Category: KenPaxton

Texas AG Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial is in the hands of Republicans who have been by his side

Posted on by Associated Press

Billionaires, burner phones, alleged bribes: The impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is going to test the will of Republicans senators to oust not only one of their own, but a firebrand who has helped drive the state's hard turn to the right for years.

The historic proceedings set to start in the state Senate Tuesday are the most serious threat yet to one of Texas' most powerful figures after nine years engulfed by criminal charges, scandal, and accusations of corruption. If convicted, Paxton—just the third official in Texas' nearly 200-year history to be impeached—could be removed from office.

Witnesses called to testify could include Paxton and a woman with whom he has acknowledged having an extramarital affair. Members of the public hoping to watch from the gallery will have to line up for passes. And conservative activists have already bought up TV airtime and billboards, pressuring senators to acquit one of former President Donald Trump's biggest defenders.

“It's a very serious event but it's a big-time show,” said Bill Miller, a longtime Austin lobbyist and a friend of Paxton. “Any way you cut it, it's going to have the attention of anyone and everyone.”

The build-up to the trial has widened divisions among Texas Republicans that reflect the wider fissures roiling the party nationally heading into the 2024 election.

At the fore of recent Texas policies are hardline measures to stop migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, battles over what is taught in public schools, and restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights—many of which are championed loudest in the Senate, where Republicans hold a dominant 19-12 majority and have Paxton's fate in their hands.

The Senate has long been a welcoming place for Paxton. His wife, Angela, is a state senator, although she is barred from voting in the trial. Paxton also was a state senator before becoming attorney general in 2015 and still has entanglements in the chamber, including with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will preside over the trial and loaned $125,000 to Paxton's reelection campaign.

If all 12 Democrats vote to convict Paxton, they would still need at least nine Republicans on their side. Or the Senate could vote by a simple majority to dismiss the charges altogether. But it was a GOP-dominated House that decided by an overwhelming majority that Paxton should be impeached.

“You’re seeing a fracture within the party right now,” said Matt Langston, a Republican political consultant in Texas. “This is going to impact the leadership and the party for a long time.”

The trial also appears to have heightened Paxton’s legal risks. The case against him largely centers on his relationship with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer who was indicted this summer after being accused of making false statements to banks to secure $170 million in loans.

Last month, federal prosecutors in Washington kicked a long-running investigation of Paxton into a higher gear when they began using a grand jury in San Antonio to examine his dealings with Paul, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of secrecy rules around grand jury proceedings. The grand jury’s role was first reported by the Austin American-Statesman.

Chris Toth, the former executive director of the National Association of Attorneys General, said Paxton has for years weathered scandals unique among top state lawyers. He said the outcome of the trial will send a message about what is acceptable to elected officials across the country.

Impeachment managers in the GOP-controlled Texas House filed nearly 4,000 pages of exhibits ahead of the trial, including accusations that Paxton hid the use of multiple cellphones and reveled in other perks of office.

“There’s very much a vile and insidious level of influence that Ken Paxton exerts through continuing to get away with his conduct,” Toth said.

Part of Paxton's political durability is his alignment with Trump, and this was never more apparent than when Paxton joined efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Like Trump, Paxton says he is a victim of politically motivated investigations.

But James Dickey, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, said the base of the GOP sees Paxton’s impeachment as different from legal troubles facing Trump.

“Exclusively, the actions against President Trump are from Democrat elected officials and so it can’t avoid having more of a partisan tone,” he said. “Therefore, Republican voters have more concern and frustration with it.”

How corrupt can one man be? Here are the 16 articles of impeachment Ken Paxton faces

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Chuck Lindell and James Barragán 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 House adopted 20 articles of impeachment against state Attorney General Ken Paxton in late May on a 121-23 vote, with 60 Republicans in favor as 23 opposed. Paxton was immediately suspended from office, without pay, upon approval of House Resolution 2377.

When the Senate adopted its rules for the trial, however, senators elected to hear evidence on 16 articles — holding four in abeyance that were largely related to 2015 criminal charges against Paxton for private business deals in 2011 and 2012. At the end of the trial, a majority of senators can vote to dismiss the four remaining articles, but if the motion to dismiss is rejected, the presiding officer will set a trial date on those four accusations.

With the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment beginning Monday, these 16 articles will form the basis of Paxton's trial:

Article 1, disregard of official duty

Paxton violated the duties of his office by failing to protect a charitable organization by directing employees to intervene in a lawsuit between the nonprofit Mitte Foundation and Austin real estate investor Nate Paul, a Paxton friend and political donor. “Paxton harmed the Mitte Foundation in an effort to benefit Paul,” the resolution said.

Article 2, disregard of official duty

Paxton misused his official power to issue written legal opinions to help Paul avoid foreclosure sales of properties owned by Paul and his businesses.​​ Paxton concealed his actions by soliciting state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, to seek the attorney general’s opinion as a “straw requestor,” the resolution said, adding that Paxton also directed employees to reverse their legal conclusions in ways that helped Paul.

Article 3, disregard of official duty

Paxton misused his official power to administer the state’s public information laws by directing employees to act contrary to the law on an open records request for Department of Public Safety documents and in another unspecified case.

Article 4, disregard of official duty

Paxton misused his power to administer public information laws to obtain previously undisclosed information held by his office “for the purpose of providing the information to the benefit of Nate Paul,” the resolution said.

Article 5, disregard of official duty

Paxton misused his official powers by violating the laws regarding how outside attorneys should be appointed. Paxton hired Brandon Cammack, a lawyer of five years, to investigate a “baseless complaint” made by Paul, who had accused federal and state investigators of improperly searching his home and businesses. Cammack responded by issuing 30 grand jury subpoenas in an effort to help Paul, the resolution said.

Article 6, disregard of official duty

Paxton violated his duties of office by firing or retaliating against employees in violation of the Texas Whistleblowers Act, which protects public employees who make good-faith reports of potentially illegal action to law enforcement.

“Paxton terminated the employees without good cause or due process and in retaliation for reporting his illegal acts and improper conduct,” the resolution said. “Furthermore, Paxton engaged in a public and private campaign to impugn the employees’ professional reputations or prejudice their future employment.”

Article 7, misapplication of public resources

Paxton misused public resources by directing employees to conduct a “sham investigation” into the whistleblowers’ complaints, leading the attorney general’s office to publish “a lengthy written report containing false or misleading statements in Paxton’s defense.”

In August 2021, the attorney general’s office issued an unsigned, 374-page internal report clearing him of wrongdoing in the allegations made by the fired employees.

Article 8, disregard of official duty

Paxton misused his official powers by “concealing his wrongful acts in connection with the whistleblower complaints.” To settle the whistleblowers’ lawsuit, Paxton agreed to pay them $3.3 million from public funds. The agreement “conspicuously delayed the discovery of facts and testimony at trial, to Paxton’s advantage” and deprived voters of the opportunity to make an informed decision in the 2022 election for attorney general, the resolution said.

Article 9, constitutional bribery

Paxton engaged in bribery in violation of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution when he benefited from Paul’s decision to employ a woman “with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.”

“Paul received favorable legal assistance from, or specialized access to, the office of the attorney general,” the resolution said.

Article 10, constitutional bribery

Paxton engaged in bribery in violation of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution when Paul provided extensive renovations to Paxton’s Austin home. In return, Paul received favorable legal help from Paxton’s agency.

Article 15, false statements in official records

Paxton made, or caused others to make, multiple false or misleading statements in his office’s response to the whistleblowers’ claims in an effort to mislead the public and public officials. In August 2021, the attorney general’s office issued an unsigned, 374-page internal report clearing him of wrongdoing in the allegations made by the fired employees.

Article 16, conspiracy and attempted conspiracy

While in office, Paxton acted with others to conspire, or attempt to conspire, to commit the crimes described in the other articles.

Article 17, misappropriation of public resources

Paxton misused his official powers by causing employees to perform services for his benefit and the benefit of others.

The committee’s investigators said Paxton had diverted employees to perform work that benefited Paul, costing the state at least $72,000 in taxpayer-funded labor. He also hired Cammack for $25,000.

Article 18, dereliction of duty

Paxton violated the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, plus statutes and public policy against public officials acting against the public interest.

Article 19, unfitness for office

Paxton engaged in private and public misconduct, described in the articles, that “indicate his unfitness for office,” the resolution said.

Article 20, abuse of public trust

Paxton subverted the lawful operation of Texas government by using, misusing or failing to use his official powers and obstructed the fair and impartial administration of justice, bringing the attorney general’s office “into scandal and disrepute,” which harmed the public’s confidence in the state’s government.

These four articles were held in abeyance:

  • Article 11, obstruction of justice — Paxton abused the judicial process to thwart justice by causing “protracted” delays after a Collin County grand jury indicted him for securities fraud for soliciting investors in Servergy Inc. without disclosing that the McKinney tech company was paying him to round up investors. Those delays “deprived the electorate of its opportunity to make an informed decision when voting for attorney general,” the resolution said.
  • Article 12, obstruction of justice — Paxton abused the judicial process to thwart justice when Jeff Blackard, a donor to his campaigns, took legal action that “disrupted payment of the prosecutors” in the securities fraud case against him, causing a protracted delay in the case.
  • Article 13, false statements in official records — Before and after holding public office, Paxton made false statements to mislead the public and public officials by lying to the State Securities Board during its investigation of Paxton’s failure to register as an investment adviser as required by state law.
  • Article 14, false statements in official records — Before and during his time in office, Paxton made false statements on personal finance statements required by Texas law by failing to “fully and accurately disclose his financial interests” on disclosure forms.

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. 

Pressure mounts on Texas senators ahead of Ken Paxton impeachment 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.

Political pressure is intensifying around Republican state senators who will serve as the jurors in the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Paxton’s allies are singling out a half dozen senators for lobbying. A mysterious entity is airing TV ads and sending out mailers targeting certain senators. And an influential establishment group, as well as former Gov. Rick Perry, are urging senators to oppose efforts to effectively stop the trial before it starts.

“Anyone that votes against Ken Paxton in this impeachment is risking their entire political career and we will make sure that is the case,” Jonathan Stickland, who runs the pro-Paxton Defend Texas Liberty PAC, said Thursday in a media appearance.

The high-stakes trial of Texas’ top legal official is scheduled to start Sept. 5. It comes after the House impeached Paxton in May, accusing him of a yearslong pattern of misconduct and lawbreaking centered on his relationship with Nate Paul, an Austin real-estate investor and Paxton campaign donor. Paxton, a Republican in his third term, was immediately suspended from office, and the trial will determine whether he will be permanently removed.

His fate lies in the hands of the 30 senators who can vote in the trial. (His wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, is recused.) Removal requires a two-thirds vote, meaning that if all 12 Democrats vote to convict Paxton, nine of the 18 remaining Republicans would have to cross over to force him out. Furthermore, only a majority vote is required for senators to grant a pretrial motion to dismiss, which would come before any opening statements. While that would require 16 of the 18 voting Republicans – assuming all Democrats oppose it — it may be a tempting option for GOP senators who do not want to go through with a weeks-long trial where the spotlight on them will burn even brighter.

Paxton’s supporters have touted him as the tip of the spear in Texas’ battles against President Joe Biden’s administration. The impeachment, they argue, is a plot by the Republican establishment to take Paxton out after failing to defeat him in his reelection campaign last year.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is presiding over the trial, imposed a strict gag order on senators that largely prohibits them from commenting on the case publicly. Shortly after Paxton’s impeachment in May, several GOP senators issued identical or similar statements telling constituents they could not discuss the case but welcomed their feedback.

Paxton’s allies have gotten more aggressive in recent days. On Tuesday, Dallas County GOP activist Lauren Davis went on the show of Steve Bannon, the former Donald Trump strategist, and urged viewers to apply pressure to six GOP senators: Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills, Bryan Hughes of Mineola, Charles Schwertner of Georgetown, Charles Perry of Lubbock, Drew Springer of Muenster and Mayes Middleton of Galveston. She said Middleton was especially important to lobby given that he was a top donor to Paxton’s primary challengers in 2022.

“We're gonna make all these six famous in the days ahead,” Bannon said.

Earlier in the week, Davis used her group, Moms Love Freedom, to launch a petition asking the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment “with prejudice.”

Davis was the 2022 Republican nominee for Dallas County judge and is currently running for Dallas County GOP chair, challenging an incumbent. She shares a political consultant, Axiom Strategies, with Paxton.

The pressure ramped up more Wednesday, when a new group began airing TV ads targeting certain senators before the Republican presidential primary debate on Fox News. One commercial targets Schwertner and asks viewers to call him and “tell him to stand up to the left and stop the impeachment of our attorney general.”

The group, San Jacinto 2023, ran $31,000 in ads Wednesday and was set to air another $6,000 in ads on Thursday, all on Fox News, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. While it was not immediately clear which senators were all targeted, the ad buy was in the Abilene, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Waco and San Antonio markets.

On Friday, it also surfaced that the group was also sending out mailers that encourage people to call their senator and "tell [them] to end the sham impeachment."

San Jacinto 2023 is a Virginia-based corporation that was formed June 28, according to records in the state. Other records show the group uses a media buyer, Ax Media, that is part of Axiom Strategies, Paxton’s political consulting firm. Those records list the group’s treasurer as Nancy Rennaker, who is listed online as a "non-attorney professional" at The Gober Group, an Austin-based law firm that Paxton has used.

Rennaker did not respond to a request for comment before deadline. But after the publication of this story, she clarified that she is an independent contractor for multiple companies and that she is doing bookkeeping for San Jacinto 2023 for RightSide Compliance, not The Gober Group.

Then on Thursday, the deep-pocketed GOP group Texans for Lawsuit Reform issued a rare public statement on the impeachment process. The group, which heavily funded one of Paxton’s primary challengers in 2022, reiterated it “had nothing to do with” his impeachment, a day after the Dallas Morning News reported that Paxton’s lawyers planned to call TLR founder Richard Weekley as a witness.

But what came next was more notable. The group, which was sitting on a $33 million warchest as of June 30, made clear it expected senators to oppose the pretrial motions to dismiss — or anything else that could derail a full-blown trial.

“There is an ongoing effort underway to intimidate the Senators into abandoning their constitutional obligations and acquitting Paxton before the trial even begins and the evidence has been presented,” the statement said. “These efforts are disrespectful of the constitutional impeachment process and insulting to the integrity of the Texas Senate.”

“TLR expects the Senate will conduct a fair, open and thorough trial and that each Senator will make her or his decision solely on the evidence presented,” the statement added, putting an emphasis on “solely.”

The statement was only attributed to Texans for Lawsuit Reform and not any specific representative of the group.

By the end of Thursday, Perry was also weighing in with a similar message to that of TLR. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Perry condemned fellow Republicans who he said were trying to "delegitimize" the process and called for a "full and fair trial" in the Senate.

"We’ve come this far in the process, and it’s critical that the Senate sees it through to the end," wrote Perry, who is close with Patrick. "That means a fair trial that allows both sides to lay out all the facts and gives senators the opportunity to vote based on the evidence."

Such interventions are likely to further inflame tension with Paxton and his allies, who have long theorized the Republican establishment, especially TLR, is willing to do whatever it takes to get him out of office.

That became clearer when Davis returned to Bannon’s show Thursday and elaborated on why she named those six. She said four of them — Hughes, Middleton, Perry and Springer — may be listening to political consultants who have “vendettas” against Paxton and noted all four share a consultant who previously worked for Paxton.

Davis’ appeared to be a reference to Jordan Berry, an Austin-based consultant who resigned from Paxton’s campaign in 2020 after senior officials in his office asked federal law enforcement to probe Paxton’s relationship with Paul. Berry declined to comment.

Davis appeared on the show jointly with Stickland, a former state representative whose PAC has been a top defender of Paxton. It has already put up billboards and sent out text messages attacking House Republicans who supported Paxton’s impeachment.

“We’re spending millions of dollars,” Stickland said. “We think this is a huge fight.”

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.

Can Ken Paxton be forced to testify at his impeachment trial?

Posted on by Texas Tribune

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.

Suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is fighting to stay off of the witness stand during his September impeachment trial, but prosecutors oppose the move, hoping to have the option of forcing Paxton to testify under oath.

Paxton’s legal team has asked Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will preside over the trial in the Texas Senate, to forbid the House impeachment team from issuing a subpoena that would compel Paxton’s testimony.

Paxton’s lawyers argue that impeachment is a criminal proceeding, so Paxton is entitled to the same legal protections — namely, not being forced to testify — as any criminal defendant.

“Given that an impeachment trial is legally considered to be a criminal proceeding, there can only be one conclusion: the Attorney General may, but cannot be forced to, testify,” Paxton’s lawyers wrote in a July 7 filing to the court of impeachment.

Heading toward Paxton’s trial, set to begin Sept. 5, House impeachment managers argue that senators drafted and approved trial rules that give them the power to compel Paxton to appear as a witness.

No rule “limits the individuals who may be summoned to testify before the Senate. Specifically, [no rule] excludes Paxton from those persons who must appear and testify if subpoenaed,” they argued in a response filed with the court of impeachment.

While Paxton has a Fifth Amendment right to decline to provide incriminating testimony, he must assert that right specifically from the witness stand, impeachment managers argued.

Many of the articles of impeachment — approved 121-23 by the Texas House in May, setting course for the state’s third impeachment trial since 1876 — accused Paxton of abusing his office to repeatedly help a friend and campaign donor, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.

Federal investigators have been looking into Paxton’s ties to Paul since 2020, when top executives in the state attorney general’s office accused Paxton of accepting bribes and misusing his authority to help Paul. In June, Paul was charged with eight felony counts of lying to financial institutions to obtain business loans.

“Paxton’s misdeeds with Paul are, in large part, the basis of this impeachment trial,” impeachment managers argued. “Given these circumstances, it is understandable why Paxton may think some of his answers to questions in the impeachment trial ‘would in themselves support a conviction’ or ‘furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute,’ the standard necessary to invoke his right against self-incrimination.”

Whether Paxton can be compelled to take the stand is expected to be settled in the opening phase of trial when Patrick, in his capacity as judge, rules on pretrial motions or asks senators to decide pretrial issues by a majority vote that would be taken without discussion or debate.

The fight over Paxton’s testimony has emerged as a mini-drama within the larger impeachment saga — and the outcome of the fight could affect his legal battles outside of the impeachment proceedings, legal experts said.

Paxton has been under indictment on state securities fraud felony charges since 2015. He also faces a whistleblower lawsuit from former lieutenants who claim they were improperly fired in retaliation for reporting Paxton to the FBI and other law enforcement. That led to an FBI investigation that was transferred earlier this year to the U.S. Department of Justice — and reports that a federal grand jury in San Antonio is looking into details of Paxton’s relationship with Paul.

Not having to testify before the Senate means Paxton would have fewer opportunities to reveal information that could be used against him in those proceedings, legal experts said. If Paxton pleads the Fifth while on the stand, for example, lawyers in the whistleblower lawsuit could point to that as an indication of guilt.

The same is true of the impeachment trial. Senators could interpret Paxton’s refusal to answer questions on the stand as a sign of guilt, said Michael Smith, a professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law who specializes in criminal and constitutional law.

Paxton’s team is trying to prevent that, too. They’ve asked Patrick to tell senators they can’t infer guilt if Paxton chooses not to testify.

“There are implications to pleading the Fifth, both on the civil side of things as well as potentially in the impeachment itself,” Smith said. “But then there’s just the optics.”

Paxton is trying to avoid those complications.

“The order [Paxton] would like from Dan Patrick is an order saying you don’t have to testify in front of the Senate in this impeachment proceeding,” said Mike Golden, a former trial lawyer and director of advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law. “And we’re going to tell the lawyers for the impeachment managers that they can’t argue that your refusal to testify should somehow be held against you.”

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

Former judge declines to serve as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s adviser for Ken Paxton impeachment trial

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Alejandro Serrano and 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.

A former state appeals court judge on Saturday turned down an appointment to serve as an adviser to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the upcoming impeachment trial of indicted Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

Just a day earlier, Patrick had named Marc Brown, a former Republican justice on the 14th Court of Appeals from Harris County, to be his counsel during the trial scheduled to begin Sept. 5.

Brown's announcement that he would not participate came suddenly after The Texas Tribune reached out about a campaign donation he made in 2021 to a Paxton political opponent. 

In a letter Saturday to Patrick declining the appointment, Brown cited the $250 contribution that he and his wife made in 2021 to the campaign of Eva Guzman, a former state Supreme Court justice who tried to unseat Paxton in the Republican primary. Brown said he had not actively campaigned for any candidate since becoming a district judge in 2010.

“I did not recall that during our meetings with your staff,” Brown wrote about the contribution. “I have full confidence in my ability to fairly offer legal advice in this matter. However, the proceedings commencing on Sept. 5, 2023 are far too important to the State of Texas for there to be any distractions involving allegations of favoritism or personal bias on my part.”

Patrick said Friday he had picked Brown “after several months of searching.”

Trial rules grant Patrick — who as the leader of the Senate serves as the impeachment trial’s presiding officer — the option of selecting his own legal counsel.

“I was looking for a candidate with real-life courtroom experience as a lawyer and a judge who would serve as counsel and work side-by-side with me through this process,” Patrick said in a statement. “Justice Brown meets these criteria with his years of front-line experience as a courtroom lawyer and trial court judge and also brings a well-rounded perspective from his experience as a former appellate justice.”

The House impeached Paxton in May, alleging a years-long pattern of misconduct and lawbreaking. He was immediately suspended from office on a temporary basis, and the trial will determine whether he will be permanently removed.

Paxton faces 20 articles of impeachment that accuse him of bribery and abusing his office.

The trial rules, which the Senate approved in June, say that the presiding officer “may select legal counsel licensed in the State of Texas who is not a registered lobbyist in this State.”

Brown served as a district court judge in Harris County, then won a seat on the 14th Court of Appeals, where he served from 2013 to 2019. He lost reelection in 2018, one of many GOP judges in the Houston area unseated as Democrat Beto O’Rourke came close to unseating U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

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.

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

Posted on by Associated Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Texas Tribune

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

Aug. 16, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

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

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

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

 

Gen Z influencers, recruited by company with deep GOP ties, rally to impeached Ken Paxton’s aid

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Robert Downen, The Texas Tribune

"Gen Z influencers, quietly recruited by a company with deep GOP ties, rally to impeached Ken Paxton’s aid" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

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

In late June, about a dozen conservative Gen Z influencers converged on Fort Worth for a few days of right-wing networking. They hit local night spots, posed for group photos and met a far-right Texas billionaire and Donald Trump’s former campaign chair.

And then they took to social media to rally their many followers behind a new, controversial film about human trafficking before turning their support to impeached Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The event was sponsored by a fledgling company, Influenceable LLC, that recruits young, conservative social media figures to promote political campaigns and films without disclosing their business relationship. On its website, the company touts itself as the “world’s largest network of digital activists” and offers clients the power to “cultivate a community of influencers to leverage their credibility” with audiences.

Photos from the event show that Influenceable has powerful allies. Among the speakers were Brad Parscale, who recently moved to Texas after years running the Trump campaign’s digital strategy, and Tim Dunn, the West Texas oil tycoon who has given tens of millions of dollars to ultraconservative movements and candidates in Texas — including Paxton.

Now Influenceable appears to be recruiting young conservatives to parrot claims that the attorney general is the victim of a political witch hunt and, more recently, to promote a series of videos alleging that the Texas Legislature is secretly controlled by Democrats intent on destroying Paxton and other conservatives.

The company’s emergence comes amid Republican initiatives to connect with young Americans who tend to be more supportive of liberal policies.

And while legal experts said Influenceable’s methods don’t appear to run afoul of campaign finance and political advertising rules, the company has already irked some Republicans who say its approaches are deceptive and harmful to democracy. State Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, said he may propose new laws to strengthen disclosure requirements because of companies like Influenceable, saying they create “manufactured outrage” and further polarize the country.

“It disgusts me,” Oliverson said in an interview. “It calls into question the value and the validity of their entire message as an influencer. … I think they should all be investigated. I think the company should be investigated, and I think all of these influencers should be outed.”

Dunn, Parscale and Influenceable representatives did not respond to repeated interview requests.

Ties to an “anti-woke” company

Influenceable is closely linked to another right-wing organization, Today Is America Inc., a self-described “anti-woke” social media company that was founded in 2019 by North Carolina brothers Camron and Liam Rafizadeh. The company quickly rose to prominence on platforms such as Instagram, where it continues to deluge its quarter-million followers with anti-LGBTQ+ memes and pro-Trump talking points.

According to LinkedIn, Camron Rafizadeh is Influenceable’s CEO, Liam Rafizadeh is a co-founder and another high-ranking Today Is America employee, Tim Korshunov, leads development.

Liam Rafizadeh also ran the well-known Republican Hype House account on TikTok, which had 1.2 million followers before it was taken down when the platform targeted misinformation ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

The Rafizadeh brothers also attracted the attention of GOP operatives: Business filings for Today Is America LLC, one of a few companies associated with the Today Is America brand, list unsuccessful North Carolina congressional candidate Bo Hines as its CEO. Its chief financial officer is Jason Boles, who was the campaign treasurer for U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., before he joined the campaign of famed fabulist U.S. Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. Boles is also the leader of Heal the Divide, a political action committee backing the presidential campaign of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Influenceable was first registered in August 2022 in the infamous Corporation Trust Center, a one-story building in Wilmington, Delaware, that some 300,000 corporations — including Google, Apple and Walmart — have used as a registration address to take advantage of the so-called “Delaware loophole” that allows them to avoid taxes and many public disclosures.

Influenceable’s website touts a partnership with Campaign Nucleus, a company that Parscale began developing seven years ago. Parscale’s digital prowess is legendary: The San Antonio native spent decades working in marketing before leading the 2016 Trump campaign’s digital strategy — his first foray into politics — and playing a key role in Trump’s unexpected ascendancy to the Oval Office. He served as Trump’s campaign manager from February 2018 until July 2020, when he was demoted. Parscale left the campaign a few months later after his wife made, then retracted, domestic violence accusations.

Campaign Nucleus promotes itself as an all-in-one digital “ecosystem” that cuts out third-party platforms and protects conservatives from “cancel culture.”

“Stop wasting time using big tech platforms to reach audiences,” Campaign Nucleus’ website says. “Talk to people directly.”

As heat waves strained the Texas power grid last year, Campaign Nucleus reportedly pushed anti-renewable-energy talking points favored by oil and gas companies, and Trump’s campaign has also reportedly used Campaign Nucleus. Earlier this year, Parscale appears to have moved from Florida to Midland, home to a significant portion of the state’s energy industry as well as Dunn, an oil executive who has spent tens of millions of dollars to promote his far-right, anti-LGBTQ+ and religious views.

Dunn, Parscale and Dunn’s son David, a Christian music artist, spoke at the Fort Worth event, according to Instagram photos posted by Korshunov that were deleted after The Texas Tribune reached out to Influenceable and Dunn for comment.

“Are you Influenceable?” Korshunov wrote in the caption.

Well-known attendees chimed in: “I’m influenced,” commented CJ Pearson, a conservative Gen Z activist with more than 440,000 followers on the X platform, formerly known as Twitter, who was at the Fort Worth event.

“BIG Influenceable guy,” responded Xaviaer DuRousseau, who also attended the event and works with Pearson at PragerU, an activist group that pushes “alternative” educational materials aimed at young conservatives.

PragerU — which was recently allowed to provide curriculum to Florida public schools despite being unaccredited — did not respond to requests for comment about its relationship with Influenceable or requests to make DuRousseau or Pearson available for interviews.

Promoting movies, coming to Paxton’s defense

In the weeks after the Fort Worth event, a pattern emerged on many attendees’ social media profiles: In posts to Instagram Reels, TikTok or X, they warned their hundreds of thousands of collective followers about “an issue” that is “rarely talked about” or is “being swept under the rug” — human trafficking.

They frequently listed misleading statistics about the annual rate of abducted or missing children, sometimes inserting their own conspiracy theories about “globalists” and “Hollywood elites” running trafficking rings aided by Democratic immigration policies.

And then they’d pivot to their calls to action, telling followers they could save innocent kids and fight evil liberals by simply going to see a new movie, “Sound of Freedom,” and urging others to do the same.

The movie tells the story of Operation Underground Railroad and its founder, Tim Ballard, who has for years been condemned by anti-trafficking groups for his flirtation with QAnon conspiracy theories and for his group’s methods, which experts say endanger children and interfere with the work of local child protection agencies.

The film’s star, Jim Caviezel, is also a leading QAnon figure who has said he believes that global elites derive their power from adrenaline extracted from children as they are raped or tortured — an extreme QAnon theory that borrows heavily from Nazi and other antisemitic propaganda.

Since leaving the Fort Worth event, Parscale and nine other attendees posted about “Sound of Freedom” at least 50 times, often using the same talking points, promotional hashtags and studio-quality movie clips. As criticism of the movie poured in, many of them alleged that the pushback was part of a sinister and coordinated attack by Democrats and the media. Jeffrey Epstein’s name was sometimes invoked.

“Sound of Freedom exposes the dark realities of human trafficking that are largely ignored by legacy media, and perpetuated by left-wing open border policy,” wrote Blake Kresses, a Fort Worth-based podcaster who previously worked for Jeff Younger, an anti-transgender activist whose unsuccessful 2022 Texas House campaign was financed by one of Dunn’s groups.

“Liberals, why are you so mad that people are trying to bring awareness to human trafficking? Is there something going on there?” asked Vince Dao, a conservative influencer with 196,000 Instagram followers. “Everyone watching this: Be sure to go see ‘Sound of Freedom’ to send them a message.”

The film’s producer, Angel Studios, did not respond to multiple requests for comment about its relationship with Influenceable. Neither Kresses, Dao or others responded to Instagram messages, texts or phone calls.

Some of the attendees have since begun posting about a new anti-vaccination film, “Remedy,” that prominently features Kennedy Jr., whose presidential bid has been bankrolled by a super PAC run by Boles, the Today Is America CFO.

The influencers have also been vocal about Paxton, parroting anti-impeachment talking points favored by his biggest donors — including Defend Texas Liberty PAC, which gave $18,000 to a similarly named company, Influencable LLC, shortly before the Texas House’s investigation into Paxton was made public.

In the 48 hours before the Texas House voted to impeach Paxton on May 27, at least six of the Fort Worth event attendees made strikingly similar posts in which they accused House Speaker Dade Phelan of being an alcoholic, claimed Republicans in Name Only — “RINOs” — were attacking Paxton for his conservative values, and used a handful of unique hashtags such as #TXKangarooCourt and #TexasCorruption to rail against the House investigation.

Other major social media figures who were not at the Fort Worth event, but are pictured on Influenceable’s website, made similar posts supporting Paxton and condemning House leaders.

More recently, Influenceable appears to be recruiting social media figures to share posts about a new film that claims the Texas Legislature is secretly controlled by Democrats intent on destroying Paxton, a claim that has for years been pushed by Dunn-backed groups.

Screenshots of one of the recruitment pitches, which were published recently by the conservative website Current Revolt, offer influencers $50 for sharing one post about the film. Also listed were links to a payment website and to a tweet by Michael Quinn Sullivan, the longtime leader of Texas Scorecard, a far-right website that’s received millions of dollars from Dunn.

Defend Texas Liberty PAC is also primarily funded by Dunn and another West Texas oil billionaire, Farris Wilks. And the social media manager for Pale Horse Strategies — a consulting firm for Dunn-backed political campaigns — also attended the Fort Worth event.

Defend Texas Liberty and Texas Scorecard have for years been among Paxton’s biggest donors, defenders and cheerleaders. Texas Scorecard did not respond to interview requests. The leader of Defend Texas Liberty PAC declined requests for comment.

In other screenshots published by Current Revolt, the company offered $50 to influencers to share a specific post from Paxton’s personal X account by July 26. The recruitment text includes the name and number for Influencable’s head of recruitment operations and links to a payment portal that’s run by a company that Influenceable’s website lists as a partner.

On July 26, DuRousseau shared the Paxton post to his 144,000 followers, adding that “there are few patriots in leadership like Ken Paxton.”

Dao also shared the post: “RINOs in Texas are still trying to impeach Ken Paxton,” he wrote. “STOP THE WITCH HUNT!”

The Texas Tribune reviewed four of the leading influencers’ profiles on X and Instagram dating to January 2021 and found that most rarely — if ever — posted about Texas politics or Paxton prior to May. Pearson led the Teens for Ted (Cruz) group in 2015. Other than occasional posts about the border or gerrymandering, he does not appear to have frequently engaged with Texas politics. Dao has posted a few times about the border, while DuRousseau’s profile has primarily focused on race issues and anti-Black Lives Matter posts.

Kresses, who lives in Texas and served on Younger’s campaign, has been more vocal about state-level politics, telling his 14,000 Instagram followers to vote for Paxton and unsuccessful Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake in 2022, and urging them to vote no on a Michigan ballot measure to expand voting access — a post that he disclosed was a paid political advertisement.

“Getting paid by God-knows-who”

Influenceable’s tactics have been condemned by figures from across the conservative political spectrum.

Well-known white supremacist Nick Fuentes has repeatedly railed against the company, accusing it of working with Jewish political figures to paint him as an informant to federal law enforcement. Fuentes has also taken issue with the lack of disclosure by social media figures about their ties to the company.

“Why are they so afraid of people finding out about Influenceable?” Fuentes said during a February podcast. “Is it because people aren’t supposed to know that influencers are getting paid by God-knows-who to literally follow instructions like animals?”

The Federal Trade Commission says social media influencers should “make it obvious” when they have a “material connection” — including any “financial, employment, personal or family” relationship — with a brand.

But campaign law experts say there is little that state or federal regulators can do to force more disclosures when it comes to political messaging.

Ian Vandewalker, an expert on the influence of money in politics and elections at the Brennan Center, said federal campaign regulations have not been seriously updated since the early 2000s. He said outdated rules, coupled with recent court rulings, have allowed dark-money groups and popular social media figures to have outsized — and often undisclosed — sway over political discourse.

“The laws around disclosure of campaign spending assumed a traditional model, like paying somebody to print your ad in the newspaper or paying a TV station to play your ad on the air,” he said. “Paying an influencer to talk about a candidate doesn’t fit into those traditional definitions, and so it’s slipping through the cracks.”

In Texas, there are some restrictions on out-of-state donations and on when donors can give to certain politicians, campaigns and “specific-purpose committees.” The state also requires disclosures of “express advocacy” political advertising, which the Texas Ethics Commission says is undefined by law but includes “any time a candidate, a candidate’s agent, or a political action committee authorizes political advertising.”

Groups and individuals who are not directly connected to candidates or campaigns are also required to make disclosures if they are clearly advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate or for the passage or defeat of a measure.

But the state’s rules otherwise "allow dark money to run amok and do whatever it wants,” said Roger Borgelt, an Austin lawyer who specializes in campaign finance and election law.

“If you’re not actually advocating for or against the election of someone or a proposition, then you pretty much fall outside” most regulations, he said.

Oliverson, the Republican state representative, said he’d like to address those gaps when the Legislature’s next regular session begins in 2025. Though he declined to comment on promotions regarding Paxton because of a gag rule ahead of Paxton’s impeachment trial, Oliverson said he was deeply troubled by the idea that influencers are getting paid to advocate for positions without revealing their financial stakes.

“I’m somebody who cares about truth and motivation,” he said. “I really dislike manufactured outrage and manufactured narratives. I prefer people to be honest, straightforward and truthful. And so I do think that, at a bare minimum, these things should have to be disclosed.”

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

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/14/influenceable-texas-politics-ken-paxton/.

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

In Texas, Ken Paxton legal team works to invalidate every article of impeachment before trial

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.

Attorneys for suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a flurry of motions over the weekend that seek to dismiss additional articles of impeachment, arguing that the allegations are baseless or fall under the legitimate duties of the attorney general’s office.

In the documents, filed before Saturday’s deadline for pretrial motions and made public Monday, Paxton’s attorneys routinely accused House impeachment managers of using “any means necessary” to “overturn the will of voters” who elected Paxton last year.

Paxton’s team also downplayed the severity of the accusations against him — including those surrounding his firing of whistleblowers from his office who reported him to law enforcement for alleged bribery — and argued that many of the claims are without merit or do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

In addition to challenging individual articles, Paxton’s lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing all 20 articles of impeachment that were approved 121-23 by the House in May, arguing that the accusations are unsupported by evidence.

The House impeachment managers have until Aug. 15 to respond in writing to all pretrial motions. Paxton’s impeachment trial, with 30 Texas senators acting as jurors, is set to begin Sept. 5.

Combined with earlier filings, the latest pretrial motions set up a dramatic confrontation in the early moments of Paxton’s trial — a series of votes by senators on whether to eliminate some or all of the articles of impeachment before evidence can be presented. A majority of senators — 16 — can approve dismissal of an article, placing an early test on the determination of the chamber’s 19 Republicans to allow a trial on the allegations.

If all articles were to be dismissed, the impeachment trial would be over before it began. If any article survives, the trial would move to opening statements by lawyers for the House impeachment managers. Paxton’s lawyers could deliver their opening statements immediately afterward or defer until later in the trial.

The new filings are the latest in which Paxton’s team, led by Houston lawyer Tony Buzbee, has sought to have articles tossed.

Last week, Paxton’s team filed two motions to dismiss 19 of the 20 articles of impeachment, arguing that all but one — Article 8 — ran afoul of the “prior-term doctrine,” which they said bars officials from being impeached for conduct that predates their most recent election. They argued that almost all of the allegations outlined by House investigators were known to voters when they reelected him to his third six-year term in 2022.

But while those filings attacked the impeachment articles on procedural grounds, the new flurry of motions individually addressed the merits of the allegations against Paxton. The lawyers also sought to dismiss Article 8, which deals with Paxton’s request that the Legislature finance his $3.3 million lawsuit settlement with the whistleblowers — a request that prompted the initial House investigation into him earlier this year.

In its filing, Paxton’s team framed the lawsuit settlement as a “money-saving agreement” of “ordinary employment litigation.” It also accused the House of having “done violence to our democracy” by attempting to impeach Paxton over what it described as a “routine” function of his job.

The new filings also hint at Paxton’s potential defense strategy for allegations involving Nate Paul, a political donor and Austin real estate investor who was arrested in June on federal felony charges of lying to financial institutions to secure business loans. House investigators accused Paxton of misusing his office to help Paul’s business and to interfere with criminal investigations into Paul’s activities. In return, investigators alleged, Paul paid to remodel Paxton’s Austin home and hired a woman with whom Paxton allegedly had an extramarital affair.

In the filing, Paxton’s team downplayed the relationship with Paul and argued that there was no evidence that Paxton formed “an illegal agreement” to help Paul in exchange for a benefit — a “quid pro quo” required under state bribery laws.

“As they stand, the Articles allege nothing more than that the Attorney General had a personal relationship with a constituent and that the constituent found something the Attorney General did to be agreeable in some way,” Paxton’s attorneys wrote. “If that is enough to amount to a bribe, scarcely any elected official is innocent of the House’s notion of bribery.“

On the other side of the legal fight, House impeachment managers filed a motion Saturday requesting clarity on several Senate-approved trial rules. They asked that cross-examination not count toward the 24 hours allotted to each side to present evidence; that both sides exchange “all documents, photographs or other materials expected to be used at trial” by Aug. 22; and that House managers be allowed to use their wireless mobile devices while on the Senate floor during the trial.

Disclosure: Tony Buzbee 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.

Morning Digest: Father of anti-trans ‘bathroom bill’ joins race for North Carolina attorney general

Posted on by Daily Kos Elections

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

Embedded Content

Leading Off

● NC-AG, NC-08: Far-right Rep. Dan Bishop, an election denier who rose to prominence after spearheading North Carolina's transphobic "bathroom bill" in 2016 while in the state Senate, announced Thursday that he'd run for state attorney general next year. The congressman quickly earned an endorsement from the well-funded Club for Growth for his bid to become the first Republican to hold this office since 1975, though he currently faces former state Rep. Tom Murry in the primary.

Bishop, however, may not be the only sitting congressman who ends up running to succeed incumbent Josh Stein, the Democratic frontrunner in next year's race for governor. The very same day, Democratic Rep. Jeff Jackson declined to rule out a bid of his own. Jackson told the News & Observer's Danielle Battaglia that he'd only start thinking about a campaign after the state's Republican-run legislature passes a new congressional map sometime this fall, which could leave the freshman without a seat he can win.

Jackson, however, was quick to make clear how he'd go after Bishop. "I did hear his announcement," he said, "and as a prosecutor, I don't think that anyone who supported overturning an election should be talking about law and order." The Democratic field currently consists of Marine veteran Tim Dunn and Navy Reserve veteran Charles Ingram, but both reported having minimal cash stockpiles at the end of June.

Bishop did indeed vote to overturn Joe Biden's win in the hours following the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, a move the congressman justified by echoing Donald Trump's lies about mail-in votes. "In the 2020 election, the national Democratic Party carried out a highly coordinated, massively financed, nationwide campaign to displace state regulation of absentee ballots by means of a flood of election-year litigation," Bishop wrote just before the riot, and he's continued to spread the Big Lie since then. The congressman fired off an evidence-free tweet last year claiming that Jack Dorsey "and Twitter put their thumb on the scale in the last election to help Biden." (Unsurprisingly, Bishop has a far more favorable view of that site's new owner.)

Before Bishop devoted himself to enabling conservative extremists in Washington, D.C., he was a state lawmaker who indirectly helped cost the GOP the governorship in 2016. That year, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed the Bishop-crafted House Bill 2, which required anyone using bathrooms at schools or public facilities to use the restroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate, regardless of their gender identity. That legislation sparked a national backlash that led several major corporations to cancel planned expansions in the state, and voters responded by narrowly booting McCrory in favor of then-Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Bishop's career, though, survived and thrived even after Cooper signed a law rolling back HB 2. The state senator unexpectedly got the chance to run for Congress in what was then numbered the 9th District in 2019 after the results of the previous year's election were voided because of election fraud carried out to assist Republican nominee Mark Harris. Bishop decisively won the primary and went on to narrowly defeat 2018 Democratic nominee Dan McCready 51-49 after an expensive campaign for a gerrymandered constituency that Trump had taken 54-43 in 2016.

But despite that underwhelming victory, as well as a new court-supervised map that made the 9th District a shade bluer, Bishop turned in an easy 2020 win in a contest that national Democrats didn't target. His constituency was soon renumbered the 8th District following the 2020 census and became safely red turf that Bishop had no trouble holding last year. The congressman then used the first days of the new Congress to cast 11 straight votes against making Kevin McCarthy speaker, but he eventually flipped; McCarthy rewarded Bishop afterward with a spot on the GOP's Orwellian-named "Weaponization of the Federal Government" subcommittee.

Republican legislators were recently given the green light to once again gerrymander to their hearts' content after the newly conservative state Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the court's previously Democratic majority that had banned the practice. They'll likely draw up another safe seat to replace the one Bishop currently represents, and there's already chatter about who could run to replace him.

An unnamed source tells the National Journal's James Downs that Harris and Dan Barry, who took a distant fifth in the 2012 primary for the 9th District several maps ago, are "names to watch." Harris chose not to run in the 2019 special election that Bishop ultimately won, but while the consultant responsible for the fraud that wrecked his campaign went to prison, Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman announced the following year that she wouldn't charge the candidate as part of her probe.

P.S. While Bishop would be the first Republican to serve as attorney general in 50 years, the last member of his party to actually win this office was Zeb Walser all the way back in 1896. Republicans last held the attorney general's office in 1974 when GOP Gov. James Holshouser appointed James Carson to fill a vacancy, though Carson lost the ensuing special election a few months later to Democrat Rufus Edmisten.

Senate

● AZ-Sen: Noble Predictive Insights, which until recently was known as OH Predictive Insights, has released a poll that finds Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego leading in six different general election scenarios:

  • Rep. Ruben Gallego (D): 33, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb (R): 25, Kyrsten Sinema (I-inc): 24
  • Gallego (D): 40, Lamb (R): 36
  • Gallego (D): 32, Sinema (I-inc): 28, 2022 Senate nominee Blake Masters (R): 24
  • Gallego (D): 44, Masters (R): 36
  • Gallego (D): 34, Sinema (I-inc): 26, 2022 gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake (R): 25
  • Gallego (D): 45, Lake (R): 35

Gallego and Lamb are the only notable candidates who have announced they're running. NPI, which sometimes does work on behalf of GOP groups, is the very first poll we've seen from anyone since April.

● ND-Sen: Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer told KUMV this week that he hasn't decided whether he'll seek reelection, though the incumbent sounds like he's leaning strongly towards another campaign. "A second term for me would mean greater clout, probably a chairmanship as well," Cramer said. "Seniority matters in the Senate. That's where my thinking is today without telling you exactly what I intend to do. I guess I would be surprised if I decided not to run for reelection." The senator does not appear to have indicated what factors would push him toward retirement.

● WV-Sen: The Washington Post reports that Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin has asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to direct money towards positive ads "to help prop up his poll numbers before he decides whether he'll run," but Manchin won't use his own $10.8 million war chest for this purpose because he "doesn't want to spark speculation that he's running for reelection by making an ad buy to boost his image." The Democratic group Duty and Honor did run commercials in the spring to counter a GOP offensive to damage the incumbent, but the paper says that Schumer doesn't want to make a big investment here before he knows if Manchin will actually run again.

Governors

● MS-Gov: Republican incumbent Tate Reeves seems to agree with Democrats that the state's $77 million welfare funds scandal could hurt him even in this red state because he's already up with a response spot two days after Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley launched his first commercial on the topic. The challenger may not mind too much, though, because Reeves' ad makers adopt the dubious strategy of repeating some of the very attacks Presley is leveling against him.

"Have you seen this ad attacking our governor, Tate Reeves?" asks the narrator as footage fills the screen of Presley's earlier piece, complete with on-screen text reading, "REEVES … PLAGUED BY WELFARE FRAUD SCANDAL." Reeves' narrator isn't happy, saying, "Tate Reeves had nothing to do with the scandal … it all happened before he was governor." It's rarely a good move to put your candidate's name in the same sentence as "scandal," but Presley's team is also disputing the idea that Reeves isn't to blame for something that occurred while he occupied the powerful lieutenant governor's office.

"[T]he reality is Tate Reeves used to brag about his watchdog responsibilities and overseeing the state budget," the campaign said in a statement, which included a quote from a 2019 ad where Reeves proclaimed he was "managing the government's money like it's your money―because it is."

● WA-Gov: Richland School Board member Semi Bird on Thursday pledged to continue his campaign for governor two days after the Republican appears to have lost a recall election along with two colleagues. The trio voted in February of 2022 to defy the state's COVID protocols and make it optional to wear masks in local public schools; school was canceled for two days as a result, and the group ultimately backed down.

Bird hasn't gained much traction ahead of a top-two primary contest where former Rep. Dave Reichert appears to be the GOP frontrunner, but he's hoping his likely ouster will change that. (The state is still counting ballots, but the pro-recall "yes" side was ahead 56-44 in Bird's race as of Thursday; the results were similar in the other two contests.) "The teachers unions and leftest activists may have won the recall battle, pouring 10's of thousands of dollars into the effort," Bird wrote Thursday in a fundraising email, "but when the people of Washington send me to Olympia, we will win the war."

House

● DE-AL: EMILY's List on Thursday endorsed state Sen. Sarah McBride in the Democratic primary for this statewide seat, declaring that it "was proud to support McBride when she made history in 2020 as the first openly transgender state senator in the country — and we are thrilled to once again help her make history and become the first openly transgender member of Congress."

● NC-??: State House Speaker Tim Moore announced last month that he will not seek another term leading the chamber after the 2024 elections, and he and his team are continuing to evade questions about whether he'd run for the U.S. House after his party passes a new gerrymander. Political advisor Paul Shumaker told the News & Observer, "We don't know what the maps are going to look like. We have all this speculation." Shumaker added that his client could also go into the private sector.

● PA-01: Anti-abortion activist Mark Houck announced Wednesday that he'd run to deny renomination to Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick in this competitive suburban Philadelphia seat, a declaration that comes months after he was found not guilty of allegedly violating a federal law designed to protect abortion clinics. Houck became a conservative celebrity in the leadup to that January trial, where he was accused of intimidation by twice shoving a 72-year-old Planned Parenthood volunteer in 2021; Houck never denied he'd done this, though he successfully claimed that he'd only become violent after his son was insulted.

Houck launched his campaign by telling the far-right website The Church Militant, "We're running to protect the rights of families and defend traditional family values in our district. Unfortunately, Brian doesn't represent that." Fitzpatrick, who has made a name for himself as a pragmatist, has always run well ahead of the top of the ticket during his four campaigns, and Democrats would be delighted if Houck gave him a hard time in this 52-47 Biden seat. The well-funded congressman turned back a little-known primary foe 66-34 last cycle before pulling off a 55-45 victory against Ashley Ehasz, a Democrat who is running again.

● TX-28: Conservative Rep. Henry Cuellar on Thursday unveiled endorsements from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the rest of the chamber's Democratic leadership, as well as Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, in what's likely a move to deter another primary challenge from the left. Cuellar narrowly fended off immigration attorney Jessica Cisneros in 2020 and 2022, and her former spokesperson told the Texas Tribune back in March that she hadn't ruled out a third try. The Lone Star State's downballot filing deadline is Dec. 11, which is one of the earliest in the nation.

Attorneys General

● TX-AG: Thursday finally brought some action concerning Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton's long-stalled trial for securities fraud, with a state judge agreeing to a request from both prosecutors and the defense to delay scheduling anything until Paxton's separate impeachment trial concludes sometime next month. Both sides agreed that Paxton would be more likely to try to reach a deal concerning the eight-year-old security fraud indictment if two-thirds of the state Senate votes to remove him from office, with one of his attorneys explaining that this outcome would be "a kill shot to his political career, so it opens the door to a resolution that’s not open right now."

Ballot Measures

● OH Ballot: A GOP consultant tells cleveland.com that groups looking to beat Issue 1, which would make it much harder to amend the state constitution, have added $2.5 million to their media buys for the final days of the Aug. 8 special election. The story says the conservative pro "yes" side enjoys a small $5.9 million to $5.3 million edge in ad spending for the last week of the race: The GOP firm Medium Buying also tweets that the "no" side has outspent its rivals $12.2 million to $9.7 million on TV and radio for the entire campaign.

Meanwhile, organizers seeking to place a statutory initiative on the November ballot to legalize recreational marijuana say they've submitted 6,500 additional signatures to the secretary of state, and they only need about 10% of them to be valid in order to qualify: The campaign fell just 679 petitions shy of the 124,000 minimum last month, but state law granted them 10 extra days to make up the shortfall.

Because this proposal would not amend the constitution, it would only need to win a majority no matter how the Issue 1 fight ends next week. Issue 1 would also not eliminate the 10-day grace period for statutory initiatives like this, though it would end this rule for future constitutional amendments. Polling from Civiqs shows that two-thirds of Ohio voters believe "the use of cannabis should be legal."