NLA Salary Claims False – DG Mohammed Abdul-Salam Clarifies | #FaceToFace - Modern Ghana
1992 Constitution: Indemnity clause, Ex-gratia, etc... Do we still need these?
AUSTIN, Texas - The case against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is now shifting from the Texas State Capitol to a Texas courtroom.
On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court sided with four former staffers who had been fired by Paxton, clearing the way for their whistleblower lawsuit to move forward.
This decision comes after Paxton was acquitted on 16 articles of impeachment related to bribery and corruption.
In this FOX 7 Focus, FOX 7 Austin's John Krinjak discusses the significance of this decision with constitutional law professor Eddy Carder.
JOHN KRINJAK: For those of us who aren't following this all that closely, who are these whistleblowers and what is this case about?
EDDY CARDER: Well, this is a group of whistleblowers who allege that AG Paxton had terminated them from their responsibilities wrongfully and that he had made statements against their character and against their identities that he should be held accountable for. In addition to that, they were alleging that he had engaged in some fraudulent activity and that he had abused the Office of the Attorney General for his own purposes in order to benefit himself as well as Mr. Paul.
JOHN KRINJAK: Talk to us about the significance of the ruling on Friday in the supreme court. What is that decision and what is the significance?
EDDY CARDER: This particular ruling that came down regarding the continuation of the case that the whistleblowers had initiated is significant in that it does tend to indicate that the court...
1992 Constitution: Indemnity clause, Ex-gratia, etc... Do we still need these?