4 ms·

He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for

He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6cd062c995ced91e9d2542199 https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate developer who was committing serious crimes with Paxton's blessing and likely with kickbacks -- https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-ryan-bangert/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachme... That developer was indicted on a number of serious Federal charges where it came out that he renovated Paxton's home for free and covered up Paxton's affair with one of his other staffers: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment-ken-paxton/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment... Which ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial where the Texas GOP compeletly beclowned itself to acquit an obvious crook because they agree with him politically. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted-impeachment-texas-attorney-general/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted...

muaytimbo 2y ago
[flagged]
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.
  - muaytimbo 2y ago
    [flagged]
- burkaman 2y ago
  In this case he narrowly avoided trial by agreeing to pay significant restitution to his victims, do community service, and attend a legal ethics education course. He is a rich person with significant resources, he would not have agreed to this settlement if there wasn't a good chance of conviction.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dboreham 2y ago
  Do you have any recent examples where this happened?
EricE 2y ago
You mean he's faced multiple trumped up and politically motivated persecutions that have all failed.

muaytimbo 2y ago

[flagged]

mikeyouse 2y ago
Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.
- muaytimbo 2y ago
  [flagged]
burkaman 2y ago
In this case he narrowly avoided trial by agreeing to pay significant restitution to his victims, do community service, and attend a legal ethics education course. He is a rich person with significant resources, he would not have agreed to this settlement if there wasn't a good chance of conviction.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dboreham 2y ago
Do you have any recent examples where this happened?

EricE 2y ago

You mean he's faced multiple trumped up and politically motivated persecutions that have all failed.