Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted how WorldNetDaily columnist Andy Schlafly rushed to defend Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against an "ambush" impeachment -- even though corruption allegations have been flying around Paxton for years -- while refusing to tell readers why, exactly, Paxton was being impeached. The day after that column appeared, a May 31 "news" article by Bob Unruh upped the drama:
There was no sworn testimony. No documentation. No witnesses.
Yet after a three-hour hearing at which a bunch of lawyers hired by a legislative committee in Texas, many of whom were registered Democrats, the committee issued 20 articles of impeachment against Attorney General Ken Paxton and within hours, the full House voted for impeachment.
Republicans in the state, Paxton and many others have charged that the impeachment failed to follow basic due process, and was set up as a political stunt, making it illegal and unethical.
Now aides in the state AG's office have announced their confidence in Paxton, who is off duty while the legislative scheme plays out, by revealing they will take leaves of absence to defend Paxton.
But impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and normal legal procedures don't apply. (We don't recall anyone at WND complaining that Bill Clinton didn't get "due process" during his impeachment.) And like Schlafly, Unruh refused to tell readers why Paxton was being impeached -- as a more reliable news outlet reported, it involves abuse of power, retaliation against whistleblowers and preferential treatment toward a political donor.
Schlafly whined a little more about it in a July 25 column, complaining that " Texas Gov. Greg Abbott "is a suspected instigator of the sham impeachment of the one Texas official who stood strong against the migrant invasion: Attorney General Ken Paxton."
Before the start of Paxton's trial, Unruh wrote a Sept. 6 article that laughably reduced the allegations against him to "bribery and such":
There's an impeachment going on in the Texas legislature now. Attorney General Ken Paxton is being targeted on allegations of bribery and such.
But the case also has been described as largely political by critics and as the proceedings begin, he already has support from eight of the 10 state senators he would need to be cleared.
That's the number who voted that most of the case should be thrown out because the events happened before his most recent election.
He was voted to trial in the state Senate by a vote in the state House, and is facing 16 counts related to misuse of his office.
A commentary from WND columnist Andy Schlafly charged that the case was an "ambush impeachment" and an "undemocratic assault on the will of voters."
Again, it's false to claim the impeachment was an "ambush" since allegations have swirling around Paxton for years. Unruh waited until the 15th paragraph of his article to actually mention one of the accusations, only to downplay it:
Apparently at issue is Paxton's connection to Nate Paul, and the nonprofit Mitte Foundation.
Paxton's defenders say he's never received anything of value from Paul, an Austin real estate developer.
Paxton's defense counsel explained a home remodel at issue was paid for by the Paxtons, and allegations that Paul's company hired a woman with whom Paxton allegedly had an affair was hired the old-fashioned way, by submitting an application.
Unruh didn't mention that there is also thet issue of Paxton hiring an outside attorney to issue nearly 30 subpoenas to harrass agencies and businesses investigating Paul.
WND didn't do much on the trial itself, only running an outside article after Paxton was acquitted. Joy O'Curran ranted about it, however, in her Sept. 25 column:
The recent impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was a mockery of our constitutional system of government and the required due process. The number of shameful shortcuts the Texas House took to bring articles of impeachment to the State Senate was beyond embarrassing! All hearsay and zero evidence. Tucker Carlson's interview with Paxton was an eye-opener to the level of corruption even in Texas. There is significant movement from the Texas GOP to censure House Speaker Dade Phelan, especially since the Senate acquitted Paxton on all 16 convoluted and crazy counts.
O'Curran didn't mention that Carlson didn't allow anyone to rebut Paxton's claims. And contrary to O'Curran's claim that there was "zero evidence" against Paxton, more than 4,000 pages of supporting evidence has been published.
Schlafly himself also didn't do anything on the trial itself, but he did whine in his Oct. 10 column that "Gov. Greg Abbott needs to rehabilitate his political reputation after he quietly supported the failed sham impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton," further whining:
Gov. Abbott wasted five months and millions of dollars unsuccessfully trying to remove the Attorney General who has been the strongest in our country against illegal immigration, Ken Paxton. Abbott never defended Paxton against this witch-hunt, as Trump and many conservatives did.
Again, Schlafly refused to discuss why, exactly, Paxton was impeached or why it was a "witch-hunt." He also didn't explain why holding conservatively correct views exempts one from being held accountable for acts of crime and corruption.
