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.
Paxton and Paul supposedly engaged in a deceptive scheme by setting up a covert Uber account. This covert account allowed them to arrange meetings and facilitated the attorney general’s visits to the woman he was involved in an extramarital relationship with.
According to the House impeachment managers, Paxton quickly tried to conceal his association with Paul after finding out that numerous influential officials in his office had reported his conduct to the FBI. One of his immediate actions was to transfer a payment of $122,000 to a company associated with Paul, aiming to obscure the fact that Paul had offered free home renovations.
The accusations, documented in a sequence of submissions to the Texas Senate’s impeachment court, provide fresh insights into the connection between Paul and Paxton, which forms the crux of the ongoing impeachment proceedings against him.
Rewritten: One of the latest revelations states that high-ranking officials in the attorney general’s office consistently cautioned Paxton about Paul’s dishonest nature and dismissed his allegations of unjust treatment by law enforcement. Additionally, it has been disclosed that the two individuals had numerous meetings during the spring and summer of 2020, during which they occasionally discussed the FBI’s investigation into Paul’s declining real estate business.
According to the impeachment managers, Paxton unquestioningly embraced Paul’s conspiracy, ignoring the advice of senior staff members who had urged him to steer clear. It seemed that Paxton was impervious to rational arguments when it came to Paul.
In June, Paul was apprehended for federal felony charges related to deceitfully providing false information to financial institutions in order to obtain business loans.
In response to Paxton’s pretrial motions aimed at dismissing all 20 articles of impeachment, which include four articles not scheduled for the Sept. 5 impeachment trial, House managers have presented numerous instances where Paxton purportedly exploited his position to favor Paul.
Paxton was accused of conducting a fraudulent criminal investigation into Paul’s opponents, dismissing the concerns raised by agency staff who labeled Paul as a “criminal” and advised Paxton to distance himself.
On the other hand, the House managers claimed that Paxton gradually got caught up in Paul’s deceitful actions and made significant efforts to conceal their association. These efforts included utilizing a disposable phone and clandestine email accounts, evading his security team, and adopting a fake Uber identity to clandestinely visit his lover’s or Paul’s properties on numerous occasions.
According to the House managers, Paxton allegedly misused the authority of his position to further Paul’s interests, despite receiving several favors from him such as employing a woman and funding the renovation of Paxton’s residence.
Paxton supposedly informed agency personnel during a specific occurrence that he opposed their involvement in aiding law enforcement with an inquiry concerning Paul. Paxton asserted that Paul was being unjustly targeted and required unparalleled access to classified details pertaining to his case.
According to reports, following a meeting with concerned senior staff, Paxton purportedly requested access to files related to Paul’s criminal case. Among these files was an unredacted FBI letter, which revealed the identities of individuals connected to a raid conducted on Paul’s residence and businesses in 2019.
According to House managers, Paxton retained the file for over a week, even though the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) did not disclose the information to Paul. Nevertheless, Paxton himself did.
During another incident, Paxton faced accusations of providing a legal opinion that prevented the imminent foreclosure sale of Paul’s businesses during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. House investigators referred to two agency employees who claimed they were compelled to work overnight to generate the opinion, with Paxton frequently contacting them.
One of the investigators was informed by a staffer that Paxton’s voice appeared as if he was being held against his will.
Managers stated that the opinion, supposedly edited by Paxton, was released on August 2, 2020, at 1 a.m. It stated that foreclosure proceedings were a public health risk, contradicting the state’s emphasis on being “open for business” during the pandemic.
According to managers, the following day Paul used the opinion as a reference to effectively postpone the foreclosures.
The House managers expressed that it is difficult to envision a more blatant abuse of Paxton’s office.
Paxton’s legal team had submitted over twelve motions to dismiss every article of impeachment, frequently contending that the allegations were unfounded or fell within the lawful responsibilities of the attorney general’s office.
In addition, his legal representatives alleged that the Texas House was attempting to disregard the decision of voters who had reelected Paxton for a third term, despite his involvement in several public controversies since 2015. They emphasized the “prior-term doctrine,” asserting that Paxton cannot be impeached for misconduct that occurred before his most recent election. Furthermore, they downplayed the significance of some of the accusations against him, arguing that even if they were true, they would not justify his removal from office.
Paxton’s legal team further challenged two impeachment articles related to bribery, arguing that there was no substantiated proof of a “quid pro quo” and asserting that Paxton’s connection to Paul was merely a “personal association with a constituent who found some aspect of the Attorney General’s actions agreeable.”
Senators will vote on any pretrial motion to dismiss or quash an article of impeachment, as per the Senate’s rules. If 16 senators, a majority, approve the dismissal of an article, it will pose an initial challenge to the 19 Republicans in the chamber who are in favor of conducting a trial on the allegations. These votes are scheduled to take place shortly after the trial commences in September.
On Tuesday, the impeachment team submitted a written response to the Senate, and it was made public on Wednesday. In their response, they disputed the claims made by Paxton’s lawyers regarding the insufficiency of the articles of impeachment. The lawyers argued that the articles should have included specific laws that Paxton is accused of breaking.
The House team contended that impeachable offenses do not necessarily have to be crimes that can be prosecuted. They argued that in Texas, impeachment serves to safeguard against actions that undermine the office’s integrity, disregard constitutional responsibilities and oaths of office, exploit governmental processes and authority, and negatively affect the functioning of the government system.
Additionally, the team made the argument that numerous articles specified specific crimes committed by Paxton and provided extensive accounts of how he misused his position for personal gain, whether for himself or for the benefit of Nate Paul and Paul’s affiliated business entities.
The managers stressed that the impeachment trial should not be mistaken for a criminal or civil proceeding, despite suggestions made by Paxton’s side. In a recent filing, the managers emphasized that an impeachment trial is primarily a political undertaking, denoted by a capital ‘P’. It is a means for representatives of the people to challenge official actions that run counter to the public’s best 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.
In an interview with the Fox affiliate in Houston, Patrick stated, “This trial is not of a criminal nature, nor is it a civil trial. It is, in fact, a political trial.”
The House managers further requested the Senate to reject Paxton’s motion to annul the articles or return them to the House for further elaboration on the accusations. They argued that this demand displays a lack of understanding of the impeachment process, asserting that the Texas Constitution does not mandate the same level of specificity as typically observed in civil or criminal cases.
According to the managers, since a person can be impeached without an indictment, Paxton does not possess the authority to request additional details.
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.