Several were wondering what happens next in the civil case against Paxtons office. Looks like they are trying to get abatement lifted and move forward. They say settlement talks are exhausted because ir was contingent on legislature approving it

https://www.keranews.org/government/2023-09-25/paxton-whistleblowers-call-on-texas-supreme-court-to-revive-lawsuit-over-stalled-payment?_amp=true

https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=3fb89952-5ca8-4ca9-b9e4-161c4db0776d&coa=cossup&DT=OTHER&MediaID=56054954-e5c9-4e3c-bf41-e3cd6a744495

Will be interesting to see the reponse.

They will be the latest victims of the Biden economy layoffs and won't get a dime #righttowork

itsyourboypookie said:

---

They will be the latest victims of the Biden economy layoffs and won't get a dime #righttowork

---

Nice hashtag. Should have gone with #copyright. It's as relevant to their case as "right to work"

What's interesting is I think at this point Paxton is more likely to be a future governor of Texas than before this imbroglio.

There were no whistleblowers in this case. "Co-conspirators" is more accurate.

As has been done to Trump, they'll just continue to attack Paxton from all angles. The left is unrelenting.

Yeah but as with Trump, their 'best' effort was really the first one to take him down, from Comey/Weissman/Strzok/Ohrs/GCF's piss dossier etc. The later attacks are just growing in how pathetic they are (down to Fani's indictments in Atlanta today).

Once he made it through that first wave of fake news/lawfare/communist attempts to remove him, I think he was actually stronger, though it took a lot longer to play out than it did for Paxton of course (and DJT being himself, was a lot more erratic in how he handled it all).

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There were no whistleblowers in this case. "Co-conspirators" is more accurate.

As has been done to Trump, they'll just continue to attack Paxton from all angles. The left is unrelenting.

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

HammerHeadAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There were no whistleblowers in this case. "Co-conspirators" is more accurate.

As has been done to Trump, they'll just continue to attack Paxton from all angles. The left is unrelenting.

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

---

And on top of that, why was there a settlement? Why settle with "co-conspirators"?

Quote:

---

Paxton and the fired workers reached a settlement agreement in February. It included $3.3 million for all four men, and a sentence on the document where Paxton had to apologize for referring to whistleblowers as "rogue employees."

But the settlement agreement was contingent on the Texas Legislature approving the funds something that has not happened. The Republican-led House and Senate chambers adjourned the regular session in May without appropriating the money.

Now, the whistleblowers want the Supreme Court of Texas to lift the abatement and allow the lawsuit to move forward in a Travis County district courtroom.

---

Stymied said:

---

HammerHeadAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There were no whistleblowers in this case. "Co-conspirators" is more accurate.

As has been done to Trump, they'll just continue to attack Paxton from all angles. The left is unrelenting.

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

---

And on top of that, why was there a settlement? Why settle with "co-conspirators"?

Quote:

---

Paxton and the fired workers reached a settlement agreement in February. It included $3.3 million for all four men, and a sentence on the document where Paxton had to apologize for referring to whistleblowers as "rogue employees."

But the settlement agreement was contingent on the Texas Legislature approving the funds something that has not happened. The Republican-led House and Senate chambers adjourned the regular session in May without appropriating the money.

Now, the whistleblowers want the Supreme Court of Texas to lift the abatement and allow the lawsuit to move forward in a Travis County district courtroom.

---

---

There was a settlement because the AG and crew don't want to go through discovery

a large part of the reason for the settlement was to save the embarrassment of a trial. now that impeachment/trial occurred, that reason has gone away.

FishrCoAg said:

---

Stymied said:

---

HammerHeadAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There were no whistleblowers in this case. "Co-conspirators" is more accurate.

As has been done to Trump, they'll just continue to attack Paxton from all angles. The left is unrelenting.

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

---

And on top of that, why was there a settlement? Why settle with "co-conspirators"?

Quote:

---

Paxton and the fired workers reached a settlement agreement in February. It included $3.3 million for all four men, and a sentence on the document where Paxton had to apologize for referring to whistleblowers as "rogue employees."

But the settlement agreement was contingent on the Texas Legislature approving the funds something that has not happened. The Republican-led House and Senate chambers adjourned the regular session in May without appropriating the money.

Now, the whistleblowers want the Supreme Court of Texas to lift the abatement and allow the lawsuit to move forward in a Travis County district courtroom.

---

---

There was a settlement because the AG and crew don't want to go through discovery

---

Paxton won't have a Republican majority on this jury.

Tex100 said:

---

FishrCoAg said:

---

Stymied said:

---

HammerHeadAg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There were no whistleblowers in this case. "Co-conspirators" is more accurate.

As has been done to Trump, they'll just continue to attack Paxton from all angles. The left is unrelenting.

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

---

And on top of that, why was there a settlement? Why settle with "co-conspirators"?

Quote:

---

Paxton and the fired workers reached a settlement agreement in February. It included $3.3 million for all four men, and a sentence on the document where Paxton had to apologize for referring to whistleblowers as "rogue employees."

But the settlement agreement was contingent on the Texas Legislature approving the funds something that has not happened. The Republican-led House and Senate chambers adjourned the regular session in May without appropriating the money.

Now, the whistleblowers want the Supreme Court of Texas to lift the abatement and allow the lawsuit to move forward in a Travis County district courtroom.

---

---

There was a settlement because the AG and crew don't want to go through discovery

---

Paxton won't have a Republican majority on this jury.

---

Or a judge that accepts a $3m bribe

Quote:

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

---

Without question there has been a conspiracy to remove Paxton. Several House members and others have been involved. Did you miss the committee recommendation with no evidence? The impeachment with no evidence? Now it will just move to another venue.

We've been promised there is a mountain of evidence, but no one has yet delivered. Maybe it will happen in the trial. Or maybe we'll just keep ****ing that chicken.

The assault on the will of the voters continues unabated. This is not how our democracy was designed to work.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

---

Without question there has been a conspiracy to remove Paxton. Several House members and others have been involved. Did you miss the committee recommendation with no evidence? The impeachment with no evidence? Now it will just move to another venue. The assault on the will of the voters continues unabated.

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

Quote:

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

---

Well show it! At some point people who promise evidence and never produce it are just liars.

We were assured the committee saw a ton of evidence. We were promised that all the evidence in the impeachment trial would blow us away.

And then...?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you please explain in detail this part? If they are co-conspirators, that means that there was a conspiracy. What conspiracy occurred?

---

Without question there has been a conspiracy to remove Paxton. Several House members and others have been involved. Did you miss the committee recommendation with no evidence? The impeachment with no evidence? Now it will just move to another venue.

We've been promised there is a mountain of evidence, but no one has yet delivered. Maybe it will happen in the trial. Or maybe we'll just keep ****ing that chicken.

The assault on the will of the voters continues unabated. This is not how our democracy was designed to work.

---

I asked you for conspiracy. You used that word, not me. What conspiracy? Please show us what the conspiracy was with the 8 Paxton loyalists who worked for him for years. What exactly was the conspiracy in the fall of 2020?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

---

Well show it! At some point people who promise evidence and never produce it are just liars.

We were assured the committee saw a ton of evidence. We were promised that all the evidence in the impeachment trial would blow us away.

And then...?

---

Yup. I dunno what's going on, but it's pretty telling the Senate acquitted him. Seems like if something was there they would have nailed him to the wall. Republicans love to sacrifice their own.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

---

Well show it! At some point people who promise evidence and never produce it are just liars.

We were assured the committee saw a ton of evidence. We were promised that all the evidence in the impeachment trial would blow us away.

And then...?

---

3 million dollars to Patrick and threats to primary anyone in the senate voting to impeach will tip the scales. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, as would have been direct testimony from Ken, Angela, Laura and others if it had been allowed.

techno-ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

---

Well show it! At some point people who promise evidence and never produce it are just liars.

We were assured the committee saw a ton of evidence. We were promised that all the evidence in the impeachment trial would blow us away.

And then...?

---

Yup. I dunno what's going on, but it's pretty telling the Senate acquitted him. Seems like if something was there they would have nailed him to the wall. Republicans love to sacrifice their own.

---

$$$$$$ and threats

techno-ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

---

Well show it! At some point people who promise evidence and never produce it are just liars.

We were assured the committee saw a ton of evidence. We were promised that all the evidence in the impeachment trial would blow us away.

And then...?

---

Yup. I dunno what's going on, but it's pretty telling the Senate acquitted him. Seems like if something was there they would have nailed him to the wall. Republicans love to sacrifice their own.

---

The Senate was always going to dismiss the charges. Lt. Gov. took a $3m bribe, refused to allow certain witness testimony, and several members of the "jury" were involved in one or more of the charges. Add in the tea party loony bin threats and the senate has no choice but to acquit.

And there was not a factual basis for impeachment.

Ben Matlock said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Quote:

---

And then...?

---

Yup. I dunno what's going on, but it's pretty telling the Senate acquitted him. Seems like if something was there they would have nailed him to the wall. Republicans love to sacrifice their own.

---

The Senate was always going to dismiss the charges. Lt. Gov. took a $3m bribe,

---

Then impeach him. That is a very serious charge you are making.

Then again, your guys have proven that impeachment is now nothing more than a political stunt. You've turned it into a joke.

"No, really. Believe us THIS time. We're super serious..."

Quote:

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

---

What IS true is NO hard evidence was presented in either the impeachment process in the House, nor in the trial in the Senate. Wonder why?

If you're simply waiting for the "accused" to confess, you'll be waiting a long time. That's not how the American system of Justice works. Accusers have to make their case with hard evidence; not simply "strongly held beliefs". Why are you so convinced of Paxton's guilt? What is your evidence? It cannot be the testimony of the accused you have yet to hear? Take a step back and do a little self examination, whydonchya?

It's pretty clear (to me) you don't have a clear understanding of the term (conspiracy). This was a textbook case! (and Busby exposed it for ALL to see. Wonder how you missed it?)

BoerneGator said:

---

It's pretty clear (to me) you don't have a clear understanding of the term (conspiracy). This was a textbook case! (and Busby exposed it for ALL to see. Wonder how you missed it?)

---

I was asking Ellis to explain the conspiracy. Buzbee presented a theory. What conspiracy did those 8 whistleblowers , in the Fall of 2020, participate in? He made the statement. And since we are all very much holding each other to evidence and all, I would like to see evidence of such conspiracy.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Just because you keep saying "no evidence" repeatedly doesn't make it true

---

What IS true is NO hard evidence was presented in either the impeachment process in the House, nor in the trial in the Senate. Wonder why?

If you're simply waiting for the "accused" to confess, you'll be waiting a long time. That's not how the American system of Justice works. Accusers have to make their case with hard evidence; not simply "strongly held beliefs". Why are you so convinced of Paxton's guilt? What is your evidence? It cannot be the testimony of the accused you have yet to hear? Take a step back and do a little self examination, whydonchya?

---

I read/listened to the testimony of well respected long time conservative law enforcement officials stating what they observed and reported. Eyewitness testimony. Paxton and crew chose not to testify in his defense. Why do you think that is? I also observed an orchestrated paid text and email campaign trying to get me to pressure my Senator to vote a certain way. If it was such a clear cut slam dunk sham case, why do you think they felt the need to do that along with the 3 million dollar donation to the presiding officer? I would love to listen to Paxton'sside of the story given under oath. You asking people to do self examination is rich irony, as I'm sure we alll should do so, not just people who disagree with you. See you in the funnies.

HammerHeadAg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

It's pretty clear (to me) you don't have a clear understanding of the term (conspiracy). This was a textbook case! (and Busby exposed it for ALL to see. Wonder how you missed it?)

---

I was asking Ellis to explain the conspiracy. Buzbee presented a theory. What conspiracy did those 8 whistleblowers , in the Fall of 2020, participate in? He made the statement. And since we are all very much holding each other to evidence and all, I would like to see evidence of such conspiracy.

---

They conspired to go to the FBI and accuse Paxton of "crimes" (I assume, including perhaps bribery and "misuse of office"?). Just going from memory. Yet, Buzbee got them to admit, under oath, that they had NO evidence; only "strongly held beliefs"… that's what I learned from watching bits of the Senate trial.

Conspire : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful Or wrongful act which becomes lawful as result of he secret agreement.

It might not meet the legal definition, but there's NO doubt in MY mind they were wrong to have done it, given the results of the trial. But all of this in the context this was all done in a political environment. The prosecution and trial were political.

Edit to add: this was a political witch-hunt trial which was an attempt by the elected AG of Texas to be removed from office by his political opponents! It was an effort to undo the results of an election only a month earlier! It's not unlike what Dems are doing on the national level with the Presidential election.

I admit I allowed my frustration over the virtue signaling and self-righteous admonitions to provoke an intemperate response. I'll just try harder to ignore some posts.

Please accept my apology.

BoerneGator said:

---

I admit I allowed my frustration over the virtue signaling and self-righteous admonitions to provoke an intemperate response. I'll just try harder to ignore some posts.

Please accept my apology.

---

Accepted.

Still interested to hear your opinion on the motives of the Paxton accusers. What prompted the "conspiracy"?

IFishrCoAg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

I admit I allowed my frustration over the virtue signaling and self-righteous admonitions to provoke an intemperate response. I'll just try harder to ignore some posts.

Please accept my apology.

---

Accepted.

Still interested to hear your opinion on the motives of the Paxton accusers. What prompted the "conspiracy"?

---

I take them at their word, that they had "good faith belief"… they probably didn't like their boss, and how he did his job. Not sure I question their motives, but their judgment is suspect. Don't know how things might have escalated, and when egos might have taken over and affected motivation and judgments.

Now, as for the politicians involved, their motivations are clearly purely political, and once they took over, the die was cast, and the motivations and intentions of the so-called "whistleblowers" became secondary. This thing got completely outa hand, and I'll bet here's a lotta regret on the part of the "whistleblowers" at this point in time.

BoerneGator said:

---

IFishrCoAg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

I admit I allowed my frustration over the virtue signaling and self-righteous admonitions to provoke an intemperate response. I'll just try harder to ignore some posts.

Please accept my apology.

---

Accepted.

Still interested to hear your opinion on the motives of the Paxton accusers. What prompted the "conspiracy"?

---

I take them at their word, that they had "good faith belief"… they probably didn't like their boss, and how he did his job. Not sure I question their motives, but their judgment is suspect. Don't know how things might have escalated, and when egos might have taken over and affected motivation and judgments.

Now, as for the politicians involved, their motivations are clearly purely political, and once they took over, the die was cast, and the motivations and intentions of the so-called "whistleblowers" became secondary. This thing got completely outa hand, and I'll bet here's a lotta regret on the part of the "whistleblowers" at this point in time.

---

The conspiracy was prompted by the fact that Paxton alone single handedly affected the ability of the left to install the same voting tabulation systems that Arizona and Georgia implemented in 2020. Without Paxton having fought tooth and nail to prevent the voting system laws to allow for mail in ballots and an ability to cheat at Arizona amd Georgia levels, Texas would have been blue in 2020 from cheating. Going after him personally is what Soros and the crooks do to those who fight back, and now, Soros is going after judges who prosecute voter fraud.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-09-26-ken-paxton-prevented-prosecuting-voter-fraud-texas.html

Thanks for posting that video. What do our CMs know that people like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson don't? How can reasonable people see the same things so differently. It's like we're living in alternate universes!

JR Ewing said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

IFishrCoAg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

I admit I allowed my frustration over the virtue signaling and self-righteous admonitions to provoke an intemperate response. I'll just try harder to ignore some posts.

Please accept my apology.

---

Accepted.

Still interested to hear your opinion on the motives of the Paxton accusers. What prompted the "conspiracy"?

---

I take them at their word, that they had "good faith belief"… they probably didn't like their boss, and how he did his job. Not sure I question their motives, but their judgment is suspect. Don't know how things might have escalated, and when egos might have taken over and affected motivation and judgments.

Now, as for the politicians involved, their motivations are clearly purely political, and once they took over, the die was cast, and the motivations and intentions of the so-called "whistleblowers" became secondary. This thing got completely outa hand, and I'll bet here's a lotta regret on the part of the "whistleblowers" at this point in time.

---

The conspiracy was prompted by the fact that Paxton alone single handedly affected the ability of the left to install the same voting tabulation systems that Arizona and Georgia implemented in 2020. Without Paxton having fought tooth and nail to prevent the voting system laws to allow for mail in ballots and an ability to cheat at Arizona amd Georgia levels, Texas would have been blue in 2020 from cheating. Going after him personally is what Soros and the crooks do to those who fight back, and now, Soros is going after judges who prosecute voter fraud.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-09-26-ken-paxton-prevented-prosecuting-voter-fraud-texas.html

---

That link doesn't tie one to the other.

What Paxton refers to in this article is about the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling that he can't pursue voter fraud at the local level without being invited to do so. The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas unanimously sides with the Texas Constitution on the case and states that the prosecution must be done at the local level and not at the state level. It's also interesting to see Paxton's accusations about the judges on the court who were elected to their seats in 2018 and are up for reelection next year, specifically citing 3 of them being funded by Soros. All three women are Republicans. This article doesn't mention anything about voting machines. I thought those were picked and chosen at the county level? I thought there were a few counties in Texas that did use those Dominion machines? I could be wrong.

So back to my original question. What does that have to do with the 8 whistleblowers?

Well this probably will go to trial. I doubt the Governer will call a special session to pay off the whistleblowers. And in the civil trial Paxton will not have the choice of not testifying but he can invoke his 5th Amendment rights.

Aggie97 said:

---

Well this probably will go to trial. I doubt the Governer will call a special session to pay off the whistleblowers. And in the civil trial Paxton will not have the choice of not testifying but he can invoke his 5th Amendment rights.

---

Adverse Inference would be a funny username (playing off Adverse Event).