Even Ken Paxton’s defenders didn’t deny impeachment charges. What does that tell you? | Opinion

As Texas House members debated Saturday whether to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, they seemed more focused on the process than on the serious accusations against him.

It was rushed, his defenders said. There was no opportunity for Paxton to participate, they argued. House members didn’t get to question witnesses or investigators, they noted.

But in the end, the historic 121-23 vote to impeach a state official for just the third time in Texas history came down to this: To believe Paxton, you must believe that everyone around him is lying about whether he abused power, took bribes and retaliated against whistleblowers.

With more than a decade of evidence to judge his character, that one is a no-brainer.

Paxton’s defenders didn’t deny that he contorted his office to protect a top donor facing federal legal trouble. They didn’t deny that the donor helped Paxton with a delicate matter by employing a woman with whom the attorney general had an affair. They didn’t counter with arguments that Paxton couldn’t possibly have done something as tacky as insisting that Nate Paul, the developer who whistleblowers said was bribing him, upgrade the counters in the home renovation Paul was funding.

They can’t. We’ve all seen Paxton, under legal peril from the moment he took office in 2015, shave too many corners and contort the law.

That said, while he must step aside from his office, he deserves a robust opportunity to defend himself in the Senate. And the odds there — 21 of 31 senators would have to vote to convict — might be better for him.

Senators and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will preside over the trial at a date to be determined, must commit to a fair, open proceeding. Nothing about the permanent removal of an officeholder elected not quite seven months ago should be rushed or predetermined. If Paxton is finally ready to actually respond to serious bribery and abuse of office accusations, he should be given ample opportunity to do so.

But for what the House was called to do Saturday, the protestations of Paxton’s surrogates were overwrought. They acted as if a House committee started and finished work on it in a matter of days. It was a months-long inquiry, and as with any such proceeding, it can’t involve all 150 members.

Perhaps House Speaker Dade Phelan and his lieutenants could have insulated themselves against charges of political motivation had they taken longer, held more public hearings and scheduled days or weeks of floor debate.

But then, the truth of the complaints about politicization were exposed by Rep. Tony Tinderholt, an Arlington Republican on Paxton’s side. He and others talked loftily about due process and House precedent. But Tinderholt couldn’t help making a political threat, going out of his way to note that former President Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz had made statements decrying the House proceedings.

In a time when political courage is constantly lacking, Republicans who stood up to that intimidation — and reported pressure calls from Paxton himself — should be celebrated.

Besides, many of the details of the Paxton case have long been known through whistleblowers’ complaints and dogged news media reporting. Any House member who wasn’t aware of the lengthy and serious accusations against the AG was derelict in his or her duty.

No, the impeachment of Ken Paxton was like the old line about how one goes bankrupt: gradually, then suddenly.

It’s important to note that for all the comparisons to criminal court proceedings, impeachment is a process intended to answer political questions that the courts should not. While it calls upon lawmakers to judge whether an official may have committed crimes such as bribery, its primary purpose is to defend the state and its people against further potential abuse. It demands that House members ask themselves about conduct worthy of a state official and fitness for office.

In Ken Paxton’s case, there’s ample evidence that he falls short. The Senate will ultimately decide. But based on the case laid out in the House, no other verdict than its vote Saturday would have been appropriate.