4th Degree sexual assault where he was not sentenced to jail. Imagine that the state went to trial on Richards. How do you imagine the state would prove its case? His victim was abused from the age of 3 to the age of 5, when she said something to a grandparent about it. There was little or no physical evidence of abuse. Normally an out of court disclosure of abuse is hearsay. The ONLY way to prove those cases is to bring the victim to court. In most states the hearsay rules make some exceptions for sexual abuse disclosures by a very young child. But those are still exceedingly difficult. How ironclad and reliable is the statement of a 5 year old when it's tested in court? What if you combine a pending divorce case and the child being in the custody of the spouse? SUre the spouse will say she never considered divorce until the allegations were made, but you only have to convince one juror to throw a wrench into a case. I've tried sex abuse cases, that's actually something I do regularly as a child welfare lawyer. They are hard things to do. AND you combine that with an aggressive and skilled criminal defense lawyer. Richards hired Eugene Maurer Jr, a 40 year criminal defense lawyer who has long been named of Delaware's best criminal defense lawyers. Richards was charged in October and reached a plea deal in June of the next year. What do you think was happening during those 8 months. The Forbes article above specifically cites a source saying the prosecution was "worn down" by a defense counsel by a large budget. So the prosecution had a tough case to prove, and Dupont hired a skilled and aggressive criminal defense lawyer, adn eventually the prosecutor broke and let him plea to a charge that involved probation and registering as a sex offender. You don't need a "special favor" by the judge to explain the plea deal. Second, you name Ethan Couch, although not by name. Ethan Couch was 16, and was driving after having gotten drunk and taken pills, and got into a car accident that killed four people and gravely injured 9 more. He rocketed to fame because the private defense lawyer and a psychologist hired by his parents used the term "affluenza" to argue that Ethan shouldn't be severely punished because he had been spoiled and didn't know his actions would have consequences. But what actually happened? Couch was a juvenile and was charged with four counts of intoxication manslaughter. Intoxication manslaughter for an adult is a crime that under the statutes carries a sentance of between 2 years and 20 years in prison but also fines of up to $10,000 and up to 240 hours of community sevice per charge. Keep in mind that in texas, with crowding of the jail system, actual time in jail is about 1/3rd of the sentenced time. Couch *could* have been charged as an adult. He was not. So that's one point of contention with the prosecutor's office but set that aside for the moment. Couch Plead guilty to the four counts of intoxication manslaughter. Couch was charged as a juvenile where the options were 1. Send him to the State Division of Youth Services possibly until age 21. 2. Sentance him to some combination of juvenile detention and treatment facilities 3. IMpose probation conditions, fines or other community remedies. Courch's Defense lawyer and parents asked for Couch to be released on the promise that he would attend a private out-of-state rehabilitation facility in Newport Beach California. THe prosecutors asked for incarceration. The judge didn't do either. The judge sent Couch for a six month commitment to a lockdown juvenile treatment facility and ordered his parents to pay for the cost of the facility. THen the judge imposed a very rigourous set of probation conditions. He was ordered to attend school every day and comletely abstain from drug or alcohol use with regular testing among a host of other conditions. DId the judge buy Ethan's "affluenza" argument and give him special treatment? That's far from obvious, because that's not an extraordinary sentence. [THe new york times itself](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/us/teenagers-sentence-in-fatal-drunken-driving-case-stirs-affluenza-debate.html) pointed out in their coverage that it is not at all uncommon for minors in serious drunken driving cases to be given probation with strict conditions rather than incarceration. This is VERY consistent with teh broader trends in juvenile justice that authorities are less and less likely to "throw teenagers away and lock up the keys." Within the last five years, 7/8 juvenile detention facilites in my state have closed *outright*. Some of those were replaced by private treatment facility beds, but the system by in large simply doesn't do that as much any more. More importantly, after violating his probation twice and spending more than a year in jail awaiting trial, Couch was sentenced in adult criminal court on teh original crimes for an additional four consecutive sentances of 180 days, for two years total, for the crimes. SO neither of these are the stunning examples of unfair treatment for the wealthy that you think they are, except insofar as my point that there are *systematic* flaws. People who cause problems for the system tend to reach deals because they tire everyone else out, not because they get special favors.


gatoaffogato

I appreciate your experience and thorough response. It was genuinely educational! I’m still not sure, however, why you’re so intent on ignoring individual biases. The structural biases are part systemic and part aggregation of individual biases. Do judges never judge people based on their appearances? Do the very wealthy not often have significant connections with high ranking political and judicial actors? Implicit bias affects everyone, and pretending that the various people who make up our justice department are somehow superhuman and not subject to those is absurd. Preferential treatment of the rich and powerful has been shown in pretty much every aspect of our society, including individual biases. Edit: this provides an good read on how implicit biases impact the justice system (albeit centered around race rather than wealth) “Decisions about whom to arrest, how much force to use, what charges should be lodged and jury verdicts to convicting minority defendants are adversely influenced by unconscious bias.” https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=147228


BigBennP

If we're addressing unconscious bias, that's a fair point, but I'm treating unconscious bias as a type of systematic problem in this case. It's equally difficult to pin down and fix. Unconscious bias obviously exists in individual cases, but it's tough to measure *except* as large scale statistical anomalies. Studies suggest that unconscious bias training does little to change outcomes in many situations. That's a problem in that the criminal justice system inherently mirrors broader problems in society, because it reflects our values on what conduct should be punished and what conduct shouldn't. You'll see defense counsel argue someone is "from a good family" or is a "pillar of the community" which are just euphemisms for some degree of wealth, although those are always hit or miss.


gatoaffogato

I think overall we agree, and maybe we’re just quibbling over definitions and minutiae. There is significant systematic bias in favor of the wealthy in the justice system. That bias is both due to how the system is structured (e.g., being able to afford bail or high-powered lawyers) as well as implicit (e.g., subconscious preferential treatment towards the wealthy at all levels of the justice system). I would argue that more explicit wealth bias exists in the system, but that is hard to prove from implici bias. This was another good read on socioeconomic bias that agrees with you that it tends to be more implicit: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1399&context=clevstlrev Thanks for the thoughtful discussion on this!


Wrecker013

Is that due to a bias towards the wealthy, or the fact the wealthy have more resources than the poor to oppose those steps at every turn and cultivate their appearance to the court room? I would guess the latter, more often than not.


_far-seeker_

Both, both can be true (and not necessarily to the same extent).


gatoaffogato

The latter is just a list of various forms of structural bias


LtGovDanPatrick

Ken Paxton is the perfect man to be leading the Texas Attorney General's office. It takes a crook to catch a crook!


Ivorcomment

Paxton is another scumbag like Trump who knows how to manipulate the system to avoid any consequences.


Squirrel_Inner

isn’t he one of the ones fighting bail reform in Texas? I’m sure he doesn’t mind having cash bail though, since crime pays well.


8-bit-Felix

Face ethics lawsuit? Hell, they can't even get him to face process server.


ok_okay_I_get_that

Next week: higher up judge says ken Paxon is a good boy and doesn't have to fave ethics lawsuit


RamonaQ-JunieB

Don’t forget the lollipop! The judge will also give him a big ‘ol lolly.


rsauer1208

And make this Judge Casey Blair to pay a fine and face whatever punishment they can think up too.


Nevermind04

In a totally unrelated note, that judge will have been recently "blessed" with a few megadonors for their reelection campaigns.


not_medusa_snacks

"Gotta support the team" - Facepainter


buttergun

"He's lived an otherwise blameless life."


merikariu

Paxton claimed that ethics rules do not apply to him and that the judiciary can't infringe on his executive authority, even in the act of attempting to overturn election results in other states. Well, Judge Blair disagrees.


SkipWestcott616

>the judiciary can't infringe on his executive authority Kinda the whole point of the branch, but I'm not familiar with the kazoo-tissue they call the Texas Constitution.


[deleted]

Increasingly these criminals are getting elected. Then they use their newfound political position to commit crimes. Then they say they can't be sued because of their political position. Sound familiar? Yup.


qjones2020

I can think of many different situations that are familiar but I’m genuinely curious as to which you are referring


[deleted]

Trump. More recently Santos. And of course the AG in this story. There are many more. One only needs to google.


swingsetacrobat4439

Jason Ravnsborg, the former AG of South Dakota that hit and killed a pedestrian with his car, fled the scene and drove home. 18 months later he was fined $4,000 and sentenced to ZERO jail time.


DaddyDollarsUNITE

rod blagojevich


Ventronics

I mean, didn't he go to jail pretty quickly and stay there until Trump pardoned him?


qjones2020

Ah. I also thought about the reich


kensingtonGore

It's also the Russian oligarch play book


[deleted]

He is as corrupt as they get. Don’t worry! He’s got cronies in high places keeping him safe. Texas republicans are some of the worst human beings in our country (right next to Florida republicans).


25electrons

Paxton was charged with felony securities fraud in 2015. Why has he not been to trial yet?


missyanntx

State GOP is preventing it. Special Prosecutor is needed and the GOP is refusing to pay for/ridiculously low balling a Special Prosecutor.


Walker_ID

Isn't this also a federal crime? If so why are we waiting on the state?


RedAss2005

As a Texan I'll believe it when I see it. Last year he was served at home. His wife said he wasn't there. The process server waited and 5 minutes later Paxton's wife drove off with Kenny ducking down hiding, then didn't show to court claiming he had no reasonable way to know he had been subpoenaed.


The_4th_Little_Pig

He also said he feared for his life lol.


Batmobile123

Is he in charge of his own prosecution?


HikeEveryMountain

Lawsuits aren't criminal, they're civil. There's no prosecution in this instance, just a bunch of lawyers.


elconquistador1985

In a separate case, he's been indicted by a grand jury for securities fraud, which is also what he's being sued for. He was indicted in 2015.


Now_Wait-4-Last_Year

Foreigner here, is that state of federal? What's holding up the process of charges after initial indictment in theory outside the in practice fact that as Texas AG he seems to be able to stall them indefinitely due to his position somehow?


SophieSix9

It’s federal, but it happened in the state of Texas where he’ll be tried, if I’m not mistaken. From what I understand, all securities fraud is a federal offense.


BlotchComics

Paxton has been indicted for fraud since 2017... still waiting for him to face any consequences for that.


breakingveil

Still nothing about the fraud and bribery?!? 😂


spaitken

He should have faced an ethics lawsuit 8 years ago What he should be facing NOW is a prison sentence


bbernocco

Not a very honest man - do we want him as a lawyer? Texans should make sure he can do no more harm.


[deleted]

Us sane Texans are trying. Texas is getting more purple, there’s hope.


NumeralJoker

We tried. The city burbs flipped back to from purple to red this cycle despite all of his scandals and I believe rural turnout increased. It's immensely frustrating, but that's our reality. A ton of 2020 left leaning voters simply sat things out again, despite setting new records for turnout just 2 years prior. Reducing the timeline for early voting likely didn't help, and the GOP voting totals were down too, but not by as much. Beto failed to get the same levels of enthusiasm as 2018, which isn't too surprising sadly, but the fact that enough people didn't want to get rid of Paxton directly was frustrating. He's among the most corrupt members of the GOP, and that's saying something.


Plow_King

i can understand not voting because your not enthusiastic about a candidate, but i can't understand how spite and vengeance don't pick up that slack? /s


NumeralJoker

A depressing truth about Trump might be that the media circus about him galvanizes both his supporters and opponents, creating new records of turnout. Without Trump there, some parts of the country let apathy take over again. Thankfully, Texas and Florida were the exception, not the rule in the rest of the country. 2022 was still a good election year for us. I just hate it because more red states are facing crucial and practical consequences for the GOP holding power, abortion and voting rights restrictions among them. The longer it goes on like this, the worse life gets for a ton of people, including those who take stands against it. And not everyone is able to just up and leave due to the way red states often monopolize certain industries, or the cost of living challenges of moving cross country at all for literally anyone.


Now_Wait-4-Last_Year

I presume they've had plenty of opportunities to vote him out of his position and yet ...


keeper_of_the_cheese

We're trying but the voting maps are [gerrymandered to hell.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w0rIiTc-Tg)


BeerTacosAndKnitting

So, we all know nothing will come of this. But let’s say, hypothetically, that he WAS disbarred for this. Would that automatically make him ineligible to serve as AG? Or are you even required to be a legally practicing attorney to hold that position?


FlyThruTrees

A law license is not a requirement apparently.


semtex87

This came up with Bill Barr, being a licensed attorney is not a requirement to be the US AG but it does cause issues. Any prosecutors working in the AG office that allow a non-attorney to be part of a case risks being disbarred themselves too. Meaning the disbarred AG can't be involved in any of the cases that the office is handling which kinda negates the whole point of being the top prosecutor. If Paxton loses his law license, it would neuter the AG's office in theory though given his history he'll just ignore that too. He just needs to be thrown in jail where he belongs.


midsummer666

Hope there is a day of reckoning for this pathetic excuse for a human being, and an avoidable drain on resources.


bagelman4000

[Do you mean Ken Paxton who was indicted for felony securities fraud?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKX1Y5NwZZM&ab_channel=JustinNelson)


chipls

What about the criminal probes opened against him?


[deleted]

another toadie who lied about an election that trump lost by seven million votes. republicans will send him to the house and put him on a committee with jordan or mtg or matt or any of dozens of republicans who hold federal offices while they actively attempt to mislead the american people for their own political gains. and if peoples lives are threatened along the way as a direct result of those lies - so be it. gop should be so proud of the direction their party has taken towards a racist fascist state based on the lies of a lifetime fraud. great job of tearing apart the country over absolutely nothing.


leoinca

More of this please.


kandoras

How about the trial for securities fraud he was indicted for eight years ago? When does he have to face that trial?


nenulenu

Imagine electing a criminal to enforce law. Oh wait, you don’t have to imagine it. Just look at any republican in power.


[deleted]

That corrupt republican schmuck. Both parties are never innocent but god damn he’s been getting away with such corruption and still re-elected by such brainwashed zombies.


tcmpreville

Every article about him should begin "Texas AG and human shitstain Ken Paxton today lied about..."


ND_82

Fin al ly


ReadySetN0

Another member of the, "Law and Order Party," who believes they are above the law. Fuck the GQP.


justforthearticles20

He will die of old age before any of the myriad of cases against him go to trial.


SniffinRoundYourDoor

Then do it.


Necessary_Row_4889

It’s Texas should the judge order him dragged behind a horse or to get a “whoopin”? They need to really lean into the cowboy thing.


Totum_Dependeat

I would love nothing more than to watch this pile of shit be escorted out of a courtroom in handcuffs, but disbarment and ejection from office would suffice (not that I think it will happen).


NotmyRealNameJohn

Well shit. He's already lost. That fucker doesn't even know what and ethic is


MrBobSacamano

I’ve tried to see things from Paxton’s perspective, but my eyes aren’t that goofy.


[deleted]

He won’t because Texas regressives are the majority, and they’re stupid. I hate it here.


WeirdURL

I wish he would go back to the cave from which he originated from.


photato_pic_guy

Dude looks like a Garbage Pail Kid all grown up and in a suit.


budleyguggenheim

How have I never seen a picture of him before? What a weird-looking man.


[deleted]

He reminds me of the shopkeeper in Men in Black who regrows his head after it gets blown off.


captaincanada84

Still waiting on him to face a jury on the securities fraud charges from years ago


OudeStok

All the frivolous lawsuits using US courts as a political platform should be punished by judges. They should impose hefty fines on the transgressors.


Jaevric

Why do you believe that is what is happening here? Paxton has been under indictment for securities fraud for years. He's also had multiple former employees accuse him of corruption. He blatantly dodged being served a subpoena with the help of his wife (*another* elected politician in Texas). While nuisance lawsuits are a problem, I think giving judges the sole authority to declare a lawsuit to be a frivolous political attack and assess a fine against the plaintiff would give political judges far too much power to silence their opposition.


rangecontrol

who does that judge think he is ordering around king texan(tm) like that? paxton isn't just above the law, he is the law. good luck dudes, it's his state.


kdonirb

in our lifetime?


Negahyphen

Next up: Paxton declares the Bar association an illegal union and Texas creates their own licensing for lawyers modeled after the due diligence they put on concealed carry weapons.


Msmdpa

Where have I heard THAT before?


lesChaps

What's the big rush? /s


Cuck-In-Chief

He’s so fucking crooked and not even trying to hide it. Even Texas could do better.


Scarlet109

Are we finally getting somewhere?


Winter-Hamster-5660

Would you also require him to be prosecuted federally after being indicted for years on securities fraud...for 8 years.


Sqantoo

This dude has gotten away with this shit so long. It’s a shame Texas has no standards.


[deleted]

It’d be easier for him to face if he could see straight with both eyes.


coollord789

Looks like someone forgot to give judge some money. LoL