Why would he condemn something he supported?

We know who and what Ken Paxton is.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton is the only state attorney general to decline to join letters over the past week condemning the Capitol riot.

In a Jan. 12 letter, 50 state and territorial attorneys general who belong to the National Association of Attorneys General denounced the “lawless violence.” The three remaining state attorneys general not included in that letter wrote their own Wednesday, leaving Paxton as the only holdout.

Paxton is a staunch Trump supporter who co-chaired the re-election group Lawyers for Trump. He spoke at the “Save America” rally at the Capitol in the hours prior to the riot last week, telling the crowds “we will not quit fighting” to overturn the election results. Neither Paxton’s office nor his campaign spokesman responded to requests for comment.

“The events of January 6 represent a direct, physical challenge to the rule of law and our democratic republic itself,” the Jan. 12 letter read. “Together, we will continue to do our part to repair the damage done to institutions and build a more perfect union. As Americans, and those charged with enforcing the law, we must come together to condemn lawless violence, making clear that such actions will not be allowed to go unchecked.”

In a separate letter Wednesday, the attorneys general of Indiana, Montana and Louisiana wrote: “In all forms and all instances, violent acts carried out in the name of political ideology have no place in any of our United States.”

To be fair, you can’t expect a serial lawbreaker to venerate the rule of law. It just gets in his way. Also, that “rally” he was at was organized in part by people who also helped organize the storming of the Capitol. Like I said, why would he condemn something he supports?

UPDATE: Here’s the Trib story, which contains this bit of tangential business at the end:

On Wednesday, Paxton’s office was also hit with the loss of one of its top staffers.

Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins is leaving the agency, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. The exit comes in the wake of a scandal at the agency, and also Paxton’s controversial lawsuit at the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the election results, which Hawkins — the agency’s appellate expert — did not sign onto. Hawkins has not answered questions about his decision to leave or why his name did not appear on the case.

Perhaps some day we’ll hear that story. In the meantime, chalk this up as another example of Ken Paxton being bad at his job.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in National news, Show Business for Ugly People and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Why would he condemn something he supported?

  1. Manny says:

    Still hoping for a pardon from the orange traitor. I will be surprised if Trump pardons him, he already threw those that were there on Jan 6 at his bequest under the bus.

  2. Lobo says:

    Re: “at Trump’s bequest”


    bequest: the act of giving or leaving something by will
    behest: an authoritative command or request

    Words matter

  3. Jules says:

    Lobo, yes they do. Why were you crying about being called a fascist when I said your attitude was childish?

    Thanks for the short comment.

  4. Lobo says:

    What is Fascism? And Our Not So Brave New World Political Rhetoric

    Jules: It was Manny who called your erstwhile student of letters and languages a fascist, so — in the spirit of teachable moments — I provided him with a link to an essay by George Orwell on the subject.

    Here it is once more (in a more eye-friendly format):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05FFux4uPd8 (and much related stuff, for further elucidation).

    Folks throw around weighty words too carelessly. Name-calling and argumentum ad hominem (and ad feminam, as applicable) debases the discourse, and doesn’t persuade. It just reinforces group cohesion against perceived or declared political enemies and promotes radicalization through mutual reinforcement, nowadays through social media.

    “Ad hominem”

    The Latin phase argumentum ad hominem stands for “argument against the person”. “Ad” corresponds to “against” but it could also mean “to” or “towards”. The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.

    Ad hominem fallacies can be separated in various different types, among others are tu quoque, circumstantial, guilt by association, and abusive ad hominem.

    All of them are similar to the general scheme of ad hominem argument, that is instead of dealing with the essence of someone’s argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor is attacking the character of the proponent of the argument and concluding that it is a sufficient reason to drop the initial argument.

    Source: Wikipedia

  5. Jules says:


    Lobo, you cried about being called a fascist before Manny called you a fascist.

  6. Jules says:


    “ Even if Hawley’s critics have argued that his use of “Orwellian” is itself Orwellian, there’s a reason it’s become an all-purpose epithet, a go-to accusation.”

    “In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell discussed the blight of “dying metaphors” — those well-worn phrases that allow us to mouth off without paying much heed. The examples he gave included “Achilles’ heel,” “swan song” and “hotbed.” Had he lived long enough, he may well have added “Orwellian” to the list.”

  7. Manny says:

    Lobo why would you think that everyone is as stupid as you are, I have read both Animal Farm and 1984. Yes, you are a fascist or a supporter of those who promotes fascism.

    You use dictionaries to support an argument that you fail to follow. Tell me when you were telling people that Trump and the vast majority of Republican elected leaders were lying. Lies and violence are the tools that fascists use to gain and maintain power. I would suggest something much deeper than 1984 or Animal Farm.

    I know which words I used and I believe that many of the terrorists that occupied the Capitol were there at the bequest of Trump. At least four of them have stated as much.

    If you even bother to read Animal Farm it is more about communism than about fascism or authoritarianism if you don’t like being called a fascist lover.

  8. Lobo says:

    Manny: Regarding intelligence I would go out on a rhetorical limb and posit that 50% of the general population is below average.

    Fertile territory for agit-prop.

    On a personal level, I get it. You need your readily available punching bag or piñata to whack on a daily basis, so when your usual right-wing Bogeyman keeps a low profile for a day or two, you get antsy and have to lash out at someone else. (Note that this is an argument that goes to the genesis of your verbal production here … for what it’s worth, so it is ad personam).

    Note also that Lobo hasn’t even called you an Anti-Fascist (ie, an AntiFa dude) in return, which would only be logical, based on the premise that any commentator who doesn’t agree with you 100% is properly labeled a fascist. That’s the premise that can be inferred from your verbal output here.

    Subsequently, you persisted in calling the Lobo character a fascist in a bid to make it true. It’s a standard tool of the propagandist to repeat derogative labels and slogans to brainwash the masses.

    Allow me to suggest that an inability or refusal to accept that arguments are contestable, and an unwillingness to acknowledge the existence and possible legitimacy/validity of a proposition you reject out of hand because it challenges your own is the sort of thing that leads to totalitarianism, whether of left-end or right-end variety.

    With regard to what Lobo or any other commentator said or didn’t say previously on this blog, it’s not relevant to the discussion of how our current political crisis should be dealt with. But even if it were, you could just use KUFF’s search box in the right-side panel (A very good blog feature, BTW!) and locate prior Lobo postings for critical analysis, or perhaps oppo-research, as suits your fancy.

    With regard to the referenced work by Orwell, which is an allegory (animals representing types of humans), I wonder which one of the cast of characters you think best represents you.

    – Napoleon? Squealer? Snowball?

    Thanks, Jules, for the NYT link to the article on use/misuse of references to George Orwell in contemporary US political discourse. A worthwhile read indeed.

    Orwell’s writings and insights remain highly relevant today. Mass surveillance through technical means (as foreseen in the 1984 dystopian novel) has become reality, but there is so much more, especially on the connection of language and political power and (mind) control.

  9. C.L. says:

    Bravo, Lobo, Bravo !

  10. Jules says:

    CL ts;dr

    Shouldn’t you put in a para or 2 about how if the Lobo character is female, it should be “Brava”?

  11. Manny says:

    Lobo you come and defend Trump and the other traitors stating we should work work toward unity and forgive, you are four years too late. You are you using the same playbook that you fascists have used for years.

    Typical response that I expect from your kind.

    You brought up Orwell, which I doubt you have read, started with Animal Farm and had no idea of what it represented.

    What is your argument? We will discuss it if you have one.

  12. Manny says:

    C.L. you are pathetic cheering an attack on me by a fascist.

  13. David Fagan says:

    I think Lobo is a good addition, some level of contribution that has some thought.

  14. Bill Daniels says:


    Wolf particularly gets under your skin, because he is an in your face reminder of your affirmative action educational failure. You write poorly, your grammar is sub par, and you seem to have trouble with words any competent junior high school kid should be able to use correctly. So if you actually graduated from a university in Oklahoma, and then graduated from law school, your profs must have really had to choke on it to pass you over and over, social promotion style.

    This is the reason you hate whites so intensely. Despite being given every advantage by guilt ridden whites like JFK and LBJ because you’re not white, you clearly don’t have the intellect that we would expect of a university or law school graduate. You had to be propped up all along the way. You knew you didn’t match up with the other kids, and that made you angry and bitter. Those feelings have only intensified through the years, and manifest now as visceral hatred of whites.

    Manny, that isn’t Wolf’s fault, or C.L.’s, or even mine. The problem is you, and your inferiority complex. Attacking Wolf? Shit, Manny, while I vociferously disagree with Wolf on a lot, he’s adept at putting together logical arguments, and he’s extremely civil, all things considered. He presents well, and that makes you feel bad, because you can’t do that. You can’t present an idea or opinion like Wolf. You are incapable of that. This causes you to express yourself the only way you can…..ad hominem style attacks, not much more sophisticated than when you were a kid on the playground, calling the other kid on the jungle gym a poopy head.


    It’s a little disconcerting to see you referring to yourself in the third person. I’m having Bob Dole flashbacks.

  15. Manny says:

    Bill, words don’t make a person smart. But you kept most of your racism today away, that aluminum paper around your head must be working.

    Have you heard your god, Trump, speak?

    Do you know who made the word obfuscate, well known during his time? Someone that wrote and spoke like Lobo.

    Bill, your insults don’t mean anything. Like I said before you are a loser, a failure, someone that probably lives off your mother’s social security.

    Lobo begins his argument by defending Trump, attacking Biden, and arguing that the terrorists that occupied the White House should not be rounded up and threw Rudy under the bus. He neglects that there were bombs placed inside the Capitol, that a policeman was killed, that destruction of property was prevalent. I have not called him a racist although I would have about a 60-70 percent of chance of being correct in doing so, cause that is about the percentage of Trump supporters.

    If you could comprehend you would realize that he begin by attacking President-elect-Biden, that is what ad hominem means, so he and you accuse me of what both of you engage in.

    Bill let us know your real name so we can judge your success, in fact, Lobo should do the same. What are you all scared of?

    Bill there is no affirmative action when one takes the Bar Exam, I was in the top 10 percent.

  16. Ross says:

    Lobo, you would be wrong about 50% of the population being below average in intelligence. That’s not how averages work. It is entirely possible to have an average where most are above average, or to have most be below average. The term you are looking for is median, since, by definition, the median is the number where 50% are lower and 50% are higher.

  17. Jules says:

    Ross, you are bringing up the average today

  18. Jules says:

    Manny agreed. Not only is Lobo’s stance on letting the murdering mob off without even one arrest morally repugnant, it is illogical. It makes no sense that zero punishment for committing atrocities will result in fewer atrocities.

  19. C.L. says:

    Where can I get some of that aluminum paper ?


  20. Lobo says:

    Manny. Look at Ross. He “attacked” Lobo too, but he has a good basis for doing so, and it’s not ad hominem.

    Ross raised a valid point about the distinction between average (mean) and median. I wasn’t explicit about it because that would have taken us too far afield.

    I reckon that more than 50% of the general populace does not appreciate the difference between mean, medium, and mode. It would be basic stuff in any methods or statistics course in any of the social sciences (and other disciplines too), but not everyone is blessed with the benefits of that educational experience.

    So, Ross countering Lobo’s “rhetorical” suggestion that half of the population is below average, and pointing out that that the numerical value of the mean (average) does not necessarily equate to median, is a constructive criticism. — Readers can learn something they didn’t know before, or have latent knowledge refreshed, and the community is better for it.

    And while we are on the subject, the IQ is actually a normalized measure: the median is set at 100. Half of the population is above and half below.

    Here is more:

    “The narrow definition of IQ is a score on an intelligence test … where ‘average’ intelligence, that is the median level of performance on an intelligence test, receives a score of 100, and other scores are assigned so that the scores are distributed normally about 100, with a standard deviation of 15. Some of the implications are that: 1. Approximately two-thirds of all scores lie between 85 and 115. 2. Five percent (1/20) of all scores are above 125, and one percent (1/100) are above 135. Similarly, five percent are below 75 and one percent below 65.”

    Source: one of the works cited in the Wiki article on IQ.

    An even better illustration of the difference in mean and median are measures of income and wealth. The mean would give the outlier billionaires much greater weight and distort the picture as to the condition of the “masses”. Income data is therefore typically reported by median or — to add more granularity — by quintiles and such. (A quintile is any one of five equal groups into which a population can be divided according to the distribution of values of a particular quantitative/continuous variable, such as personal income or household income.)

    Jules: You should have heard Alan Dershowitz in his BBC interview on the legal merits of the move to impeach yesterday which got quite testy. He stood his ground.

    See generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

    I don’t have to agree with him to recognize him as being of high intellectual caliber. Unsurprisingly, his perspective is that of a legal scholar/lawyer. That’s not the only way to look at the matter, however.

    Impeachment & removal from office can also be seen as a political accountability mechanism that is sui generis. Congress is neither a jury nor a court. You can counter Dershowitz by contesting the equivalency of the impeachment process and a garden-variety court proceeding, not to mention a criminal proceeding and the applicable standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). And the remedy in the impeachment is removal from office and ineligibility for federal office in the future. It’s not deprivation of liberty (jail).

    Manny: Is Alan Dershowitz a fascist too in your mind?

  21. Manny says:

    Lobo, it seems that you now refer to yourself in the third person, interesting. You ask a question but yet do not respond to them, also interesting.

    You compare apples to oranges with your argument when you brought the impeachment of how Dershowitz responded, you also failed to provide a link to said interview, how interesting.

    I don’t know if Dersjpwotz is a fascist, but he has not attacked Biden nor made the argument that none of the domestic terrorists should be rounded up and charged.

    I know that some women have accused him of having sex with them when they were minors which would be considered rape.

    By the way, most of your argument is plagiarism mostly from Wiki.

    Do you think by throwing a lot of bull into an argument makes one an intelligent person. Cause you are very good at that.

    IQ measures various subjects, in high school my IQ was measured at 126, in college, it was 142. That means I recognize bull shit when I see it and you, Lobo, are full of it.

    More on Dershowitz;

    Dershowitz said some “scholar/advocates” disagree with him. “But they’re wrong.”

    The Harvard Law professor emeritus was also critical of the House of Representatives’ quick drive for impeachment, which culminated in a bipartisan vote of 232 to 197 on Wednesday.

    “Yesterday’s impeachment, there were no legal arguments. The president wasn’t allowed to present a defense. His lawyers weren’t there,” Dershowitz said.

    He is full of himself, he is right and everyone else who disagrees with him is wrong.

    Impeachment in congress is not a criminal trial nor a civil trial, so not sure that Dershowitz is right. I do believe he is entitled to defend himself at the Senate level. But even that is debatable.

    “The basic sentiment is that the president is being railroaded. But the reality is that when it comes to impeachment, there aren’t any protections for the president laid out in the Constitution. In fact, experts told me that pretty much any rights Democrats give Trump are above and beyond what they’re required to do. Trump hasn’t been charged with a crime and impeachment isn’t a legal proceeding, so he doesn’t have any of the rights you hear about on “Law and Order,” including due process. In the world of impeachment, “fairness” means whatever the majority party in the House of Representatives thinks it should mean.”

  22. C.L. says:

    Re:”I don’t know if Dersjpwotz [???] is a fascist, but he has not attacked Biden nor made the argument that none of the domestic terrorists should be rounded up and charged.”

    Huh ? Dershowitz joined Team Trump in Jan 2020. I thought the logical progression is/was ‘Trump is a fascist’, ergo ‘everyone associated with Team Trump is a fascist’.

    Hell, even I’ve been called fascist on this blog, and I am in no way on Team Trump.


  23. Jules says:

    Lobo, your stance that it’s ok to beat a police officer to death is so repugnant to me that, like someone else whose stance that everyone who attempts to cross the border should be murdered (including babies), I really don’t GAF what you have to say about anything.

  24. C.L. says:

    Lobo, help me out here – where did you (ever) say it’s okay for anyone to beat a police officer to death ? I’m just not seeing it.

  25. Jules says:

    CL, Lobo thinks no one should be arrested for participating in the murderous insurrection. It is my own interpretation that he thinks it’s ok to beat a police officer to death. You may think that’s a leap, I don’t.

  26. Lobo says:

    Re: “It’s a little disconcerting to see you referring to yourself in the third person.”

    Bill: Without entertaining any presumptions about your occupational track record or Manny’s, or Jules’), let me just point out that attorneys do it all the time, in motions for extension to file their brief or other filing, for example, and then rattle off a bunch of other matters they are currently involved with, if not lame rationales comparable to “the-cat-chewed-up-the draft” excuses for late term papers in college.

    Your “undersigned” is just so occupied with other pressing matters and prays for the requested relief.

    Then you have the ones that validate the conventional wisdom of the guy acting as their own lawyer having a fool for a client (and a fool of an attorney, too). The most deplorable exemplars are the pro se briefings of respondents in attorney disciplinary appeals. But then again, defending yourself is the lot of those unable to afford competent and capable still-licensed legal counsel.

    So, there is precedent for arguing your case in the third person, as annoying as that may come across.

    Here, however, the third-person treatment of self serves a different purpose. It’s meant to de-personalize the discourse and redirect attention to facts and issues, as opposed to personality and ego (ad personam argumentation).

    Additionally, from the writer’s perspective, it also allows you to step back and question & challenge yourself, and assume the posture of being your own critic when you don’t have the luxury of a sounding board or au-contraire sparring partner in your home office. Same goes for editing. You are, as a general proposition, your own worst editor, but what if you don’t have anyone readily available to do the honors? – You make a lot of errors in spelling and grammar, and sometimes errors of fact due to faulty recollection, and errors in logic and reasoning perhaps.

    It may be a tough one for supreme court justices accustomed to pronouncing the law in unison and relishing the comforts of group-think consensus in their nowadays virtual echo chamber(s). But for an ordinary non-supreme mortal at least, it’s possible to be wrong, and it takes fortitude to admit it.

    So, Manny. I stand ready to be challenged and am prepared to concede a point or acknowledge an error.

    But where is your evidence that I am in error? Not to mention that your last paragraph of undisclosed provenance (plagiarism=failure to credit source of borrowed material) substantively overlaps quite neatly with what Lobo just wrote in the preceding post?

    Assuming you endorse the passage you quote, could there even be some common ground?

  27. Manny says:

    Lobo, 1st what is it you are arguing? Go back to one of your original posts. If asking for unity, I can agree but those that attempted to overthrow or disrupt our government must pay. The South was not adequately made to pay, so we are still paying for that as a country.

    More than one link and post may not appear for up to a day.

  28. Manny says:

    As to last quote that was found in five thirty eight.

  29. C.L. says:

    I see it’s Tin Foil Hat Friday.

    Don’t agree with me ? You’re a fascist.
    Don’t denounce police violence ? You must be a cop killer.
    Blind eye or no opinion to BLM protests ? Right where you belong, GOP a-hole !
    Refer to yourself in the third person ? You must be mentally ill.
    Make up shit, then come up with a secondary interpretation of the shit you just made up ? All good.
    Can’t form a grammatically correct sentence but have a 126-142 IQ ? F** you, Nazi !

    Manny, bless his heart, still has it out for me because I, at one point, said I had no intention of voting for Adrian Garcia because I wasn’t a fan of his coiffure (which oddly enough, was about third or fourth down on the list of things I didn’t like about Adrian Garcia, none of which involved his Hispanic lineage).

    Good Friday, guys !

  30. Jules says:

    “Don’t denounce police violence ? You must be a cop killer.”

    Is this supposed to make sense?

  31. Bill Daniels says:

    This thread has been a lot like a Fat Albert cartoon episode……entertaining, and you just might learn something, too.

  32. Manny says:

    C.L. the old saying about staying quiet certainly should be seriously considered by you.

    “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

    ― Mark Twain

  33. Manny says:

    C.L., grammar is not like math, there are really very few set rules and some of the rules have changed over time. English majors are a dime a dozen as a CEO who admitted his inability to tie words together stated, that is why I have a my secretary to correct my grammar errors.

    But if you want to become the grammar police, feel free to correct any grammar mistakes that you find.

    This is your first assignment, but based on what you wrote in your attack, I would not hire you to correct my mistakes.

    Why are you letting me get under your skin C.L.? I don’t have it out for you C.L., but you seem to think that if you attack me that I will just ignore you. What makes you think that I am that kind of person?

Comments are closed.