Category: Texas

Texas wants Planned Parenthood to repay millions of dollars

Posted on by Associated Press

Texas wants Planned Parenthood to give back millions of dollars in Medicaid reimbursements — and pay far more in fines on top of that — in a lawsuit that appears to be the first of its kind brought by a state against the largest abortion provider in the U.S.

A hearing was set for Tuesday in front of U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who earlier this year put access to the most common method of abortion in the U.S. in limbo with a ruling that invalidated approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.

The case now before him in America's biggest red state does not surround abortion, which has been banned in Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. But Planned Parenthood argues the attempt to recoup at least $17 million in Medicaid payments for health services, including cancer screenings, is a new effort to weaken the organization after years of Republican-led laws that stripped funding and imposed restrictions on how its clinics operate.

At issue is money Planned Parenthood received for health services before Texas removed the organization from the state's Medicaid program in 2021. Texas had begun trying to oust Planned Parenthood four years earlier and is seeking repayment for services billed during that time.

“This baseless case is an active effort to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers," said Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Texas brought the lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act, which allows fines for every alleged improper payment. Planned Parenthood says that could result in a judgement in excess of $1 billion.

It is not clear when Kacsmaryk will rule.

The lawsuit was announced last year by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is now temporarily suspended from office pending the outcome of his impeachment trial next month over accusations of bribery and abuse of office.

Spokespersons for the office did not return a message seeking comment Monday. Last year, Paxton said it was “unthinkable that Planned Parenthood would continue to take advantage of funding knowing they were not entitled to keep it.”

Jacob Elberg, a former federal prosecutor who specialized in health care fraud, described Texas' argument as weak.

He called the False Claims Act the government's most powerful tool against health fraud. Cases involving the law in recent years have included a health records company in Florida and a Montana health clinic that submitted false asbestos claims.

Elberg said it is “hard to understand” how Planned Parenthood was knowingly filing false claims at a time when it was in court fighting to stay in the program and Texas was still paying the reimbursements.

“This just isn’t what the False Claims Act is supposed to be about,” said Elberg, faculty director at Seton Hall Law School's Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law.

Planned Parenthood has roughly three dozen health clinics in Texas. One has closed since the Supreme Court ruling last year that allowed Texas to ban abortion.

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.

Ken Paxton is suddenly worried about ‘impartiality’ in his Texas impeachment trial

Posted on (Updated by Hunter

Suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton remains indicted on account of crimes, but his more urgent problem is his recent impeachment at the hands of his fellow Republicans. The state Legislature voted to impeach Paxton after his history of crookedness in the attorney general's office became impossible for even Texas Republicans to ignore. Paxton will now face an impeachment trial in the state Senate.

Paxton, however, remains an enormous whining baby and is still trying to stack the deck in his own favor with a new demand that not all of the Senate be allowed to vote in his trial. Paxton's lawyers are now asking Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to bar three Democratic state senators from the trial because those lawmakers have said very mean things about him and are therefore not impartial.

A basic principle of due process is that the accused is entitled to an unbiased jury. Like numerous courts around the country, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held for almost a century that potential jurors with a bias or prejudice against the accused are disqualified from serving on his jury as a matter of law. Jurors José Menendez, Roland Gutierrez, and Nathan Johnson have such a bias and have proclaimed it loudly, time and again. Gutierrez, for example, has said that the evidence against the Attorney General “could not be refuted.” But that is the purpose of a defense—to attempt to refute the prosecution’s evidence—and the function of a trial—to determine whether that evidence has proven charges beyond a reasonable doubt. No one who has publicly declared the charges against a defendant irrefutable can even play at impartiality, let alone serve in an impartial manner. And Menendez and Johnson are no better.

Blah blah, whine whine, blah blah blah.

Now, all of this is very interesting or whatever but Paxton's entire letter goes to great lengths to dodge the core point of the matter: Ken Paxton ain't facing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He may have forgotten, but right now he's facing an impeachment trial run by the Texas Senate, not a criminal trial in a criminal courtroom, and all this whining about how dare state senators have opinions about the evidence in his trial is nothing but a gigantic bullshit fountain premised on pretending that the two things are the same.

Did Paxton's lawyers write this up for Paxton's eventual upcoming criminal trial, but accidentally stick it in the wrong envelope? Since when did Republicans give a shit about enforcing "impartiality" in an impeachment trial?

Yeah, that's what we all remember most about Donald Trump's two separate impeachment trials—all of the Republicans refusing to render early judgment about Trump’s guilt because of the impartiality of the process. We can't even count all the Republicans who recused themselves from the proceedings due to their inability to be impartial except oh wait—we can, it was zero. Zero Republicans.

What's really going on here is that Ken Paxton is a uniquely gutless sack of corruption still looking to game the system however he can, and removing three Democratic senators from the voting pool would mean that the 21 votes for Paxton's removal from office would have to come from just 27 eligible senators instead of 31. That's a much tougher hurdle, even if a good chunk of Texas Republicans are finally sick enough of Paxton's crookedness to want to be rid of him.

As for evidence of how shallow Paxton’s alleged desire for fairness is, one of Paxton's activist buddies has filed a lawsuit demanding that Paxton's wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, be allowed to vote in the impeachment trial. That’s because the state Senate passed rules requiring her recusal due to her being married to the man being impeached for, among other things, arranging a cushy new job for a woman he had an affair with.

Oh no, three Democratic senators have expressed their belief that the evidence shows Ken Paxton to be a crooked sack of crookedness. However will the impeachment trial go on when such injustice is at play?

RELATED STORIES:

Why is Texas AG Ken Paxton getting impeached? Take your pick

'Unmoored by disarray': AP investigation reveals that Texas AG Ken Paxton's office is a corrupt mess

A gutless Ken Paxton tries to preen after bravely fleeing from a court's process server

Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit

Posted on by The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to Texas and Louisiana Friday in a lawsuit over a Biden administration policy that’s helped effectively end most deportations of foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally.

Rather than rule on the merits of the case, in United States v. Texas, the court ruled 8-1 that the states didn’t have standing, or a legal right, to challenge the policy.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the sole dissent, arguing the justices ignored “a major precedent.”

He wrote:

“The Court holds Texas lacks standing to challenge a federal policy that inflicts substantial harm on the State and its residents by releasing illegal aliens with criminal convictions for serious crimes.

In order to reach this conclusion, the Court brushes aside a major precedent that directly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our established test for standing, disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare – withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc. I would not blaze this unfortunate trail. I would simply apply settled law, which leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Texas has standing.”

Last June, a federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, ruled in favor of Texas and Louisiana, arguing they would incur costs due to the federal government’s failure to comply with federal immigration law and deportation policies. The judge ruled the states had standing to sue because of these costs. He also vacated the deportation policy, arguing it was unlawful.

The Biden administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which again handed a victory to the states by declining to stay the lower court’s ruling. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert. Last fall, the court heard oral arguments and on Friday ruled the states lacked Article III standing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a different opinion saying the states didn’t have standing for a different reason than the one Kavanaugh gave. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote her own concurring opinion and was joined by Gorsuch.

Related: Feds Catch More Than 460 Known, Suspected Terrorists In Nine Months, Most At Northern Border

At issue is a final memorandum, “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law,” issued by Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, drastically altering deportation policies, including limiting issuing detainer requests for dangerous criminal aliens.

In Mayorkas’ final September 2021 memorandum, he also challenged federal law established by Congress that illegal entry is a crime in itself and a deportable offense. The policy states: “The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”

Many news organizations reported the Supreme Court ruling would allow the administration to prioritize deporting violent criminals. But under the current administration, deportations immediately dropped by two-thirds in the first fiscal year of the administration, according to CBP data. In fiscal 2021, deportations also dropped to the lowest level since fiscal 1996 despite record-high illegal entries.

Mayorkas’ policy also followed President Joe Biden’s directive, who after taking office ordered a “pause” on deportations.

Related: Illegal Border Crossers So Far This Year Outnumber The Population Of 8 States

Last July, 19 attorneys general filed an amicus brief expressing support for Texas’ and Louisiana’s lawsuit, arguing Mayorkas violated federal law and DHS’s actions negatively impacted their states and jeopardized the safety and welfare of Americans.

The AGs argued, and still maintain, “The Amici States and their citizens continue to suffer significant costs from illegal immigration – including billions of dollars in new expenses relating to law enforcement, education, and healthcare programs – as a direct result of Defendants’ failures to enforce immigration law. Those harms are exacerbated by DHS’ increasingly brazen disrespect for the requirements of our nation’s immigration laws and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“The border is in crisis,” they argued. “This DHS Administration is lawless. And the States continue to suffer escalating irreparable harm as the border crisis continually intensifies to successive, ever-more unprecedented levels of illegal crossings.”

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit appeared first on The Political Insider.

The fate of Texas’ impeached attorney general rests in hands of 31 state senators―including his wife

Posted on (Updated by Jeff Singer

The Texas State Senate on Monday passed a resolution declaring that its trial for Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom the state House impeached over corruption allegations two days before, must begin by Aug. 28. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who like Paxton and every other statewide official is a Republican, is tasked with choosing the starting date and presiding over the tribunal. It would take two-thirds of the 31-member chamber, where the GOP holds a 19-12 majority, to convict Paxton and thus bar him from ever holding state office again.

Paxton will remain suspended until a verdict is reached, and Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, who joined his boss in trying to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 win, automatically assumed the office. Gov. Greg Abbott has not yet said if he’d select someone to take over from Webster, a key Paxton ally who used his first day on the job to praise the scandal-ridden attorney general in an email to staffers.

If the Senate removed Paxton, though, election law professor Quinn Yeargain writes in Guaranteed Republics that Abbott would be tasked with picking a replacement, and that this person would require the support of two-thirds of the Senate in order to be confirmed. Yeargain adds that a November 2024 special election would take place for the final two years of Paxton’s term should he be convicted.

This could be a consequential pick should Abbott get to make it, as political observers point out that whoever holds the powerful post of attorney general could be the frontrunner in 2026 to succeed the governor in the event that he doesn’t seek a fourth term. (Abbott himself used this office as a springboard to the governorship in 2014.)

Yeargain, however, notes that, because Republicans are two seats shy of the two-thirds supermajority needed to unilaterally confirm a new attorney general, Democrats could try to pressure Abbott to pick someone who wouldn’t run next year. If the Senate failed to oust Paxton, though, he’d be free to run for reelection or higher office three years down the line.

It also remains to be seen if two GOP senators, Angela Paxton and Bryan Hughes, will act as jurors, though the Houston Chronicle says that two-thirds of the total body would need to vote for conviction whether or not there are any recusals. Angela Paxton is Ken Paxton’s wife, and she’s remained his close ally even though he allegedly convinced a wealthy ally named Nate Paul to hire the woman that the attorney general was having an affair with. The House’s articles of impeachment, meanwhile, accuse Paxton of utilizing Hughes as a “straw requestor” for a legal opinion used to aid Paul.

Patrick indicated that neither senator would be required to step aside, saying, “I will be presiding over that case and the senators—all 31 senators—will have a vote.” Kenneth Williams, who is a professor of criminal procedure, told the Associated Press that there wasn’t any way to prevent Angela Paxton from taking part in the proceedings, saying, “It’s up to her ethical standards and compass, basically.”

Until a week ago, it didn’t look like Ken Paxton was in any immediate danger of losing the office he was reelected to twice while under felony indictment. The attorney general was charged with securities fraud all the way back in 2015, but that trial still has yet to be scheduled. In November of 2020, the AP reported that the FBI was probing him in an unrelated matter for allegedly using his office to help Paul in exchange for favors. Four of Paxton’s former top aides also filed a whistleblower lawsuit claiming that he’d retaliated against them for helping this investigation; their suit also alleges that Webster took part in this retaliation.

Paxton and his former personnel reached a tentative settlement in February that was contingent on the Texas legislature approving $3.3 million in state funds to the quartet, but it soon became apparent that House Speaker Dade Phelan and other fellow Republicans weren’t keen to pay this. And while things seemed to stall, the House General Investigating Committee actually quietly began its own report into Paxton’s alleged misbehavior.

Paxton made news Tuesday when he called for Phelan to resign for presiding over his chamber “in a state of apparent debilitating intoxication,” but all that was overshadowed the next day when the committee unexpectedly released its report reiterating many of the allegations related to Paul. The committee, which recommended impeachment the next day, went on to say, “We cannot over-emphasize the fact that, but for Paxton’s own request for a taxpayer-funded settlement . . . Paxton would not be facing impeachment."

On Saturday, the GOP-dominated House was presented with 20 counts of impeachment. Most of the charges accused Paxton of illegally using his powers to help Paul, though some said he’d tried to interfere in the securities fraud case. Donald Trump, who endorsed the attorney general in last year’s primary, tried to pressure Republicans with a TruthSocial message threatening to “fight” anyone who voted for impeachment, while one Republican member of the General Investigating Committee claimed that Paxton himself had contacted representatives “threatening them with political consequences in their next election.”

Ultimately, though, impeachment passed 121-23, with 60 Republicans joining 61 Democrats in the affirmative. All 23 noes came from Republicans, with one member from each party voting present: The lone Democrat to do this was Harold Dutton, who infuriated his party earlier this month by backing an anti-trans bill.

Paxton characteristically responded by writing, “Phelan’s coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans is now in lockstep with the Biden Administration, the abortion industry, anti-gun zealots, and woke corporations to sabotage my work as Attorney General.” He also predicted he’d be acquitted by the Senate where, as Yeargain writes, Angela Paxton would likely become the first person in American history to have the chance to vote on an impeached spouse’s conviction.

Juror and spouse: Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton could vote in trial on husband’s impeachment

Posted on by Associated Press stories chosen by Daily Kos staff

On the way to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton becoming a rising figure in the GOP, his wife, Angela, used to entertain crowds with a guitar and a song.

“I'm a pistol-packin' mama, and my husband sues Obama,” she sang at campaign events and Republican clubs in Texas.

When it came time for the high school teacher and guidance counselor to launch her own political career, a $2 million loan from her husband propelled Angela Paxton to a narrow victory for a state Senate seat in the booming Dallas suburbs. Once elected, she filed bills to expand his office's powers, and approved budgets over his state agency and salary.

Now, Sen. Paxton is a key figure in the next phase of Ken Paxton's historic impeachment: as a “juror” in a Senate trial that could put her husband back in office or banish him permanently.

It's a role that raises an ethical cloud over the Senate proceeding. State law compels all senators to attend, but is silent on whether she must participate.

“If it were a trial in the justice system, she would be completely required to (step aside),” said Kenneth Williams, professor of criminal procedure at the South Texas College of Law in Houston. “It’s a clear conflict of interest.”

The trial is to start no later than Aug. 28, and it promises to be quite personal for Angela Paxton.

The 20 articles of impeachment brought against Ken Paxton include sweeping charges of abuse of office and unethical behavior. They include a bribery charge related to an extramarital affair with an aide to a state senator. Another suggested Angela Paxton was involved in the installation of $20,000 countertops at their home, paid for by a political donor.

Angela Paxton hasn't said if she'll recuse herself from the trial. She declined comment when approached by The Associated Press outside the Senate chamber on Monday.

State Rep. Andrew Murr, who led the impeachment investigation in the state House, declined to say if he thinks Angela Paxton should step aside. The Senate gets to set the rules, he said.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick tightly controls the Senate and its 19-12 Republican majority. He suggested to a Dallas television state before last week's House impeachment vote that Angela Paxton will participate in the trial.

“I will be presiding over that case and the senators — all 31 senators — will have a vote,” Patrick told WFAA-TV. “We’ll set the rules for that trial as we go forward and we’ll see how that develops.”

The state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the chamber to convict. But there is little historic precedent in drafting impeachment trial rules, and nothing with a similar spousal conflict, Williams said.

In nearly 200 years of Texas history, Ken Paxton is just the third official to be impeached and the first statewide official impeached since Gov. James “Pa” Ferguson in 1917.

There's no legal mechanism to force Angela Paxton out of the trial like there would be a criminal trial, Williams said.

“It's up to her ethical standards and compass, basically,” Williams said.

The trial comes not only after Paxton was overwhelming reelected in November, but so was his wife, who cruised to a second term backed by wide support among conservative activists. They included Jonathan Saenz, president and attorney of Texas Values, who has worked closely with the senator on legislation, including a bill she carried this year that banned sexual content in public school libraries.

He said Sen. Paxton “has earned the right to decide what she thinks is best in this situation.”

“Senator Paxton is certainly in the highest category of elected officials in how she treats people and her position. I have high confidence in her moral compass in coming down on the side of what she thinks is best,” Saenz said.

The Paxtons come to each other's aid in politics and legal fights.

Angela pushed Ken to chase his political ambitions in his first run for a House seat in 2002. In 2018, she touted Ken's political expertise and advice in her first campaign for the Senate. That included the $2 million loan from his reelection campaign in a bruising Republican primary.

One of Angela Paxton's first moves as a state lawmaker was filing a bill to give the attorney general's office new powers over licensing exemptions for investment advisers. Ken Paxton was indicted in 2015 for failing to register as an investment adviser while raising money for a technology startup where he was invested and being paid. He has yet to go to trial on the felony charge.

Angela Paxton insisted her bill had nothing to do with his criminal charges, but legal experts said it struck near the heart of his indictment. The bill ultimately failed.

In 2022, Angela was the get-away driver from their house when Ken jumped in the family truck to avoid a process server with a subpoena in a federal abortion lawsuit.

Angela Paxton isn't the only lawmaker with a potential conflict of interest at trial.

The House impeachment articles accuse Paxton of using state Sen. Bryan Hughes as a “straw requestor” for a legal opinion that protected a political donor from property foreclosure.

Hughes has not addressed whether he expects to be called as a witness or if he will recuse himself. He did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Ken Paxton and his allies, from former President Donald Trump to Texas grassroots organizations, have called the House impeachment process a politically motivated sham, rushed through in the final week of the legislative session.

The suspended attorney general now hopes for a fighting chance in a Senate controlled by Patrick.

When Patrick first endorsed Angela Paxton in that tough 2018 primary, he called her a “dynamic conservative leader and a person of integrity deeply rooted in her Christian faith.”

Patrick this year appointed her vice-chair of the Senate State Affairs committee, and to seats on the powerful finance and education committees.

Mark Phariss, the Democrat who lost to Angela Paxton by 2 percentage points in 2018, noted her sharp political instincts. He predicted she won't step aside from a trial.

“My assumption is she will not recuse herself. Because she does not seem to distance herself from her husband, either when she ran for office in 2018 initially or at any time subsequently,” Phariss said.