PART 2 of Setting the Record Straight on @KenPaxtonTX Now, for those of you who keep screaming... "But, but, but... Ken Paxton was impeached!"... No shit. But apparently, some of you have no idea what that means or what happened AFTER that. So let's talk about it... On May 27, 2023, the Texas House voted 121-23 to impeach Ken Paxton on 20 articles involving allegations of bribery, abuse of office, misconduct involving political donor Nate Paul, and retaliation against whistleblowers. Serious accusations indeed. But here's what some of you apparently don't understand... Impeachment IS NOT a conviction nor does it prove he committed a damn thing. The House brings the charges... but the Senate conducts the trial and determines whether the evidence warrants conviction and removal from office. And guess what? That's EXACTLY what happened. Of the 20 articles, 16 proceeded to trial. Witnesses testified... Evidence was presented... And both sides made their arguments. I watched the trial and I thought the evidence was weak. Apparently, I wasn't alone. The Senate required proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to convict Paxton on any article, 21 senators had to vote in favor. Not a SINGLE article received more than 14 votes. Not ONE. As a matter of fact, not a single article received enough votes for a simple majority. On September 16, 2023, the Texas Senate ACQUITTED Ken Paxton on all 16 articles. Now think about that for a second... Someone gets accused of wrongdoing, stands trial, evidence is presented, and they're acquitted. Yet people continue running around screaming about the accusation while conveniently leaving out the outcome. The Senate heard the case and did not convict him. You can believe the senators got it wrong. You can criticize the evidence, the witnesses, the attorneys, or the process itself. Hell, you can argue that politics influenced the outcome. But don't pretend the trial never happened. And don't confuse an accusation with a finding of guilt. We have constitutional procedures, evidentiary standards, and due process for a reason... And those protections don't suddenly become optional because you dislike the person receiving them. Paxton was impeached. He stood trial. He was acquitted. So again... if you're going to insist on judging someone by their record, then at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the entire record. Not just the part that supports your bias and your argument.