The 20 Articles of Impeachment for Ken Paxton
The impeachment trial will start Tuesday, September 5, 2024. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick will assume the role of the presiding judge.
Here is a summary of the 20 charges against him.
A historic resolution passed by the Texas House of Representatives has sent shockwaves through the Lone Star State’s political landscape. The resolution, brought forth by the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, officially impeaches Attorney General Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr. on a multitude of charges, backed by a series of meticulously detailed articles of impeachment.
The impeachment trial will start Tuesday, September 5, 2024. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick will assume the role of the presiding judge, while the senators will act as jurors. According to the established rules, if Paxton is found guilty on any of the impeachment charges, he will be ousted from his position for the remainder of his four-year term, set to conclude in 2026. Furthermore, such a conviction could result in a permanent prohibition from holding any public office within the state.
ARTICLE I: Disregard of Official Duty – Protection of Charitable Organization
In this first article, it is alleged that Paxton failed to fulfill his role as the guardian of charitable organizations, as mandated by Chapter 123 of the Property Code. It is claimed that Paxton’s actions adversely affected the Roy F. & JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation in favor of Nate Paul.
ARTICLE II: Disregard of Official Duty – Abuse of the Opinion Process
Article II accuses Paxton of abusing his official power by manipulating the issuance of legal opinions. It is alleged that Paxton used his position to obstruct foreclosure sales related to properties linked to Nate Paul, concealing his actions through a convoluted scheme involving a Senate committee chair.
ARTICLE III: Disregard of Official Duty – Abuse of the Open Records Process
Paxton is further accused in Article III of misusing his authority under Chapter 552 of the Government Code, ordering his staff to act against the law regarding public information requests. This included refusing proper decisions and issuing decisions that contravened the law and legal precedents.
ARTICLE IV: Disregard of Official Duty – Misuse of Official Information
Article IV alleges that Paxton improperly accessed non-public information for the benefit of Nate Paul.
ARTICLE V: Disregard of Official Duty – Engagement of Cammack
Paxton is charged with engaging Brandon Cammack in an investigation based on a baseless complaint in Article V. This resulted in over 30 grand jury subpoenas being issued, all seemingly in favor of Nate Paul or his business interests.
ARTICLE VI: Disregard of Official Duty – Termination of Whistleblowers
Article VI contends that Paxton violated whistleblower laws (Chapter 554 of the Government Code) by terminating employees who had reported his illegal actions to law enforcement authorities. This was allegedly done in retaliation, with Paxton also engaging in a campaign to damage the whistleblowers’ professional reputations.
ARTICLE VII: Misapplication of Public Resources – Whistleblower Investigation and Report
Paxton is accused of directing the use of public resources in Article VII to conduct a sham investigation into whistleblower complaints and produce a lengthy report containing false or misleading statements in his defense.
ARTICLE VIII: Disregard of Official Duty – Settlement Agreement
Article VIII asserts that Paxton concealed his wrongful acts connected to whistleblower complaints, entering into a settlement agreement paid from public funds. This delay was allegedly advantageous to Paxton, depriving voters of critical information when voting for attorney general.
ARTICLE IX: Constitutional Bribery – Paul’s Employment of Mistress
Paxton is charged with constitutional bribery in Article IX, benefiting from Nate Paul’s employment of a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair, allegedly resulting in favorable legal assistance for Paul.
ARTICLE X: Constitutional Bribery – Paul’s Providing Renovations to Paxton Home
Article X alleges Paxton benefited from renovations provided to his home by Nate Paul, again resulting in favorable legal assistance for Paul.
ARTICLE XI: Obstruction of Justice – Abuse of Judicial Process
Paxton is accused of abusing the judicial process in Article XI, using it to delay the trial related to his indictment for securities fraud, allegedly depriving voters of an informed choice during the election.
ARTICLE XII: Obstruction of Justice – Interference with Prosecutors
Article XII claims that Paxton benefited from a lawsuit filed by Jeff Blackard, a campaign donor, which disrupted payment to prosecutors involved in his criminal securities fraud case, causing further delays in the trial.
ARTICLE XIII: False Statements in Official Records – State Securities Board Investigation
Article XIII charges Paxton with making false statements to the State Securities Board during their investigation into his failure to register as required by law.
ARTICLE XIV: False Statements in Official Records – Personal Financial Statements
Article XIV accuses Paxton of failing to accurately disclose his financial interests in his personal financial statements, required by law.
ARTICLE XV: False Statements in Official Records – Whistleblower Response Report
Paxton is charged with making multiple false or misleading statements in the response report issued by his office in relation to whistleblower allegations.
ARTICLE XVI: Conspiracy and Attempted Conspiracy
Article XVI alleges Paxton conspired or attempted to conspire to commit acts described in one or more articles.
ARTICLE XVII: Misappropriation of Public Resources
Paxton is charged with misusing his official powers to have employees of his office perform services for his benefit and that of others.
ARTICLE XVIII: Dereliction of Duty
Article XVIII contends that Paxton violated the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes, and public policy against public officials acting contrary to the public interest.
ARTICLE XIX: Unfitness for Office
In Article XIX, it is alleged that Paxton engaged in misconduct, public or private, indicative of his unfitness for office.
ARTICLE XX: Abuse of Public Trust
The final article, Article XX, accuses Paxton of using his official powers to subvert the government’s lawful operation and obstruct justice, damaging the Office of Attorney General’s reputation and public confidence.
As this impeachment process unfolds, it promises to be a landmark event in the political history of the State of Texas, with ramifications that could extend far beyond its borders.
How Fate registered a developer’s project domain after seeing it in official plans, then fought to keep that fact hidden
FATE, TX – Cities are expected to regulate development, not steal its name.
Records obtained by Pipkins Reports show the City of Fate registered the domain name of a private development, lafayettecrossing.com, while actively working with the developer who had already claimed that name in official plans. The move, made quietly during a heated approval process, raises serious questions about whether Fate’s city government crossed from partner to predator, taking digital ownership of a project it was supposed to oversee with neutrality and good faith… and depriving the developer of their rights to domain ownership.
What followed, attempts to conceal the purchase, shifting explanations from city officials, and a documented pattern of advocacy on behalf of the developer, suggests the domain registration was not an accident, but part of a broader effort to control the narrative around one of the most divisive projects in the city’s history.
A site plan submitted by the developer, D-F Funds GP, LLC, led by Robert Yu, shows the project title “Lafayette Crossing” clearly identified in the title block on December 20, 2023. The document was part of the city’s official development review for the controversial project at the corner of I-30 and Highway 551.
Less than two months later, on February 7, 2024, the City of Fate registered the domain lafayettecrossing.com, Invoice #116953461, for $12.
Domain records confirm the registration date, with the domain set to expire on February 7, 2027. By that point, Lafayette Crossing was already the established name of the project, used by the developer and embedded in official plans circulating within City Hall.
This was not a coincidence. The city had the plans from the developer. Their were extensive talks regarding the project. Then the city registered the domain without the knowledge of the developer. This is known in the industry as, “Cybersquatting.”
The development, originally referred to as the “Yu Tract,” became known as Lafayette Crossing as it moved through the approval process. The project ignited intense public opposition over density, traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and the long-term direction of Fate’s growth. Despite sustained resistance and packed council chambers, the city council approved the project.
The political fallout was severe. In the elections that followed, four council members and the mayor were replaced, an extraordinary level of turnover that reflected deep voter dissatisfaction. Two members from that Council, Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, remain, but are up for reelection this May.
That context matters, because the domain registration did not occur in isolation. It occurred amid a broader, documented pattern of city officials actively working to shape public perception in favor of the developer.
In February 2024, Pipkins Reports, then operating as the Fate Tribune, published an exposé based on internal city emails showing City Manager Michael Kovacs discussing strategies to “educate” the public about Lafayette Crossing. In those emails, Kovacs suggested deploying what he referred to as “Fire Support,” a term used to describe both paid and unpaid advocates brought forward to counter citizen opposition and astroturf public support for the project.
That reporting revealed a city government not merely responding to public concerns, but actively attempting to manage and counter them.
In a later publication, Pipkins Reports (Fate Tribune) documented the City of Fate’s hiring of Ryan Breckenridge of BRK Partners, engaging in what records showed to be a coordinated public relations effort aimed at improving the project’s image and swaying public sentiment. The campaign was presented as informational, but residents viewed it as advocacy on behalf of the developer, funded with public resources.
It was within this environment, where city staff had already aligned themselves publicly and privately with the developer’s interests, that the city registered the lafayettecrossing.com domain. Yet that fact remained hidden until PipkinsReports.com submitted an Open Records Request on September 30, 2025, seeking a list of all domains owned by the city.
Rather than comply, the City of Fate objected. On October 14, 2025, officials asked the Texas Attorney General’s Office for permission to withhold the records, citing “cybersecurity” concerns.
On January 6, 2026, the Attorney General rejected that claim and ordered the information released. The city complied on January 20, 2026.
In addition to the lafayettecrossing.com domain, the records revealed the city owns numerous domains tied to redevelopment and branding initiatives, including:
- FateTX.gov
- DowntownFate.com
- FateFoodHaul.com
- FateMainStreet.com
- FateStationHub.com
- FateStationMarket.com
- FateStationPark.com
- FateStationSpur.com
- OldTownFate.com
- TheHubAtFateStation.com
- TheSpurAtFateStation.com
- ForwardFate.com
Most clearly relate to city-led initiatives. LafayetteCrossing.com stands apart because it mirrors the established name of a private development already proposed, named, and publicly debated.
When questioned via email, Assistant City Manager Steven Downs initially suggested the domain purchase occurred long before his involvement and downplayed any potential issues. When we revealed documents to show Downs was actively engaged with the project at the same time the Lafayette Crossing name entered the city’s official workflow, his story changed.
In follow-up correspondence, Downs acknowledged he was aware of the project name, while placing responsibility for the domain purchase on former Assistant City Manager Justin Weiss. Downs stated he did not know whether the developer was aware of the purchase and said he was not concerned about potential liability.
What remains unexplained is why the city registered the domain at all, knowing it belonged to a private project, and why it attempted to keep that information from the public.
Opinion
Viewed in isolation, a $12 domain purchase might seem trivial. Viewed in context, it is not.
When a city that has already worked to astroturf support, hire public relations firms, and counter citizen opposition also quietly registers a developer’s project domain, then attempts to conceal that information from the public, the line between regulator and advocate disappears.
The question is no longer whether the city knew the name. The record shows it did.
The question is why a city government so deeply invested in selling a controversial project to its residents felt the need to take ownership of the project’s digital identity as well.
Control of messaging, control of perception, and control of narrative are powerful tools. Sometimes it is equally as important to control what is not said.
Texas Senate Primaries Show Early Leads for Crockett and Paxton
AUSTIN, Texas – A new poll released by The Texas Tribune indicates that Jasmine Crockett and Ken Paxton are leading their respective primary races for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The survey, published on February 9, 2026, highlights the early momentum for both candidates as they vie for their party nominations in a closely watched election cycle. The results point to strong voter recognition and support for Crockett in the Democratic primary and Paxton in the Republican primary.
The poll, conducted among likely primary voters across the state, shows Crockett holding a significant lead over her Democratic challenger James Talarico, while Paxton maintains a commanding position among Republican contenders John Cornyn & Wesley Hunt.
According to the poll, Ken Paxton leads with 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters, pulling ahead of incumbent John Cornyn, who trails at 31 percent, while Wesley Hunt remains a distant third at 17 percent. The survey indicates Paxton would hold a commanding advantage in a runoff scenario and currently outperforms Cornyn across nearly every key Republican demographic group, with Latino voters the lone exception, where Cornyn maintains a seven-point edge.
Among Democrats, the poll shows Jasmine Crockett opening a notable lead, capturing 47 percent of likely primary voters compared to 39 percent for James Talarico—a meaningful shift from earlier polling that had Talarico in the lead. While still early, the numbers suggest momentum is consolidating ahead of primaries that will determine the general election matchups.
Jasmine Crockett, a sitting U.S. Representative whose district lines were redrawn out from under her, has responded to political extinction with a desperate lurch toward the U.S. Senate. Her campaign, widely criticized as race-baiting and grievance-driven, has leaned heavily on inflaming urban Democratic turnout while cloaking thin policy substance in fashionable slogans about healthcare and “equity.”
By contrast, Ken Paxton enters the race with a long, battle-tested record as Texas Attorney General, earning fierce loyalty from conservatives for his aggressive defense of state sovereignty, constitutional limits, and successful legal challenges to federal overreach. Though relentlessly targeted by opponents, Paxton’s tenure reflects durability, clarity of purpose, and an unapologetic alignment with the voters he represents—qualities that define his standing in the contest.
The Texas U.S. Senate race draws national attention, as the state remains a critical battleground in determining the balance of power in Congress. With incumbent dynamics and shifting voter demographics at play, the primary outcomes will set the stage for a potentially contentious general election. The Texas Tribune poll serves as an initial benchmark, though voter sentiment could evolve as campaigns intensify and debates unfold in the coming weeks.
CARACAS, VENEZUELA — When President Donald J. Trump dropped the phrase “Discombobulator” in a recent interview, the world sat up and took notice. According to the president, the United States deployed a secret weapon to render Venezuelan military systems useless as U.S. forces executed a daring raid that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
In an interview with the New York Post, Trump stated the device “made the equipment not work,” and that Venezuelan radar, missiles, and defensive systems “never got their rockets off” during the operation. “I’m not allowed to talk about it,” he said, referring to the classified nature of the technology.
The remarks have sparked curiosity, skepticism, and intense speculation about what the “Discombobulator” might actually be — and what its use means for U.S. military capability and foreign policy.
What Happened: The Maduro Raid and the Discombobulator Claim
On January 3, 2026, U.S. special operations forces carried out a rapid, highly coordinated mission in Caracas that culminated in the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The operation, code-named Operation Absolute Resolve, involved aircraft, helicopters, unmanned drones, and elite troops.
Speaking about the raid, Trump took credit for the success, telling the New York Post and others that a classified weapon, the so-called Discombobulator, as he called it, played a decisive role. He claimed that the device disabled Venezuelan military equipment, including systems supplied by Russia and China, before U.S. forces landed.
According to Trump’s account, Venezuelan troops tried to activate their defenses, “pressed buttons,” and found nothing worked. The president’s description suggests a form of electronic or directed-energy warfare — although he offered no detail on mechanism or development.
Context: Military Technology and Secrecy
The U.S. military has long invested in electronic warfare and directed-energy research. Systems that jam radar, disrupt communications, and interfere with electronic signals have been under development for decades. Yet no publicly acknowledged program has been confirmed to match Trump’s description of the Discombobulator.
Wartime secrecy and classification make it entirely plausible that capabilities not widely known could exist. Still, without independent verification or military documentation, journalists and analysts caution against jumping to definitive claims based on the president’s interview alone.
Conservative Commentary and Conclusion (Opinion)
The success of the Maduro raid reflects decisive leadership and a willingness to act where lesser administrations have hesitated. The Discombobulator claim — irrespective of its accuracy — underscores a broader theme: American ingenuity paired with bold strategy is unstoppable.
If such a capability exists and was responsibly employed to save lives and neutralize threats without explosive conflict, it represents a powerful demonstration of military superiority. Critics who mock the name risk missing the larger strategic point.
Whether the Discombobulator ends up in the annals of military history or remains a rhetorical flourish, the episode has already ignited fear in our adversaries about American power, innovation, and military might.
Sources:
- President Trump comments on “Discombobulator,” PBS NewsHour, Jan. 26, 2026.
- AP News reporting on Trump’s interview and weapon description.
- Gulf News analysis of unnamed weapon and its reported effects.
- Axios on use of U.S. drones and technology in operation.
- Wikipedia entry on 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login