Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
After a 10-day trial, Texas senators on Saturday voted to acquit Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on allegations of bribery and corruption, clearing him to return to his duties as the state’s top lawyer.
However, Paxton still faces ongoing legal issues.
He still faces state securities fraud charges, a case that has stretched out for eight years and counting, starting with an indictment just months after he took office in 2015. The case has been delayed for years by pretrial disputes — including a back-and-forth battle over the trial venue that saw it moved to Houston from Collin County, which Paxton represented as a state lawmaker.
Despite being under investigation by the FBI since October 2020, Paxton has not faced any charges.
Federal investigators began their investigation after several top Paxton deputies went to the FBI and alleged the attorney general had committed crimes, including bribery, while trying to help his friend and political donor, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul. Justice Department prosecutors who typically handle high-profile public corruption cases took over the case in February.
According to legal experts and former prosecutors consulted by The Texas Tribune, the outcome of the impeachment is unlikely to affect the progress of Paxton’s securities fraud case. However, regarding the FBI investigation, these experts stated that testimonies given during the impeachment hearings could potentially assist federal officials in assessing the merits and vulnerabilities of their case.
Paxton is currently being charged in a state case with two counts of securities fraud, which is considered a first-degree felony and can result in a prison sentence of up to 99 years. These charges originate from his actions in 2011, when he attempted to attract investors for Servergy Inc. without revealing that he was being financially compensated by the company to promote its stock. Additionally, Paxton is facing one count of not registering with state securities regulators, which is classified as a third-degree felony and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
Following the Senate vote on Saturday, Dan Cogdell, attorney for Paxton, expressed his stance to journalists, urging for the dismissal of the securities fraud case. Cogdell referred to both the case and the impeachment trial as baseless.
He stated that the case, similar to this one, should never have been brought forth. He emphasized the need for its dismissal. If it is not dismissed, we will make an effort to try them and achieve victory there, just as we did here.
According to Sandra Guerra Thompson, a criminal law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and former New York City prosecutor, Paxton’s success in the impeachment trial suggests that his ongoing state criminal case will likely proceed as planned.
She expressed that both parties would maintain their respective motivations – the defendant to prolong the case and the prosecutors to proceed. She also emphasized the precarious position of a public official facing such charges, as even if they were reduced to misdemeanors, they would still be considered morally reprehensible acts. Therefore, the situation is problematic.
According to her, if there had been a conviction, it would have increased the chances of reaching a plea agreement. This is because the prosecutors would have felt less pressure to go to trial and remove him from his position.
In the preceding month, a Houston courtroom witnessed the presence of defense attorneys and prosecutors who, in front of a new judge, reached a consensus to reconvene on October 6. The purpose of this meeting was to address pending motions and establish a trial date.
“Afterward, special prosecutor Brian Wice informed reporters that there comes a moment when it must all conclude. He expressed his belief that today marked the initial stride in a long journey towards achieving justice.”
According to Susan Klein, a former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and presently holding the Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law at the University of Texas School of Law, she believes that the impeachment trial will not affect the ongoing state criminal case.
She remarked that she fails to comprehend how this impeachment will impact any of the criminal cases. In all honesty, she pointed out that the individual in question is not providing testimony during the impeachment, which she believes is a wise decision.
She stated that regardless of the impeachment verdict, if Paxton manages to prolong the state criminal case, “I believe it would be advantageous for him” as it would enable him to argue that his constitutional right to a prompt trial was infringed upon.
“The reason statute of limitations exist is because trials cannot be conducted 10 or 12 years after the incident,” she explained. “Witnesses tend to forget important details over time, and the defendant deserves the right to a fair trial.”
According to Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general and senior counsel at the Steptoe law firm in Washington, D.C., the FBI was undeniably monitoring the testimony given at the state Capitol during the federal case. The House impeachment managers summoned several witnesses, including former deputies of Paxton who had turned whistleblowers.
During the Trump-Russia investigation, Bromwich acted as the legal counsel for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director. Additionally, he provided representation to Christine Blasey Ford, a California professor who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Bromwich emphasized that the contents of evidence collected by the FBI and Justice Department against Paxton remain unknown, and the evidence presented during the impeachment trial might strengthen their argument.
He added that it is a chance to assess potential witnesses as they have witnessed how some of their key witnesses perform in delivering their testimony. They can determine whether these witnesses appear credible or if they exhibit any bias or prejudice against Attorney General Paxton.
He expressed his belief that it might influence their perception of the strength of their criminal case.
Drew Wicker, who previously worked as Paxton’s personal aide, provided testimony to federal prosecutors and a grand jury, as reported by the Associated Press. During Paxton’s impeachment trial, Wicker disclosed that he overheard conversations between Paxton and a contractor regarding the expenses associated with the proposed renovations at Paxton’s residence in Austin.
In 2020, Wicker expressed growing discomfort regarding Paxton’s conduct, especially concerning his intimate association with Paul.
Robert Downen contributed to this story.
Disclosure: University of Houston 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.
The Texas Tribune Festival is almost here! Join us Sept. 21-23 in downtown Austin for 125+ unforgettable conversations featuring nearly 300 speakers. Be there for Texas’ biggest politics and policy event when you buy your tickets today.
