Welcome to Texas politics, where the unexpected is commonplace and no one’s surprised if it’s accompanied by a parade of clowns. That is certainly the case today as the state House of Representatives met to vote on 20 articles of impeachment leveled against state attorney general, Ken Paxton. The state reps were given 48 hours consider the articles of impeachment as well as the so-called supporting evidence before coming to a decision that would not only impact the office of the Attorney General, but also the state of the Republican Party in Texas. Oh, by the way, this is all occurring in a Republican controlled state house. I warned you. Expect the unexpected, especially if it comes out of Austin.

Impeachment isn’t something we see often in the Lone Star State. Only twice before has the state legislature voted for impeachment. The first was against Governor James E. “Pa” Ferguson in 1917. The second involved District Judge O.P. Carrillo. In the latter case, Carrillo was impeached “on charges that he evaded paying federal income taxes, used county equipment and personnel for his personal benefit and more.”.  Ferguson was impeached after he ordered the University of Texas to fire certain professors who supported his opponent. He was also found guilty of multiple cases of mishandling public funds as well as abuse of power.

So impeachment isn’t unheard of in the state, but it is something used very rarely, something pointed out in today’s hearing.

As for the charges brought against Paxton, there are 20 articles of impeachment. You can find them listed here. They include multiple charges of disregarding his official duty, misapplication of public resources, constitutional bribery, and more.

Today’s hearing was little more than a dog and pony show of just about everything that could go wrong in a government when everything is done behind closed doors. Note that I say this while also admitting I am not a fan of Paxton. But I am also not a fan of watching politicians twist and turn do everything they can to keep so-called evidence from being seen by those who matter–the voters of this state.

This wasn’t a case here witnesses were called before the investigative committee or the entire House. Documents weren’t requested and reviewed and neither Paxton nor his attorney were given the chance to cross-examine those giving testimony against him. You see, the rules have changed since 1975’s impeachment. Now a politician or judge can be accused of malfeasance and have attorneys and investigators hired by the investigative committee do all the footwork, talk to all the so-called witnesses and then submit a report to the committee with their recommendations. In this case, that committee rubber stamped the recommendations and drew up the 20 articles of impeachment.

But that’s okay, according the committee members because the House isn’t supposed to determine the validity of evidence or do anything you and I might consider due diligence. Instead, all they are supposed to do is decide if there is enough “evidence” to send it on to the Senate for a full hearing. The committee members and those supporting the impeachment compared the House to a grand jury. Except there’s something they seem to have forgotten: the grand jury does get to hear from the parties involved, at least the victim and the witnesses and officers who investigated the crime. An accused can ask to be heard. But none of that happened in today’s hearing. The House members got to read a report.

Rep. John T Smithee, who presented the opposition to the articles, made some excellent points. Points each of us should consider going forward, not only when it comes to the impeachment of Paxton but every time someone starts talking about impeaching another politician or judge.

Not once did he argue about the guilt or innocence of Paxton. As he said, he couldn’t. There was no evidence presented to the House one way or the other. At best, they had “hearsay within hearsay within hearsay”. He raised concerns about the precedent this hearing would have in the future and how easy it would make it for others to be impeached when such action should be anything but easy. His arguments basically came down to a simple question: where was due process in the proceeding?

When those supporting the articles of impeachment were able to speak again, it was noted that Paxton had been asked to appear before a House committee after he requested the $3.3 million for the whistleblower settlement and he refused to appear. But does that refusal give the House investigative committee the right to just assume he wouldn’t appear if they asked him to regarding potential articles of impeachment? If they were worried he wouldn’t appear, why not just subpoena him?

After more than three hours of speeches, questions, and posturing, the vote was finally held. It proved what I suspected all along. The Republican controlled state house would take the easy way out to get rid of a man who was an inconvenience to them, ignoring the Pandora’s Box they opened by ignoring the Due Process concerns.

In a vote of 121 for impeachment against 23 nays and one “present”, Ken Paxton was impeached.

This is a sad day for Texas and especially for Texas Republicans because you can be sure the Democrats, especially the DNC, will use this to try to get a firmer foothold in the state. I only wonder if the Republicans who voted “aye” have any idea the storms that will be gathering on the political front, many of them coming straight for their districts and their seats.

Featured image: Ken Paxton speaking at an event in Scottsdale, Arizona. Image taken by Gage Skidmore and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.