AUSTIN, Texas – Republican divide continues to grow following the impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton. Far-right conservatives are calling for the ouster of the Texas House Republican speaker, who they say led the effort to impeach Paxton.
This comes as the House members who were unsuccessful in prosecuting Paxton just released more documents they say give Texans all the facts in full context.
Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, and Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, wrote in a letter that the information dump provides a clearer foundation for why they believe there was enough evidence to support the articles of impeachment and remove Paxton from office.
“The trial is over and we've lost,” said Erin Epley, one of the House impeachment lawyers. “So it isn't sour grapes; it isn't another bite at the apple. But it's to make sure that citizens and senators know what information was available, what the House had acquired, and what the intention was. Not because it would change the outcome, but because of the same reasons that impeachments exist: Is a person fit for office, and is there information that is known or should be known in a public forum to be considered in regards to that? And I don't know that there's anything more important.”
After an investigation into Paxton, the House impeached him in May, and his trial played out in the Senate in September. Paxton faced several charges, including bribery and abuse of office. He was acquitted by senators who served as jurors, and he returned to his post as Texas' attorney general after a monthslong suspension.
The House intended to call Laura Olson to the stand. She’s the woman at the center of Paxton’s alleged affair. But when Epley found out that Olson would plead the Fifth, she suggested that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presided over the trial, say that Olson was "present but deemed unavailable" to testify.
“I want to be clear: It was not a yield,” Epley said. “The House had every right to call her. We had followed process, we had her present, and her information would have been relevant. But when it becomes clear, as an officer of the court or a trial attorney, that you're not going to get what you want, then you're in mitigation mode, right? What do I do to make sure this doesn't look like we've overstepped? The House did not overstep… The House wasn't derelict in their duties or being lazy. We had a right to call her and we tried to call her. So how do we make sure people are aware this isn't us? And so, if you get to page 20 of the transcript, you gotta be pretty clear you're not winning. And if you look at the way the transcript is outlaid, and the arguments that we've made, and the pivots, it is becoming clearer, I think, to any reader of the transcript, that we're losing. What I would add to that is, when you're in the room, and you can read facial expressions and posture, and you can see that kind of physical responses to things, it's even more so clear that you're losing. And so at the point in which Laura Olson's lawyer was given the last word, [Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick] is not going to rule in our favor.”
Epley says she was particular about the wording that Patrick was going to use on the stand.
“And maybe it's silly, but ‘deemed’ was important to me,” Epley said. “It's a choice being made by him. It is not a choice being made by us. It's a decision from the court. And so ‘present but deemed unavailable’ was the best solution. And as you can see in the transcript, [the] lieutenant governor's response was ‘Well, Ms. Epley, that's more than you were going to get otherwise.’ And so clearly, we read the room correctly.”
In the transcript, Lt. Gov. Patrick’s exact words were, “I think I was getting to rule in favor of quashing the subpoena, so I think what you offered would be a step more than what you were going to get, but no more.”
Olson was hired by Nate Paul, the Austin real estate developer and campaign donor who was at the center of Paxton’s trial. Paul was recently indicted in federal court for financial crimes.
Documents also show that Paul paid for Paxton’s Uber trips. Under an alias called “Dave P,” Paxton allegedly used the account to see Olson and Paul. Epley explains why this wasn’t a bigger focus of the trial.
“Dan Patrick excluded our summary witness, and so we pivoted, got a rebuttal witness, which was an expert to come talk about the same thing–the Uber records and the financials–in direct response, and the rebuttal witness was excluded as well. So we didn't have a witness who could lay it all out for you,” Epley said.
Reps. Murr and Johnson blamed time limits, issues with timely responses, and witnesses saying they’d plead the Fifth for why certain evidence was not heard during trial.
Mitch Little, one of Paxton’s lawyers, was not available for an interview but said online that the House lawyers rested their case with plenty of extra time, filed no motions to compel compliance with subpoenas, and made no attempt to call certain key witnesses to the stand. He called the new documents a way for the House managers to “cope” with their loss.
“Going in, I think [the House] thought they had an open-and-shut case,” said Brian Smith, a political science professor at St. Edward’s University. “There were enough articles of impeachment out there that something was bound to really resonate with the Senate. But the rules of limited time and going in front of a partisan body made that very difficult. So this was their chance to vent, and I think they've done it.”
Epley said the House rested its case with extra time so they’d have the chance to cross examine the defense’s witnesses.
New documents also show that Paul was communicating with the contractor, Kevin Wood, who was working on Paxton’s home renovations. The House impeachment managers alleged that this was another way Paxton was bribed by Paul. The House lawyers didn’t call Paxton’s contractor to the stand because he was also going to plead the Fifth.
“After Laura Olson was not required to take the stand, and the Senate and the citizens were not able to see that she was invoking her Fifth Amendment and draw inferences from that, which by the way, is absolutely legal and kosher in an impeachment. This is not a criminal trial. Ken Paxton was not facing a loss of freedom; he was facing the loss of his job. And those who employ him, all of us, would have been entitled to know that he needed to invoke the Fifth out of fear of what it would criminally suggest. And for the same reasons, we're entitled to hear if Laura Olson, Raj Kumar, or Kevin Wood we're going to invoke the Fifth. But once Laura was not made to testify, there's no reason to call Kevin Wood.”
Even if the newly published documents had been presented in the court of impeachment, Epley says she doesn’t believe things would have ended differently.
“I think the clarity of the trial would have been different. I think some people in the public with questions would have better answers,” she said. “But no, I don't think it would have changed the outcome.”