Ken Paxton on trial

Kenny Boy Paxton just can't or won't stop being a legal idiot, despite House Investigations Committee member David Spiller (my district) praising his legal mind, per a Trib story previewing his trial. Ann Johnson, one of the House managers, said that Paxton's already dropping a binder with his planned defense on all senators was the equivalent of witness tampering.

Paxton's in trouble otherwise, if the explosive duo of Rusty Hardin and Dick DeGuerin will be the hired guns serving as the House's prosecutors. Hardin has already provided a tease:

“This is not about a one-time misuse of office,” he said. “This is not about a two-time misuse of office. It’s about a pattern of misconduct.” He added: "I promise you it is 10 times worse than what has been public.”

Getcha popcorn! More seriously, if Paxton is relying on state AG's office staff, whether careerists or top-level political appointees, to battle against this pair? He's up shit creek, unless, per the first link, Patrick and the team he has setting trial rules, frame issues very narrowly.

That said, also per the first link? Dan Patrick has said "no recusals," meaning Paxton's wife Angela gets to vote? The Trib cites the state constitution, requiring all senators be present for a trial. But, like Harold Dutton's "present" vote in the House, that doesn't mean that Patrick has to allow them to vote, does it? The piece goes on to note that's not the only apparent conflict of interest in the Senate. 

==

At the Monthly, Dan Solomon notes the trial is not a referendum on Trump. In a literal sense, that's Captain Obvious. In a figurative sense, given that Trump has already commented, and given the Trib pieces, behind senators' silence, it's wrong.

==

From the Texas Progressives Roundup, Off the Kuff games out the best political outcome (for Democrats) of the Paxton impeachment saga. For Greens? The best political outcome would be for enough Rethugs to vote "no" and enough Dems to pull a Harold Dutton that leaves Kenny Boy in office.