Texas Attorney General Is Acquitted in Landmark Senate Trial


The Texas Senate voted on Saturday to acquit the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, after a nine-day impeachment trial that focused on allegations of corruption and divided the Republican Party.

Mr. Paxton, a three-term incumbent who had been suspended from the post since his impeachment in May, was immediately reinstated.

The impeachment case has deepened the rift in the Republican Party in Texas, with those who lined up behind Mr. Paxton attacking Republicans in the Texas House who backed impeachment by a wide margin.

The process was overseen by Republicans, with Republicans in both the defense and in the prosecution, but ultimately, most Republicans in the Senate supported Mr. Paxton. Only two Republican senators voted in favor of conviction on any article. With a two-thirds vote required for conviction, no article received even a majority vote.

Mr. Paxton, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump who appeared at the trial only twice and was not present for the vote, responded afterward to what he called a “sham impeachment” that he said had been coordinated partly by a “kangaroo court” in the Texas House.

“The weaponization of the impeachment process to settle political differences is not only wrong, it is immoral and corrupt,” he said in a statement.

He added a warning to the Biden administration, which he has targeted as attorney general with a series of legal challenges focused on immigration, abortion and transgender issues. “Buckle up, because your lawless policies will not go unchallenged,” he said.

His wife, Senator Angela Paxton, who was not allowed to vote on the case, stood up after the vote and hugged or shook hands with the lawyers who represented her husband, including Tony Buzbee, a Houston trial lawyer who was one of the many high-powered lawyers involved in the case on both sides.

Gov. Greg Abbott, who had not previously commented on the impeachment trial, said afterward that “the jury has spoken.” He said Mr. Paxton had received a fair trial and, as attorney general, “has done an outstanding job representing Texas, especially pushing back against the Biden administration.”

After the vote on Saturday, the lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, who had been serving as judge during the trial and maintained a studious impartiality, gave a speech excoriating his fellow Republicans in the House for even sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

He accused the leadership in the House of having rushed through the case without giving members enough time to consider the evidence. The House approved 20 articles of impeachment in May on a vote of 121 to 23, including a majority of Republicans.

“Millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on this impeachment,” Mr. Patrick said. He said the Senate had held a thorough trial, which included hundreds of subpoenas for information and testimony. As he spoke, one Democratic senator walked out of the Senate chamber.

There had been substantial political pressure from the Republican Party’s conservative wing to support Mr. Paxton, including threats to run primary challenges against lawmakers who supported impeachment.

Mr. Trump, in a post on the Truth Social platform, described the case against Mr. Paxton as “political persecution” and applauded the acquittal. “We should choose our elected officials by VOTING, not by weaponizing government,” he wrote.

Before the trial began, Mr. Patrick received a $1 million contribution and a $2 million loan to his campaign from Defend Texas Liberty, a group strongly backing Mr. Paxton, whose leader after the acquittal promised “to lead the charge to fire” those Republicans who had supported the impeachment.

Mr. Patrick said he would call for an official audit of the spending by the Texas House on its investigation and impeachment.

But his criticisms prompted immediate pushback from the Republican speaker of the Texas House, Dade Phelan. “I find it deeply concerning that after weeks of claiming he would preside over this trial in an impartial and honest manner, Lt. Gov. Patrick would conclude by confessing his bias and placing his contempt for the people’s House on full display,” Mr. Phelan said in a statement.

Some of the senators, who had been prevented from speaking during the trial by a gag order imposed by Mr. Patrick, emerged from the vote eager to discuss the case.

“There was no evidence,” said Senator Bob Hall, a conservative Republican who had voted to dismiss all the articles at the start of the trial.

Senator Nathan Johnson, a Democrat, disagreed. “He abused his powers, not in a subtle way,” he said of Mr. Paxton, adding that the case had been proven by the evidence. He said he looked outside during the vote, “and I saw the United States flag and the Texas flag blowing strong in the wind and the rain, and I felt sick, because what are we doing to what those flags represent inside this building?”

The two Republicans voting in favor of conviction were Kelly Hancock, who represents an urban and suburban district that includes parts of Fort Worth, and Robert Nichols, an occasional iconoclast whose East Texas district includes the city of Beaumont.

The 12 Democratic senators voted to convict on almost every one of the 16 articles considered during the trial.

Despite his success avoiding conviction, Mr. Paxton still has legal troubles ahead. He faces an 8-year-old criminal indictment on charges of securities fraud, a case that has begun moving forward again in a state court in Houston.

And a federal investigation into Mr. Paxton — prompted by many of the same charges explored during the impeachment — is still continuing.

The impeachment trial focused on accusations, leveled primarily by former top deputies who became whistle-blowers, that Mr. Paxton had abused his office to help an Austin real estate investor, Nate Paul, who had donated to his campaign and was facing both a federal criminal investigation and also the potential foreclosure of some of his properties.

The whistle-blowers came forward with concerns that Mr. Paxton appeared to be going out of his way to help Mr. Paul. The articles of impeachment, based in part on their testimony, laid out accusations that Mr. Paul had secured Mr. Paxton’s help on his legal matters in exchange for paying for renovations on his house and providing a job to a woman with whom Mr. Paxton was having an extramarital affair.

Both Mr. Paxton and Mr. Paul have denied any wrongdoing, and Mr. Paxton’s lawyers presented evidence that one of the renovations supposedly paid for by Mr. Paul — new granite countertops — never happened.

They succeeded at other times in undercutting the witnesses for the prosecution, at one point getting a former senior aide to Mr. Paxton, Ryan Vassar, to say that he had reported the attorney general to the F.B.I. while bringing “no evidence” of potential crimes.

“You went to the F.B.I. on Sept. 30 with your compatriots and reported the elected attorney general of this state for a crime without any evidence, yes?” said J. Mitchell Little, a lawyer for Mr. Paxton.

“That’s right, we took no evidence,” Mr. Vassar replied, though it was later noted that the whistle-blowers had brought something just as important: their own testimony.

The defense argued that Mr. Paxton was a victim of a plot by moderate Republicans to unseat him.

“You were staging a coup, weren’t you?” said one of the defense lawyers, Mr. Buzbee, as he cross-examined Mr. Paxton’s former top aide, Jeff Mateer.

“Absolutely not,” Mr. Mateer said.

After the vote, Mr. Buzbee applauded the result. “This was a herculean task,” he said. “We were proud of this case. We just should not have had to prove our innocence, but that’s what we did.”

The proceedings on Saturday, after nearly a full day of deliberations behind closed doors the day before, unfolded without any overt drama. The senators cast their votes for or against impeachment, writing on a slip of paper on their desks and handing them up to be read aloud, one by one, for each of the articles of impeachment.

As they voted, the Senate chamber was almost completely silent. A storm passed over the Capitol, breaking the quiet with rumbles of thunder. Occasionally, the sound of crickets, which have swarmed over Austin in recent days, could be heard in the spectator gallery, and, in some cases, hopped between the chairs.

In the end, the vote resembled many that take place in the staunchly conservative Texas Senate, where Mr. Patrick rules with a strong hand and legislation is adopted almost exclusively along party-line votes.



Source link

Reach Out

Don’t hesitate to reach out to us to discuss your specific needs. Our team is ready and eager to provide you with tailored solutions that align with your firm’s goals and enhance your digital marketing efforts. We look forward to helping you grow your law practice online.

Our Services:

Blog Post Writing
We do well-researched, timely, and engaging blog posts that resonate with your clientele, positioning you as a thought leader in your domain.
Content Writing: Beyond articles and content for blogs, we delve into comprehensive content pieces like eBooks, and case studies, tailored to showcase your expertise.

Website Content Writing
First impressions matter. Our content ensures your website reflects the professionalism, dedication, and expertise you bring to the table.

Social Media Management
In today’s interconnected world, your online presence extends to social platforms. We help you navigate this terrain, ensuring your voice is consistently represented and heard.

WordPress Website Maintenance
Your digital office should be as polished and functional as your physical one. We ensure your WordPress site remains updated, secure, and user-friendly.

For more information, ad placements in our attorney blog network, article requests, social media management, or listings on our top 10 attorney sites, reach out to us at seoattorneyservices@gmail.com.

Warm regards,

The Personal Injury Law Attorney Riverside CA 92508 Team

Leave a Reply

Home Privacy Policy Terms Of Use Anti Spam Policy Contact Us Affiliate Disclosure DMCA Earnings Disclaimer