AUSTIN — The House Board of Impeachment Managers and the legal team for Attorney General Ken Paxton gave their opening statements in the historic impeachment trial on Tuesday.
Having spent the morning in pretrial matters, which included Paxton pleading not guilty to all allegations, the two sides took the podium to outline their arguments.
Rep. Andrew Murr (R-Junction), the chair of the General Investigating Committee, gave the opening statement for the House Board of Impeachment Managers.
The West Texas lawyer suggested that while “impeachment is rare,” the remedy is designed to “protect the state and its citizens.”
Murr defended the House’s process, saying it began after Paxton requested $3.3 million in taxpayer funds to pay for a settlement between “whistleblowers” in the Office of Attorney General (OAG).
Paxton “refused to justify the settlement,” according to Murr, and instead attempted to hide the “egregious misuse of his office” to advance the legal and financial interest of his reported friend Nate Paul.
Paul, an Austin-based businessman, had donated $25,000 to Paxton in 2018, several years before the alleged misconduct had occurred. Many of the impeachment articles center on claimed instances of potential bribery or undue influence in their relationship.
“Mr. Paxton turned the keys of the office of the attorney general to Nate Paul,” Murr continued.
The general investigating chair denied that the forgiveness doctrine is a valid defense against impeachment, saying, “The concept of forgiveness doctrine is not in our Constitution.”
Paxton’s legal team had advanced the theory that Paxton could not be impeached for any actions taken before his most recent election due to language in the Texas Constitution. However, the Senate voted to reject that theory during a pretrial motion.
Furthermore, “The voters did not and do not know the whole truth,” Murr continued, suggesting that even if the forgiveness doctrine applied, it would not stop the impeachment, as the articles contained things not widely known.
Regarding Paxton’s potentially improper relationship with Paul, Murr claimed, “We don’t have to show some quid pro quo to prove that his conduct deserves impeachment.”
“Wrongs justifying impeachment don’t have to be crimes,” he added, as impeachments “have the purpose of protecting the state, not punishing the offender.” And in Paxton’s case, Murr claimed, “he betrayed his constituent.”
“The witnesses you will hear from are remarkable people,” Murr suggested, referring specifically to whistleblowers from the OAG who would take the stand later in the trial.
“Mr. Paxton wasn’t the man they thought he was,” he claimed. “His trusted advisors are not some RINOs or deep state storyline.”
They nevertheless bore witness to “Mr. Paxton’s slow creep of corruption” and “brazen abuse” that “caused eight of his senior staff to report him” to the FBI, Murr asserted.
“Mr. Paxton’s actions have nothing to do with implementing conservative policy,” he added, urging the senators to “Do right and risk the consequences.”
Turning to the political aspect of the trial, Murr said, “Sometimes we must do the right thing in the face of enormous pressure. … [T]he witnesses felt this pressure, the House felt this pressure, and the Senate is feeling this pressure.”
After roughly 20 minutes, Murr yielded the rest of the hour allotted for his opening argument to the witness testimony.
At this point, Tony Buzbee, a lawyer from Houston, offered the opening statement for Ken Paxton.
“The prosecution and the press will tell a whopping story,” he said, but “it’s a tale of sound and fury; it signifies nothing.”
“You will conclude what I have concluded — there is nothing to this,” Buzbee promised. “Nate Paul received nothing of significance from Ken Paxton.”
He warned the senators about the potential precedent a conviction would set, possibly paving the way for politically motivated speed impeachments in the future.
“If this misguided effort is successful,” Buzbee said, “the precedent that is being set will be perilous. … [I]t was rushed, it was secretive, it was poorly planned.”
Buzbee also objected to the gag order placed upon trial participants, claiming that it put Paxton at a disadvantage while helping the impeachment managers.
“But that didn’t stop media outlets aligned with the House managers,” he asserted, suggesting that the press unceasingly ran “manufactured lies. … But we couldn’t respond.”
Additionally, Buzbee framed the impeachment as a bid by the political establishment to oust Paxton.
He argued that removing Paxton from office would subvert the will of the Texas voters.
“There is a right way for Texas voters to remove people from office; they vote against them,” he declared. “The people chose General Paxton.”
“Ken Paxton, for the last eight years, has operated the most aggressive and effective” attorney general’s office in the nation, Buzbee asserted. “Ken Paxton is the best attorney general in the country. Period.”
“If Ken Paxton is so good and regularly defeats his opponents at the ballot box, what the devil are we doing here?” he asked.
Referring to the House’s impeachment process, Buzbee remarked, “If they had taken their time and done it right, we wouldn’t be here.”
“Speaker Dade Phelan was so drunk while running House business he could barely hold the gavel,” Buzbee alleged, referencing videos showing Phelan slurring his words, struggling to stand, and appearing disoriented. “Four days later … Ken Paxton issued a statement that called for Dade Phelan to resign.”
The House was led by “powerful lobbyists and a drunken speaker,” he contended, but he assured the Senate, “I have faith in this body … to make an informed decision.”
Buzbee walked through the specifics of several articles of impeachment, detailing how the senators will hear exculpatory evidence that was allegedly ignored or hidden by the House managers.
“The Paxtons have been defamed over and over again in the press and in the House,” he continued, suggesting that the facts would show “Ken Paxton got nothing from Nate Paul and Nate Paul got nothing from Ken Paxton.”
“Nate Paul got nothing and he was very unhappy about it,” Buzbee added, “and he sent email after email and letter after letter. You never saw those emails, did you?” he pressed.
“If you look at what the articles claim, and then you look at the evidence, you will dismiss it out of hand,” the attorney added. “We will show that to you. We will prove that to you.”
“You’re going to hear a much different story,” Buzbee concluded, ceding the rest of his time to co-counsel Dan Cogdell.
Cogdell asked the senators, “Is it up to voters or is it up to politicians to see who stays in office?”
“Your decision is much bigger than Ken Paxton. Your decision is literally about democracy in this state,” he added.
“This is a case of enormous consequence,” Cogdell asserted, stressing that the burden of proof required for the Senate to convict Paxton on the articles of impeachment was significantly higher than that required for the House to move the case on to the Senate.
“I have one simple ask: do the right thing,” Cogdell implored, “and the right thing is to vote not guilty.”
After the opening arguments, the House Managers called Jeff Mateer, the former first assistant attorney general under Ken Paxton, as their first witness. Mateer had been one of the whistleblowers who reported alleged misconduct to the FBI but was not a part of the subsequent litigation on the matter.
However, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick adjourned the day prior to the conclusion of Mateer’s testimony due to considerable confusion among the parties over evidentiary matters thought to have been settled during pretrial.
Proceedings will resume at 9 a.m. on September 6. The Dallas Express will be in attendance, reporting from the Senate chamber.
