The House Board of Managers responsible for the impeachment prosecution against Attorney General Ken Paxton released a collection of documents that initially contained Paxton’s address, potentially violating the law.
In a letter signed by Rep. Andrew Murr (R-Junction) and Rep. Ann Johnson (D-Houston), the board claimed, “For several reasons, including the need to provide the highest level of transparency for the people of Texas, the House Board of Managers is releasing additional evidence related to the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton.”
“This information was accumulated during the Board’s investigation and preparation for trial and is relevant in providing Texans with a complete look at all facts in full context,” they continued.
Reasons cited for why this allegedly important evidence was not presented or discussed more in the trial included “time limits,” “issues with timely responses,” “witnesses choosing to plead the Fifth,” and “multiple procedural decisions made during the course of the impeachment trial.”
“The House Board of Managers maintains that overwhelming and uncontroverted testimony and evidence was presented during the impeachment trial in support of the Articles of Impeachment,” they concluded. “The information now shared publicly with this letter provides a clearer foundation for that.”
On the House of Representatives website, a page was set up with various documents the board identified as significant. However, they originally included the private address of AG Paxton and other sensitive information. After public outcry, the page was temporarily shut down before the files were reuploaded with some of the problematic information redacted.
Mitch Little, one of Paxton’s defense attorneys, slammed the managers for the action, saying, “Andrew Murr and Ann Johnson, my expectations for you were low, but holy cow. I did not have ‘doxxing the sitting Attorney General and his wife two weeks after the trial is over’ on my bingo card.”
“This information was redacted at trial, and you’re endangering people’s lives, clowns,” he continued. “I see we’re at the ‘releasing fellow Republicans’ home addresses’ chapter of late-stage Uniparty control of this state.”
Little also pointed to the recently passed House Bill 611, which criminalized the unlawful disclosure of residence addresses. The law states, “A person commits an offense if the person posts on a publicly accessible website the residence address or telephone number of an individual with the intent to cause harm or a threat of harm to the individual.”
However, the law does explain, “This section does not apply to a public servant who posted information described … to a publicly accessible website in the performance of the public servant’s duties as required by or in accordance with state or federal law.” It is not clear if this exception applies in this instance.
After the unredacted release of the documents, Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) also specifically called out Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano), another member of the House board. Leach had been one of the managers to give part of the closing argument against Paxton during the last day of the trial.
“Jeff, why are you still digging when you’re already at six feet under?” Toth asked. “To release these records, when the reality is that if Rusty Hardin had deemed these records to be of any value at all, he would have used them.”
Hardin was one of the lead prosecutors hired by the House Board of Managers to argue the case.
“To say that you guys didn’t have enough time? Number one, the defense and the prosecution came together and agreed on 24 hours,” Toth explained. “Number two, you didn’t even use all 24 hours of your time in your prosecution of Ken Paxton — in your rushed and feeble prosecution of Ken Paxton.”
“And so what are you doing now? You’re doxxing innocent people in an attempt to further justify your stupid move in the House in rushing ahead with this impeachment. This is really dumb Jeff, quit being stupid.”
However, Leach told the Houston Chronicle he had not been involved in the decision to publish the documents and that while he was not against releasing them, he was displeased that sensitive information had been revealed in the process.
“The people have a right to see the evidence — all of it,” he said. “But did I know sensitive information that should’ve been redacted would be made public? And am I frustrated it was? Hell no I didn’t know, and hell yes I’m frustrated.”
