ICYMI: Judge says woman can get abortion, Texas AG loses his mind

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is out of control

Only hours after a judge ruled to allow a Texas woman facing a nonviable, life-threatening pregnancy to seek an abortion, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened hospitals and doctors with both civil and criminal penalties if they comply with the judge’s ruling.

When possible, Republicans have enacted some of the most extreme abortion bans, and Texas has among the worst. But cases like this one, which expose the GOP’s cruel and heartless attitudes toward women, have further galvanized national opposition to the bans. They’re also giving Democrats ammunition heaving into an election cycle with a generally favorable environment.

In fact, Paxton’s unhinged response is beyond absurd, and must be read to be believed.

More top stories

Venezuela is threatening war with Guyana, and the tankies approve

Here is everything you ever wanted to know about the next possible war, this one brewing in South America.

Gov. Tim Walz criticizes GOP's 'obsession' with strange and cruel issues

Yup. See the opening item above.

Carlson turns a sober warning of Russian threat into a false claim of extortion

Word is that Trump wants this propagandist as his running mate.

GOP impeachment resolution: A circus without substance

House Republicans seem hell-bent on moving forward with their sham “impeachment inquiry” against President Joe Biden, but they don’t even pretend to have a reason for doing so.

Senate Republicans hand Putin a propaganda victory

When Republicans aren’t busy inventing fake impeachments, they’re busy handing Russia and its murderous dictator Vladimir Putin propaganda victories.

This week’s most-read stories

  1. In late-night rant, George Santos shows he's determined to light the GOP on fire

  2. The Ziegler story gets more icky, but what it reveals about Republicans is just as bad

  3. Donald Trump is so thrown by his own shaky performance that he thinks it’s AI

  4. The Newsom-DeSantis debate did not go well. For Ron DeSantis

  5. George Santos was just expelled. Here's what happens to his seat

  6. Taylor Swift is Time's person of the year and the far right is big mad about it

  7. Justice Samuel Alito isolated in tax case he refused to recuse from

  8. White House has things to say as Speaker Johnson reverses course on impeachment inquiry

  9. The moment of reckoning: When DeSantis realizes Newsom just cleaned his clock

  10.  A House Republican tells the truth about the push to impeach Biden

Comic:

More comics.

Campaign Action

Ken Paxton issues threats to hospitals after abortion ruling

Only hours after a judge issued a ruling allowing a Texas woman facing a nonviable, life-threatening pregnancy to seek an abortion, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stepped in to threaten hospitals and doctors with both civil and criminal penalties if they comply with the judge’s ruling.

Kate Cox is a 31-year-old mother of two who was initially excited to discover she was pregnant with her third child. Several weeks into her pregnancy, Cox’s doctors informed her that the fetus had full trisomy 18, a chromosomal condition linked to abnormalities in many parts of the body. Not only does this create a high risk of either stillbirth or miscarriage, but continuing the pregnancy places Cox at high risk of a uterine rupture. This is a serious threat to her health and would imperil her ability to carry another child in the future.

Under Texas’ draconian abortion ban, even someone facing such extreme circumstances as Cox has few options. However, she went to court to seek relief, and as The Texas Tribune reports, Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble handed down a temporary restraining order that would allow Cox to obtain an abortion. However, Paxton wrote to three Houston-area hospitals within hours, threatening any facility or doctor who provides Cox with medical relief.

Under the current Texas abortion ban, abortions are permissible after six weeks of gestation only if the life of the mother is threatened. In Cox’s case, there is a possibility she could die as a result of continuing the pregnancy. However, the greater threat is to her long-term health.

Even if there are no further complications, the child will either be stillborn or suffer extensive abnormalities leading to rapid death. There is also a high likelihood of a miscarriage. Because Cox's previous two children were delivered via cesarean, a miscarriage at this point in her pregnancy creates a threat of uterine rupture, which would harm her future fertility.

In her ruling, Gamble wrote, “The Court finds that Ms. Cox’s life, health, and fertility are currently at serious risk. The longer Ms. Cox stays pregnant, the greater the risks to her life.”

In Paxton’s letter to three Houston-area hospitals, he calls Gamble an “activist” judge and claims she is unqualified to determine whether Cox faces a life-threatening situation. Paxton tells the hospitals that the temporary restraining order issued by Gamble “will not insulate you, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws, including first degree felony prosecutions.”

Additional threats are aimed specifically at Dr. Damla Karsan, who has been identified as the doctor offering to perform the abortion procedure. “We remind you that the [temporary restraining order] will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires,” Paxton writes.

In September, despite clear evidence of his guilt, Paxon was acquitted in an impeachment trial before the Texas Senate. He still faces a federal investigation into the corruption charges at the heart of that impeachment.

According to the Texas Tribune, Cox burst into tears as Judge Gamble handed down her decision on Thursday. Cox issued a statement, saying, “It is not a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to my baby, but when. I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer.”

Paxton is doing everything in his power to make sure that suffering continues.

Campaign Action

Whistleblowers ask judge to order Ken Paxton, aides to sit for depositions

By Patrick Svitek 

The Texas Tribune

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

Lawyers for the Ken Paxton whistleblowers are moving forward with their lawsuit in Travis County after another judge cleared the way, asking the Austin-based court to force the attorney general and his top aides to sit for depositions.

The whistleblower lawyers filed a motion Tuesday to compel the depositions, calling it a last resort after they could not reach an agreement with lawyers for the Office of the Attorney General.

“OAG’s effort to resist these straightforward depositions is nothing more than a continuation of OAG’s cynical effort to deny Plaintiffs their right to access to the justice system,” the whistleblower lawyers wrote.

The whistleblower lawyers specifically want to take depositions from Paxton; Brent Webster, the first assistant attorney general; Lesley French Henneke, chief of staff at the agency; and Michelle Smith, Paxton’s longtime political aide. The lawyers proposed a schedule where Paxton is deposed Dec. 12, Webster on Dec. 14, Henneke on Dec. 18 and Smith on Dec. 20.

A lawyer for Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The whistleblower lawyers filed the motion a week after a district court judge in Burnet County gave the green light for the Travis County lawsuit to continue. Lawyers for Paxton’s office had sued the whistleblowers in nearby Burnet County to try to stop their lawsuit in Travis County, arguing they were breaking the terms of a tentative settlement agreement they struck in February. While the Burnet County judge, Evan Stubbs, first agreed to temporarily halt the Travis County case, he sided with the whistleblowers at the Nov. 14 hearing and allowed the case to proceed again.

The whistleblowers — Blake Brickman, Ryan Vassar, David Maxwell and Mark Penley — sued Paxton in 2020, arguing he improperly fired them after they reported him to the FBI. They alleged he was abusing his office to help a wealthy friend and donor, Nate Paul.

The whistleblowers almost settled with Paxton for $3.3 million in February, but the Texas House balked at using taxpayer dollars for it and decided to investigate the underlying claims. That led to Paxton’s impeachment in the House in May.

The Travis County lawsuit came back to life in September after the Texas Senate acquitted Paxton in his impeachment trial, which centered on similar claims of corruption by former top deputies in his office. After the acquittal, the whistleblowers asked the Texas Supreme Court to reinstate the case and it did, sending it back to Travis County for trial.

Shortly after the whistleblowers sought to restart work on the case in Travis County — giving notice they planned to take depositions of Paxton and the three aides — Paxton’s office filed suit in Burnet County.

In their latest filing, the whistleblowers’ lawyers say the Burnet County lawsuit was just the latest delay tactic by Paxton’s side in the 3-year-old case. The lawyers asked the Travis County court to compel the depositions so that the whistleblowers “may at long last pursue justice.”

If the whistleblowers’ motion is granted, it would be the first time Paxton would be required to answer questions under oath related to the allegations of bribery and corruption made against him. Paxton did not take the stand in his Senate trial in September.

While the Burnet County judge, Stubbs, allowed the Travis County case to restart last week, the more recent lawsuit in his court remains pending. Stubbs set a Dec. 14 hearing on a motion by the whistleblowers to change the venue to Travis County.

With the Travis County case revived, the whistleblowers have also asked for the court to assign it to a single judge. Their lawyers made the request in a filing last week, citing the “unusual characteristics” and “high-profile facts” involved.

Paxton's side has not made any recent filings in the Travis County case other than to submit a copy of the tentative settlement agreement. Lawyers for Paxton's office have been arguing that the case is already effectively resolved and that any further litigation goes against that.

The whistleblower lawyers made clear to the Travis County court in a second filing Tuesday that they strongly disagree. They noted the settlement depends on a number of things that still have not happened, including legislative approval of the $3.3 million.

"This case is not settled," the filing said, "and as the third anniversary of its filing has recently passed, the time has come to prepare the case for trial."

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

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

Campaign Action

TX appeals court weighing whether state bar can discipline Ken Paxton for challenging 2020 election

Texas appeals court weighing whether state bar can discipline Ken Paxton for challenging 2020 presidential election

By Joshua Fechter

The Texas Tribune

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

Whether the Texas State Bar can take away Attorney General Ken Paxton's law license could hinge on whether appellate justices believe the organization is trying to control what lawsuits he files on the state's behalf — or whether the group has the jurisdiction to punish him for pushing false theories in a lawsuit over the 2020 presidential election.

Lawyers for Paxton argued before a three-justice panel of the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals on Wednesday that the bar overstepped its bounds when it sued the attorney general last year for professional misconduct. A disciplinary committee for the State Bar of Texas, the organization that regulates law licenses in this state, alleged the attorney general made “dishonest” representations in a widely condemned lawsuit — quickly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court — that tried to throw out election results from former President Donald Trump’s 2020 loss in four battleground states.

Paxton’s lawyers argue that, by suing him, the bar is “attempting to control the Attorney General's decision going forward about what types of lawsuits to file, and what kinds of legal theories to pursue,” Lanora C. Pettit, principal deputy solicitor general, told justices Wednesday.

That argument drew skepticism from Justice Erin Nowell.

“That’s a big leap,” Nowell said.

Paxton’s unsuccessful attempt to intervene in four other states’ elections leaned heavily on discredited claims of election fraud in those swing states.

The Texas bar has argued its conduct rules for lawyers apply to Paxton, too.

“The underlying attorney discipline case here is about ethics,” Michael Graham, an attorney representing the state bar, told justices. “The substantive questions at the heart of that attorney discipline case, like any other, have nothing to do with politics or anything else. They have everything to do with whether an attorney is engaged in professional misconduct and, if so, what's the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that misconduct?”

A Collin County judge hasn’t ruled on the merits of the case but sided with the bar earlier this year when he ruled the group has the ability to sue — a decision Paxton quickly appealed. The appeals court is weighing whether to reverse the lower court's ruling, but did not rule Wednesday.

The bar’s actions raise questions about whether any elected official who is also a lawyer could have their law license threatened if a member of the public doesn’t agree with them, Justice Emily Miskel said — with which Graham disagreed.

“General Paxton, for instance, has been Attorney General for almost a decade now, and to my knowledge, there's not a raft of complaints or attorney disciplinary actions against him for filing suits,” Graham said.

But there might be if the bar is successful, Miskel said.

“If it's effective, then everybody should (file a grievance against) any elected official who happens to be a lawyer because it's a great way to get a second bite at the apple of a policy decision you don't like,” Miskel said.

That may be the case, Graham said, but such a complaint would still have to pass muster with the bar.

If the bar prevails, Paxton could face punishment anywhere from a reprimand to full disbarment and the loss of his law license.

The bar’s attempt to discipline Paxton is among several legal battles he’s waging. The Texas Senate acquitted Paxton in September on 16 articles of impeachment alleging bribery and corruption. But Paxton is expected to go to trial in April on state securities fraud charges eight years after he was first indicted on those charges.

He also faces a federal investigation into claims by former top staffers that he abused his office to help Austin real estate magnate Nate Paul, a friend and donor — claims that formed the basis of impeachment allegations against the attorney general. And on Tuesday, a Burnet County judge said those former employees’ lawsuit against the attorney general could proceed.

Disclosure: The State Bar of Texas has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

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

The businessman at the center of Ken Paxton’s impeachment charged with new federal crimes

By Zach Despart 

The Texas Tribune

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

Nate Paul, the Austin real estate investor whose relationship with Attorney General Ken Paxton was central to his September impeachment trial, was charged with new crimes by federal prosecutors on Wednesday.

The U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas filed an amended indictment charging Paul, 36, with four counts of wire fraud related to allegations that he lied to business partners who invested in real estate with his company, World Class Holdings, and its affiliates.

They are in addition to the eight felony counts prosecutors filed in June, which allege that Paul provided false information to financial institutions in order to obtain loans to purchase properties.

Paul’s attorney, David Gerger, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Paul’s trial is scheduled for July of 2024.

Neither of the indictments mention Paxton, who was acquitted by the Texas Senate of 16 articles of impeachment in September.

Paul and Paxton met sometime before 2020, though the origins of their friendship remain unclear. Seven former senior aides to Paxton reported the attorney general to the FBI in September 2020, concerned that his friendship with Paul included corruption and bribery.

They alleged that Paxton abused his office by helping Paul investigate and harass business rivals, delay foreclosure sales of his properties and procure confidential records on the police investigating him.

During this time, Paul’s business empire — which he once told a reporter was worth $1 billion — was faltering. In 2020 alone, 18 of Paul’s properties filed for bankruptcy.

The claims of the whistleblowers, who either quit within weeks of their report or were fired by Paxton, became the basis of the Texas House’s vote in May to impeach Paxton. The House members leading investigation argued that in return for those favors, Paul paid to renovate Paxton’s home and helped him pursue and cover up an extramarital affair with a former Senate staffer.

During the impeachment trial, whistleblowers testified they believed Paul to be a criminal and were concerned that Paxton was essentially turning the keys of the office over to him.

In the new filing, prosecutors said Paul repeatedly misled partners about how he was using partnership funds, a deception furthered by overstating the balances of partnership accounts.

“During his career in commercial real estate, Paul has repeatedly engaged in deception to persuade individuals and organizations to entrust money to him, and he has used the money to enrich himself and expand the commercial real estate businesses that he controls,” the indictment states.

The indictment lists six businesses as victims; three in Texas and one each in Florida, Colorado and North Carolina. The government is seeking to seize $172 million and any properties connected to Paul’s alleged criminal conduct.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

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

Campaign Action

Morning Digest: Double-bunked Alabama incumbents vie to prove who’s the most extreme

The Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir, Jeff Singer, and Stephen Wolf, with additional contributions from the Daily Kos Elections team.

Subscribe to The Downballot, our weekly podcast

Leading Off

AL-01, AL-02: Rep. Barry Moore announced Monday that he'd take on fellow incumbent Jerry Carl in the March Republican primary for Alabama's revamped 1st District, a declaration that comes almost a month after a federal court approved a new map that makes Moore's old 2nd District all but unwinnable for his party. The 1st remains centered around the Mobile area but lost nearly all of the city itself and now includes the rural Wiregrass region in the state's southeastern corner.

Moore, who unlike Carl belongs to the far-right House Freedom Caucus, used a new interview with the conservative site 1819 News to try to position himself as the ideologically purer choice. After noting that redistricting made Carl's already safely red 1st District even more Republican, Moore argued, "Me being a House Freedom Caucus guy, I realized at that point the district really needs a true, true conservative to represent it."

But Carl, who is much closer to his party's leadership, was not content to let this narrative take hold. "Bring it on," he said in a statement. "I have a proven track record of putting Alabama first every day and delivering conservative results for Alabama's First Congressional District." Carl finished September with a $870,000 to $650,000 advantage in cash on hand. He also represents 59% of the population of the redrawn district to Moore's 41%. (Each incumbent's section of the new 2nd is comparably conservative, with both having given about 75% of the vote to Donald Trump, and the two regions saw similar turnout.)

It's possible, though, that the Club for Growth could come to Moore's aid. The hard-line anti-tax group spent over $700,000 on ads to boost him in his first successful campaign for Congress in 2020, when he came from behind to handily win the GOP primary runoff after Rep. Martha Roby retired. (Moore himself challenged Roby for renomination two years before, but he ended up taking third place in that primary.)

The Club also sought to influence that year's race in the 1st District, which was also open thanks to Rep. Bradley Byrne's unsuccessful Senate bid, and spent $1.4 million in an attempt to thwart Carl. But Carl managed to squeeze past state Sen. Bill Hightower 52-48. The Club didn't commit to anything on Monday, however, merely telling AL.com that its "endorsement process is confidential and we have nothing to announce at this time."

Moore, who previously served in the state House, also used his announcement to remind 1819 News that Monday marked nine years since a jury found him not guilty of perjury in connection with a corruption investigation targeting Mike Hubbard, who had been speaker of the state House. "I became a conservative who was attacked by the swamp itself, but it was the Montgomery swamp at that time," he said of that trial. "That was the thing that changed the trajectory of my life that we felt we were called into this fight."

Both Carl and Moore voted against recognizing Joe Biden's win in the hours after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, but Moore went even further in promoting extremism that weekend. "[I]t was a Black police officer who shot the white female veteran," Moore tweeted of rioter Ashli Babbit, who was fatally shot attempting to breach a hallway adjacent to the House chamber. Moore went on to propose legislation this year to designate the AR-15 the "National Gun of America" and later spoke at a CPAC Hungary event headlined by autocratic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Senate

NJ-Sen: The New Jersey Globe reports that state First Lady Tammy Murphy plans to file FEC paperwork this week for a potential Democratic primary bid against indicted incumbent Bob Menendez and that her announcement "could come sometime in the next few weeks." The contest already includes Democratic Rep. Andy Kim, who launched his bid the day after federal prosecutors indicted Menendez on corruption charges.

House

AL-02: State Sen. Kirk Hatcher and state Rep. Napoleon Bracy on Monday became the first notable Democrats to announce that they would run for the redrawn 2nd District, which will be open because GOP Rep. Barry Moore is campaigning for the 1st. (See our AL-01, AL-02 item above.) Hatcher also told AL.com that he anticipated that Montgomery Mayor Steven Reed would support him rather than run himself, something that the Alabama Reporter’s Josh Moon also reported would happen earlier Monday.

Hatcher hails from Montgomery, while Bracy represents the Mobile suburb of Prichard. Hatcher argued to Moon, "It’s been 40 or 41 years since the whole of Montgomery has been represented in Congress by someone who lives in Montgomery." He also criticized several prospective candidates who hail from north of the 2nd, declaring, "I know them and I think they’re fine people. But we would not go into Birmingham or to Huntsville. We have people who can represent this area."  

Bracy, whose community is in the new 2nd, didn't emphasize geography in his declaration, though he told AL.com, "This district is made up of so many cities, communities, and neighborhoods just like the one I grew up in—places hurting with high poverty and crime rates, unemployment that just don’t have a lot of opportunities, some of it is because they’ve been overlooked."

CA-20: Businessman David Giglio, a Republican who took fourth in last year's top-two primary for the neighboring 13th District, announced Monday that he'd wage an intraparty bid against Rep. Kevin McCarthy. The incumbent said he planned to seek reelection to this safely red seat days after his speakership came to an involuntary end, though Politico notes that there's still plenty of talk he could retire or resign.

Giglio last cycle raised $500,000 and self-funded another $340,000 for his quest for the open 13th, though he ended up taking back $130,000 of his loan. But Giglio didn't come close to displacing John Duarte as the main GOP candidate: Duarte took 34% to Democrat Adam Gray's 31%, while Democrat Phil Arballo edged out Giglio 17-15 for the honor of taking third. Duarte went on to narrowly defeat Gray, who along with Arballo is seeking a rematch this cycle.

Giglio, however, is focusing on his new rival's failure rather than his own. "Kevin McCarthy was removed as Speaker by 8 courageous members of his own party for failing to keep his promises and capitulating to Joe Biden and the radical Democrats," Giglio declared in a statement. "Kevin McCarthy must be defeated."

IL-17: Farmer Scott Crowl, who previously led an affiliate of the labor group AFSCME, declared last week that he would seek the GOP nod to take on freshman Democratic Rep. Eric Sorensen. Crowl entered the contest weeks after retired local judge Joe McGraw launched his own campaign for a north-central Illinois constituency that favored Joe Biden 53-45.

The Pentagraph previously wrote that McGraw has the NRCC's support, while Crowl says he's campaigning "against the establishment." He told the Quad Cities Times, "If the establishment was so good at picking candidates I wouldn’t be running today."

MO-01, MO-Sen: St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell announced Monday that he would challenge Rep. Cori Bush in the Democratic primary rather than continue his longshot campaign to unseat Republican Sen. Josh Hawley. Missouri's 1st District, which includes St. Louis and its northern suburbs, supported Joe Biden 78-20, so whoever wins the Democratic nod next August should have no trouble in the general election.

Bush won a major upset in 2020 when she defeated 20-year incumbent Lacy Clay in the Democratic primary and swiftly became one of the House's most visible progressives. Now, however, her outspoken views on police funding and Israel are helping to fuel Bell's bid.

The congresswoman has spent her two terms in office as an ardent critic of Israel's government. Following Hamas' deadly invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, Bush released a statement that sparked criticism from both fellow members of Congress and Jewish organizations.

"As part of achieving a just and lasting peace," she said the day of the attack, "we must do our part to stop this violence and trauma by ending U.S. government support for Israeli military occupation and apartheid."

Bell joined Bush's critics in his Monday kickoff. "We can’t give aid and comfort to terrorists, and Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Bell also highlighted Bush's calls for defunding the police, arguing the cause was both wrong and helped the Republicans flip the House last year.

Bush's team, meanwhile, responded to Bell's entry with a statement emphasizing her progressive views and questioning her opponent's decision. "It is disheartening that Prosecuting Attorney Bell has decided to abandon his US Senate campaign to become Missouri's first Black Senator after less than five months, and has instead decided to target Missouri's first Black Congresswoman," she said in a statement.

While both candidates hold prominent positions in local politics, both of them will be starting this matchup with little money. Bush finished September with just $20,000 in the bank, a smaller war chest than any House incumbent seeking reelection.

Bell, though, did not inspire many donors during his Senate campaign. The prosecutor, who was overshadowed in the primary by Marine veteran Lucas Kunce, took in just $280,000 during his two quarters in the race. He ended last month with $90,000 banked, funds that he can use for his new bid.

 OR-03: Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer told Willamette Week on Monday that he would not seek reelection to the seat he first won in a 1996 special election, saying, “I’m not certain that two more years in Congress in this climate is the best way to deal with things I care about.” Oregon’s 3rd District, which is based in the eastern Portland area, favored Joe Biden 73-25, and whoever takes a plurality in the May 21 Democratic primary should have no trouble in the general election.

We’ll have more in our next Digest about the race to succeed Blumenauer, who told The Oregonian, “There are literally a dozen people salivating at the prospect of getting in this race,” as well as the congressman’s long career.

TX-32: State Rep. Rhetta Bowers announced Monday that she was exiting the Democratic primary and would instead seek reelection to the legislature after all. Bowers launched a campaign in mid-September to replace Democratic Senate candidate Colin Allred months after she said she'd run for reelection rather than seek a promotion, but she raised a mere $25,000 during what remained of the quarter.

House: Politico writes that the Congressional Leadership Fund and Club for Growth will stick with the January agreement they made to persuade far-right members to support Kevin McCarthy even though Mike Johnson now sits in the chair. The terms were as follows: CLF said it "will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts" or fund any other groups that would, while the Club agreed to endorse McCarthy's speakership bid.

Attorneys General

TX-AG: A judge on Monday scheduled Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton's trial for April 15, which will be close to nine years after he was charged with securities fraud.

Paxton has been reelected twice while under indictment, and while he was suspended from office in May when the state House impeached him in a different matter, the upper chamber acquitted him last month. Special prosecutor Kent Schaffer unsubtly highlighted how Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick received $3 million from a pro-Paxton organization before presiding over his trial, declaring, "Unlike the impeachment, this is going to be a fair trial. This judge is not corrupt. This judge is not on the take."

If Paxton is forced from office this time, GOP Gov. Greg Abbott would nominate a successor; this person would require the support of two-thirds of the Senate in order to be confirmed.

Ballot Measures

OH Ballot: Public Policy Polling's new survey of next week's election for former Ohio Democratic Party chair David Pepper finds a strong 55-38 majority in favor of Issue 1, which is described to respondents as a state constitutional amendment "which would protect reproductive freedom and an individual right to one's own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion."

Pepper writes that this summary "approximates the first sentences voters will read on the ballot but doesn't get into all the details that appear later." Those details include ballot summary language written by the GOP-led Ohio Ballot Board that, among other things, substitutes the words "unborn child" in place of "fetus." Pepper argues, "I believe that all the attack ads and disinformation have made this narrower in reality" than what the toplines show even though the numbers demonstrate that "Ohio remains a pro-choice state."

The only other poll we've seen this month was conducted by Baldwin Wallace University and SurveyUSA in mid-October, and it also found a 58-34 majority in favor of Issue 1. The description provided in that poll said that the proposed amendment "would protect the right to reproductive freedom, including "access to contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one's own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion," as well as "allow the state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability, unless 'it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health.'"

PPP also shows voters backing Issue 2, a statutory measure to legalize recreational marijuana, 59-39, which is comparable to the 57-35 edge BWU and SurveyUSA found. PPP additionally quizzed voters about the proposed 2024 amendment to "create an independent commission, made up of Ohio citizens and not politicians, to draw fair congressional and state legislative district lines," and respondents say they'd support it 57-15.

Ad Roundup

Attorney General Ken Paxton’s long-delayed securities fraud trial set

By Patrick Svitek 

The Texas Tribune

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

Attorney General Ken Paxton’s long-delayed trial on securities fraud charges has been set for April 15.

State District Judge Andrea Beall scheduled the trial during a hearing Monday morning in Houston. Paxton attended the hearing but did not speak at it.

Paxton was indicted on the charges over eight years ago, months into his first term as the state’s top law enforcement official. The charges stem from accusations that in 2011 he tried to solicit investors in a McKinney technology company without disclosing that it was paying him to promote its stock. Paxton has pleaded not guilty.

The trial is a reminder that Paxton's legal problems persist even after the Texas Senate acquitted him last month in an impeachment trial on unrelated allegations. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick presided over that trial and has faced intense criticism for taking $3 million from a pro-Paxton group in the lead-up to the trial.

"Unlike the impeachment, this is going to be a fair trial," special prosecutor Kent Schaffer told reporters after the hearing. "This judge is not corrupt. This judge is not on the take."

The hearing was brief and did not settle one lingering pretrial issue: how much the special prosecutors should get paid. The judge also scheduled a February pretrial conference.

Paxton's lawyer Philip Hilder told reporters his side was "gratified" with the trial date and criticized the special prosecutors for their focus on their pay.

"It's show-me-the-money," Hilder said. "It's all about the money to them."

The prosecutors say they have not been paid since January 2016. A Paxton supporter filed a lawsuit challenging their fee schedule in the early months of the case, and both sides have been wrangling over the issue ever since.

The trial has been delayed for years over a number of pretrial disputes, including the prosecutors' pay and the venue. The case began in Paxton’s native Collin County but was moved to more neutral territory in Harris County at the prosecution’s urging.

Paxton faces two counts of securities fraud, a first-degree felony with a punishment of up to 99 years in prison. Paxton also faces one count of failing to register with state securities regulators, a third-degree felony with a maximum of 10 years in prison.

The impeachment trial centered on different allegations of bribery and malfeasance made by former top deputies in his office. When the House impeached Paxton in May, it included multiple articles of impeachment related to the securities case, but the Senate set those aside for the trial and dismissed them afterward.

While the prosecutors emphasized they expect a fairer trial than the one the Senate conducted, Hilder declined to draw any comparisons. The impeachment trial "was unrelated to what we're defending against," Hilder said.

The impeachment articles focused on allegations that Paxton misused his office to help his friend investigate claims that he was being targeted by federal and local law enforcement, in exchange for favors that included giving a job to a woman with whom he was having an affair.

While the Senate's acquittal was a political triumph for the third-term Republican, Paxton still has significant legal issues. In addition to the securities fraud case, he faces a federal investigation into the claims by his former top staffers, who allege he abused his office to help a friend and donor, Nate Paul.

In the securities fraud case, the prosecutors' pay may be the last major pending issue before the trial. In 2018, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the fee agreement, arguing that it fell outside legal limits for what such attorneys may be paid. The court ordered a previous Harris County judge overseeing the case to come up with a new payment schedule, but that never happened and the prosecutors have continued to go unpaid.

During the hearing Monday, Paxton lawyer Bill Mateja sought to propose an order addressing the pay issue from his side's perspective. But Beall repeatedly said she would decide on her own.

The judge did not indicate when she would make a ruling on the pay, according to one of the prosecutors, Brian Wice.

Wice said Paxton's lawyers are so focused on their pay because they have known "the only way to derail this prosecution was to defund it." Wice said he is owed "a lot" and Schaffer estimated he has "500 unpaid hours" dating back to 2016.

The prosecutors have previously raised the possibility they could withdraw from the case if they are not paid. Asked about that Monday, Schaffer said "we have to see what happens," while Wice promised he is "not going anywhere."

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune

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

Sign up to receive Daily Kos email action alerts

Conservative PAC leader’s meeting with white supremacist Nick Fuentes escalates GOP infighting

By Robert Downen 

The Texas Tribune

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

House Speaker Dade Phelan strongly condemned the leader of a major conservative PAC and demanded that elected officials — including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — return money they received from the group, one day after The Texas Tribune reported that it had recently hosted well-known white supremacist Nick Fuentes.

"This (is) not just a casual misstep,” Phelan said in a statement. “It’s indicative of the moral, political rot that has been festering in a certain segment of our party for far too long. Anti-Semitism, bigotry and Hitler apologists should find no sanctuary in the Republican party. Period. We cannot – and must not – tolerate the tacit endorsement of such vile ideologies.”

Shortly after, Patrick denounced Fuentes and anti-semitism, but accused Phelan — whose statement noted Hamas' attack on Israel on Saturday — of exploiting the war for “his own political gain.” He called on Phelan to resign as speaker before 1 p.m. on Monday, when the Texas House is expected to gavel in for a special session on school vouchers and other contentious legislation. Patrick's statement did not mention Stickland — or his ties to and financial support from Stickland's PAC.

Campaign Action

The Tribune reported Sunday that Jonathan Stickland, the leader of Defend Texas Liberty PAC and a related consulting firm, Pale Horse Strategies, hosted Fuentes outside Fort Worth for nearly 7 hours on Friday. Fuentes is an avowed admirer of Adolf Hitler, has called for “holy war” against Jews and said that "all I want is revenge against my enemies and a total Aryan victory.”

Acting on a tip, a Tribune reporter and photographer observed Fuentes and others — including Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of homicide after killing two Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020 — enter the one-story office of Pale Horse Strategies near Fort Worth. Republican Party of Texas Chair Matt Rinaldi also was inside the office for about 45 minutes, though Rinaldi told the Tribune that he had no idea that Fuentes was there, condemned him outright and said he wouldn’t meet with him “in a million years.”

Defend Texas Liberty is funded by two West Texas oil billionaires — Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks — who are also Attorney General Ken Paxton’s biggest donors. Earlier this year, the group made headlines after it gave $3 million in loans and donations to Patrick ahead of Paxton’s impeachment trial in the Texas Senate, over which Patrick presided.

Phelan — who has long been at odds with Patrick — directly called out Patrick in his statement, which comes as tension between the two have escalated to new heights in the wake of Paxton’s impeachment trial. Phelan also demanded Monday that “any elected official” who has received money from Defend Texas Liberty or its affiliated organizations “to immediately redirect every single cent of those contributions to a charitable organization of his or her choice.”

“Furthermore, I call upon elected officials and candidates to state unequivocally that they will not accept further contributions, including in-kind contributions, from the Defend Texas Liberty PAC,” Phelan said. “Recently, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick took $3 million from this organization. I expect him to lead the way in redirecting these funds.”

Phelan also called on the Texas GOP, which has taken $132,500 this election cycle, and Rinaldi to donate funds from Defend Texas Liberty even “if doing so would take the party into the red.”

Phelan continued, drawing a direct line between Fuentes’ visit to Texas and the violence that broke out in Israel over the weekend.

“The Republican Party, at its core, champions freedom, democracy, and shared values with nations like Israel,” he said. “...Every single elected official or candidate who has received funding from the Defend Texas Liberty PAC must publicly disavow their toxic affiliation."

Paxton and Rinaldi could not be immediately reached for comment.

Patrick, meanwhile, did not say whether he would return the $3 million given to him by Defend Texas Liberty. In the statement, he slammed Phelan for what he called a “disgusting, despicable, and disingenuous” political stunt.

“Nick Fuentes and his antisemitic rhetoric have no place in the United States. Those who spew such vile, loathsome, abominations will have to answer for it,” Patrick said. “For anyone to try to use these invectives for their own political gain is below contempt. I am calling on Dade Phelan to resign his position before the House gavels in this afternoon.”

Since 2021, Defend Texas Liberty has given nearly $15 million to ultraconservative candidates as it tries to unseat fellow Republicans, including Phelan, who it argues are not conservative enough. The group is a key part of a network of nonprofits, media companies, campaigns and institutions that Dunn and the Wilks brothers have given more than $100 million to push their ultraconservative religious and anti-LGBTQ+ views.

Phelan meanwhile is at least the second Republican to call on others to return donations. On Sunday, Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco,said his fellow conservatives should publicly donate funds from Defend Texas Liberty “or their astroturf groups” to an “Israel-supporting charity.”

“Unfortunately, this isn’t unbelievable,” he said in response to the Tribune’s reporting.

Campaign finance records show that in 2022, Defend Texas Liberty donated more than $5 million to candidates who challenged more moderate, incumbent Republicans. Most of that money went to Don Huffines, a real estate developer and former state senator who unsuccessfully challenged Gov. Greg Abbott in the Republican primary.

Defend Texas Liberty has also bankrolled some of the most conservative members of the Legislature, including Reps. Tony Tinderholt of Arlington and Bryan Slaton of Royse City. Slaton was ousted from the Texas House in May after House investigators found that he gave alcohol to a 19-year-old aide and then had sex with her.

Fuentes’ visit to Pale Horse comes as the far-right of the Texas GOP continues to elevate extreme rhetoric, figures and conspiracy theories amid an ongoing civil was with Phelan and other more establishment members, and as antisemitism and hate crimes continue to skyrocket in the state and nationally.

Despite his open adoration for Hitler and his violent rhetoric, Fuentes has not been entirely cast out of right-wing circles. Hard-right Republicans, including U.S. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona, have spoken at Fuentes’ annual conference alongside avowed white supremacists.

Fuentes’ acolytes have also been employed in powerful positions in the GOP. In July, the presidential campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis fired a staffer after it was revealed that he created and then shared a pro-DeSantis video that featured a Nazi sonnenrad. And, earlier this year, Ella Maulding moved from Mississippi to Fort Worth to work as a social media coordinator for Pale Horse Strategies.

Maulding has praised Fuentes as ”the greatest civil rights leader in history,” and her social media is replete with references to “white genocide” — a foundational ideology for neo-Nazi and other violent extremist movements.

Maulding was observed for several hours at the Friday meeting with Fuentes, and she spent some time outside recording a video for Texans For Strong Borders in which she called on Texas lawmakers to crack down on immigration when they meet for a special legislative session beginning Monday.

Texans for Strong Borders wants to stem both legal and illegal immigration. Its founder, Chris Russo, was seen driving Fuentes to the Friday meeting at Pale Horse Strategies.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

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

Ken Paxton to file criminal complaints against Texas House impeachment managers

By Alejandro Serrano

The Texas Tribune

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

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Monday he plans to file criminal complaints against the group of state representatives who led the impeachment against him for releasing his personal information.

“The impeachment managers clearly have a desire to threaten me with harm when they released this information last week,” he said in a statement. “I'm imploring their local prosecutors in each individual district to investigate the criminal offenses that have been committed.”

The 12 House representatives being targeted by Paxton led the impeachment trial in the Senate after the House overwhelmingly voted to impeach Paxton in May. Last month the Senate acquitted Paxton of 16 articles of impeachment that alleged corruption and bribery.

In a statement Monday, Paxton accused the House impeachment managers of violating a new state law with an Oct. 2 release of documents related to the case. The new legislation cited by Paxton prohibits posting an individual’s personal information such as a home address or telephone number with the intent to cause harm to that individual or their family.

Campaign Action

Paxton said he plans to file the criminal complaints in each of the eight counties represented by the dozen impeachment managers. It is not clear which address is in question. Several of Paxton's addresses are available through already-published public records, often found online from any location through local municipalities' appraisal district databases.

House lawyer Rusty Hardin, who prosecuted Paxton, said Monday that the documents released last week contained the same information that was included in other documents that had already been filed or were admitted into the impeachment trial without objection.

He also said that the information about Paxton's residence is available through public records, and has been for years. Further, he said the release of documents was not conducted with an intent to cause harm to Paxton as he alleged — it was "simply a repeat of public information to anyone that wants to look into it."

If Paxton makes good on his pledge to file the criminal complaints, Hardin said his Houston law firm will consider countering with a criminal complaint against Paxton for making a false report to police.

"This is the exact kind of bullying, uninformed vengeful act that we predicted if the attorney general was not impeached," Hardin said. "He's trying to misuse the criminal justice system to cower and punish people who sought to impeach him under the law. It's just one more outrageous, vengeful act by a man who has no business being attorney general."

This is a developing story.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

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

Lawsuit by Attorney General Ken Paxton’s accusers can continue, Texas Supreme Court rules

Lawsuit by Attorney General Ken Paxton’s accusers can continue, Texas Supreme Court rules

By Patrick Svitek 

The Texas Tribune

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

The Texas Supreme Court has sided with former top deputies of Attorney General Ken Paxton and cleared the way for their whistleblower lawsuit to move forward.

The all-Republican Supreme Court on Friday rejected Paxton’s request to dismiss the lawsuit after the case had been on pause pending a possible settlement with the whistleblowers. The decisions came four days after the whistleblowers asked the court to reinstate the case — and about two weeks after Paxton was acquitted in his impeachment trial before the Texas Senate.

The lawsuit will return to a Travis County trial court.

"We are looking forward to obtaining a trial setting and to preparing this case for trial as soon as possible,” the whistleblowers' lawyers said in a statement.

Four whistleblowers sued the attorney general's office in 2020 for wrongful termination and retaliation after they reported Paxton to the FBI, alleging he abused his office to help a friend and donor, Nate Paul. They almost settled with the attorney general’s office for $3.3 million earlier this year — until Texas House investigators, concerned about using taxpayer dollars for the settlement, started probing the lawsuit’s claims and recommended Paxton’s impeachment.

Campaign Action

The series of events effectively froze the case at the Texas Supreme Court. But on Monday, the whistleblowers held a news conference to announce that they were asking the high court to jump start their case in light of Paxton’s acquittal.

“The political trial is over, and it’s time for the case to return to a real court,” whistleblower Blake Brickman said Monday.

Paxton’s office declined to comment on the news conference, saying only that its lawyers would respond in court. But it appears they did not file a reply prior to Friday’s ruling.

Brickman is a plaintiff in the lawsuit with three other former Paxton deputies: Ryan Vassar, David Maxwell and Mark Penley. The four fired deputies testified as prosecution witnesses at Paxton’s impeachment trial.

The Supreme Court provided no explanation for its decision Friday, noting only that Paxton’s petition for review was denied with Justice Evan Young not participating.

The case reached the Texas Supreme Court in early 2022, after a state appeals court and the trial judge rejected pretrial attempts by Paxton’s agency to dismiss the lawsuit.

The Texas Whistleblower Act protects state workers from retaliation by other employees for reporting potential crimes to law enforcement. Paxton has argued his agency acted properly because it has the right to fire employees “at will” and because the whistleblower law does not apply to Paxton because he is an elected official, not a “public employee.”

“Like the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and members of this Court, he is an elected officer, chosen by the people of Texas to exercise sovereign authority on their behalf,” Paxton’s office said in its petition for review to the Supreme Court.

Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday’s ruling.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

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