Regarding “Paxton's office says whistleblower settlement would save Texas taxpayers money,” (Feb. 21): When Paxton says settling is “cheaper” he means cheaper for him. It’s not state taxpayers' debt; it’s Paxton’s obligation as he, and he alone, benefited from his shenanigans. Texas taxpayers should not have to pay for his grift. Furthermore, Assistant Attorney General Chris Hilton was quoted as saying that “under the terms of the settlement, there is no admission of fault or liability or wrongdoing by any party.”
It’s sickeningly incredible that he will slip out of this one. No ordinary citizen could. Thank you Taylor Goldenstein and Houston Chronicle for this article.
Toy B. Halsey, Houston
It’s like watching a tennis match. First, in 2016 Ken Paxton, our indicted attorney general, wanted to use out-of-state gifts to cover his securities fraud legal fees (seven years of fees...that must be a big tab). But the Texas Ethics Commission ruled that was illegal because the charges were not related to his job as an elected official.
Now, he wants the state to cover the $600,000 in legal fees he has racked up fighting his whistleblower lawsuit. Under the state’s election laws, he is allowed to use campaign funds to cover his legal defense because it relates to his elected position. The difference seems to be that in the whistleblower case, Texas taxpayers can be his piggy bank.
Paxton originally appealed the whistleblower suit, claiming he was an elected official and not a state...
stage at the Ninth Circuit, where pharmaceutical companies say a momentous new ruling "illustrates perfectly" the constitutional concerns of U. S. Supreme Court justices regarding FCA enforcement. ...