Advertisement

Live Updates: Texas House votes to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton

Eleanor Dearman/edearman@star-telegram.com

The Texas House of Representatives voted to send articles of impeachment against Attorney General Ken Paxton to the Texas Senate.

The vote came after hours of debate on the articles, that Senate began Saturday with members of the House General Investigating committee laying out their case that Paxton abused his office and broke the law. The committee members and those who oppose the impeachment resolution had a set amount of time to present their arguments and debate the coming historic vote.

The embattled attorney general, who took office in 2015, has faced legal troubles for years: Troubles that were outlined by a panel of House General Investigating Committee lawyers who addressed lawmakers in an hours-long Wednesday hearing.

Paxton has been under felony indictment for securities fraud since 2015, but has not gone to trial in the case. Separately, the FBI is investigating him for allegedly abusing his office to aid a campaign contributor, real estate investor Nate Paul, the Associated Press reported. The former employees who reported him to the FBI for corruption also filed a whistleblower lawsuit.

The committee, it was revealed Tuesday, had been investigating Paxton for months after he agreed to settle that lawsuit with $3.3 million in taxpayer dollars. Money for the settlement is subject to legislative approval.

If impeached, the Senate, where Paxton’s wife Sen. Angela Paxton serves, would then hold a trial.

Members of the committee — Rep. Andrew Murr, a Junction Republican, Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat, Rep. Charlie Geren, a Fort Worth Republican, Rep. Oscar Longoria, a Mission Democrat and Rep. David Spiller, a Jacksboro Republican — took turns taking the stand to address their colleagues who watched from their desks on the House floor.

No one person should be above the law, Spiller said.

“We each took an oath of office,” he said. “Attorney General Paxton took an oath of office. He violated that. He put the interests of himself above the law of the state of Texas. He put the interests of himself over the established laws, policies and procedures of the Office of the Attorney General.”

Paxton also put his interests over the advice of his staff, over the lawful functions of law enforcement agencies and over the interest of Texas citizens, Spiller said.

“Members it brings me no pleasure to be standing here today in front of you dealing with this matter,” Spiller said. “I know that it’s not pleasant for you either. But we have a duty and obligation to protect the citizens of Texas from elected officials that use their office and power for personal gain.”

As the proceedings began, most seats in the gallery overlooking the chamber were full. Onlookers were quiet, as were the lawmakers down below, as the debate began and members of the committee spoke. Though some cheered later in the day when opponents of the resolution had their turn to address their colleagues.

“Members, one of the key responsibilities of the general investigating committee is to look beyond partisan affiliation in order to take the necessary steps to protect the institution that is our state government,” Geren said.

He soon added, “I would like to point out that several members of this House while on the floor of this House doing the state business, received telephone calls from General Paxton personally, threatening them with political consequences in their next election.”

Johnson closed the opening remarks:

“If millions of Texans can’t trust us to do the right thing right here, right now, then what are we here for?” she said.

Next up were those lawmakers with concerns about the impeachment proceedings.

‘A sad day for our chamber’

Rep. Tony Tinderholt, an Arlington Republican, called Saturday a “sad day for our chamber” as he took the front podium to speak in opposition of the impeachment resolution. He and others who spoke against the measure raised concerns about the process and quick turnaround of the impeachment proceedings.

Tinderholt said the process has lacked transparency, careful deliberation and is about politics. He raised concerns that Paxton hadn’t been interviewed as part of the investigation and that an attorney general office staff member wasn’t able to testify as a resource witness earlier in the week.

He said that instead of questioning witnesses in a hearing, investigators were allowed to summarize and “potentially editorialize” their findings.

“If you think this is how we best serve Texans, you’re gravely mistaken,” Tinderholt said. “When you vote today, don’t listen to the bullies inside or outside this building that try to intimidate you into submission.”

Rep. John Smithee, a Amarillo Republican, and Rep. Brian Harrison, a Midlothian Republican, joined Tinderholt in giving statements opposing the impeachment proceedings.

Before they addressed the House, a couple lawmakers had time to ask questions of Murr, who chairs the House Investigating Committee.

Matt Schaefer pressed Murr about whether members of the committee had asked questions of witnesses personally. Murr said attorneys and investigators did that on their behalf. Murr, responding to a question, also noted that witnesses weren’t placed under oath.

In criminal proceedings that typically happens during a trial, he said, and in this case that would happen during the Senate trial.

Schaefer also asked if the committee had spoken with Nate Paul, the political donor at the center of much acts that led to Paxton’s potential impeachment.

Murr replied that the committee started its investigation by reaching out to participants in the whistleblower lawsuit and then extended it to witnesses identified by the whistleblowers.

The committee has not reached out to Paul or subpoenaed documents from him, Murr said.

Tinderholt questioned the credentials of the investigators and questioned why lawmakers weren’t given more time to consider the impeachment decision.

“I feel like it’s rushed,” he said. “I perceive that it could be political weaponization.”

During a part of the discussion dedicated to debate on the resolution, Rep. Harold Dutton, a Houston Democrat, said he’d be voting “present not voting” on the resolution because he’s concerned about a lack do due process.

At another point in the day, Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican who chairs the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee, said Paxton had a standing invitation to appear before the committee and did not. Leach spoke in support of the resolution.

Committee investigated Paxton for months

The articles of impeachment against Paxton came just hours after the House committee investigating Paxton recommended his impeachment. He would be the third official in Texas history to be impeached and the first since 1975.

“This is serious,” said Rep. Craig Goldman on Thursday, a Fort Worth Republican who chairs the House GOP caucus. “It’s historic, and there’s not one member who takes this lightly.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, told WFAA TV he couldn’t comment on whether there are the votes to convict Paxton, were the impeachment articles sent to the chamber.

“I don’t cast a vote. The 31 members cast a vote. I preside over it,” Patrick said in the interview. “But we will all be responsible as any juror would be if that turns out to be, and I think the members will do their duty.”

Paxton discredited the committee’s lawyer’s findings in a Thursday statement as “hearsay and gossip, parroting long-disproven claims.” He also said his office hasn’t had an opportunity for rebuttal.

Longoria said a report issued by Paxton’s office related to the whistleblower lawsuit serves as Paxton’s defense.

“By attacking the Office of the Attorney General, corrupted politicians in the Texas House, led by liberal Speaker Dade Phelan, are actively destroying Texas’s position as the most powerful backstop against the Biden agenda in the entire country,” he said.

On Friday he called it a “illegal impeachment scheme,” again touting his record taking on the Biden administration. The attorney general office’s General Litigation Division Chief Chris Hilton has said Paxton’s impeachment would violate state law because conduct predates the most recent November election. The committee in the Friday memo said the code he cited doesn’t apply to impeachment. “For this crucial work to continue, the political theater must come to an end,” Paxton said.

Chris Hilton, the General Litigation Division chief in the attorney general’s office, told reporters a proposed impeachment can only be for conduct since the most recent election. The code he cited states an official cannot be removed from office for an act the official may have committed “before the officer’s election to office.” It doesn’t specify if that means when the official was first elected or the most recent election. The committee in the Friday memo said the code he cited doesn’t apply to impeachment.

The scandal surrounding Paxton was highlighted by both Republican and Democratic political opponents while on the 2022 campaign trail, but Paxton won the statewide election in November with 53% of votes.

What do the articles of impeachment say?

The document includes 20 articles: Seven for disregard of official duty, three for false statements in public records, two for constitutional bribery, two for obstruction of justice, one for conspiracy and attempted conspiracy, one for misapplication of public resources, one for misappropriation of of public resources, one for dereliction of duty, one for unfitness for office and one for abuse of public trust.

Among the findings, the resolution laying out the articles says Paxton fired employees for reporting his unlawful actions to law enforcement. He misused public resources when he had employees conduct a “sham investigation” into the whistleblower complaints.

Paxton concealed wrongful acts connected to the whistleblower complaints when he entered the settlement agreement, delaying the discovery of evidence and trial testimony “which deprived the electorate of its opportunity to make an informed decision when voting for attorney general,” one article reads.

Paxton benefited from having Paul, the campaign donor and real estate investor, employ a woman with whom Paxton was having an affair. Paul in turn got favorable legal assistance or special access to the attorney general’s office, the document reads. Paxton also engaged in bribery when a man named Nate, presumably Nate Paul provided Paxton home renovations in exchange for legal help and access, says another article.

Paxton had his staff intervene in a lawsuit against Paul, harming a charitable organization, and had his office issue an opinion to help Paul avoid sale foreclosures on some of his properties or businesses. He also had an outside attorney look into a business complaint to benefit Paul, for which he issued more than 30 grand jury subpoenas, an article says. Those subpoenas were ultimately quashed, according to Wednesday’s testimony.

Paxton obstructed justice when he benefited from the filing of a lawsuit by a political donor that disrupted the pay of prosecutors in the criminal case against Paxton, causing delays in the case, the document reads.

Paxton also made false personal statements to the State Securities Board, the Texas Ethics Commission and in public comments responding to whistleblower allegations, it says.

The final article says Paxton brought the attorney general’s office “into scandal” and lowered the public’s confidence in Texas’ government.