He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years...

https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c...

Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate developer who was committing serious crimes with Paxton's blessing and likely with kickbacks --

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachme...

That developer was indicted on a number of serious Federal charges where it came out that he renovated Paxton's home for free and covered up Paxton's affair with one of his other staffers: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment...

Which ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial where the Texas GOP compeletly beclowned itself to acquit an obvious crook because they agree with him politically.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted...

I don't know anything about this, but indictments mean literally nothing. You can "indict a ham sandwich" as the line goes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler

Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.

In this case he narrowly avoided trial by agreeing to pay significant restitution to his victims, do community service, and attend a legal ethics education course. He is a rich person with significant resources, he would not have agreed to this settlement if there wasn't a good chance of conviction.

Do you have any recent examples where this happened?

You mean he's faced multiple trumped up and politically motivated persecutions that have all failed.

Paxton asked taxpayers to pay his legal fees[0] for a situation he himself caused related to whistleblower retaliation.

Paxton is a huge Trump supporter.

Paxton committed securities fraud[1].

Paxton and Greg Abbott retaliated against Republicans in the Texas Legislature who voted against their school choice initiative, which would drastically decrease funding to the public school system, and would drastically hurt rural communities[2]. Rural Republicans were largely the ones to oppose school choice and the defunding of the public school system.

Paxton sued Pennsylvania to aid in Trump's steal of the 2020 election [3].

Paxton cheats on his wife[4].

Paxton's law license is under review by the Texas Bar[5].

Paxton is a routine liar[6].

Paxton has expressed support in prosecuting sodemy and is against gay marriage[7].

Paxton's office also routinely wastes taxpayer money pursuing causes that they fail to find convictions on including sexual assault, voter fraud, and silly first amendment issues akin to those of the growing Christo-fascist population in the US.

Paxton is currently under investigation by federal officials for engaging in quid pro quo[8].

To say Paxton is a crook is putting it mildly. The dude has no business being a lawyer or an elected official in the State of Texas, or anywhere in the US.

[0]: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/13/legislature-ken-paxt...

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/ken-paxton-texas-securities-fraud...

[2]: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/28/texas-primary-runoff...

[3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Pennsylvania

[4]: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/11/ken-paxton-affair-im...

[5]: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/ken-...

[6]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/sep/07/ken-paxton...

[7]: https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/ken-paxton-says-state-...

[8]: https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/texas/2024/...

I think he is a real POS with bad beliefs, but I am not sure that say 4 & 7 are directly relevant to being a crook.

A crook is someone who is dishonest. You don't think someone cheating on their wife is dishonest?

Not playing a game of word association. When accusing a public figure of being a criminal, focus on explicitly illegal, not immoral acts.

The accusation was that he was a crook, not necessarily (or limited to) being a criminal. You don't have to break the law to be a crooked person, a "crook".

I find that people say it is dishonest when they otherwise oppose the person doing it, and normal minor things not to worry about if they agree with that person.

Where was the lie in OP's comment?

He did say "regard anyone as" so didn't actually say the GP lied, but that their arguments are so one-sided you can just assume they are lying until it's proven they're not. I don't really agree with that way of approaching things but I can see why you might do that.

I have a better question: where's the balance in it? All I see are links to biased, left-wing sources. Not a source from the right or center, and not a mention of the defendant's counterclaims.

So the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from it is that the commenter thinks that Paxton is a crook--not that Paxton is one.

But, of course, anyone taking even a neutral position here is heavily downvoted, because Paxton is a Republican, therefore he is guilty. And so the echo chamber echoes.

What makes my variety of sources left leaning? What is a right wing news source? Why don't you post them yourself? I trust the Texas Tribune, The Associated Press, and the other sources I posted.

If you're going to tell me to use a right wing news source like Alex Jones, Breitbart, True North, Newsmax, or OANN, then I would tell you to get better news sources. Everything I posted can easily be easily confirmed, yet you choose not to. Why won't you confirm everything I've posted?

I live in Texas, specifically Austin, and know first hand how terrible Ken Paxton is as a person, lawyer, and politician. How many times is he going to sue cities from decriminalizing marijuana usage? Citizens of those cities voted for it, yet he chooses to waste taxpayer money on disrespecting the will of the people.

You're falling into a common trap: assuming that presenting people with information will automatically persuade them. Jonathan Haidt, in his insightful work The Righteous Mind, demonstrates that there's scant scientific evidence for this belief. While some individuals can indeed be swayed by facts, the vast majority are not. This explains why effective marketing often appeals to emotions rather than relying solely on rational arguments.

It's crucial to recognize that the will of the people varies significantly across Austin, Travis County, and Texas as a whole.

The map clearly shows Amarillo and Odessa within Texas, granting their residents the right to expect state laws to be enforced within Texas borders. Similarly, inhabitants of Spicewood and Cedar Valley can rightfully anticipate Travis County's enforcement of municipal ordinances within its jurisdiction. Austinites, naturally, should expect their local authorities to uphold city ordinances.

Your point about localized governance is well-taken. It's worth noting that Attorney General Paxton has ardently advocated for local control regarding the Texas-Mexico border, despite federal preferences. This raises an intriguing question -- should Paxton maintain consistency in his stance, or does this situation reveal a fundamental flaw in the federal government's approach?