The Texas Tribune is your source for in-depth reporting on the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. Readers make that possible. Support authoritative Texas journalism with a donation now.
A Ken Paxton whistleblower testified Tuesday that the attorney general took an unusually intense interest in a charity’s lawsuit against Nate Paul in 2020, leading to the belief that Paxton had “turned over” his office to Paul.
According to whistleblower Darren McCarty, he concluded that the agency’s participation in the Mitte Foundation’s legal case was unethical, violating our laws, and potentially corrupt.
In 2020, McCarty, who served as the deputy attorney general for civil litigation at that time, was one of the former top deputies who lodged a complaint with the FBI against Paxton. Their allegations stated that Paxton was misusing his position to assist Paul, an Austin-based real estate investor and donor to Paxton’s campaign.
Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial: What to know
-
Paxton faces several allegations
Suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton is accused of bribery, disregarding his official duty, making false statements and abusing the public trust. Paxton allegedly misused the powers of the attorney general’s office to help his friend and donor Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor. Impeachment managers submitted nearly 4,000 pages of evidence ahead of Paxton’s trial in the Senate. Paxton pleaded not guilty.
-
Defense calls accusations political
Paxton’s lawyers vow to disprove the accusations and say they will present evidence showing they are based on assumptions, not facts. They and several other Paxton supporters portray the proceedings as a political witch hunt carried out by “Republicans in name only.”
-
Texas Senate acting as impeachment jury
Texas senators are considering 16 of 20 impeachment articles. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is acting as judge. Witnesses are testifying under oath, senator-jurors will deliberate privately and votes will be conducted without public debate. The attorney general’s wife, Sen. Angela Paxton, will sit as part of the court, but will not vote or deliberate.
-
The political donor at the center of the case
Impeachment prosecutors allege that Paxton directed his office to conduct sham investigations into the rivals of Nate Paul, a real estate investor and political donor who was under federal investigation. Paxton is accused of improperly providing his friend with sensitive information about the FBI investigation into his businesses and improperly involving the attorney general’s office in a lawsuit between Paul and an Austin nonprofit.
-
Affair could play key role in impeachment
Impeachment prosecutors argue that Ken Paxton went to great lengths to conceal an alleged extramarital affair from his wife and deeply religious voters who have supported him. Nate Paul allegedly hired Paxton’s girlfriend in exchange for the attorney general using his public office to help the real estate investor’s faltering businesses.
-
The trial features several high-profile Texans
Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial involves a massive cast of elected officials, high-profile lawyers, whistleblowers from within his office, an indicted real estate investor and the attorney general’s former personal assistant.
On the sixth day of the trial before the Texas Senate, McCarty provided testimony that illuminated the initial impeachment article. This particular article, among the 16 that the Senate is currently deliberating, accused Paxton of neglecting his official responsibilities by orchestrating the involvement of his office employees in the Mitte Foundation lawsuit, with the intention to benefit Paul.
During the cross-examination, Tony Buzbee, the lawyer representing Paxton, disputed several claims made by McCarty, particularly the idea that Paxton had encouraged McCarty to favor Nate Paul’s position in the legal dispute. Although McCarty clarified that Paxton never explicitly used those words, the witness insisted that the intervention still aimed to support Paul.
In the summer of 2020, Paul found himself embroiled in a heated disagreement with the Mitte Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in Austin. The foundation had taken legal action against Paul, accusing him of fraudulent activities. During the proceedings, McCarty provided a testimony stating that Paxton had requested his involvement in the lawsuit, claiming that the litigation had dragged on for an excessive amount of time.
According to McCarty, Paxton’s level of interest in the case was remarkable. He displayed a sense of urgency and anxiety, which intrigued McCarty. Paxton consistently sought updates on any new developments, going to the extent of interrupting an important teleconference to discuss it with McCarty on one occasion.
According to McCarty, Paul expressed his dissatisfaction throughout the conversation, demanding an explanation for the attorney general’s office’s lack of progress in the lawsuit intervention. The whistleblower found Paul’s tone to be completely inappropriate, as the office’s duty is to prioritize the public interest of the charity rather than favoring one party involved in the litigation.
Later on, Buzbee utilized Paul’s grievances to argue the contrary, raising doubts about Paxton’s decision to hand over the responsibilities to an individual harboring such deep resentment towards the office.
According to McCarty, Paxton requested his presence at a court hearing regarding the lawsuit in Travis County District Court. However, when McCarty expressed reluctance, Paxton offered to go himself. McCarty managed to convince Paxton against this course of action, describing it as “terrible” and likely to convey a “very odd message.”
McCarty stated that the individual in question, who held the position of attorney general in Texas, had never made a single court appearance throughout his tenure.
McCarty gave testimony stating that he was taken aback when he noticed that Brandon Cammack, an external lawyer hired by Paxton, had issued a grand jury subpoena with the clear intention of obtaining information that could be used against the foundation. This revelation caused McCarty to make the connection and he described his response as one of shock.
According to McCarty, I thought that [Paxton] had handed over control of the attorney general’s office to a private individual, who was carrying out their own agenda, disregarding the best interests of the state of Texas.
During the cross-examination, Buzbee employed his infamous confrontational approach while questioning McCarty. As the session neared its conclusion, he persistently probed the whistleblower to disclose if Paxton had requested him to take a stance in the lawsuit.
McCarty stated that Ken Paxton had instructed him to prioritize and expedite the termination of the litigation, if feasible.
Buzbee reiterated his question, urging everyone to listen so that we could all leave and go home.
McCarty stated that he never employed those words.
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.