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 (Nexstar) – Two weeks after Attorney General Ken Paxton’s acquittal in his impeachment trial, the Texas Supreme Court announced on Friday that the whistleblowers’ lawsuit against Paxton can move forward.
The lawsuit was filed by former top deputies at the Office of Attorney General who claim they were wrongfully fired by Paxton. The former employees say the firings came after making “good faith” reports to the FBI about alleged actions taken by Paxton for the benefit of Austin-area real estate developer Nate Paul.
The ruling from the Texas Supreme Court clears the way for the lawsuit to return to a Travis County trial court. The lawsuit had been on hold after a $3.3 million dollar settlement with the whistleblowers was proposed. Concerns over using taxpayer funds to pay the settlement helped lead to the Texas House investigation of Paxton and subsequent impeachment trial.
Nexstar spoke with Blake Brickman, one of the whistleblowers involved in the impeachment trial and lawsuit. While Brickman has publicly expressed his disappointment and shock over the outcome and various elements of the impeachment trial, he said he looks forward for what’s to come with the whistleblower lawsuit.
“We can actually put Ken Paxton under oath and depose him, which did not happen in the impeachment trial,” Brickman said. “He’s either going to have to testify or invoke his Fifth Amendment...
1992 Constitution: Indemnity clause, Ex-gratia, etc... Do we still need these?