AUSTIN, Texas — A day after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement urging House Speaker Dade Phelan to resign, House ethics investigators told a panel of state lawmakers that Paxton for years abused his official capacity by doing political favors for a campaign donor.

“The actions were grossly outside of the line of established norms,” said investigator Mark Donnelly.

What You Need To Know

  • Texas House ethics investigators during a hearing on Wednesday told a panel of lawmakers that Attorney General Ken Paxton abused his office by performing political favors for a campaign donor

  • The hearing was prompted by Paxton's request for $3.3 million in taxpayer funds to settle a whistleblower lawsuit 

  • Paxton in a statement denied the allegations and said that they can be "easily disproved"

  • The general investigating committee has broad authority to scrutinize the potential wrongdoings of any public official, as well as censure and recommend that the Texas House draw up articles of impeachment against that individual

Addressing the House Committee on General Investigating in a rare public hearing, four experts in public integrity law and white-collar crime provided about three hours of stunning testimony that all started because Paxton requested $3.3 million in taxpayer funds to settle a whistleblower lawsuit. Four former deputies, who were described to be conservative civil servants, claim they were fired after going to authorities.

“Would you just clarify that again,” said Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction. “You said nearly every single person that your team interviewed as part of this process, that nearly every single person expressed fear and concern about retaliation from Ken Paxton.”

“Independently based on their own knowledge of the facts and the circumstances leading up to their presence in our office or on the phone, that is absolutely accurate,” said lead investigator Erin Epley. 

Ethics investigators detailed many instances where they believe Paxton disregarded official procedures to benefit Nate Paul, a real estate investor. 

Among the examples, they allege Paxton improperly helped Paul with a dispute against a charitable foundation, broke open records law to obtain information about an ongoing federal investigation of Paul and fast-tracked a legal opinion that favored Paul. 

Investigators said at the recommendation of Paul’s attorney, Paxton had his office hire an inexperienced outside counsel to assist Paul with his legal challenges. In exchange, Paul facilitated high-end renovations to the attorney general’s home and employed a woman Paxton allegedly had an extramarital affair with.

Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, asked, “Is it fair to say the OAG’s office was effectively hijacked for an investigation by Nate Paul through the Attorney General Ken Paxton?”

Epley, a former federal prosecutor, replied, “That would be my opinion.”

The bombshell testimony came during the final days of a legislative session marked with Republican clashes. Phelan has spoken out against using public funds to cover Paxton’s settlement. The speaker’s spokesperson, Cait Wittman, said in a statement the details outlined in the hearing were “extremely disturbing.”

“The attorney general appears to have routinely abused his powers for personal gain and exhibited blatant disregard from the ethical and legal propriety expected of the state’s leading law enforcement officer,” Wittman said. 

Shortly after the hearing started, Paxton went on a radio show, doubling down on accusations that Phelan was drunk one evening on the House floor and expressing disappointment with the House’s priorities this session.

“This is a level that is shocking to me, especially from a Republican House. This is what they have time to do, as opposed to some of the important things like school choice,” Paxton said on The Mark Davis Radio Show.   

“I’m concerned about the entire House, given the lack of work,” Paxton continued.

In a statement, Paxton called the testimony “false” and said every allegation can be “easily disproved.”

The meeting concluded with investigators ticking off the ways they believe the attorney general broke multiple state laws. They range from a misdemeanor to felonies. 

“Another was dereliction of duty,” said Donna Cameron, another ethics investigator. “To be negligent is one thing you know, but malfeasance when you are actively and intentionally doing things to the detriment of the offense, and to your oath and to the responsibility that you have to the state of Texas.”

The general investigating committee has broad authority to scrutinize the potential wrongdoings of any public official, as well as censure, and recommend that the Texas House draw up articles of impeachment against that individual. 

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Donna Cameron's name. (05/25/2023)