Miriam mom of 5 in anti Talarico ads

MrsC67 : You really keeping stretching that "victim didn't want to testify" ..... keep forgetting to mention the accused admitted to sexually abusing that boy for several years.

MrsC67 :
Which case?

Who's paying her?

eighteen :
A PAC

Sophos3 :
The victim's mother agreed to the one day plea deal. The prosecutor told her they wanted her agreement with any sentence proposed to the court. She appreciated that and agreed to one day. The judge took issue with it.The prosecutor upped it to 30 and the victim's mother again agreed.2 weeks later she was asked again and only then did she say it was not enough. The judge went with 60 days when the maximum was a year.Claiming that Paxton let the pedophile off easy means the mother and judge did. No one ever claimed that Paxton ordered, negotiated, or approved the plea. Well, until he beat Cornyn in the primary. Now they claim it, and hope voters believe it without any evidence.

JerryJustice :
The jury heard that and still did not convict. That's not Paxton's fault.

MrsC67 : But they did convict...and Paxtons office gave him a sweetheart deal those are both facts

JerryJustice :
Mistrial.
No second trial, plea bargan for misdemeanors, no felony.

JerryJustice :
Not true. That's what the ads want you to believe. That's my point. The ads mislead people into thinking that and people fall for it. The jury let him off. The prosecutor said they would try again with a new trial. The victim said they would have to try again but without his help. The victims mother supported it.So the prosecutors could either do nothing, try to prove it again with less evidence, or offer a plea deal to lesser offense. The victim's mother agreed to a plea to a lesser offense.

MrsC67 :
Contact the McCle llan County DA and sheriff to get the scoop.
Please give the victim's rxplanation for not wanting to cooperatea second time. It is relevant.

I also started reading about the impeachment. His legal team proved he was facing false accusations.The ad I saw showed a woman named Allison claiming Paxton's employees turned him to the FBI. They left it at that. But when the FBI investigated, the Biden Justice Department found there was no evidence of a crime. The employees claimed Nate Paul provided benefits to Paxton that were bribes. Mainly free home renovations. During the impeachment hearing Paxton's team showed that Paxton paid for water damage to his home and that no renovations were done.But here's the kicker. Despite that evidence of Paxton paying for the home repairs in question and no renovations actually being performed, all 12 Democrats still voted that he was guilty of the home renovation charge. Now they just claim he was impeached on it and do not admit Democrats voted him guilty without evidence Guilt without evidence? Explain that to me.

MrsC67 :

Rapsalot :
What I am talking about can be seen in this video of the impeachment hearing:


Video Title: Day 7 Paxton trial impeachment full video: House renovations discussed, Laura Olson doesn't testifyIf that's an AI video, let me know.

MrsC67 :
Close but no. The victim's mother did not agree to the one day or 30 day plea deals; she explicitly stated in court that the proposed punishment was "just not enough". The judge took issue with the deal because Paxton's Office negotiated and offered a sentence of time served plus one day. The prosecutor then proposed 30 days, which the judge also rejected, doubling it to 60 days. The maximum sentence for the original first degree felony charge was life in prison, not a year.Claiming that Paxton's office had nothing to do with it is false. Because Paxton heads the agency that fully structured, negotiated, and defended the plea deal, critics and lawmakers from both parties hold him responsible for its leniency. They aren't making it up just because of the Senate race; the public record of the written plea offer from his own prosecutors has fueled the backlash.www.texastribune.org /2026/05/19/ken-paxt on-waco-plea-deal-ch ild-sex-abuse-t
www.houstonpublicmed ia.org/articles/news /criminal-justice/20 26/05/19/552287As for your timeline for when people started to take notice, it is off. The headlines I've provided came out around May 19th. Paxton didn't win the run off until May 26. Sure it may seem an insignificant amount of time to you but it's not. You seem critical of voters believing lies yet you seem to stretch the truth here and there yourself to help a narrative.

Sophos3 :
You ignored the sequence I described. Yes she agreed. Her quote was after she previously agreed, as I described.