Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
After closing arguments in the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the lawyers who led the prosecution were riding high and feeling positive about the prospects of a conviction.
During a panel discussion at The Texas Tribune Festival in downtown Austin, Rusty Hardin expressed that we had a mistaken belief of victory when we went to bed that night.
According to Dick DeGuerin, who is co-counsel with Hardin, the first article of impeachment failed to garner enough support from senators to permanently remove Paxton from office. Only 14 senators backed the article, falling well short of the required 21 votes, thereby shattering any hopes that were held.
He stated, “I believe many of us were too idealistic to assume that principles would triumph over politics, but the moment the first vote took place, I realized it was the end.”
According to DeGuerin, the loss was hard to swallow as the prosecutors were convinced that they had successfully presented evidence proving Paxton’s abuse of authority in assisting his friend and political contributor, Nate Paul, an Austin-based real estate investor.
What caught the prosecutors off guard, however, was when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick stepped away from his role as the impeachment judge to close the trial with a speech blasting the House’s handling of the matter as rushed and unfair to Paxton.
“I was caught off guard by the sudden diatribe,” expressed impeachment prosecutor Erin Epley.
Hardin expressed, “In my entire life, that was the most disrespectful political moment I have ever encountered.”
According to the impeachment prosecutors, one of whom is former Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill, Patrick showed courtesy during private meetings with lawyers from both parties to discuss motions. However, his subsequent speech raised concerns about his impartiality. This possibly explains why, as a judge, Patrick often favored defense arguments to exclude hearsay testimony while rejecting prosecutors’ objections regarding hearsay, as stated by DeGuerin.
Hardin concurred, acknowledging, “The speech at the end lacks impartiality, that much is clear. In retrospect, certain judgments reveal the underlying motives.”
During the trial, Epley gained recognition for his sharp and lively interrogation. Additionally, he shed light on the concealed decision that prevented Laura Olson, a prosecution witness who multiple individuals identified as married Paxton’s girlfriend, from testifying.
On Friday, Patrick addressed the criticism that accused him of preventing Olson from testifying at the trial. He clarified that he did not make a decision on Olson’s request to invalidate the subpoena compelling her to appear. Instead, he proposed that the attorneys from both parties try to reach a consensus. It was eventually Epley who suggested the phrasing used in court, stating that Olson was physically present at the Capitol but unable to testify.
Epley confirmed that the account was partially true.
Epley stated that Olson mentioned her intention to utilize her Fifth Amendment privilege to abstain from giving testimony that could potentially implicate her. He further added that a significant portion of their 20-minute confidential discussion revolved around this particular situation.
According to Epley, the scenario took a turn when Patrick declared his intention to approve Olson’s motion to invalidate the subpoena. She mentioned that the phrase “present but unavailable” was proposed to convey to senators and the public that Olson was not released from testifying willingly, especially after it became evident that the ruling would not be in their favor.
Following his acquittal on September 16, Paxton has embarked on a series of appearances in right-wing media outlets to denounce the impeachment process. He has described it as fraudulent and labeled it as “four months of wasteful and destructive political theater.”
Paxton, in his written statement upon resuming office, compared advocates of impeachment to individuals aiming to “dismantle our cherished nation.”
On Friday, he asserted that without rescuing our country from corrupt, tyrannical, power-hungry politicians, the future generations will be left with nothing.
The four impeachment prosecutors expressed their belief that Paxton deserved to be removed from office. They also expressed their hope that the prosecution exhibits, which were not made available during the trial’s webcast, would be released for the public to form their own conclusions.
Ultimately, the lawyers reached a consensus that despite the discussions on Olson, the hearsay objections, and the stringent time restrictions, none of these factors influenced the final result. This conclusion was drawn as 16 out of 18 Republican senators voted in favor of acquitting Paxton.
DeGuerin described the acquittal as a victory of political influence prevailing over factual evidence, labeling it an unjust outcome driven by politics rather than principles.
Hardin highlighted the fact that numerous Republican senators seemed inclined to convict initially, but ultimately voted for acquittal upon realizing, during confidential deliberations, that they fell short of the required 21 votes essential for Paxton’s removal from office.
Hardin stated that in his opinion, the outcome was much closer than expected based on the final vote. He believed that in reality, the proximity was closer than initially anticipated. However, as Dick pointed out, convincing political individuals to make an unbiased decision is extremely challenging.
In a separate but related TribFest panel Saturday, state Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat and vice chair of the House General Investigating Committee that drafted the articles of impeachment, criticized Paxton defenders for blaming the attorney general’s troubles on a “conspiracy theory of [Texans for Lawsuit Reform], Joe Biden and the Bush dynasty, which apparently now is dead.”
She mentioned that a significant amount of time was dedicated to examining factual information.
According to Johnson, the General Investigating Committee adhered to the House rules and carried out a two-month examination of Paxton behind closed doors. The committee disclosed its areas of interest in May, coinciding with the final days of the regular legislative session.
When asked about the moment when Paxton became aware of being under investigation, Johnson replied, “I believe he became aware of it on the morning we made the announcement. He approached two Republican GI members in their offices and directly asked, ‘Am I being investigated?'”
Later that day, but before the investigation was revealed publicly, Paxton accused Speaker Dade Phelan of presiding over the House while drunk and demanded that the Beaumont Republican step down.
In another panel Saturday, Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, one of the Texas House impeachment managers, defended the choice to prosecute Paxton, a friend and neighbor who attends the same church in Collin County.
Leach stated that he was accountable for fulfilling the requested tasks.
Paxton’s association with Paul raised concerns when the Legislature was requested to compensate $3.3 million for settling a lawsuit filed by four senior Paxton employees. These employees alleged that they were wrongfully terminated from the attorney general’s office for reporting Paxton to the FBI, according to his statement.
Leach asserted that there should be no confusion, as the payment being made is indeed hush money intended for the purpose of silencing whistleblowers.
Includes reporting from Keaton Peters.
As The Texas Tribune’s signature event of the year, The Texas Tribune Festival brings Texans closer to politics, policy and the day’s news from Texas and beyond. Browse on-demand recordings and catch up on the biggest headlines from Festival events at the Tribune’s Festival news page.
