A case for, against impeachment: What to know after day 1 of Texas AG Ken Paxton’s trial
CORRECTION: Sen. Tan Parker, a Flower Mound Republican, was among six senators who consistently voted for dismissing some or all of the articles of impeachment pending against Attorney General Ken Paxton. An earlier version of the article incorrectly said the senators voted against the dismissal motions.
A historic impeachment trial that’s sure to make political waves began on Tuesday, with the majority of senators opting to move forward with proceedings that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hoped would stop before they officially started.
The big question on day one of Paxton’s impeachment trial in the Texas Senate was whether senators, acting as a jury, would dismiss any of the 16 articles before them, which include charges of bribery.
The articles stem from allegations the three-term attorney general misused his office to benefit a political donor, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul. Paxton’s accused of giving Paul special legal attention while accepting home renovations and a job for a women with whom he was having an extramarital affair.
Four others deal with Paxton’s federal securities fraud cause, but they are being held in abeyance and evidence isn’t expected to be presented on the articles.
Senators voted to move forward with the trial, despite motions from Paxton’s attorneys arguing the articles should be tossed out.
Paxton pleaded not guilty through an attorney early in the day.
Officials got through part of one witness, Jeff Mateer, one of the whistleblowers who reported Paxton to the FBI over concerns related to the attorney general’s relationship with Paul. Mateer isn’t one of the whistleblowers who sued Paxton for retaliation.
Impeachment articles aren’t dismissed
The majority of senators rejected the attorney general’s request that the articles pending against him be dismissed.
The first half of the day was primarily consumed by votes on pretrial motions — many filed by Paxton’s lawyers requesting some or all of the articles of impeachment be tossed out. The motion failed each time, with the majority of senators opting to move forward with the historic trial. The motions were not debated.
Six Republican senators consistently voted for the various motions to dismiss, including Flower Mound Republican Tan Parker, whose district includes part of Tarrant County. The most votes a dismissal motion received was 10.
Twenty-one votes are needed to convict, meaning — were the vote to follow party lines — nine of 18 Republican senators would need to join the 12 Democrats. Paxton’s wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, a McKinney Republican, will not vote
It remains to be seen whether the voting patterns that emerged on pretrial motions carries through into votes on whether to convict or acquit after evidence has been heard from both sides.
Paxton cannot be compelled to testify
While the majority of pretrial motions did not fall in Paxton’s favor, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick did deliver a win for the attorney general. Patrick ruled that Paxton cannot be compelled to testify in his senate impeachment trial, siding with the AG’s attorneys who requested the ruling.
His rationale was that the proceedings are similar to a criminal trial, where the defendant can’t be forced to testify.
“This court notes that many factors and circumstances in this proceeding lean more on criminal in nature,” Patrick said.
He later noted that House impeachment managers have repeatedly compared the House impeachment proceedings to a grand jury indictment.
Per Senate rules, the 30 eligible senators vote on motions that involve articles’ dismissal. Patrick decides other motion.
The arguments for and against
Impeachment managers and attorneys for Paxton laid out the road map for the trial in their opening arguments.
State Rep. Andrew Murr, a Junction Republican and attorney, gave the outline for the impeachment managers, arguing that Paxton had committed crimes and should be removed from office and barred from holding office again. Paxton is accused of misusing his office to benefit Paul while taking bribes in the form of home renovations and a job for a woman he’s accused of having an affair with.
“The allegations in the articles reveal that the state’s top lawyer engaged in conduct designed to advance the economic interests and legal positions of a friend and donor to the detriment of innocent Texans,” Murr said.
He described Paxton as having “turned the keys of the Office of the Attorney General over to Nate Paul so that Mr. Paul could use the awesome power of the people’s law firm to punish and harass perceived enemies.”
Paxton’s attorneys countered that there’s not sufficient evidence to convict the three-term attorney general who has been elected by Texans despite knowledge of his alleged legal troubles and misconduct.
“I suggest to you, it is crystal clear that there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Dan Cogdell, one of Paxton’s lawyers. “I have one simple ask: Do the right thing. ... And the right thing is to vote not guilty.”
Another one of Paxton’s attorneys, Tony Buzbee, argued there are political motives at play.
“When we are done, I believe that no matter your party affiliation and no matter where you stand now, you will conclude what I have concluded: That there’s nothing to this,” Buzbee said. “Ken Paxton gave nothing of significance to Nate Paul. Nate Paul received nothing of significance from Ken Paxton.”
This story was originally published September 5, 2023 at 7:29 PM.
