Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
In the closing arguments of the impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton, Rep. Jeff Leach, a former Paxton ally who was now making the case against him, told his Senate colleagues that their next vote would be “the hardest vote, the most difficult vote, the heaviest vote” that they would ever cast.
Following the testimony and cross-examination of 13 witnesses, the Texas Senate, now serving as the jury, was finally ready to commence deliberations.
Following their lunch break, the senators spread out across their designated area within the Texas Capitol. Engaging in deliberations, they spent nearly eight hours immersed in discussion.
The jury came to a decisive verdict on Saturday morning. The Texas Senate voted in favor of acquitting Paxton on all 16 articles of impeachment. These articles accused him of misusing his position to assist his friend and donor Nate Paul in investigating his adversaries in return for benefits. None of the articles received anywhere near the 21 votes necessary to convict Paxton and permanently oust him from office.
However, behind closed doors, it was not a definite outcome that Paxton would escape punishment.
Several senators who engaged in discussions with The Texas Tribune initially approached the deliberations with sincerity, but as Republicans started to factor in political considerations, a consensus for acquittal seemed to emerge. Ultimately, it seemed that the Senate may have been on the brink of reaching the required threshold for conviction, but Republicans opted against taking a difficult vote if success was uncertain.
“I feel there were six senators who were ready to be the 21st vote,” said Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas. “But they didn’t want to be the 20th vote.”
Ultimately, only two Republicans — Sens. Robert Nichols of Jacksonville and Kelly Hancock of North Richland Hills — voted with Democrats to convict Paxton. But at least five more GOP senators appeared to be in play during deliberations, according to four people familiar with the talks. There was never any poll taken of how senators would vote, so they were left to gauge their colleagues’ thinking through personal observations and discussions in private.
Among those five were some who had long been seen as potential problems for Paxton. There was Houston Sen. Joan Huffman, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, who had questioned Paxton in 2021 over his hiring of an outside lawyer to investigate Paul’s claims that he was the target of a conspiracy by law enforcement. Even Paxton’s lead lawyer, Tony Buzbee, publicly acknowledged in a mid-June podcast that Huffman “may not be pro-Paxton.”
In response to inquiries about her willingness to vote for conviction, Huffman firmly denied any claims suggesting that she had altered her stance during deliberations. She clarified that her final decision was undisclosed until the voting occurred on the Senate floor, as no votes were taken during the deliberation process. Emphasizing her commitment to impartially evaluating the law and evidence, she affirmed her adherence to her sworn oath.
Another one of the five was Sen. Mayes Middleton of Galveston, who had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to two of Paxton’s primary challengers in 2022. Middleton has been conspicuously quiet since the verdict — he did not respond to a request for comment, and he had not publicized any explanation of his vote as of Wednesday afternoon.
The Houston Chronicle first reported Tuesday that Huffman and Middleton were among multiple senators who considered voting to convict but ultimately declined.
Sen. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, went further in an interview with his local newspaper published Monday, suggesting half of the 16 Republican senators who voted to acquit had been close to deciding the other way. People familiar with the deliberations said Springer was among those who were on the fence, but his spokesperson told the Chronicle that “evidence alone impacted Sen. Springer’s decision.” He did not respond to messages seeking comment from the Tribune.
Paxton’s allies were particularly focused on him as the Republican senator facing reelection in the upcoming year within a strongly conservative district. They made public the polling results from his district and hinted at the possibility of a formidable primary challenger.
In the end, Republican senators primarily justified their votes for acquittal by asserting that the House failed to meet the substantial burden of proof. However, the political pressure was undeniable as allies of Paxton inundated Republican lawmakers with TV ads, text messages, billboards, and even threats of primary challengers. Towards the conclusion of the trial, former President Donald Trump finally spoke out against the Senate proceedings, denouncing Paxton’s impeachment as “shameful.”
Afterward, Patrick emerged as the influential lieutenant governor who wielded immense power during the trial and strived to exhibit his neutrality, leaving an indelible impression on even those who doubted him. However, in June, his credibility took a severe blow as he accepted a hefty sum of $3 million from a pro-Paxton organization. Any remaining optimism held by his skeptics quickly evaporated when he delivered a passionate speech condemning the House impeachment process, ultimately tarnishing his impartiality.
There was an immediate surge of speculation suggesting that Patrick was aware of the verdict beforehand and had been communicating with jurors, potentially influencing their decision during deliberations. However, Patrick has strongly refuted these claims, categorizing them as a conspiracy theory propagated by the House.
In a radio interview on Tuesday, Patrick expressed his opinion by stating, “The individuals who are currently lamenting over their failures and shifting blame to others while drowning their sorrows in beer are nothing but a group of losers. They are claiming that they fulfilled their responsibilities, but in reality, they accomplished absolutely nothing.”
Jury begins
The jury commenced their deliberations on Friday, just before noon.
It was unclear for how long they would endure. Patrick informed them that in the event they couldn’t reach a verdict by Sunday night, he might seclude them in the Capitol. To be prepared, they were instructed to pack a bag containing clothes.
According to interviews with multiple senators, they clarified that their deliberations were far from resembling the intense debates portrayed in the 1957 film “12 Angry Men.” Unlike a criminal trial that requires a unanimous verdict, the senators were not obligated to reach consensus. Instead, they pursued individual or small group discussions, with no more than around six senators meeting at a time to exchange their perspectives. Some senators chose to sit at their desks on the Senate floor, reviewing their notes, while others congregated in the hallway or committee room adjacent to the chamber.
According to Johnson, he believed that the majority of senators had developed firm opinions after the closing arguments. However, he emphasized the importance of revisiting the evidence to address any remaining doubts or verify the information they had received. Johnson acknowledged that discussions among senators varied in their level of sincerity, but he highlighted the valuable and patient conversations he had with several members, including Republicans.
Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican close to Patrick who had voted to dismiss the case pretrial, said a “a couple dozen or more” senators went to the Betty King Committee Room to watch what he considered a key piece of evidence. It was a video of a 2020 meeting between Nate Paul, his lawyer Michael Wynne and Paxton’s deputies, with Paul laying out his allegations against the authorities. Bettencourt recalled that senators listened “intently” and some stayed for the entirety of the video.
Paul, Bettencourt acknowledged the significant convergence of opinions regarding the video, which undeniably proved that the complaint was not unfounded. This was in response to the prosecution’s claim that investigating Paul’s case was a futile utilization of resources and time.
A different senator, who was permitted to remain anonymous while discussing the confidential discussions, expressed their opinion that the audio in the video was of low quality. They further stated their confusion regarding how this audio could hold more significance than all the other evidence in any given case.
At 5 p.m., a survey was conducted to assess the readiness of individuals to vote. Bettencourt stated that a significant portion of the population was not prepared, encompassing individuals from all political factions. Consequently, further discussions and deliberations were conducted. This account was corroborated by another senator.
Fajitas were served for dinner, however, there was no complete assembly of the entire jury. Instead, individuals and small groups arrived and departed intermittently.
Late in the evening, the mood underwent a shift, as several senators observed. Johnson remarked that it transformed into a deathly pale atmosphere when it became evident that certain Republican senators were leaning towards voting contrary to their true sentiments.
“You could tell they were beginning to be pressured,” Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, said.
After voting to convict, Hancock, the Republican senator, refused to provide further details regarding his statement about “a lot of people’s opinion changed overnight.” He declined to elaborate in interviews with both the Dallas Morning News and the Tribune.
Calls to Dan Patrick
During the deliberation on Friday, Patrick and his team took a break to watch “Oppenheimer,” the highly anticipated summer movie that chronicles the creation of the atomic bomb. Following the movie, they headed to a Mexican restaurant for dinner. Patrick mentioned receiving a phone call from a senator during a crucial moment in the film, just as the bomb was about to be deployed.
Patrick said in an interview with the Tribune on Tuesday that the senator inquired about their decision and if it would allow them to leave early.
It seems that the Senators were cleared, as multiple individuals were observed exiting the Capitol prior to Patrick’s given deadline of 8 p.m.
Later that night, Patrick mentioned receiving another call from a senator, who inquired about the details surrounding the Saturday vote.
Patrick refused to disclose the individuals he conversed with, yet he vehemently denied engaging in any conversation about jury deliberations with them.
On Friday night, Bettencourt expressed that while people were still in the process of developing their opinions, he personally didn’t witness any groundbreaking moments where a definitive piece of evidence was discovered, leading to a conclusive judgment.
Most individuals who departed from the Capitol that night appeared to have accepted the situation. They believed that Paxton was on track to be acquitted, given that it became evident that Republicans were unwilling to cast a challenging vote if they couldn’t meet the necessary threshold for conviction.
The senators have not given a uniform account of what transpired.
Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, said in a radio interview Monday that the final outcome was a surprise to members. Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford, said he did not think any minds were changed in deliberations.
According to certain GOP senators and their associates, their opinions began to take shape a few days prior to deliberations, specifically when the House concluded its case. They were surprised and somewhat dismayed by the fact that the House had no further evidence or arguments to present.
Verdict day
By Saturday morning, there was hardly any deliberation left. Senators were set to continue their deliberations at 9 a.m., and although a few were still examining the evidence, it appeared that a verdict was imminent.
Mitch Little, an attorney representing Paxton, recounted that he was in the middle of taking a shower at approximately 9 a.m. on Saturday when he received a phone call from Darrell Davila, Patrick’s chief of staff. The jury had come to a decision.
At around 9:30, Patrick’s office informed the media that the jury would cast their vote on the articles at 10:30 a.m.
Paxton’s legal team believed they had effectively cast doubt upon the credibility of the House witnesses through their efforts, yet they remained uncertain about the opinions and thoughts of the jury.
“In retrospect,” stated Tony Buzbee, the lead lawyer for Paxton, during a radio interview, “None of them provided any clues as to their stance on the matter at hand. There were absolutely no indications. Neither I nor my team had any inkling. Even Attorney General Paxton remained completely unaware of the jury’s eventual decision.”
Following the acquittal vote, Patrick dismissed his impeachment counsel, Lana Myers. Subsequently, Davila placed a fresh sheet of paper on Patrick’s desk.
Bettencourt, a seasoned observer, expressed, “I had a feeling that something was on the horizon.”
Patrick launched a scathing attack on the House, vehemently denouncing the impeachment proceedings and demanding a thorough examination of the expenses incurred during the investigation and trial. This explosive statement intensified the ongoing Texas GOP conflict, leaving one senator, Gutierrez, so appalled that they stormed out.
Phelan’s furious response came swiftly within just ninety minutes, as he accused Patrick of revealing his long-standing bias.
One of the House lawyers, Dick DeGuerin, had a simpler — but maybe not unrelated — explanation in a TV interview three days later.
DeGuerin stated that the Republican senators got scared and backed down.
Patrick’s speech
The questioning commenced promptly, inquiring about Patrick’s knowledge and the timing of it.
By Sunday evening, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying the “fix was in from the start and that Mr. Patrick lobbied his fellow GOP Senators to unite against the House articles of impeachment.” Patrick insisted on Twitter that all he did was return phone calls from two senators who had “procedural issues” during the deliberations.
During his media appearances on Monday, he refuted any claims of discussing senators’ deliberations and expressed his initial belief that Paxton would likely be convicted based on the numerous articles. In a radio interview, Bettencourt vehemently dismissed the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s assertions as dishonest, stating that no senators, regardless of their party affiliation, would testify otherwise.
Regarding the timeline on Saturday, Patrick informed Lubbock radio host Chad Hasty that he had prepared two speeches. The one he ultimately delivered was written at 4 a.m. on Saturday. During interviews with Hasty and other interviewers, Patrick stressed that he chose to deliver the speech immediately after the verdict instead of postponing it. His intention was to ensure that his perspective on the House process became part of the court record.
According to Patrick’s statement to the Tribune, he had prepared an alternative speech in case Paxton was found guilty. He expressed his intention to critique the House procedure irrespective of the outcome.
He stated, “I would have expressed incredibly similar sentiments – essentially indistinguishable, actually.”
There is disagreement about the specific factors that may have influenced the swing votes, but most agree that the process was political in nature from the beginning. As a result, they believe that the outcome was a direct reflection of this.
Gutierrez expressed his belief that Republicans would enter the situation with political motives, as seen through his cynical perspective. He had this suspicion right from the beginning, and time has proven him correct.
