Is there no option to automatically make her an “abstain” vote? I honestly don’t know. That would effectively make her a non-factor even if she’s physically present.
The Texas Constitution provides that during an impeachment trial, “no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present.” If Angela Paxton counts as “present,” then it takes 2/3 of the 31 Senators (i.e. 21 Senators) to vote guilty to remove Ken Paxton. If Angela Paxton did not count as “present,” then it would only take 20 guilty votes (i.e. 2/3 of 30 rounded up). That’s why her mere presence helps Ken Paxton.
Flurb’s numbers are correct. I was doing it by memory and off by one. There are 31 Texas State Senators.
The hits just keep on coming…
WASHINGTON — The attorney defending Ken Paxton in his impeachment trial sought to downplay a new report that Texas House officials are digging into a property-buying spree the now-suspended attorney general began after he came under federal investigation for alleged abuse of his office.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Paxton, his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, and a family trust spent almost $3.5 million buying six properties across the U.S., including land in Maui and a Utah ski town, and a luxury lodge in Oklahoma, from July 2021 to April 2022.
…
But Paxton’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, on Thursday dismissed the notion that there was anything questionable about the property purchases, which Buzbee said were made with long-term savings of Paxton’s and made at a time of low interest rates. Buzbee accused House impeachment managers of leaking information to the media to bolster a “flimsy” case.
…
Move along, folks… Nuttin’ to see here.
But it was Republican senators who got the ball rolling to begin with…
The WSJ article notes that "Paxton made $153,750 a year as attorney general while his wife, Angela Paxton, a longtime high-school math teacher, is a Texas state senator, a role that pays $7,200 a year, plus some per-diem payments every other year.:
So what’s the big deal about spending nearly $3.5 million buying properties, some of it in cash? The man has obviously invested wisely. 
It was the Republican Texas House that impeached Paxton. As @MandaJo noted upthread, the Texas House has traditionally been the “least insane” branch of Texas government and dominated by Republicans who – while very conservative – fall more into the pro-business camp. The Texas Senate, under Dan Patrick’s thumb, has been much more inclined to push base-pleasing, red meat, social issues.
This is pretty brazen.
Just a little thing, but I have Ken Paxton on a themed deathpool list on the Giraffe board. That list is mostly a collection of Texas politicians and school officials from Uvalde Texas. Oh, and police too.
This is brazen!
THIS. IS. TEXAS!!
Sorry to go all 300 on ya, but it had to be said.
But I do wish Molly Ivins was still around to write about this.
Press on.
Fox News has an article up about how Paxton went on a “secretive trip” to China against the advice of staff. “Under no set of circumstances as a U.S. law enforcement official should you willingly go to China,” said one anonymous source quoted in the article.
I personally don’t think the trip is that big of a deal – junkets like this are commonplace for politicians (he was one of several Republican and Democratic Attorneys General on the trip). But Chinabaiting is a powerful tactic in Republican circles and the fact that Fox News is treating running like a hit piece suggests that the Republican establishment is trying to build more and more of a case against him.
If one is from the Reactionary Traitor party, the only thing worse then “teh gay” is “teh chinese”.
According to recent financial disclosures, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick – who will preside over Paxton’s trial – received $3 million since the impeachment from a conservative PAC that is loudly supporting Paxton and that has promised retribution on those House members who voted for his impeachment.
Getting really ourobouros-y down there; leopard-y. 
Lawyers for suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton are pushing to disqualify three Democratic state senators as jurors in his upcoming impeachment trial.
Paxton’s lawyers filed a motion Friday that asks Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to disqualify Sens. Nathan Johnson of Dallas, Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio and José Menéndez of San Antonio, arguing they have a proven bias against Paxton.
“Like numerous courts around the country, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held for almost a century that potential jurors with a bias or prejudice against the accused are disqualified from serving on his jury as a matter of law,” the motion said. “Jurors José Menendez, Roland Gutierrez, and Nathan Johnson have such a bias and have proclaimed it loudly, time and again.”
The motion cites a number of critical public statements that the senators have made about Paxton over the years, including some in recent weeks.
…
“Unacceptable bias”?? “Critical statements”?? Oh God, my sides hurt from laughing so hard! 
I demand a jury of my peers. That is, only people who are my friends, committed members of my team, and who unanimously agree that my many crimes are perfectly acceptable actions of a public official. Anything less is a violation of my rights to a fair trial.
And it’s completely a-ok if I’m sleeping with one of the jurors. She’ll be able to give a completely unbiased ruling.
Depending on how well you get along and how good you are in bed, she may well be ruling on a different set of merits than the other jurors. But rule she will. 
Wasn’t this the idea when the jury system came into being? Namely, that the jury of your “peers” would be made up of people who knew you in everyday life and would be in a position to judge whether the crime you were accused of was something you would be likely to have done? Not a jury of complete strangers who know nothing about you except the extremely limited information they will find out in court. Legal scholars, correct me if I’m off base.
It’s been a while since I took a government/civics course, but I remember as an undergraduate my professor saying, “Impeachment is a political process.” It’s not like a regular trial where the jury are supposed to be unbiased individuals who aren’t at all involved in anything that’s going on.