AUSTIN — Former staffers have taken the stand during the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, outlining their belief that the AG had subverted official resources to benefit an individual.
As reported by The Dallas Express, Paxton has pleaded not guilty to all counts included in the articles of impeachment.
The trial’s third day continued with the testimony of Ryan Bangert, one of the former employees at the Office of the Attorney General who reported Paxton to the FBI. Bangert had taken the stand late in the afternoon on the second day of the trial as well.
“The name, power, and authority of the Office of the Attorney General had been hijacked,” Bangert claimed. “The attorney general was determined to harness the power of our office for the benefit of an individual.”
That individual, according to the former OAG staffers, was Nate Paul. Paul was an Austin-based businessman and one-time Paxton donor who has been at the center of allegations against Paxton.
Ultimately, Bangert was one of the several former staffers who reported concerns regarding Paul’s alleged influence over Paxton to federal law enforcement.
“I went to the FBI because I believed … the attorney had abandoned his obligation to serve the people of Texas to the benefit of one person — Nate Paul,” he claimed.
The witness recounted some of what led him to that conclusion, claiming that Paxton arranged a lunch meeting with Bangert, fellow ex-staffer Drew Wicker, Nate Paul, and the AG. This was one or two weeks after the OAG had intervened in a lawsuit between one of Paul’s companies and a nonprofit called the Mitte Foundation.
The OAG’s involvement in the legal proceedings between Paul and the Mitte Foundation is the basis of one of the impeachment articles, which alleges that Paxton forced the intervention for the sole purpose of benefiting Paul at the expense of his official responsibilities.
Bangert said he objected to the meeting, considering it improper to meet with someone who was party to ongoing litigation.
“Paul laid out his theory of grievances against the Mitte Foundation,” Bangert recounted, then further claimed that Paxton gave no indication that he disagreed with anything Paul had said. Bangert called the meeting “one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen.”
Bangert suggested that more OAG resources were going to address matters related to Nate Paul than the former employee thought appropriate, adding that it might have impacted the handling of other matters that he deemed more important.
The subject then shifted to the so-called “Midnight Opinion” issued by the OAG that recommended the halt of foreclosure sales during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the impeachment articles claims that Paxton pressured the OAG staff to issue an improper official legal opinion, allegedly to benefit Paul.
Bangert claimed that Paxton had again ignored his advice in publishing the opinion, which seemed at odds with the AG’s general stance against COVID restrictions.
When the defense argued that the opinion was informal and therefore different than a formal opinion issued by the AG, Bangert contended that the government code makes no distinction between a formal and informal OAG opinion.
However, a disclaimer at the bottom of the issued opinion proclaimed that it was solely informal and should only be treated as “informal legal guidance.” Bangert testified that he had included that disclosure because the opinion had not gone through the typical bureaucratic process.
The defense subsequently reasoned that there must be a distinction between a formal and informal opinion, given that Bangert added language to identify the document as the latter.
Paxton’s lawyer Anthony Osso also pointed out during cross-examination that Bangert had no personal knowledge about whether the informal foreclosure opinion had any sort of positive impact on Paul.
“I do not know what effect this letter had,” the former staffer admitted.
Still, on the whole, Bangert’s testimony appeared stronger than that given by the House impeachment managers’ first witness, former first assistant Jeffery Mateer. Mateer had proven somewhat challenging to question for both the House and Paxton’s lawyers, at times interrupting, giving long answers, and raising his voice, as reported by The Dallas Express.
The defense sought to undermine many of the points raised by Bangert and Mateer by framing their objections to Paxton’s behavior as those of disgruntled bureaucrats upset by breaks in internal policies and their individual priorities not being favored by the AG.
While being cross-examined by defense attorney Tony Buzbee, Mateer had seemingly admitted that he previously felt as though he and other OAG staff could veto or overrule the AG if they personally disagreed with his legal opinion or allocation of resources.
Similarly, many of the complaints that Bangert shared revolved around Paxton allegedly ceasing to take the advice of the senior staff and making decisions over their objections. The staff believed that the connection between Paxton and Paul represented improper influence and were frustrated that Paxton no longer appeared to be in alignment with them, Bangert said.
Also during cross-examination, Osso raised concern on behalf of the defense that Bangert had participated in lengthy interviews with both the House managers and the prosecution attorney prior to trial but apparently no recording or transcript had been made of the discussions. At issue was a disagreement over whether this constituted a lack of evidentiary disclosure before trial.
Osso additionally elicited testimony from Bangert in which the former staffer confessed he had failed to disclose text message exchanges he had with Paxton to the defense, claiming that the original texts had been deleted somehow.