Nearly 4,000 pages show new detail of Ken Paxton’s alleged misdeeds ahead of Texas impeachment trial

Investigators leading the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have released nearly 4,000 pages of documents that lay out in new detail how the embattled Republican allegedly used multiple cellphones and an alias on a ride-sharing app to conceal an affair, and pressured top aides to help a donor who is now facing criminal charges.

The reams of exhibits, most of which were publicly filed late Thursday and include emails and text messages, are the foundation of House Republicans' case that Paxton abused his office and should be ousted at the end of a historic impeachment trial that begins Sept. 5 in the Texas Capitol.

“It’s a complicated story,” Mark Penley, one of Paxton's former deputies, told investigators during a deposition in March. “But if you understand what was going on, this was outrageous conduct by an Attorney General that’s supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Texas, not the chief lawbreaking officer.”

Paxton, who has been suspended from office since being impeached by the GOP-controlled Texas House in May, has broadly denied wrongdoing and waved off the accusations as politically motivated.

A spokesperson for Paxton did not respond to an email requesting comment Friday.

Both sides are under a gag order imposed by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will preside over the trial in the GOP-controlled state Senate. Paxton's wife, Angela, is a senator but is barred from voting in the proceedings.

The documents provide the fullest picture to date of accusations that have shadowed Paxton since eight of his highest-ranking deputies, including Penley, staged an extraordinary revolt in 2020 and reported him to the FBI. They alleged that Paxton had unlawfully used the power of his office in an attempt to shield Austin real estate developer Nate Paul from legal troubles.

In December 2019, Penley told investigators, Paxton met him at a Starbucks in a wealthy Dallas enclave and asked him to take a phone call with him inside a car in the parking lot. Penley said the call was with Paul and that Paxton described him as a friend who was having issues with the FBI.

Months later, Penley said in the deposition, he met Paxton outside a Dunkin Donuts at a strip mall and urged him to back away from Paul. But Penley said Paxton instead pressed him to approve paying an outside attorney whom Paxton had hired to look into Paul's claims.

Paul was arrested in June and charged with making false statements to banks in order to procure more than $170 million in loans. He has pleaded not guilty.

The newly filed exhibits also include Uber records that allegedly show Paxton using an alias, “Dave P.”, to hire rides to conceal visits to Paul and a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair. The documents also include accusations that Paxton used multiple phones.

Paxton was reelected to a third term in November despite the cloud of scandal, which his supporters say shows that voters want him in office. Paxton is also facing multiple legal troubles beyond the impeachment, including a securities fraud indictment from 2015 that has yet to go to trial and an ongoing FBI investigation.

Nearly 4,000 pages show new detail of Ken Paxton’s alleged misdeeds ahead of Texas impeachment trial

Investigators leading the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have released nearly 4,000 pages of documents that lay out in new detail how the embattled Republican allegedly used multiple cellphones and an alias on a ride-sharing app to conceal an affair, and pressured top aides to help a donor who is now facing criminal charges.
Posted in Uncategorized

Gov. Brian Kemp hasn’t received ‘any evidence’ state Sen. Moore has majority necessary for Willis impeachment

FIRST ON FOX: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's office says the state senator seeking to impeach the prosecutor handling the Georgia case against former President Donald Trump has not provided evidence that he has the necessary support to call a special session.

In a letter to the governor filed Thursday, state Sen. Colton Moore claimed to have the support of "3/5 of each respective house" in the state legislature regarding his efforts to impeach Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

"We have not been provided any evidence to support that assertion," spokesman Garrison Douglas told Fox News Digital. 

GEORGIA STATE SENATOR MOVES TOWARD IMPEACHING DA FANI WILLIS OVER TRUMP CHARGES

Moore is moving to impeach Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over the charges brought against former President Trump.

"As a Georgia State Senator, I am officially calling for an emergency session to review the actions of Fani Willis," Moore said on social media Thursday. "America is under attack. I’m not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically TARGET political opponents."

"We, the undersigned, being duly elected members of the Georgia House of Representatives and Georgia Senate, and comprising 3/5 of each respective house, pursuant to Article IV, Section II, Paragraph VII(b), hereby certify to you, in writing, with a copy to the Secretary of State, that in our opinion an emergency exists in the affairs of the state, requiring a special session to be convened under that section, for all purposes, to include, without limitation, the review and response to the actions of Fani Willis," Moore wrote in his letter to the governor the same day.

CNN LEGAL ANALYST DOUBTS FANI WILLIS, SAYS THERE IS 'NO PLANET' WHERE TRUMP IS TRIED IN MARCH: 'NOT HAPPENING'

Regarding further questions on the state senator's bid to impeach Willis, Kemp's office said it could not comment due to the governor's involvement in the case.

"Given the governor was subpoenaed in this case in November of 2022, our office will not be commenting further," he added.

Kemp's office directed Fox News Digital to comments made by one of Kemp's senior advisors, Cody Hall.

"Where have I heard special session, changing decades-old law, and overturning constitutional precedent before?" Hall asked in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Oh right, prior to Republicans losing two Senate runoffs in January of 2021."

"What are people hoping to learn in the second kick of the election-losing mule?" Hall continued.

Fox News Digital reached out to state Sen. Colton Moore's office for clarification on his claim regarding the 3/5 majority in the state houses, but did not hear back in time for publication.

Conservatives on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court are having an epic meltdown

Justice Janet Protasiewicz was sworn in as the newest member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Aug. 1, following an impressive victory over far-right former Justice Dan Kelly earlier this year that gave the court a progressive majority for the first time since 2008. Since Protasiewicz joined the court, a lot's happened: The liberals fired the director of the state court system, a former judge and Supreme Court candidate who holds some extreme social views; moved to adopt new rules for internal court governance; and agreed to hear a lawsuit over the constitutionality of the state's gerrymandered legislative districts.

Republicans in Wisconsin have not taken any of this very well. In the leadup to Protasiewicz's election—before she had even been elected—Republican lawmakers began tossing around the idea of impeaching her for … something to be determined. But that talk went dormant until more recently, when Assembly Speaker Robin Vos resurfaced the idea.

Two of the conservatives on the court, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Associate Justice Rebecca Bradley, have not handled the changes to the court very well, either. The liberals' earliest moves have limited Ziegler's powers as chief justice, which she's alleged are abuses of power that violate the Wisconsin Constitution—though she's been coy on what provision of the constitution, exactly. Still, that hasn't stopped her from issuing press releases and writing op-eds denouncing the erosion of her power as somehow unconstitutional.

Bradley's reaction, however, has been far more extreme. She's used comments to reporters, tweets, and even official court opinions to launch baseless attacks on the legitimacy of the majority's actions—criticizing them for partisanship and bias in ways that reflect her own partisanship and bias.

From the first day of the Supreme Court's new liberal majority, Bradley's core criticism is that its members are too partisan and biased. She criticized her fellow justices as "political hacks" and "politicians wearing robes," not "jurists." She argued on Twitter that their firing of the state courts director was a "[p]olitical purge[] of court employees"—a point that she made while retweeting one of the state's most prominent right-wing commentators.

And this week, when the Supreme Court allowed a case challenging the state's gerrymandered state legislative districts to proceed, Bradley dissented in furious fashion. She charged that the majority had agreed to hear the case—which in this case included not only the liberals but also fellow conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn—as part of a plan to "shift power away from Republicans and bestow an electoral advantage for Democrat candidates." Her screed even deployed a favorite slur of Republican partisans by referring to the "Democrat Party."

But for Bradley, this is nothing new.

Bradley was first appointed to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2012. She won reelection in 2013 by defeating—in a gigantic irony—Protasiewicz, her future colleague on the Supreme Court. Walker elevated her to the Court of Appeals in 2015, and then to the Supreme Court later that same year. She was reelected to a 10-year term in 2016 against another familiar name: Joanne Kloppenburg, who had narrowly lost the state's 2011 Supreme Court election.

During Bradley's 2016 campaign against Kloppenburg, many of her old writings for her college newspaper surfaced, revealing some deeply intolerant views. In 1992, during the height of the AIDS crisis, Bradley wrote that gay people "essentially kill themselves and others through their own behavior."

She also criticized the attention that AIDS received over diseases like cancer, writing, "How sad that the lives of degenerate drug addicts and queers are valued more than the innocent victims of more prevalent ailments," and attacked people who were comfortable with homosexuality as "degenerates who basically commit suicide through their behavior." She called abortion a "holocaust of our children" and said she found it "incomprehensible" that anyone could claim "a right to murder their own flesh and blood."

Bradley sought to distance herself from those comments during her 2016 campaign, claiming that her views had changed on homosexuality. She refused to say, though, whether she still believed that abortion was a "holocaust" and that the right to obtain an abortion was equivalent to a right to "murder," because the issue might come before the Supreme Court. At the same time, she refused to say she would recuse herself from an abortion case.

She narrowly defeated Kloppenburg and will next face Wisconsin voters in April 2026.

In her time on the court, she quickly distinguished herself with a unique brand of far-right jurisprudence. She compared Gov. Tony Evers' lockdown orders during the height of the pandemic to Japanese internment during World War II—and then recently attempted to whitewash her Wikipedia page to remove her most offensive remarks. She justified these self-edits to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel because, she claimed, "Liberal media has distorted my record since the beginning of my judicial career, and I refuse to let false accusations go unchecked."

In a fairly routine appeal of a criminal conviction for homicide, she wrote a long dissent criticizing the trial judge for mentioning the defendant's gun ownership. "'[H]oplophobia' is the 'irrational fear of guns,'" she explained, and charged that "the sentencing judge's hoplophobia was on full display" in the case.

In a case that prohibited the use of drop boxes to collect absentee mail ballots, she compared their use to the manipulation of democracy by Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-un, Raul Castro, and Bashar al-Assad.

Since Protasiewicz's victory earlier this year, and as the reality of serving in the minority set in, Bradley has amped up her rhetoric. In June, she castigated Hagedorn in extremely harsh terms, writing that he should "revisit the judicial oath and resign if unwilling to fulfill it." Hagedorn's offense? He sided with liberals and didn't allow a parent's lawsuit challenging the Madison School District's trans-friendly policies to skip the state's normal appeals process.

In July, the Supreme Court declined a request by the Wisconsin State Bar to allow attorneys to receive a "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access" credit. Bradley authored a lengthy concurring opinion that has to be read to be believed.

She began by arguing that "the buzzwords 'diversity, equity, inclusion, and access' (DEIA) represent a smoke screen for a divisive political agenda that perniciously reduces people to racial categories and strips them of their unique individuality." Echoing far-right rhetoric, she argued that such concepts are "a disguise for dangerous identity politics" and dismissively referred to diversity training as "woke corporate nonsense." As support for her argument, Bradley actually relied on a 2014 book authored by far-right commentator Ben Shapiro titled "How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument."

For someone with this record to accuse anyone else of partisanship or bias is a stunning display of projection and a total lack of self-awareness. Going from editing your own Wikipedia page to remove your insensitive remarks because the "liberal media" has supposedly "distorted your record" to criticizing your colleagues as "politicians wearing robes" takes some gall.

But Bradley can accuse the majority of whatever she likes. After more than a decade in the wilderness, Wisconsin finally has a Supreme Court with a progressive majority—one with unquestioned democratic legitimacy. Bradley will likely be on the losing end of the most contentious cases for the next few years—and if she continues to antagonize Hagedorn, her fellow conservative, she might find her positions winning less and less support. And in 2026, when Bradley is next before voters, she'll have to deal with the consequences of her record.

White House counsel departing as House Republican investigations heat up

The White House has announced its top lawyer will leave next month after nearly three years of serving President Biden as House Republicans continue to investigate the president and his family.

Stuart Delery first joined Biden’s transition team in November 2020 before serving as deputy counsel. He was promoted to the top job in 2022 after Biden’s first counsel, Dana Remus, left the White House.

In a statement Thursday announcing the departure, Biden called Delery a "trusted adviser and a constant source of innovative legal thinking since Day One of my Administration."

The president added, "From his work during those early days on COVID-19 and efforts to get life-saving vaccines to the American public to the implementation of major legislative accomplishments such as the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act, he has been an integral part of my team and will be missed throughout the Administration."

WHITE HOUSE IGNORES REPUBLICANS DEMANDING ANSWERS ON BIDEN'S KNOWLEDGE OF HUNTER BIDEN'S BUSINESS DEALINGS

Biden also thanked Stuart and his family for his service.

The White House did not announce who would be replacing him as counsel.

Delery’s departure comes as House Republicans have launched multiple investigations into Biden’s son Hunter and the origins of COVID-19. Other Republican lawmakers are pushing to impeach the president — a proposal that lacks mainstream support.

ELISE STEFANIK BACKS BIDEN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: 'OH, ABSOLUTELY'

In addition to these inquiries, Attorney General Merrick Garland named a special counsel to investigate the presence of classified documents that were found in Biden’s possession at two different locations, including the garage at his Delaware home and his former Washington, D.C., office.

Biden’s personal lawyer, Bob Bauer, is handling the classified documents matter, while the White House has about two dozen aides working on the other investigations.

HUNTER BIDEN CONTRADICTS DAD'S CLAIM NOBODY IN FAMILY 'MADE MONEY FROM CHINA'

The departure also comes as White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients asked Cabinet members and senior officials to decide by the end of the summer whether they would remain in their position through 2024 and the election cycle.

An unidentified White House official told The Associated Press that Delery’s departure had been in the works for a while.

Delery was the top adviser who helped Biden craft his student loan handout executive order last year that was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court.

The White House unsuccessfully argued the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as an emergency that gave the education secretary the legal authority to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision," such as student loan debt.

The nation’s highest court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the administration overstepped its constitutional authority with the proposal.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

While serving as deputy counsel, before being the chief White House lawyer, Delery played a critical role in advising Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

Delery also played a key role in helping the administration put new rules at the U.S.-Mexico border, designed to stop migrants from crossing illegally.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Hypocritical Republicans follow the new script in the wake of Trump’s latest indictment

When it comes to Republican lawmakers, hypocrisy knows no bounds, especially when it comes to Donald Trump. With rare exception, they either loudly support the MAGA cult, or are afraid to challenge it—so much so that the GOP should probably be renamed POT (Party of Trump), as in “the GOP has gone to POT.”
In the wake of Trump’s fourth criminal indictment—brought Monday by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, charging Trump and 18 associates with racketeering in a plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election—elected Republicans have predictably jumped to Trump’s defense. The Georgia indictment follows the federal indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith on Aug. 1, charging Trump with conspiring to subvert American democracy by scheming to reverse Joe Biden’s presidential victory.
Incredibly, the latest talking point for Trump defenders is that if Democrats want to ensure Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, isn’t elected president in 2024, they should let it happen at the ballot box rather than in the courthouse.
This script ignores entirely that so many of Trump’s legal issues stem from the fact that he wouldn't concede that the previous presidential election had been decided at the ballot box.

Nearly three years after Americans voted him out of the White House, Trump continues to push the Big Lie. He’s even hosting a press conference Monday, promising a “complete EXONERATION” that will prove his tired claims of fraud. Trump has also backed election deniers in races for key state offices (fortunately, most have lost) that could help undermine voters in 2024. Americans have no guarantee that he wouldn’t push the replay button on the well-documented “fake electors” scheme of 2020 in the face of another loss to Joe Biden in 2024.

Nevertheless, in a Wednesday appearance on The Hugh Hewitt Show, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas embraced the script.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): “It would be much better from [the liberals’] point of view…if they try to stop [Trump]...at the ballot box…as opposed to having rabid zealots like Jack Smith or partisans like Alvin Bragg and the woman in Atlanta…try to take him out of contention.” pic.twitter.com/FChgth20Oz

— The Recount (@therecount) August 16, 2023

Transcript:

“I understand that the Democrats and liberals in the media can’t stand Donald Trump and they’ll  do anything to stop him. But it would be much better from their point of view and the point of view of the country if they try to stop him on the campaign trail and at the ballot box. And let the American people make these choices as opposed to having rabid zealots like Jack Smith or partisans like Alvin Bragg and the woman in Atlanta make these decisions for them — to try to take Donald Trump out of contention.”

Notice how Cotton dismisses and disrespects DA Willis, not even referring to her by her name or title. 

Campaign Action

But Cotton was not sharing an original thought. His comments echo those made by other GOP lawmakers who have rushed to use similar talking points to defend the indefensible Donald Trump, without even considering the details of the indictments against him.

As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News on Tuesday:

“The American people can decide whether they want him to be president or not. This should be decided at the ballot box and not in a bunch of liberal jurisdictions trying to put the man in jail. They are weaponizing the law in this country. They are trying to take Donald Trump down and this is setting a bad precedent.

Are we going to let county prosecutors start prosecuting the … former president of the United States? You open up Pandora’s box to the presidency. This whole exercise of allowing a county prosecutor to go after a former president of the United States will do a lot of damage to the presidency itself over time. To my Democratic friends, be careful what you wish for.”

RELATED STORY: Lindsey Graham makes the most moronic Trump defense yet and gets slammed

It’s possible Graham’s position as a U.S. senator saved him from being among the many co-conspirators indicted by Willis. Fulton County’s Trump investigation did look into a November 2020 phone call that Graham made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, where Graham attempted to cast doubt on the state’s signature-matching law for mail-in ballots.

But back to the script. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had this to say in a social media post on Xwitter:

“The indictments of Donald Trump are all about how Democrats don’t value democracy & the democratic process. Dems fear that if the voters can decide fairly in 2024 they will reject Joe Biden’s disastrous record.”

Sure, Rafael.

Cruz even went so far as to play reporter from outside the Fulton County courthouse Monday night (and promote his podcast) on Fox News’ “Hannity” show. Cruz chased soundbites with a stick mic as he waited for indictments against Trump and his co-conspirators to be handed down.  

Ted Cruz reacts to the Georgia grand jury indictments: "I'm pissed...We've never once indicted a former president...This is disgraceful...It is an abuse of power by angry Democrats who've decided the rule of law doesn't matter anymore." pic.twitter.com/ZdD0XuWjUK

— Republican Accountability (@AccountableGOP) August 15, 2023

Cruz, of course, led the Senate effort to reject electoral votes for Biden from Arizona and Pennsylvania on Jan. 6, 2021.

Meanwhile, HuffPost reports that Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the lead manager in the House’s second impeachment trial of Trump, ridiculed the notion that the justice system should step aside while Trump seeks a second term in 2024.

Raskin told HuffPost:

“Wouldn’t it be great if you could never prosecute anyone for trying to overthrow an election that they lost, because then they can keep trying to overthrow elections? Didn’t Ted Cruz go to Harvard Law School? Gee, you would have thought he would have had a little more faith in the American justice system than that.”

Raskin noted that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution bars from office anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. Even some conservative legal scholars have concluded that the language disqualifies Trump from holding office, though their scholarship has obviously had no effect on Trump’s 2024 campaign.

RELATED STORY: Conservatives want to bar Trump from ballot under the 14th Amendment? Get in line

Let’s check in with Republican congressional leadership!

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California again reverted to his cherished talking point about the “weaponization of government” against Trump, overlooking the fact that weaponizing the government is exactly what Trump did with Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department during his administration—and Cotton hinted to Hewitt that Democrats could expect as much from Republicans in the future. 

McCarthy was up late Monday night, and took to Xwitter when the Fulton County indictments dropped. “Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election,” McCarthy wrote. “Now a radical DA in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career.”

Justice should be blind, but Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election. Now a radical DA in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career. Americans…

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) August 15, 2023

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, has put his head in his tortoise shell.

Roll Call reported Tuesday that McConnell has remained quiet regarding Willis’s indictment; Spectrum News in Kentucky noted the same on Wednesday.

Recall what McConnell said when he decided to vote to acquit Trump after his second impeachment trial in February 2021.

“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen,”  McConnell said. “He didn’t get away with anything. Yet.”

"We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation," he continued. "And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both New York Democrats, issued a joint statement Monday evening.

“As a nation built on the rule of law, we urge Mr. Trump, his supporters and his critics to allow the legal process to proceed without outside interference,” they said.

HuffPost offered this reaction from Democratic Rep. Nikema Williams, whose district includes most of Atlanta.

“We fully intend to beat the former president at the ballot box but this is about accountability, giving the people who show up to vote confidence that their will be counted,” Williams said Tuesday on a press call organized by the nonprofit Public Citizen.

The last word goes to Willis, who rejected claims by Trump and other Republicans that her prosecution was politically motivated.

"I make decisions in this office based on the facts and the laws," Willis said. "The law is completely nonpartisan. That's how decisions are made in every case."

Could Trump pardon himself if convicted of Georgia charges? Experts weigh in

Former President Trump was indicted earlier this week on 13 felony counts in Georgia in connection with an alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Legal experts told Fox News Digital that Trump cannot pardon himself in this case, but the process of actually incarcerating him is a complicated one.

"The president…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment," Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads which John Malcolm, vice president for the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital likely prevents Trump from pardoning himself in Georgia.

"It seems to be pretty clear that he has plenary authority to pardon people for federal crimes, but not for state crimes," Malcolm explained. 

Prominent legal scholars, including George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley and former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy have made similar arguments to Malcolm's and said that Trump cannot pardon himself in Georgia while others, including political commentator and attorney Mark Levin, have made the case that he can. 

GEORGIA COURT CLERK ADMITS 'MISHAP' BEHIND 'FICTITIOUS' TRUMP INDICTMENT: 'I AM HUMAN'

Levin argues that the Constitution is silent on whether a president can even be indicted and believes the Constitution's Supremacy Clause holds that Trump's federal authority takes precedence over state laws. Additionally, Levin says the Department of Justice's position that a sitting president cannot be indicted on federal crimes because it would "cripple the executive branch" would also hold true for state crimes and indictments from local DAs. 

Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that he does not envision a scenario where Trump could pardon himself on state crimes.

"I could see a court delay a proceeding, perhaps even delaying the imposition of a sentence to avoid having a sitting president simultaneously involved in criminal litigation or serving a sentence," Neily told Fox News Digital. "I think that's conceivable. But I just don't really think it's plausible that a court would find that the president of the United States has some unwritten power to pardon himself from state crimes and just make those prosecutions go away entirely."

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, also told Fox News Digital that Trump cannot pardon himself on state charges and could potentially self-pardon on federal charges in Washington, D.C., and Florida, but that "would be an abuse of power that’s potentially impeachable."

In Georgia, the Republican governor does not have the power to grant clemency. Instead, the five-member board of pardons and paroles, made up of individuals appointed by the governor, holds that power. 

TRUMP SAYS GEORGIA INDICTMENT COMES DURING 'DARK PERIOD' FOR US, VOWS TO FIX IT BY WINNING

Despite the belief that Trump cannot pardon himself from state charges, Malcolm said that if elected president, Trump would be unlikely to see a jail cell at least until he is out of office.

"A president has to be able to carry out the duties of being president of the United States so I think if a president were convicted and incarcerated, I think that a very strong argument can be made that the state could not interfere with his ability to serve as president, and you can't serve as president from a jail cell," Malcolm said.

"Similarly, I think that if there were a state court indictment pending against the president, that indictment would have to be held in abeyance for the entire time that the president served in office, and then it could be taken up again if anyone was so inclined to do it after he or she leaves office."

Neily, who made the point that the legal theories surrounding these arguments are uncharted waters, told Fox News Digital it is hard to envision a scenario where Trump sees any time in state prison for the charges either during his time in office or after and believes the sentence could be commuted by the state or made into a house arrest situation. 

"I think there's a pretty good chance that a court would try to find some way to avoid a situation where a state was either actively prosecuting or incarcerating the president," Neily said.

"I don't see him being incarcerated for any of the charges that are currently pending against him," Neily added. "I feel like the judges in those cases will try to figure out a way to impose some form of punishment that's sort of sufficiently satisfying to the public or that portion of the public that thinks that the prosecutions were appropriate short of actually incarcerating him in an actual prison."

Neily continued, "I'm just not sure that I can really see a former president going to jail with his Secret Service detail."

Trump faces roughly 75 years in prison if convicted on all counts and given the maximum sentences in the Georgia indictment. Georgia judges are not required to dole out prison time for the state RICO charges and can instead levy a fine. But, if they decide to issue a prison sentence the mandatory minimum is five years.

New accusations: Ken Paxton used burner phone, secret email account, fake Uber name to hide ties

By Robert Downen, Patrick Svitek and Zach Despart, The Texas Tribune

Aug. 16, 2023

"New accusations: Ken Paxton used burner phone, secret email account, fake Uber name to hide ties to Nate Paul" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

In new allegations revealed Wednesday, Texas House investigators accused suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton of engaging in a complex cover-up to hide his relationship with real estate investor Nate Paul as senior aides grew increasingly concerned about Paxton’s willingness to use his office to benefit Paul.

The subterfuge allegedly included Paxton and Paul creating an Uber account under an alias so they could meet each other and so the attorney general could visit the woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

And once Paxton learned several high-ranking officials in his office reported his behavior to the FBI, the House impeachment managers alleged, he took immediate steps to cover up his relationship with Paul, including wiring a $122,000 payment to a Paul-affiliated company in an effort to hide home renovations that Paul had provided for free.

The allegations, outlined in a series of filings with the Texas Senate’s court of impeachment, shed new light on the relationship between Paul and Paxton that is at the core of his impeachment proceedings.

Among the new claims: Top deputies in the attorney general’s office persistently warned Paxton that Paul was a “crook” and that there was no merit to his claims that he had been unfairly treated by law enforcement, and that the two met at least 20 times in spring and summer 2020, sometimes discussing the FBI investigation into Paul’s faltering real estate empire.

Paxton “blindly accepted Paul’s conspiracy,” impeachment managers alleged. “Senior Staff urged Paxton to stay away. But when it came to Paul, Paxton was immune to reason.”

Paul was arrested in June on federal felony charges of lying to financial institutions to secure business loans.

Responding to Paxton’s pretrial motions that seek to dismiss all 20 articles of impeachment, including four that will not be included in the Sept. 5 impeachment trial, House managers also detailed multiple actions in which Paxton allegedly sought to use his office to benefit Paul.

They alleged that Paxton conducted a “sham criminal investigation” into Paul’s “adversaries,” routinely overriding concerns from agency staff who told him that Paul was a “criminal” and that Paxton needed to “get away.”

Instead, House managers alleged, Paxton became increasingly “entangled in Paul’s web of deceit” and “went to great lengths” to hide his relationship with Paul — using a burner phone and secret email accounts, ditching his security detail and using the fake Uber name to be “ferried to his lover’s or Paul’s properties more than a dozen times.”

In response to Paul’s favors — including allegedly employing the woman and paying to remodel Paxton’s home — Paxton “continually abused the power of his office to advance Paul’s aims,” House managers alleged.

In one instance, Paxton allegedly told agency staff that he did not want the office to assist law enforcement “in any way” with an investigation into Paul, who Paxton claimed was being “railroaded” and needed “unprecedented” access to sensitive information about his case.

After meeting with “alarmed” senior staff, Paxton allegedly demanded files about Paul’s criminal case that included an unredacted FBI letter that identified individuals involved in a 2019 raid on Paul’s home and businesses.

“Paxton held onto the file for more than a week,” House managers wrote. “Ultimately, OAG did not disclose the information to Paul. But Paxton did.”

In another instance, Paxton was accused of issuing a legal opinion that staved off a pending foreclosure sale of Paul’s businesses at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. House investigators cited two agency employees who said they were forced to work through the night to produce the opinion while Paxton frequently called them.

Paxton “sounded like someone was holding him hostage,” one of the staffers told investigators.

The opinion, which Paxton allegedly edited himself, was published at 1 a.m. Aug. 2, 2020, and said foreclosure proceedings posed a public health threat — despite the state’s “open for business” mantra throughout the pandemic, managers said.

The next day, managers alleged, Paul cited the opinion to successfully delay the foreclosures.

“It is hard to imagine a more blatant abuse of Paxton’s office,” House managers wrote.

Paxton’s legal team had filed more than a dozen motions to dismiss all articles of impeachment, often arguing that the underlying allegations were baseless or fell under the legitimate duties of the attorney general’s office.

His attorneys also accused the Texas House of trying to “overturn the will of voters” who reelected Paxton to a third term last year despite various public scandals dating to 2015. One argument stressed that Paxton cannot be impeached for alleged misconduct that predated his most recent election under the so-called “prior-term doctrine.” And they downplayed some of the allegations he faces, saying that, even if true, they are not severe enough to warrant his removal from office.

Paxton’s lawyers also attacked two bribery-related impeachment articles, saying there was no evidence of a “quid pro quo” and that Paxton’s ties to Paul were nothing more than “a personal relationship with a constituent and that the constituent found something the Attorney General did to be agreeable in some way.”

Under rules adopted by the Senate, any pretrial motion to dismiss or quash an article of impeachment must be voted on by senators. A majority — 16 senators — can approve dismissal of an article, placing an early test on the determination of the chamber’s 19 Republicans to allow a trial on the allegations. Those votes are set to be taken shortly after the trial begins in September.

In a written response, filed with the Senate on Tuesday and made public Wednesday, the impeachment team challenged other pretrial assertions from Paxton’s lawyers, who claimed the articles of impeachment were deficient because they failed to list specific laws that Paxton allegedly broke.

“Impeachable offenses need not be indictable crimes,” the House team argued. “Impeachment in Texas seeks to protect against conduct that undermines the integrity of the office, disregards constitutional duties and oaths of office, abuses government process and power, and adversely impacts the system of government.”

What’s more, the team argued, many of the articles listed particular crimes, and several detailed “how Paxton abused his office for his own personal benefit or that of Nate Paul and business entities controlled by Paul.”

More broadly, the managers emphasized that the impeachment trial is not a criminal or civil proceeding, as Paxton’s side has implied. In one new filing, the managers wrote that an impeachment trial is “a unique, if not mostly Political, with a capital ‘P’, proceeding — i.e., an action by the representatives of the people challenging official actions that are contrary to the public interest.”

That view aligns with the view that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who leads the Senate and is acting as judge in the impeachment trial, offered in a TV interview Tuesday.

“It’s not a criminal trial. It’s not a civil trial. It’s a political trial,” Patrick told the Fox affiliate in Houston.

The House managers also asked the Senate to dismiss Paxton’s motion to quash the articles or return them to the House to add more detail to the allegations. The managers said the demand shows a “fundamental misunderstanding” of how impeachment works, arguing that the Texas Constitution does not require the level of detail common in a civil or criminal proceeding.

“A person can be impeached without an indictment, therefore Paxton does not have any right to demand more details,” the managers said.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

The full program is now LIVE for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 21-23 in Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations coming to TribFest. Panel topics include the biggest 2024 races and what’s ahead, how big cities in Texas and around the country are changing, the integrity of upcoming elections and so much more. See the full program.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/16/ken-paxton-impeachment-evidence-senate/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

 

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose fires top aide for criticizing Donald Trump on social media

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the most prominent Republican in the race to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown next year, has fired one of his top aides after social media posts surfaced in which the staffer criticized Donald Trump.

LaRose's office confirmed press secretary Rob Nichols's departure on Wednesday. A longtime Republican operative in the state, Nichols held a similar position with then-Republican Gov. John Kasich before he ran for president and became a vocal Trump detractor.

The abrupt dismissal followed Trump political allies on X, formerly Twitter, discovering and posting a cache of old tweets from Nichols' personal account that took aim at the former president, including for his impeachments, indictments and appearance.

OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

In one tweet, Nichols is quoted replying to a Trump supporter: "it’s been an incredible indictments race to the bottom for your guys and hunter biden...the daytona 500 of felonies and misdemeanors."

His interim replacement, Mary Cianciolo, confirmed that Nichols no longer works for LaRose, but said she could not comment further on a personnel matter.

Reached by phone, Nichols declined comment on the matter. He had deleted the offending account before the tweets were brought to light.

OHIO TEEN INTENTIONALLY CRASHED CAR INTO BRICK WALL TO KILL BOYFRIEND, FRIEND

The dismissal comes just a month after LaRose joined what is expected to be one of the most closely watched contests of 2024 and one where Trump's endorsement could again prove crucial — as it did last year.

After holding out for months, Trump endorsed venture capitalist and memoirist JD Vance for the seat vacated by the GOP's Rob Portman in 2022, helping Vance handily beat a crowded field to win the GOP primary and then the seat.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A previous critic of Trump himself, LaRose endorsed him for president in 2024 a week after entering the Senate race. That marked a reverse in position from 2020, when he said it was inappropriate to take political sides when you were running elections.

LaRose faces state Sen. Matt Dolan and Cleveland businessman Bernie Moreno for the Republican Senate nomination. Dolan, whose family owns baseball's Cleveland Guardians, has distanced himself from Trump, while Moreno — also a past critic — has seen Trump encourage his run.

Kyle Rittenhouse launches nonprofit with far-right Texans as he ramps up political engagement

By Robert Downen, The Texas Tribune

Aug. 16, 2023

"Kyle Rittenhouse launches nonprofit with far-right Texans as he ramps up political engagement in the state" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Kyle Rittenhouse, the right-wing activist who was famously acquitted of killing two Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, is stepping up his involvement in Texas politics.

Already this year, he’s rallied with a Texas secessionist movement leader, endorsed ultraconservative midterm candidates, and railed against Texas gun control legislation and the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Now, Rittenhouse is creating a nonprofit in the state — with help from well-connected, far-right political actors.

In a July 23 filing with the Texas secretary of state’s office, he described “The Rittenhouse Foundation” as a nonprofit that “protects human and civil rights secured by law, including an individual’s inalienable right to bear arms” and “ensures the Second Amendment is preserved through education and legal assistance.”

The foundation’s directors are Rittenhouse, Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt and Shelby Griesinger, treasurer for Defend Texas Liberty PAC, a key financier of far-right candidates in the state. The foundation’s registered agent is the law firm of Tony McDonald, who has for years represented Empower Texans and other deep-red organizations.

Defend Texas Liberty and Empower Texans have received tens of millions of dollars from a trio of West Texas oil tycoons — Tim Dunn and brothers Farris and Dan Wilks — who have for decades funded campaigns, nonprofits and movements to promote their ultraconservative religious and social views.

McDonald declined an interview request Tuesday. Other foundation officials could not be reached for comment.

Rittenhouse moved to Texas last year after being acquitted of homicide charges in the fatal shooting of two people at a 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He’s since steadily ramped up his political involvement in Texas, often railing against the media, “cancel culture” and gun control groups.

In January, Rittenhouse appeared at a Conroe “rally against censorship” with Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, which advocates for Texas to secede from the United States. The event drew national media attention after a Conroe brewery said it was inundated with threats and harassment after pulling out as the event’s host venue.

In May, Rittenhouse joined Texas Gun Rights in opposing a House bill that would have raised the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21. And he’s been active on social media, condemning the Texas House impeachment of Paxton and endorsing pro-Second Amendment, ultraconservative candidates who were also backed by groups affiliated with Dunn and the Wilks brothers.

Rittenhouse has endorsed Andy Hopper, a primary challenger to state Rep. Lynn Stucky, R-Denton. Hopper, who came close to unseating Stucky in a runoff in 2022, had the support of Defend Texas Liberty in that primary and is expected to have it again.

Rittenhouse more recently backed Brandon Herrera, a gun rights activist and YouTube star known as “The AK Guy” who is running against U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio. Gonzales represents the district where the 2022 Uvalde school shooting took place, and he was the only Texas Republican in the U.S. House to vote for a bipartisan gun law afterward.

Last year, Rittenhouse announced plans to attend Texas A&M University, only to walk back the claim after the university said he had not been accepted. Rittenhouse, an Illinois native, later said he planned to attend Blinn College, a two-year school in Brenham. It’s unclear if Rittenhouse is attending the school, which said he had not enrolled in classes after he announced his intention to go there.

Rittenhouse’s foray into Texas politics comes as Republicans continue efforts to reach out to younger Americans who are increasingly supportive of liberal policies. On Monday, The Texas Tribune reported on a new company, Influenceable, with ties to Dunn that has been quietly recruiting Gen Z social media influencers to do undisclosed political promotions.

Patrick Svitek contributed reporting.

The full program is now LIVE for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 21-23 in Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations coming to TribFest. Panel topics include the biggest 2024 races and what’s ahead, how big cities in Texas and around the country are changing, the integrity of upcoming elections and so much more. See the full program.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/16/kyle-rittenhouse-texas-foundation/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.