Texas AG hit by FBI subpoena as he tries to overturn the 2020 presidential election

On Thursday, Tony Plohetski of the Austin American-Statesman confirmed that FBI agents have served Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton with a federal subpoena as part of their criminal investigation into allegations he accepted bribes and abused his office.

Paxton is the lead attorney general in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — a challenge backed by outgoing President Donald Trump and 106 House Republicans.

The allegations center on official acts Paxton is said to have performed on behalf of a Texas real estate developer who donated $25,000 to his election campaign. Eight sources in Paxton’s office have come forward alleging misconduct, most of whom were subsequently fired or resigned in a suspected campaign of retaliation.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/texas ... on-report/

He will just say any evidence is false because he has evidence that shows he is innocent but it can’t be seen.

Most of the GOP House caucus has signed on to this piece of shit, demanding that the SCOTUS throw out every shred of Democracy because....they don't like that their candidate got his ass beat.

Meanwhile, today, the SCOTUS quietly made its own statement: The Court released 4 decisions, all 8 to 0 (Barrett took no part because the cases came before she was sworn in).

IMHO, the one that sent the strongest shot across Trump's was in favor of 3 Muslim people, who were put on the No Fly List because they refused to become Law Enforcement informers, and were told the only way they'd get off, is if they informed. They can now sue for damages as well.

But to be unanimous on 4 different decisions is saying, at least to me, we're working to stand and rule together.

Like to see that unanimity on this new travesty. That would certainly silence most all of the cult, showing there is no Deep State conspiracy, showing that he'd been wrong all along which is why they have that losing record. 1-50 or something.

Deny, then let the hungry lawyers at they asses. Natural consequences yield picked-clean bones.

CDFingers

from the people who openly tried to subvert constitutional process.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:11 pm Meanwhile, today, the SCOTUS quietly made its own statement: The Court released 4 decisions, all 8 to 0 (Barrett took no part because the cases came before she was sworn in).

IMHO, the one that sent the strongest shot across Trump's was in favor of 3 Muslim people, who were put on the No Fly List because they refused to become Law Enforcement informers, and were told the only way they'd get off, is if they informed. They can now sue for damages as well.

But to be unanimous on 4 different decisions is saying, at least to me, we're working to stand and rule together.

Trump bullshit aside, this is good news.

and after this, they'll come up with some other stupid chit. andandand...

We could use a well-stocked alligator pit right about now.

CDFingers

what a bunch of sorry losers.

lurker wrote:

rolandson wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:09 pm One month 13 days left in bizarro land folks!

that thing in the lower left corner, is that a slice of pie, or a 3-eyed crocodile?

Totally a slice of pie. It’s one of his hallmarks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just when I thought that Ken Paxton couldn't be any more of a piece of shit...

NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:02 am Just when I thought that Ken Paxton couldn't be any more of a piece of shit...

He has some competition for the title - Lt. Guv. Dan Patrick and Gov. Gregg Abbott.

Every time I pull the cork out of one of my Tequila bottles, I think the sound is probably similar to the sound of these three pulling their head out of their own ass, or along with Ron DeSantis, removing their heads from Trumps ass. The Methane Gang has many members, unfortunately.

Prolly dead on arrival, this seditious abuse of the judiciary.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/stat ... ore-298151

CDFingers

I'll say this for Roberts - he's made it a point to try to get unanimous decisions when he can, to make a point of judicial solidarity. Important for the reputation of the Court when they make those contentious rulings. I don't keep count, but I've seen somewhere that unanimous is the most common vote split.

I still don't trust this Court.

But what gives me faith - elections are state run. The Supremes have made it a point to defer to the highest state courts on state law, lately. Federalism, eh?

More to the point - if they tell PA and the others to toss out mail-in ballots, and the states give them the finger? Send in the certified electors anyway, and the House confirms? That reputation is shot for no purpose. If the GOP managed to hang up the certification somehow, Pelosi takes over - unless the new House elects someone else speaker. Biden, most likely, although I think he'd be happy to let Nancy do the honors. Roberts isn't a fool. This is the single best chance they have to avoid court packing, and it depends on them not doing a damn thing.

jbjh wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:36 am Totally a slice of pie. It’s one of his hallmarks.

it's plainly grinning at that station wagon full of yummy kids. maybe i'm reading too much into this

lurker wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:01 am

jbjh wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:36 am Totally a slice of pie. It’s one of his hallmarks.

it's plainly grinning at that station wagon full of yummy kids. maybe i'm reading too much into this

Send not to know for whom the pie grins.

CDFingers

YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:11 pm Meanwhile, today, the SCOTUS quietly made its own statement: The Court released 4 decisions, all 8 to 0 (Barrett took no part because the cases came before she was sworn in).

IMHO, the one that sent the strongest shot across Trump's was in favor of 3 Muslim people, who were put on the No Fly List because they refused to become Law Enforcement informers, and were told the only way they'd get off, is if they informed. They can now sue for damages as well.

But to be unanimous on 4 different decisions is saying, at least to me, we're working to stand and rule together.

The No Fly LIst case was interesting in that it had things to appeal to different justices. Three minority appellees that would appeal to the liberals and the men used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the basis for their appeal something that would attract the conservative justices.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Department of Homeland Security told the men that they were allowed to fly.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opin ... ore-298142

That made the case moot and the US District Court dismissed it but the three men wanted monetary damages and the 2nd Circuit (NYC) picked up the appeal. And ultimately the unanimous SCOTUS opinion was written by Clarence Thomas. Hope the media circles back when the three file their lawsuits against the FBI agents including supervisors etc.

They were just following orders.

The other cases were interesting as well. Especially this one:

One that didn't get any coverage were 3 assholes court-martialed for rape. They all argued that the statute of limitations had expired.
BUT, under the UCMJ, rape can be punishable by anything up to and including the death penalty. Their attorneys argued that since the SCOTUS already ruled that death for rape violated the 8th Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment, rape under the UCMJ was no longer a "capital crime" (which has no statute of limitations) and therefore the 5 year statute of limitations kicked in. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the charges

Alito, in his usual turgid, verbose, obscure style wrote the opinion. What I could glean was that since the UCMJ STILL described rape as punishable by "up to and including execution" so it remains a capital offense and therefore no statute of limitations, and re-instated the convictions of these bastards for rape. Again, all 8 justices agreed. But Gorsuch's concurrence was truly weird "I don't think we have jurisdiction but I agree with the decision":

JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring.
I continue to think this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from the CAAF. See Ortiz v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (ALITO, J., dissenting). But a majority of the Court believes we have jurisdiction, and I agree with the Court’s decision on the merits. I therefore join the Court’s opinion.

The other cases involve drug reimbursements in Arkansas, and courts in Delaware (that one was covered in the Press).

Simply, in the Arkansas cases, there's a law saying pharmacies don't have to accept reimbursement that is below their costs. The Pharmacy Benefit Managers sued to overturn that law--I guess they wanted the pharmacies to subsidize them! The Court threw out the PBMs' suit ruling that the Arkansas law hold. Unanimously, again.

Texas is truly becoming a fucking embarrassment !!

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:52 am The other cases involve drug reimbursements in Arkansas, and courts in Delaware (that one was covered in the Press).

Simply, in the Arkansas cases, there's a law saying pharmacies don't have to accept reimbursement that is below their costs. The Pharmacy Benefit Managers sued to overturn that law--I guess they wanted the pharmacies to subsidize them! The Court threw out the PBMs' suit ruling that the Arkansas law hold. Unanimously, again.

The Delaware case was interesting because it challenged a section of the states constitution that requires their courts have to have a balance of Democrats and Republicans. The petitioner is an Independent, but SCOTUS ruled against him because never applied for a judgeship and lacked standing. They expect it will return.

highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:14 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:52 am The other cases involve drug reimbursements in Arkansas, and courts in Delaware (that one was covered in the Press).

Simply, in the Arkansas cases, there's a law saying pharmacies don't have to accept reimbursement that is below their costs. The Pharmacy Benefit Managers sued to overturn that law--I guess they wanted the pharmacies to subsidize them! The Court threw out the PBMs' suit ruling that the Arkansas law hold. Unanimously, again.

The Delaware case was interesting because it challenged a section of the states constitution that requires their courts have to have a balance of Democrats and Republicans. The petitioner is an Independent, but SCOTUS ruled against him because never applied for a judgeship and lacked standing. They expect it will return.

Still, 4 unanimous decisions on a wide range of cases coming down in one day is, I think and I hope, combined with the PA case they also unanimously rejected, is a clear signal that they're not going to give any legitimacy to "The Big One" as the Orange Turd calls it.

Tomorrow there's supposed to be a big MAGA rally in DC--I expect Trump is hoping there is violence (there may even be deliberate instigators) so he can invoke the Insurrection Act. "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:32 am

highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:14 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:52 am The other cases involve drug reimbursements in Arkansas, and courts in Delaware (that one was covered in the Press).

Simply, in the Arkansas cases, there's a law saying pharmacies don't have to accept reimbursement that is below their costs. The Pharmacy Benefit Managers sued to overturn that law--I guess they wanted the pharmacies to subsidize them! The Court threw out the PBMs' suit ruling that the Arkansas law hold. Unanimously, again.

The Delaware case was interesting because it challenged a section of the states constitution that requires their courts have to have a balance of Democrats and Republicans. The petitioner is an Independent, but SCOTUS ruled against him because never applied for a judgeship and lacked standing. They expect it will return.

Still, 4 unanimous decisions on a wide range of cases coming down in one day is, I think and I hope, combined with the PA case they also unanimously rejected, is a clear signal that they're not going to give any legitimacy to "The Big One" as the Orange Turd calls it.

Tomorrow there's supposed to be a big MAGA rally in DC--I expect Trump is hoping there is violence (there may even be deliberate instigators) so he can invoke the Insurrection Act. "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"

I'm hoping that the Texas case is the same, I'd expect they've made their decision to toss it for no standing, but are working on a unanimous opinion that will slap down Texas and the 17 other states.


George Conway, a lawyer and Kellyanne's husband, lays into the Texas lawsuit. He's a founder of the Lincoln Project (TLP).

Hosts are Jennifer Horn, another TLP founder and former New Hampshire Republican chair and Zack Czajkowski the political director of TLP and a former Democratic campaign consultant. It starts about 24:35 mins.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JJGahJ8T0A

Learn something new every day.

In a 13-page brief filed with the Supreme Court, “New California State” and “New Nevada State” argue they are “directly impacted by the arbitrary and capricious changes in election laws and procedures occur with unfortunate regularity in the current States of California and Nevada.”

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... as-lawsuit

These guys can't be serious, unless it's being serious about separating cult members from the rest of their money.

CDFingers

Yup, I agree that everything being acted out from now until the inauguration (and possibly beyond) are less and less about achieving their aims of overturning the election and more about milking their base of their retirement account so their more liberal children get nothing but the house in their inheritance.