Category: KenPaxton

Dan Patrick defends taking $3 million from pro-Paxton group ahead of trial

Posted on by Texas Tribune

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.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has defended taking $3 million from a group supporting Ken Paxton in the lead-up to the attorney general’s impeachment trial that Patrick presided over as judge.

Patrick said in a TV interview published Wednesday that the controversy over the funding ignored that he took just as much from “the other side,” including donors aligned with Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which Paxton has declared as a political enemy. Patrick gave the explanation, which was heavily caveated, in an interview four days after his Senate voted to acquit Paxton.

“[The $3 million] got headlines because people wanted to make it a headline … but I also raised almost the same amount of money from people who may not be anti-Paxton, but they weren’t out there being pro-Paxton,” Patrick said in the interview with WFAA, the ABC affiliate in Dallas. “There are a few exceptions, because some of the people supporting TLR also supported Ken Paxton.”

The funding in question came in late June, when statewide officials and state lawmakers had a 12-day window to raise money before the first reporting deadline since the regular legislative session. Patrick reported a $1 million donation and $2 million from Defend Texas Liberty PAC, a group that had led the charge to attack House Republicans who voted to impeach Paxton. A leader with the PAC later threatened political revenge against any senator who sided against Paxton in his trial.

The money grabbed attention because the Senate was gearing up for the trial at the time — the chamber approved trial rules June 21 — and Patrick had little need for the money. He is not up for reelection until 2026, he already had over $16 million in the bank as of last year, and he had also never gotten nearly as much money from Defend Texas Liberty before.

Patrick declined to comment on the $3 million in pro-Paxton money when it became public. A day earlier, he had issued a sweeping gag order ahead of the trial.

While Patrick did raise roughly $3 million more on the same fundraising report, it is difficult to verify how much was actually from the “other side” in the Paxton trial. TLR is a powerful tort reform group that has become synonymous with the GOP establishment in Austin; it heavily funded one of Paxton’s 2022 primary challengers and had urged senators to reject pretrial motions to dismiss his impeachment case.

TLR itself only gave $25,000 on Patrick’s latest campaign finance report, while its co-founder, Richard Weekley, gave $50,000.

It is true that some of Patrick’s biggest donors in late June — beside Defend Texas Liberty — were also aligned with TLR. For example, Patrick received $150,000 from real estate developer Ross Perot Jr., who had cut a $1 million check to TLR less than two months earlier.

But some of Patrick’s largest donors beyond Defend Texas Liberty were also not TLR allies. Patrick got $100,000 from Midland oilman Douglas Scharbauer, who has not given anything to TLR this year, according to the latest records. Furthermore, Scharbauer was Paxton’s second largest individual donor on the attorney general’s late June report, the first since he was impeached.

Patrick’s invoking of TLR was notable given that Paxton has pilloried the group as a force behind his impeachment. They have denied any involvement in initiating it.

Patrick backed up TLR as he sought to explain the money he got from the “other side.”

“I don’t believe they were involved in this at all, but they’re seen as, They wanted a trial and they supported other people against Ken Paxton, so anybody supporting TLR, would be thought to be [anti-Paxton],” Patrick said. “I know that’s not the case. They all weren’t.”

Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Ross Perot Jr. have been financial supporters 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.

Ken Paxton acquittal could quiet future whistleblowers, experts say

Posted on by Texas Tribune

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’ government code is clear: A public employee is entitled to compensation if they face retaliation after making an accusation in good faith that their employing agency or a government official violated the law.

Reality may not be as clear.

The impeachment acquittal of Attorney General Ken Paxton last week renewed attention on a whistleblower lawsuit filed by four men who were fired from top jobs in the attorney general’s office after they told authorities that Paxton improperly used the agency to help a friend and political donor.

The former employees and Paxton negotiated a settlement earlier this year. It would have awarded them $3.3 million and required the attorney general to apologize. But state lawmakers balked at having to pay that bill — and launched a far-reaching inquiry into how Paxton ran the office. In May, the House overwhelmingly voted to impeach Paxton. Last week, the Senate refused to convict him, returning Paxton to the helm of the agency.

Now legal experts and political observers worry the impeachment proceedings and acquittal — plus the vows of political retribution against lawmakers who voted to oust Paxton — will have a chilling effect on state employees who witness what they believe to be wrongdoing and corruption. In short, some are concerned state workers will not want to report wrongdoing in the wake of Paxton’s acquittal.

“Even in cases where they actually might be successful but don’t have the same political context, the reality is that if you’re a whistleblower, at a very high level you saw a group of well-respected, conscientious whistleblowers go to the FBI only after they were unable to convince their boss that he was engaging in transgressions and the response of all this is that their names get dragged through the mud, they get fired,” Rice University political science professor Mark Jones said. “The lesson they’re going to draw from it is, ‘Why bother?’”

A request from Paxton to dismiss the whistleblowers’ lawsuit is currently pending before the state Supreme Court.

When the settlement was announced, Paxton said it would save taxpayers’ money.

But in closed-door meetings, the House General Investigating Committee panel began probing the whistleblowers’ claims to determine whether, in essence, the Legislature was being asked to participate in a cover-up. Ultimately, lawmakers did not earmark money to fund the agreement and the House voted to impeach Paxton upon the investigation’s conclusion.

Paxton and his former deputies could try to settle again, legal experts said, though Texas political observers said it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Legislature wants to fund such a settlement.

“This is yet another kind of legal quandary that Ken Paxton finds himself in,” University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus said. “The impeachment is separate from the civil lawsuits. It’s still the case that we could have him vindicated politically through impeachment but still be liable civilly.”

Legal quandaries have followed Paxton, a former state senator, for most of his stint as the state’s top lawyer. Months after taking office in 2015, he was indicted on state securities fraud charges. Since then, the case has been delayed by pretrial disputes.

Perhaps more serious to Paxton’s future is an ongoing federal investigation opened by the FBI in October 2020 when whistleblowers went to them with concerns their former boss had committed crimes that included bribery. No charges have been filed in relation to the alleged corruption, though the case reportedly reached a grand jury in San Antonio.

Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.

The whistleblowers’ claims were central to the impeachment. In impeaching Paxton in May, the House alleged he had abused his office by delaying foreclosure sales of Austin real estate investor Nate Paul’s properties, investigating and harassing Paul’s adversaries and attempting to get private police records for him. Paul allegedly gave a job to the woman with whom Paxton had an extramarital affair and paid to renovate Paxton’s home.

The impeachment acquittal did not affect the viability of those claims, said Mike Golden of the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law. As discouraging as the impeachment procedure may have been to would-be whistleblowers, Golden said, the public trial was filled with evidence that may be helpful in other settings — like a federal prosecution for corruption or abuse of office.

“There is a way that some whistleblowers might view all this attention as a positive,” Golden said. “Which is: Hey, we’re getting our message out. … We were able to tell our story live on television and explain why we thought we were wrongfully fired and why we thought that what we were doing was protecting the people of Texas, protecting the integrity of the office.”

However, the whistleblowers who sued Paxton remain without compensation. The attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The impeachment proceedings should have been independent of the question whether they were entitled to compensation, said Joe Knight, a lawyer who represents one of the four, Ryan Vassar.

“The whistleblowers’ statutory right to compensation got caught up in the whole political battle between the people who support Paxton, the people who don’t,” Knight said.

As he sees it, he said the Legislature passed the statute to encourage people to report wrongdoing, with lawmakers essentially telling potential whistleblowers “we will have your back.”

“That’s sort of the social contract that was made with all public employees to give them the courage to risk their careers and financial well being in reporting corruption. And in this case, that end of the bargain has so far not been upheld,” he added. “There is a grave risk to the future of our state government if that promise is not honored and if other employees realize, ‘If I report this corruption and then I get fired, there’s a chance that I get nothing.’”

Disclosure: Rice University, University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston have been financial supporters 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.

Donald Trump claims credit for saving Ken Paxton

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Matthew Choi 

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.

Former President Donald Trump is claiming credit for Attorney General Ken Paxton’s acquittal.

Posting on his Truth Social platform Monday, Trump claimed that his sporadic defenses on social media for his long-time ally helped sway the course of Paxton’s impeachment trial.

“Yes, it is true that my intervention through TRUTH SOCIAL saved Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from going down at the hands of Democrats and some Republicans, headed by PAUL RINO (Ryan), Karl Rove, and others, almost all of whom came back to reason when confronted with the facts,” Trump said, naming checking former U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan and former White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

Neither Republican had a formal role in the impeachment process, though Rove penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed prophesying Paxton’s demise.

Paxton was impeached over allegations that he abused his office to help Austin real estate investor Nate Paul in exchange for personal favors. The Texas House voted on a bipartisan basis to impeach Paxton in May.

But Paxton’s impeachment trial ended Saturday with acquittal on all 16 charges. Trump celebrated the verdict shortly after, praising Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presided over the Senate trial, and calling for the removal of Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan. Trump, who is the only twice-impeached president in U.S. history, dismissed the charges against Paxton as “political persecution.”

That was the former president’s only public statement about the impeachment during the Senate trial. When the House voted to impeach Paxton in May, Trump posted on his social media site denouncing the proceedings and promising to target Republicans who turned against Paxton.

Paxton and Trump have long been closely aligned on policy, with the attorney general leading a lawsuit in 2020 to challenge the results of that year’s election in Trump’s favor. The Supreme Court swiftly threw out the lawsuit.

Paxton has also led a host of lawsuits against the Biden administration, ranging from attempting to toss the Affordable Care Act to challenging the constitutionality of a federal funding package. Trump also endorsed Paxton in his 2022 reelection primary, even as other Republicans including former U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, and former Land Commissioner George P. Bush courted the former president’s support.

“Ken has been a great A.G., and now he can go back to work for the wonderful people of Texas. It was my honor to have helped correct this injustice!” Trump’s Monday post continued.

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’s impeachment trial escalates Texas Republican civil war

Posted on by Texas Tribune

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.

Hours after his acquittal in the Texas Senate, Attorney General Ken Paxton’s far-right supporters doubled down on their promises for swift retribution against fellow Republicans who supported his removal from office.

In particular, they vowed a scorched-earth campaign against House Speaker Dade Phelan, casting him as the ringleader responsible for the impeachment process and calling for him to resign immediately.

“You and your band of RINOs are now on notice,” Defend Texas Liberty PAC leader Jonathan Stickland tweeted at Phelan on Saturday, as voting continued in the Texas Senate. “You will be held accountable for this entire sham. We will never stop. Retire now.”

Paxton’s impeachment trial was the latest — and among the most consequential — battle in an ongoing civil war between the Texas GOP’s establishment members and a well-funded right wing that has for years claimed the party is insufficiently conservative.

Though the two factions generally agree on policy issues — and the Texas Legislature routinely leads the nation in passing socially conservative bills — the party’s far right has often accused members, specifically those in the Texas House, of partnering with Democrats to undermine conservative priorities.

Paxton has played a key role in that fight, and has used his office to back the issues favored by the state’s most conservative flank. In turn, he has received millions of dollars from ultraconservative donors such as oil tycoons Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, who have buoyed his campaigns as his legal woes mounted, approval ratings dropped and other, more establishment donors invested elsewhere.

After House Republicans took the lead to impeach Paxton in May, the state’s far right again rushed to his defense: They accused Phelan of being drunk while presiding over House business and promised high-price primary challenges to House Republicans who voted to suspend Paxton from office. They erected billboards, made documentaries and paid social media influencers to parrot pro-Paxton talking points. They compared him to twice-impeached former President Donald Trump, and argued the attorney general was the victim of a “witch hunt” orchestrated by, among others, the Bush family, Democrats and the deep state.

Paxton echoed that sentiment after the vote, saying in a statement that he was the victim of a “sham impeachment coordinated by the Biden Administration with liberal House Speaker Dade Phelan and his kangaroo court.”

And, within seconds of his acquittal, Paxton’s supporters began to attack the cast of characters that they believed were responsible.

“The Texas House owes all of Texas a big apology,” said Rep. Steve Toth, a Republican from the Woodlands and a member of the House’s Freedom Caucus, which threw its support behind Paxton. “This was a sham … This is terribly destructive to the Republican Party of Texas.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — who presided over the trial but had largely avoided discussing its merits — gave a blistering speech in which he condemned the House impeachment managers and Phelan, with whom Patrick has long been at odds over school-choice legislation and other conservative bills that did not make it out of the Texas House during this year’s legislative session.

Meanwhile, prominent conservatives — including Trump — excoriated “RINOs” in the House and called for Phelan’s resignation. Paxton’s acquittal, some argued, was proof that the far right was the Texas GOP’s true standard bearer. And they promised that dramatic changes would consequently follow.

“Speaker Dade Phelan and his leadership team should be embarrassed for putting Texas through the time and expense of this political sham of an impeachment,” Matt Rinaldi, the chair of the Republican Party of Texas, said in a statement. “We invite the House Republican Caucus to choose leadership moving forward who will unify a Republican coalition behind our common goals, instead of sharing power with Democrats.”

House Republicans responded in kind, framing Paxton as corrupt and blaming his acquittal on partisan politics in the other chamber.

At a press conference following the vote, Rep. Andrew Murr, a Junction Republican and chair of the House impeachment team, excoriated Republican senators and the “millions of dollars that Mr. Paxton’s apologists have spent to influence and intimidate Texas senators and Texas constituents.”

In a statement that echoed some of Murr’s disappointment and concerns, Phelan also blasted Patrick for his post-vote “tirade.”

“I find it deeply concerning that after weeks of claiming he would preside over this trial in an impartial and honest manner, Lt. Governor Patrick would conclude by confessing his bias and placing his contempt for the people’s house on full display,” Phelan said. “The inescapable conclusion is that today’s outcome appears to have been orchestrated from the start, cheating the people of Texas of justice.”

The animosity comes ahead of a special session — likely in October — over school choice legislation that has already turned into a lightning rod for conflict between Senate and House Republicans. For the past several legislative sessions, rural House Republicans have blocked voucher legislation favored by the Senate, and Phelan and Patrick also spent much of the summer warring over the details of their chambers’ respective property tax bills.

The possibility of an even deeper rift has already prompted some in the party to call for reconciliation, fearing a Pyrrhic victory for the winner of the escalating civil war.

“The radical and divisive nature of the situation in Texas now is going to cost us terribly,” former Amarillo Sen. Kel Seliger said in an interview. “And who is going to bring the party back together once we have really torn ourselves apart, once we’re done?”

Standing outside the Senate chamber on Saturday, Toth said he expects there to be “retribution” by voters for his fellow Republicans who supported Paxton’s impeachment. And he agreed that the party’s internecine conflict has no end in sight.

“It’s a mess,” he said.

Kate McGee contributed to this report.

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 was acquitted at his impeachment trial, but he still faces legal troubles

Posted on by Associated Press

For years, the powers and protections that come with being Texas’ top lawyer have helped Ken Paxton fend off ethics complains, criminal charges and an FBI investigation.

With the Texas Senate’s Saturday vote to acquit Paxton of corruption charges at his impeachment trial the Republican has once again demonstrated his rare political resilience. And he retains the shield of the attorney general's office in legal battles still to come.

After being cleared, Paxton, 60, thanked his lawyers for “exposing the absurdity” of the “false allegations” against him, and he promised to resume doing legal battle with the administration of President Joe Biden.

"The weaponization of the impeachment process to settle political differences is not only wrong, it is immoral and corrupt," he said in a statement. “Now that this shameful process is over, my work to defend our constitutional rights will resume.”

Back in office, Paxton nonetheless still faces serious risk on three fronts: an ongoing a federal investigation into the same allegations that led to his impeachment; a disciplinary proceeding over his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and felony securities fraud charges dating to 2015.

Here's what to know about each.

THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION

Paxton came under FBI investigation in 2020 when eight of his top deputies reported him for allegedly breaking the law to help a wealthy donor, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.

The former deputies' accusation that Paxton abused his power to help Paul were at the core of Paxton's impeachment. Lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives say it was the still-open question of funding a $3.3 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by four of the deputies that sparked the impeachment investigation.

Several of Paxton's former deputies took the witness stand against him. They recounted going to the FBI and testified that the attorney general tried to help Paul fend of a separate FBI investigation

They also testified that Paul employed a woman with whom Paxton had an extramarital affair. Another former employee, Drew Wicker, said Paxton second-in-command later discouraged him from speaking with the FBI.

Paul was indicted in June on charges of making false statements to banks. He has pleaded not guilty and was not called to testify at the impeachment trial.

The federal investigation of Paxton has dragged on for years and was shifted in February from a prosecutors in Texas to ones in Washington, D.C. In August, federal prosecutors began using a grand jury in San Antonio to examine Paxton and Paul's dealings, according to two people with knowledge of the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because of secrecy rules around grand jury proceedings.

One said the grand jury heard from Wicker, Paxton’s former personal aide. At the impeachment trial, Wicker testified that he once heard a contractor tell Paxton he would need to check with “Nate” about the cost of renovations to the attorney general’s Austin home.

Paxton has consistently denied wrongdoing. One of his defense attorneys, Dan Cogdell, acknowledged in August that authorities were still interviewing witnesses but said the “case will go nowhere at the end of the day.”

THE SECURITIES FRAUD CASE

In 2015, Paxton was indicted on charges of defrauding investors in a Dallas-area tech startup by not disclosing he was being paid by the company, called Servergy, to recruit them. He faces five to 99 years in prison if convicted and has pleaded not guilty.

The indictments were handed up just months after Paxton was sworn in as attorney general. He won second and third terms despite them.

Paxton's trial has been delayed by legal debate over whether it should be heard in the Dallas area or Houston, changes in which judge would handle it and a protracted battle over how much the special prosecutors should get paid.

Weeks after the Republican-led Texas House voted to impeach Paxton, the state's high criminal court ruled his trial would proceed in Houston. The judge overseeing it said in August that she would set a trial date after the impeachment trial.

Cogdell said that month that if Paxton were removed from office it would open the possibility of him making a plea agreement in the case.

THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING

Also on hold during Paxton's impeachment trial was an ethics case brought by the state bar.

In 2020, Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to, effectively, overturn then-President Donald Trump's electoral defeat by Joe Biden based on bogus claims of fraud. The high court threw out the request.

Afterward, the State Bar of Texas received a series of complaints alleging that Paxton and a deputy had committed processional misconduct with the suit. The bar didn't initially take up the complaints but later launched an investigation.

Last year, the bar sued seeking unspecified discipline for Paxton and his second-in-command, alleging they were “dishonest" with the Supreme Court.

Paxton dismissed the bar's suits as “meritless” political attacks. The attorney general's office has argued that because it is an executive branch agency and the bar is part of the judicial branch, the cases run afoul of separation of powers under the state constitution.

A judge overseeing the bar's case against the deputy, Brent Webster, accepted this argument. But he was reversed on appeal in July. That month, another court scheduled arguments in the disciplinary case against Paxton only to delay them when it became clear they would fall in the middle of his impeachment trial.

The attorney general's office continued to defend Paxton in the case even after he was suspended from office. If he's found to have violated ethics rules, Paxton faces the prospect of disbarment, suspension, or a lesser punishments.

At impeachment, lawyer recounts Texas AG Ken Paxton supervising his investigation into FBI and judge

Posted on by Associated Press

A junior lawyer testifying at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial said Tuesday that he kept Paxton informed through encrypted communications of every step he took in launching a criminal investigation into law enforcement officials at the behest of one of the attorney general's wealthy donors.

The testimony on the sixth day of the historic proceeding addresses a central charge against Paxton: that the Republican abused his office to help a local real estate developer resist FBI investigation by hiring an outside lawyer to look into the agents, a judge and other officials involved in the probe.

That lawyer, Brandon Cammack, told the jury of state senators who could decide Paxton's political fate within days that he consulted with the attorney general about how to proceed. Cammack also said he kept Paxton apprised as he obtained a series of grand jury subpoenas with guidance from the developer's lawyer.

“I did everything at his supervision,” Cammack said of Paxton.

Paxton has pleaded not guilty in the impeachment. He is not required to be present in the Senate for testimony and was absent Tuesday, as he has been for most of the trial. It was Paxton's hiring of Cammack in 2020 that prompted eight of his top deputies to report the attorney general to law enforcement for allegedly breaking the law to help developer Nate Paul. Their allegations prompted an FBI investigation of Paxton that remains ongoing.

That year, Paul alleged wrongdoing by state and federal authorities, including a federal judge, after the FBI searched his home. Several of Paxton's former deputies have testified for the prosecution in the impeachment trial and said they found Paul's claims “ludicrous" and not worthy of investigation.

Paul was indicted in June on charges of making false statements to banks. He has pleaded not guilty.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers prosecuting Paxton's impeachment have alleged that in return for Paxton's help, Paul paid for renovations to his Austin home and employed a woman with whom the attorney general was having an extramarital affair.

Cammack testified Tuesday that he met several times with Paxton, Paul and Paul's lawyer about Cammack's investigation, and regularly forwarded Paxton information Paul's lawyer was sending him about whom to target with grand jury subpoenas. Cammack said Paxton used the encrypted email service Proton Mail for these communications and that the attorney general told him to communicate over encrypted messaging service Signal.

Cammack said he learned that Paxton had a different official email address when he saw it copied on an email from one of Paxton's deputies ordering Cammack to stop his investigation.

In 2020, Cammack was five years out of law school and had a modest criminal defense practice in Houston. He testified that Paxton hired him at the recommendation of Paul's lawyer, whom he said he knew socially. Cammack recalled that as he was being hired Paxton told him he would “need to have some guts” for the investigation Paxton had in mind. He said he was exited to be working for Texas' top lawyer and impressed after the attorney general took him to watch a news conference. “It was cool,” Cammack said.

Former chief of staff for AG’s office details alarm over Ken Paxton’s alleged affair

Posted on by Texas Tribune

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.

"Former chief of staff for AG’s office details alarm over Ken Paxton’s alleged affair" 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.

The Texas Tribune is your source for in-depth reporting on the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. Readers make that possible. Support authoritative Texas journalism with a donation now.

Attorney General Ken Paxton’s alleged extramarital affair came up for the first time at length Monday in his impeachment trial.

Katherine “Missy” Cary, the former chief of staff in the attorney general’s office, testified how she came to learn about the affair and how Paxton ultimately confessed to it. But perhaps most relevant to the case, Cary testified how she warned Paxton it could make him vulnerable to bribery, an allegation central to his impeachment.

The dramatic testimony came as Paxton’s wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, listened on from the Senate floor.

“My heart broke for her,” Cary said of Angela Paxton, who is disqualified from voting in the trial but has to attend.

The alleged affair is referenced in one of the articles of impeachment that is being tried. The article accuses Paxton of bribery because he “benefited from Nate Paul’s employment of a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.”

House impeachment managers allege that Paxton, driven by his desire to continue his affair and hide it from his wife and religious voters, went to impeachable and criminal lengths to help Paul. In exchange, they allege, Paul hired Olson at his company so that she could move from San Antonio to Austin.

While Paxton's alleged affair has increasingly taken center stage since the House impeached him in June, Cary marked the first time a witness provided firsthand knowledge of it — and in painful detail. Upon cross-examination, Paxton lawyer Tony Buzbee sought to stir doubt about the veracity of some of Cary's early observations of the alleged affair and downplayed its relevance to the case.

[Ken Paxton tried to hide his affair from his wife and voters. It may be his undoing.]

"Imagine if we impeached everybody here in Austin that had had an affair," Buzbee said. "We’d be impeaching for the next 100 years, wouldn’t we?"

Cary testified that her knowledge of the alleged affair all began in the spring of 2018 when she was eating lunch alone at Galaxy Cafe in Austin. She overheard a woman next to her having a conversation that troubled her, suggesting the woman was conveying “very personal” information about Ken Paxton. Cary said she took her concerns to the attorney general, who said the woman was the real estate agent selling his condo in Austin.

But later that spring, Cary said she saw the same woman at an official event in San Antonio and saw her name tag: Laura Olson.

Cary said she then learned about the relationship from other people in the office and felt “surprised” Paxton had lied to her about who Olson was. The relationship was impacting staff morale, Cary added, with Angela Paxton calling the office to try to track down her husband and staffers feeling “uncomfortable answering those questions.”

Cary eventually had a meeting with Paxton where they discussed the legal and “ethical implications of a secret affair,” she said. Cary said they discussed that such conduct could “open one up to bribery and misuse of office” — allegations at the center of his impeachment.

In that meeting, Cary said Paxton confirmed he was having an affair but did not say whether it was with Olson. He was “contrite and he listened to what I had to say very carefully,” Cary recalled.

In September 2018, Paxton and his wife convened a meeting with top aides where he confessed to the affair, Cary said. She described it as an awkward and emotional meeting. Angela Paxton was “sad and embarrassed” and cried, Cary said. Cary said she hugged Angela Paxton and told her she was sorry this had happened to her.

After that meeting, Cary said, she believed such behavior was “out of [Paxton’s] life for good.”

But months later in 2019, Cary said, Paxton told her the affair was continuing. Cary said Paxton expressed that he "still loved Mrs. Olson" and wanted Cary, as the chief of staff, to "be more accommodating" of it when it came to things like his security detail.

Cary said she told Paxton "quite bluntly it wasn't my business who he was sleeping with, but that when things boiled over in to the office," it became a concern to her. In Cary's telling, that comment enraged Paxton, who turned "red in the face," raised his voice and stormed out of her office.

Buzbee took an aggressive tack in cross-examining Cary. After initially trying to put her at ease, he launched into an interrogation of her account of how she first came to learn about Olson. Buzbee accused Cary of getting wrong the kind of car Olson had at Galaxy Cafe, saying Olson has "never owned a red car." Cary said she never claimed the car she saw belonged to Olson.

"I guess I'm trying to figure out how good is your memory," Buzbee said.

Buzbee did not explicitly mention Paxton's alleged adultery. But he cast such misbehavior in religious terms, first asking Cary if she attended church. She initially resisted answering, questioning whether it was an appropriate question. But Buzbee insisted it was relevant and asked her, in an allusion to God, if there was "only one person who was ever perfect." She agreed that is the case in her belief system.

"All have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God, right?" Buzbee asked, to which Cary agreed. "Sometimes people make stupid mistakes, right?"

That is when Buzbee raised the possibility of impeaching anybody in Austin who has had an affair. Cary declined to respond to the hypothetical, saying, "I don't think I should answer this question in this chamber, particularly."

"Just because somebody has an affair doesn't mean that they're a quote criminal, does it?" Buzbee asked, to which Cary said she "would not associate that directly."

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.

Political warnings and accusations of misconduct: 6 main themes emerge in Paxton’s impeachment trial

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Chuck Lindell

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.

"Political warnings and accusations of misconduct: 6 main themes emerge in first week of Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial" 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.

The first week of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton’s history-making impeachment trial closed Friday with only four prosecution witnesses taking the stand in the first four days.

Even so, the broad strokes of the cases being presented by lawyers for the House impeachment managers and Paxton’s defense team emerged in Tuesday’s opening statements and during frequently tedious, sometimes contentious questioning of witnesses.

Among the many subplots, these themes are likely to guide a trial that could take several additional weeks — ending when senators deliberate in private and emerge to cast votes that will determine whether the three-term Republican will return to work or be permanently removed from office.

Paxton attended the opening hours of his trial on Tuesday, during which senators overwhelmingly rejected his attempts to dismiss the articles of impeachment and his lawyer entered not guilty pleas on his behalf. He was absent the rest of the week.

The trial is set to resume Monday at 9 a.m.

Defense team challenges loyalty, evidence

Under trial rules adopted by the Senate, prosecutors began presenting their case first, and they chose to lead with three former high-ranking officials of the attorney general’s office — all of whom reported Paxton to the FBI on Sept. 30, 2020 before quitting or being fired.

Three Paxton lawyers split cross examination of the opening witnesses, and all three hit on similar themes.

Lead defense lawyer Tony Buzbee equated reporting Paxton to the FBI as an act of betrayal. By going behind the attorney general’s back, he said, Paxton was deprived of the opportunity to answer questions that could have cleared matters up.

“You went to the FBI uninformed, isn’t that true?” Buzbee asked Jeff Mateer, Paxton’s former second in command and the first prosecution witness.

“I would not say that, sir,” Mateer replied Tuesday.

[Who’s who in the Ken Paxton impeachment trial, from key participants to potential witnesses]

Defense lawyer Mitch Little picked up the theme during his aggressive questioning of the third prosecution witness, Ryan Vassar, former deputy attorney general for legal counsel, on Thursday.

In an extensive back and forth, Little suggested that Paxton was due the courtesy of a warning after nurturing Vassar’s career. More importantly, Little added, failing to let Paxton address their concerns left Vassar and other whistleblowers uninformed when they met with FBI agents to accuse Paxton of criminal acts.

Little said the whistleblowers had no direct knowledge, let alone evidence such as invoices, of wrongdoing regarding allegations that Austin real estate investor Nate Paul offered bribes by paying to renovate Paxton’s home and employing the woman Paxton was dating outside of his marriage.

“You went to the FBI on Sept. 30 with your compatriots and reported the elected attorney general of this state for a crime without any evidence, yes?” Little asked.

Vassar tried to qualify his answer several times, but Little repeatedly objected, stating it was a yes or no question.

“That’s right, we took no evidence,” Vassar finally stated.

On Friday, Rusty Hardin, a lawyer for the impeachment managers, sought to clear up the impression left by Vassar.

Vassar said he believed Little was referring to “documents, documentary evidence,” adding that he intended the FBI to find the truth, not conduct his own investigation.

“Did you give the FBI evidence?” Hardin asked.

“Our experience was evidence,” Vassar replied. “But we did not conduct our own investigation to provide documentary evidence of what we had learned. … I believed that I was a witness to criminal activity that had occurred by General Paxton.”

Prosecutors focus on “egregious misconduct”

State Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, gave the opening statement on behalf of the House impeachment managers. He promised senators would hear testimony portraying Paxton as obsessed with helping Paul — who was under state and federal investigation for his business dealings — despite warnings and objections from his top lieutenants at the agency.

Paxton engaged in “egregious misconduct,” he said.

“The state’s top lawyer engaged in conduct designed to advance the economic interests and legal positions of a friend and donor to the detriment of innocent Texans,” Murr said, adding that Paxton “turned the keys of the office of attorney general over to Nate Paul.”

Ryan Bangert, Paxton’s former deputy first assistant attorney general, testified Wednesday and Thursday that Paxton took an unusual interest in matters involving Paul, such as pressing to overrule two agency decisions that denied Paul access to documents related to an active investigation into Paul’s businesses.

“We were devoting far more resources to Nate Paul than we ever should have,” Bangert said.

“I was deeply concerned that the name, authority and power of our office had been, in my view, hijacked to serve the interests of an individual against the interests of the broader public,” Bangert added. “It was unconscionable.”

[“Operation Deep Sea”: How Nate Paul pulled the strings in the attorney general’s office to investigate his enemies]

On Friday, impeachment lawyers called their fourth witness, David Maxwell, Paxton’s former director of law enforcement. Maxwell was out of state when seven senior agency officials reported Paxton to the FBI in 2020. Instead, Maxwell took his concerns to other law enforcement officials and was later fired from the agency.

Maxwell said he found Paul’s complaint to be “absolutely ludicrous,” including claims that search warrants were improperly altered in a web of conspiracy that included a federal magistrate judge.

As a result, Maxwell said, he urged Paxton to drop his interest in Paul. “I told him that Nate Paul was a criminal … and that, if he didn’t get away from this individual and stop doing what he was doing, he was going to get himself indicted.”

Defense: Paxton did not exceed his authority

Defense lawyers, in opening statements and in questions to prosecution witnesses, pushed back on claims that Paxton acted illegally when he pressed his agency’s lawyers and employees to take actions that were helpful to Paul.

When Vassar testified that Paxton broke internal rules on hiring outside lawyers to appoint Houston attorney Brandon Cammack to investigate Paul’s complaint, Little pointed to state law to argue that Paxton — as the elected leader of the attorney general’s office — had the power to approve Cammack’s contract.

Defense lawyer Dan Cogdell, in opening statements Tuesday, said Paxton hired Cammack in understandable frustration because employees of the attorney general’s office “did little to nothing” to investigate Paul’s serious complaint that his home and business had been improperly searched by state and federal officials.

Similarly, several Paxton lawyers disputed allegations that Paxton improperly directed his agency’s lawyers to intervene in an Austin charity’s lawsuit against Paul, arguing that he had clear authority to run his agency.

Prosecutors push back on several fronts

Under questioning from House impeachment lawyer Dick DeGuerin, Maxwell pushed back on claims that Paul’s complaints had been brushed off without proper investigation. A forensic analysis of the search warrants found nothing to support Paul’s claim that the documents had been improperly altered, he said.

After Buzbee opened his case by stating that “nothing of significance” had been exchanged between Paxton and Paul, lawyers for the House impeachment team pressed their witnesses to explain how Paul benefited from Paxton’s repeated interventions.

A legal opinion, published with unusual speed at 1 a.m. on a Sunday in 2020, took a highly unusual position at Paxton’s insistence, Bangert testified. The attorney general’s office had led efforts to reopen Texas several months into the pandemic, yet Paxton demanded that the opinion say local COVID-19 safety rules barred property foreclosure sales.

Only later did it become known that Paul’s lawyer referred to the agency’s opinion letter to avoid foreclosure sales of several Paul properties two days later, Bangert said.

Buzbee warns of potential political consequences

In opening statements laying out Paxton’s case, Buzbee sounded a political warning.

Impeachment could become a common tactic of political retribution if Paxton — a leading conservative legal voice on abortion, immigration and other key issues — were to be convicted and removed from office, he argued.

“Let’s be clear. If this misguided effort is successful … the precedent it will set would be perilous for any elected official in the state of Texas,” Buzbee said.

Buzbee also argued that impeachment thwarted the will of Texas voters.

“Texans chose at the voting booth who they wanted to be their attorney general … but because of what this House has done, only 30 [senators] out of almost 30 million will decide if Ken Paxton is allowed to serve in the office he was voted into,” he said. “That’s not how it’s supposed to work. That’s not democratic.”

Impeachment team counters with its own political focus

Murr rejected arguments that impeachment violated democratic principles, saying the framers of the Texas Constitution did not believe elections alone could protect the public from abusive office holders.

“It’s too easy to use the powers of office to conceal the truth,” Murr said in opening statements. “The voters did not, and do not, know the whole truth” because Paxton went to great lengths to conceal his misconduct, he added.

Impeachment lawyers also focused on the ultraconservative political beliefs held by their first three witnesses — all attorneys who praised Paxton’s priorities that, as one put it, turned the Texas attorney general’s office into a beacon of the conservative legal movement.

Mateer worked on Capitol Hill for two Texas Republican stalwarts, Tom DeLay and Dick Armey, and is now chief legal officer of First Liberty Institute, a Christian legal defense organization that focuses on religious liberty issues. His nomination for federal judge by President Donald Trump was thwarted by controversy over statements critical of transgender youth.

Bangert is a senior vice president for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group focused on religious freedom and limiting abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, and he had previous ties to the Christian Coalition.

Vassar worked for notable conservative judges, including Don Willett, a former Texas Supreme Court justice named to a federal appeals court by Trump. Vassar also was a summer fellow for former Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Paxton has blamed the impeachment on political opposition to his deeply conservative principles, but Mateer, Bangert and Vassar testified that they reluctantly took their concerns to the FBI after concluding that Paxton was misusing his authority on Paul’s behalf.

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’s top deputy, the first impeachment witness, describes an attorney general out of control

Posted on by Texas Tribune

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.

"Ken Paxton’s top deputy, the first impeachment witness, describes an attorney general out of control" 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.

The Texas Tribune is your source for in-depth reporting on the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. Readers make that possible. Support authoritative Texas journalism with a donation now.

At the end of September 2020, it finally made sense to Jeff Mateer why his boss, Attorney General Ken Paxton, was devoting so much of the agency’s attention to Paxton’s friend, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.

In Wednesday testimony that took up most of the second day of Paxton’s impeachment trial, Mateer said that for months he could not figure out why Paxton had brushed off repeated warnings that assisting Paul in his business disputes was an improper use of state resources.

And then, as the office was erupting in crisis when senior deputies learned that Paxton had quietly hired an outside lawyer to conduct an investigation on Paul’s behalf, Mateer said he learned something else. Paul had hired the woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair, allowing her to move to Austin, where the attorney general could more easily visit her.

“It answered the question, why is he engaging in all these activities … on behalf of Mr. Paul?” Mateer testified. “It seemed to be he was under undue influence. At times, I wondered: Is he being blackmailed?”

In more than six hours of testimony, Mateer — the first witness called by the House impeachment managers — detailed his growing concerns through the summer and fall of 2020 about Paxton’s relationship with Paul, culminating in Mateer’s decision to join other senior advisers in reporting the attorney general’s behavior to the FBI on Sept. 30.

“I concluded that Mr. Paxton was engaged in conduct that was immoral, unethical, and I had the good faith belief that it was illegal,” Mateer testified.

Paxton’s lawyer attempted to cast Mateer as a rogue employee and disloyal friend of Paxton, arguing that the former first assistant jumped to conclusions about impropriety based on incomplete and inaccurate information. Attorney Tony Buzbee also accused Mateer of leading an attempted coup against Paxton.

But as Paxton has cast the impeachment as a persecution led by Democrats and liberal Republicans, Mateer presented a problem. He is an evangelical Christian and champion of religious liberty whose hiring by Paxton was praised by conservatives. And unlike four other senior deputies who filed a whistleblower lawsuit and later negotiated a proposed $3.3 million settlement — prompting Paxton’s camp to suggest they had a financial motivation for their allegations — Mateer simply quit within days of meeting with FBI agents in 2020.

Paxton on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to 16 articles of impeachment. The bulk of the House’s case centers on allegations that Paxton misused the power of the attorney general’s office to harass Paul’s perceived enemies, including business rivals, judges and law enforcement officials.

As expected, the attorney general’s affair with Laura Olson, the former Senate aide Buzbee identified by name during the trial, took center stage in the trial.

Mateer exhibited a pained expression when asked about the relationship, as Paxton’s wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, sat about 30 feet away — present for the trial but barred from deliberating or voting by Senate rules. Prodded by impeachment lawyer Rusty Hardin, Mateer said the affair was the missing piece that explained the bizarre behavior Paxton had exhibited in asking his senior deputies to help Paul.

Mateer added that he was present for a 2018 meeting in which Paxton, joined by his wife, admitted to the extramarital affair but said it was over and that he had recommitted to his marriage.

“Mr. Paxton apologized and, using Christian terminology, I would say he repented,” Mateer said. “I assumed it was over because that’s what he said.”

Sen. Paxton, at her desk, took notes as Mateer spoke. She has maintained a bright disposition during the trial, chatting with colleagues during breaks and waving to supporters in the gallery.

Mateer’s appearance was widely anticipated due to his position as Paxton’s most senior deputy and because he has said little publicly in the nearly three years since he resigned his post in October 2020.

Yet it was initially unclear if Mateer’s testimony would live up to its top billing when it began late Tuesday afternoon. Hardin, a genteel lawyer for the House managers, meandered while asking Mateer about his background, leaving senators to wonder when, if ever, he would get to the point.

Wednesday offered a reset. Hardin, normally loquacious, buckled down. He led Mateer through the summer of 2020, asking him to explain his growing discomfort with Paxton’s actions.

Mateer said he first knew little about Paul but was concerned when Paxton wished to personally argue a court motion in a case involving a charity that had sued two of Paul’s businesses. He said his consternation grew when Paxton directed the office to issue a legal opinion limiting foreclosure sales during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We were at the forefront of having Texas reopen and to stop COVID restrictions. … We were the ones pushing to have Texas open up,” Mateer said. “The opinion took the complete opposite view.”

Impeachment managers allege that Paul used the opinion to delay the foreclosure sale of several properties.

Mateer also said Paxton repeatedly pressured him to approve the hiring of an outside lawyer to investigate claims made by Paul. The former top deputy recalled that Paxton called him late on Sept. 28 and was “very upset” with Mateer’s refusal to support the hiring, adding that Paxton’s demeanor led him to believe he had been drinking.

Mateer said the next day, he and other senior officials realized that the outside lawyer, Brandon Cammack, had in fact started working for the office weeks earlier, without their knowledge. They also discovered Cammack had issued subpoenas to banks that had lent money to Paul’s businesses.

“We considered it sort of a crisis moment,” Mateer said. “Everything regarding Mr. Paul was coming to a head.”

Another senior official then rushed to court and persuaded the judge to throw out the subpoenas, arguing Cammack had no power to issue them.

Buzbee attempts to discredit Mateer

For the cross-examination, Buzbee’s rapid-fire, quick-pivot questioning of Mateer was in stark contrast to Hardin’s chronological questioning that bordered on tedious. Instead of offering a counter-narrative to the House’s version of events, Buzbee sought to discredit Mateer and land punches where he could.

He homed in on a theme of Mateer as a misguided employee and friend who should have taken his concerns directly to Paxton instead of going behind his back to report him to law enforcement. He challenged Mateer’s contention that he and other senior deputies were attempting to protect the attorney general from himself.

“In order to protect Ken Paxton, what you did was you then called the FBI?” Buzbee asked. “That’s how you protected your friend?”

“That’s not correct, sir,” Mateer replied.

Buzbee suggested that if Mateer had asked Paxton about Cammack, he would have learned that the attorney general had properly hired him and that the subpoenas were a legitimate inquiry into a second Paul complaint that Mateer did not know about.

“So you went to the FBI thinking that this kid, as you called [Cammack], should not be subpoenaing banks?” Buzbee asked. “But you now know that if he was charged … to investigate bid rigging, then that might be something that he might subpoena?”

“I actually don’t know that,” Mateer replied.

What Buzbee did not mention, however, was that Paul’s second complaint alleged that he was the victim of a wide-ranging conspiracy by business rivals, a court-appointed lawyer and a federal judge to steal his properties. No evidence has emerged, in the impeachment trial or any other forum, supporting the claim, which Paul code named “Operation Tarrytown.”

And House exhibits reveal that Paul and his lawyer had directed Cammack on how to conduct the probe, including by identifying investigative targets and writing the subpoenas.

As the cross-examination entered its third hour, Buzbee tried to elicit damaging admissions from Mateer, but the seasoned lawyer was unfazed. At one point, Buzbee asked at what hourly rate would an outside counsel be too expensive for the attorney general’s office.

“What’s your rate?” Mateer quipped.

At another, Buzbee returned to the argument that Mateer was insubordinate in joining other senior advisers in reporting Paxton to law enforcement.

“You were involved in a coup, weren’t you?” Buzbee asked.

“Absolutely not,” Mateer said.

Paxton a no-show, again, for trial

Paxton was again absent for Wednesday’s impeachment proceedings.

The suspended attorney general was present Tuesday morning while Buzbee entered not guilty pleas on his behalf, but he did not return after the lunch break as lawyers for the House impeachment managers called their first witness.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is the presiding officer over the impeachment trial, agreed with Paxton’s attorneys Tuesday after they argued that trial rules did not require Paxton’s presence beyond entering a plea.

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.

Texas Senate rejects all motions to dismiss Ken Paxton impeachment charges

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Patrick Svitek and 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.

"Texas Senate rejects all motions to dismiss Ken Paxton impeachment charges" 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.

The Texas Tribune is your source for in-depth reporting on the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. Readers make that possible. Support authoritative Texas journalism with a donation now.

The Texas Senate on Tuesday rejected all of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s efforts to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him, moving forward with the first removal proceeding against a statewide elected official in more than a century.

The rapid-fire series of votes on 16 pretrial motions made clear that senators want to at least hear the evidence against Paxton before deciding his fate. And the vote counts provided an early gauge of how willing GOP senators may be to remove a fellow Republican from statewide office.

While the House vote to impeach Paxton was overwhelming and bipartisan, the Senate offers a different political landscape. Its Republican members are more in line with Paxton's brand of conservatism, and he has more personal connections in the chamber where he once served and his wife remains a member.

The pretrial motions required a majority vote, but the most support a motion to dismiss received was 10 out of 30 senators — all Republicans — and that motion sought to throw out a single article.

Six Republican senators supported every motion in a nod of support for Paxton: Paul Bettencourt of Houston, Donna Campbell of New Braunfels, Brandon Creighton of Conroe, Bob Hall of Edgewood, Lois Kolkhorst of Brenham and Tan Parker of Flower Mound. Half of those senators — Bettencourt, Campbell and Parker — are up for reelection next year.

Five Republicans — Brian Birdwell of Granbury, Bryan Hughes of Mineola, Charles Perry of Lubbock, Charles Schwertner of Georgetown and Kevin Sparks of Midland — voted in favor of at least one motion to dismiss.

The remaining seven Republicans voted with all 12 Democrats against each motion. Those senators were Pete Flores of Pleasanton, Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, Joan Huffman of Houston, Mayes Middleton of Galveston, Robert Nichols of Jacksonville and Drew Springer of Muenster.

Setting the tone, the Senate denied Paxton’s first two motions by votes of 24-6 and 22-8.

The first motion asked the Senate to throw out every article of impeachment for lack of evidence. Twelve Republicans joined all Senate Democrats in the vote to essentially move forward with a trial.

The second motion asked senators to exclude evidence from before January, when Paxton’s current four-year term began. That motion struck at the heart of one of Paxton’s main arguments — that he cannot be impeached for any actions allegedly taken before he was reelected last year. Paxton's defenders have repeatedly cited the so-called forgiveness doctrine to criticize the House impeachment as illegal.

The House impeached Paxton in May, alleging a yearslong pattern of lawbreaking and misconduct. He was immediately suspended from his job, and the Senate trial, which started at 9 a.m. Tuesday, will determine whether he is permanently removed from office.

There were two dozen pretrial motions. A simple majority was required to approve 16 of them because they sought to dismissal all or some of the articles of impeachment. The presiding officer, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, was allowed to rule on the other motions unilaterally.

Notably, Patrick granted Paxton's motion that prevents the suspended attorney general from being forced to testify in the trial. The House impeachment managers had opposed the motion, arguing that if Paxton wanted to avoid self-incrimination, he could take advantage of his Fifth Amendment right from the witness stand.

As the Senate proceeds to a trial, a two-thirds vote is required to convict Paxton. That means that if all 12 Democrats vote to convict, half the remaining 18 Republican with a vote would have to join them. Paxton's wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, is disqualified from voting but allowed to attend the trial.

Trial deliberations are private, so the process of voting on the pretrial motions followed a dry routine Tuesday morning. Senators submitted their votes in writing, the Senate secretary announced each senators' votes from the front mic, reading them off in random order, and Patrick verified each vote from the dais.

The motion to dismiss that got the most support — 10 votes‚ sought to individually dismiss Article 8. That article accuses Paxton of disregarding his official duties by pursuing a taxpayer-funded settlement with former top staffers who reported concerns about his relationship with Paul to the FBI in 2020.

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.