“How many new ways can Texas AG Ken Paxton find to disrespect the rule of law?” is the title of a piece by the Editorial Board of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and it’s a damn good question, one that the rest of us would very much like to know the answer to. Paxton recently went on Mike Lindell’s far right internet show and suggested that the judges who ruled in Texas that Paxton could not unilaterally prosecute voter fraud were wrong. He asked Lindell’s audience to harass the judges. This does not play well with the editorial board of this paper or with sane and law abiding Americans anywhere. Star-Telegram:

Paxton lost a major case before the Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s ultimate arbiter of criminal law. The all-Republican court ruled, 8-1, that the attorney general is not empowered to prosecute voter fraud. Paxton has asked far-right media audiences at least twice to harass the court and apply pressure to reverse the ruling, the Austin American-Statesman reported.

In doing so, he’s irresponsibly suggesting that the court — made up, again, of nine of his fellow Republicans — is part of a vast leftist conspiracy. “Call them out by name,” Paxton said on an internet broadcast hosted by pillow magnate Mike Lindell. “I mean, you can look them up. … Call them, send mail, send email.”

The AG has a reasonable legal disagreement with the court’s ruling. But he also really likes pretending he’s striking great blows against a vast network of voter fraud that does not exist.

It’s dangerous and inappropriate to sic political supporters on judges. We don’t make case law based on mob passion or political majority.

It’s fine to protest a ruling, argue to overturn it and even work to defeat the responsible judges at the ballot box. But Paxton, as he often does, sloppily went too far. And for what? His multimillion-dollar election fraud unit closed just three cases last year and opened seven more, the Houston Chronicle found. If Paxton really thinks voter fraud is rampant, he should thank the court for taking it off his hands, given that pathetic record.

This is the same Ken Paxton that was up bragging at Trump’s Conroe, Texas rally last night about his sensational track record of winning cases. Figures.

Also, one of the reasons that Paxton may not like this particular criminal court is because he may find himself in front of it soon in the role of defendant, with respect to his pending securities fraud case. As the newspaper notes, the optics of Paxton “turning a crowd loose on judges in that situation” are not the greatest.

But Paxton loves the Big Lie or he wouldn’t have been rubbing elbows with Lindell in the first place.

And while it isn’t surprising, it’s worth noting that Paxton has gone all in on 2020 election lies. In a recent appearance in the Houston area, the AG noted the expansion of mail-in balloting in many states to alleviate COVID-19 concerns and contended: “I know what was going on with these mail-in ballots. They needed to first figure out how many votes they needed for it, and then they looked at the mail-in ballots to change the election. And that’s what they did.”

Such claims have been dismissed by every legal venue asked to examine it. One should be skeptical of any conspiracy that would require so many participants at so many levels. Coordinating it and keeping it secret would be almost impossible. But then, why would we expect better from Paxton? He launched the absurd notion that the Supreme Court should let Texas meddle in other states’ elections. And he’s missed no opportunity to sidle up to Trump.

That is a true statement. We saw that last night. Ken Paxton is looking to get primaried in a Deep Red state, because however deep the shade may be, Paxton has broken the rules too many times. And Texas could conceivably end up with Louie Gohmert as its AG. Under any other circumstances I would say replacing anybody with Gohmert is going from the frying pan into the fire, but in point of fact, Gohmert could be an improvement, if Texans won’t do what is logical and elect the Democrat. Gohmert might not be so corrupt.

And I will stop hitting keys now, because when the time has come that I’m finding any occasion to speak of Louie Gohmert as a potential improvement on anything at all, the day has taken a turn for the uber strange. I may have to lie down.

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. We truly are wandering somewhere between here and the fourth dimension when the prospect of Louie Gohmert attaining an elected office is plausible. I can’t help but wonder if someone slipped some bad acid into the water supply and I’m on a really bad trip.

  2. It is interesting that a Bush name on the ballot in Texas is not enough to get republicans to vote for him. That is how far right the base is for republicans that a criminal and an willfully ignorant candidate are the most popular in the primary.

  3. “Also, one of the reasons that Paxton may not like this particular criminal court is because he may find himself in front of it soon in the role of defendant, with respect to his pending securities fraud case. As the newspaper notes, the optics of Paxton “turning a crowd loose on judges in that situation” are not the greatest.”

    Well, that may be why he did it. He’s just delivered the best opportunity to have all the judges recuse themselves because they can’t *possibly* render a fair and impartial verdict against him. On the other hand, he could be royally screwed if there’s no law in Texas that mandates a judge on one of the major courts must recuse himself in a case where there’s a potential conflict of interest. (It could be that the judges, when go in to deliberate their verdict, may all decide to find him “guilty” on all counts but the judges make deals so that some of them record their verdicts as “not guilty” and it would be up to Paxton to discover and prove any such collusion. Then again, I’m not sure how the verdict would have to be delivered to remove him from office–if it’s a simple majority or if it needs to be unanimous.)

  4. Paxton also made a ridiculous statement at the rally, he stated categorically that he has sued Biden and his Administration 27 times, in the last 27 months, and has won 80% of the suits.
    That’s a mighty achievement, since Biden has been in office barely 12 months. (He also probably hasn’t won a bloody thing).
    Can somebody (Ursula?) give this lie a bit of an airing?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here