A sad day for Texas: Acquitting Ken Paxton condones corruption, abuse of power | Opinion
READ MORE
The saga of Ken Paxton: Our Opinion coverage
Our Editorial Board has closely followed the saga of Attorney General Ken Paxton. Read our coverage to catch up on the issues in his impeachment, and check out our analysis as the trial unfolds.
Expand All
By voting to acquit Ken Paxton and allow him to continue as attorney general, senators sent unmistakable messages Saturday — and none of them is good for Texas.
Their verdicts on 16 articles of impeachment say that a small group of hotheaded political warriors can intimidate elected officials away from doing the right thing. For lack of courage from all but a few members of the Republican majority in the Senate, we have a clear verdict that politics trumps right and wrong.
They say that state employees who witness serious wrongdoing at the highest levels better look the other way, or their careers and reputations will never recover.
They say that law enforcement and prosecutors are not to be trusted and can be targeted and denigrated for doing their jobs.
And worst of all, they say that a state official can bend his or her public office to benefit one person. He can disrupt usual procedures to help his friend. He can marshal taxpayer resources for someone, give that person broad access to his office at a time when that person is helping you conceal an extramarital affair — as long as there isn’t a “smoking gun” to prove bribery.
That’s what Ken Paxton did. He bent the attorney general’s office in outrageous ways to the benefit of developer Nate Paul.
That’s the most outrageous outcome here: The verdict normalizes behavior that every reasonable person should recognize as an inappropriate twisting of the voters’ sacred trust. It tells people with access to state officials that favors are readily available, as long as the officials they solicit are as ethically compromised as Paxton.
The standard to evict Paxton did not have to be whether he broke the law. Senators were called to vote on whether, based on the conduct outlined, Paxton was fit to continue in high public office. They failed the test.
The denigration of law enforcement Paxton’s defenders engaged in to win his acquittal will have lasting effects. Even a decorated Texas Ranger had to be thrown under the bus because he testified to Paxton’s wrongdoing.
Judges, officers and prosecutors everywhere should feel a chill; Paxton revealed a willingness to meddle in federal cases on behalf of those under investigation. Republicans who bought these claims can no longer credibly campaign with the “back the blue” slogan. To protect politicians as contemptible as Donald Trump and Ken Paxton, the GOP backs away from backing the blue.
Or at least a portion of it does. The trial was inherently political. Republican senators, with an assortment of political ambitions, did not want to alienate the core base of the party. Voters who consider themselves Republicans or just lean conservative — still a solid majority of the state — should ask themselves whether these activists represent their interests.
If they do, there may still be a reckoning for Paxton. It could also come from criminal courts. Paxton still faces long-delayed charges of securities fraud, and the FBI is investigating the Nate Paul allegations.
Paxton defense attorney Tony Buzbee, in his scattershot closing arguments Friday, suggested that the House impeachment team thought that the charges alone would chase Paxton out of office.
“They assumed that this man would quit. They assumed that this man would run and hide,” Buzbee said. “But guess what? This man did not resign; he is ready to go back to work.”
He’s right, but not for the reason he thinks. It’s because Paxton is apparently incapable of shame for obvious malfeasance.
And the Texas Senate just endorsed his behavior.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREHey, who writes these editorials?
Editorials are the positions of the Editorial Board, which serves as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s institutional voice. The members of the board are: Cynthia M. Allen, columnist; Steve Coffman, editor and president; Bud Kennedy, columnist; Ryan J. Rusak, opinion editor; and Nicole Russell, editorial writer and columnist. Most editorials are written by Rusak or Russell. Editorials are unsigned because they represent the board’s consensus positions, not the views of individual writers.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
How are topics and positions chosen?
The Editorial Board meets regularly to discuss issues in the news and what points should be made in editorials. We strive to build a consensus to produce the strongest editorials possible, but when we differ, we put matters to a vote.
The board aims to be consistent with stances it has taken in the past but usually engages in a fresh discussion based on new developments and different perspectives.
We focus on local and state news, though we will also weigh in on national issues with an eye toward their impact on Texas or the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
How are these different from news articles or signed columns?
News reporters strive to keep their opinions out of what they write. They have no input on the Editorial Board’s stances. The board consults their reporting and expertise but does its own research for editorials.
Signed columns by writers such as Allen, Kennedy and Rusak contain the writer’s personal opinions.
How can I respond to an editorial, suggest a topic or ask a question?
We invite readers to write letters to be considered for publication. The preferred method is an email to letters@star-telegram.com. To suggest a topic or ask a question, please email Rusak directly at rrusak@star-telegram.com.
This story was originally published September 16, 2023 at 12:51 PM.