It's all about saving face for Drew Springer, but why does he care?

 

That's my take on his Twitter post with Texas Senate letterhead letter asking Lt. Gov Dan Patrick, aka Danny Goeb, if AG Kenny Boy Paxton's impeachment trial in the Senate can be re-opened. More discussion on this at the Snooze and the Trib.

First, he's out of the Senate. Since, unlike in some states, the Texas Lege can't call itself into special session, only the gov, that's not likely to happen, unless a lame-duck one after this November's general election. (The Snooze adds that the state constitution has no such provision. That said, could the House file NEW charges? Like the non-criminal impeachment version of perjury? You bet your ass.)

As for the possibility?

The Snooze said that Article 15 of the Texas Constitution does not include a provision to re-open an impeachment. It doesn't exclude it, either, though.

Second, Drew still hasn't admitted he was wrong in thinking the standard of proof for impeachment conviction is like that of criminal law. It's like that of civil law at both the state and federal level, where both Texas and US constitutions specify the penalty on conviction is limited to loss of office.

Related: If he really believed this, did he think of actually asking Goeb, or going past Goeb to his legal advisor flunky, or better yet, asking the Texas Supreme Court for a ruling or something, on this issue? No, no and no. 

Or, to put it another way, why didn't he ask Robert Nichols or Kelly Hancock?

Third, doesn't he have enough to do running flak for Brent Hagenbuch's residency shenanigans?

It's stuff like this that led the Monthly, long ago, to label him as a Senate nothingburger. To be more precise, they put him in their Bottom 10 of the entire Lege, both houses.

==

Update: Now that Paxton's deposition has been put on hold for a FULL MONTH by the Texas Supremes, can we ask if Paxton bribed them? Offered free Nate Paul granite countertops for their chambers?