Special Update: The Impeachment of Ken Paxton
Summary of details and timeline surrounding to the Impeachment proceedings to take place today in the Texas House.
The Texas House will debate and vote on the Impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today at 1:00 PM on the Texas House Floor. We’ve researched the issue and provided these additional details for your better understanding of the events that led to the proceedings taking place this afternoon.
The Impeachment of Ken Paxton
A resolution, HR 2377 has been filed in the Texas House calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton. The resolution was filed by Andrew Murr (R-Junction) and co-signed by Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth), David Spiller (R-Jacksboro), Ann Johnson D-Houston), and Oscar Longoria (D-Mission) all members of the House General Investigating Committee (HGI).
The Texas Government Code and House rules give the HGI the authority to investigate elected officials on any matter the committee considers necessary to protect the state of Texas and or the taxpayers. Article 15 of the Texas Constitution states the sole power of impeachment rests with the Texas House of Representatives.
The filing of these charges by the House committee is significant, as the impeachment process has only twice been successful in all of Texas History. In 1917 Governor James Ferguson was impeached by the House and removed from office, indicted on 9 charges which included “misapplication of funds, embezzlement, and diversion of a special fund”, and in 1976 State District Judge OP Carillo was impeached for “scheming to take Duval County’s money through phone equipment Rentals”. They were both removed from office.
A series of events led to the Impeachment Charges
During Attorney General Ken Paxton’s time in office, and during the last election cycle, there have been ongoing public allegations regarding his legal issues. He was elected to a new term in office in November 2022.
One of the ongoing issues was a suit brought forth by former staffers who turned Paxton into law enforcement for what they believe to be illegal activities by their boss. Paxton fired the employees for turning him in, but recently, in February of 2023, he agreed to apologize and pay a settlement of $3.3M in that case. The case, while settled, has also prompted an FBI investigation into Paxton's wrongdoings, although no charges have yet been filed, this case is ongoing.
In March 2023, Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the Legislature to include an appropriation in the State Budget to pay the $3.3 million settlement he agreed to with the former staffers.
This funding request is what triggered a House investigation, which began in March, into the activities of Paxton’s Office. The HGI committee has stated they felt they needed to look into the situation fully so they could determine whether the payment from state funds was a justified expenditure to be made with taxpayer funds.
On May 23rd, the Texas House General Investigating Committee held a meeting, went into a closed meeting and then announced two subpoenas in "Matter A." The committee also issued a subpoena for John Doe No. 6 and the Office of the Attorney General.
Capitol insiders at this time, were not privy to what the GCI was investigating as part of “Matter A” but it is now believed Paxton’s office might have received a tip.
That same day, around the same timeline as the meeting announcement, Attorney General Ken Paxton released a statement on his campaign Twitter account calling on Speaker Phelan to resign for "apparent intoxication" while presiding over the House.
And then minutes after the HGI committee went into closed session, The Office of Attorney General released a letter addressed to HGI on its official Twitter account requesting an investigation of Speaker Phelan.
The following day at 8:00 am on May 24th, the HGI began their meeting, and heard public testimony regarding multiple misdemeanor and felony allegations against General Paxton.
The HGI investigators team providing testimony, included Erin Epley, a former prosecutor for Harris County; Ryan Patrick, a Donald Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s son; Terese Buess, a veteran prosecutor with the Harris County district attorney’s office; Mark Donnelly, who former prosecutor for the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of Texas, who specializes in white collar crimes; Donna Cameron, a prosecutor who has worked in various Texas counties with experience prosecuting public officials; and Brian Benken, a former prosecutor with the Harris County district attorney’s office.
The testimony provided by the veteran prosecutor team, acting as independent, objective parties, was based on a comprehensive review of available information surrounding the allegations around Paxton.
Their testimony provided claims that Paxton engaged in activities that have led to the charges of disregard of official duty, misapplication of public resources, constitutional bribery, obstruction of justice, false statements in official records, conspiracy and attempted conspiracy, dereliction of duty, unfitness for office and abuse of public trust.
At around noon that day, following the conclusion of that HGI meeting, AG Paxton issued a statement on his campaign Twitter account attacking the "liberal leadership" of the Texas House and indicating "every allegation is easily disproved."
The next day,on May 25th the committee met and voted to recommend that the House pursue Impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Ken Paxton and filed a resolution outlining the 20 charges with the House for action.
The 20 Counts of Impeachment
HR 2377 lays out the 20 counts of impeachment which are based on the testimony presented at the hearing on May 24th.
HR 2377 (use this link to see the document)
The Claims against Paxton are summarized below:
Disregard of Official Duty - Protection of Charitable Organization. Claim: Paxton caused employees of the AG’s office to intervene in a lawsuit being pursued by a foundation against a Paxton Donor.
Disregard of Official Duty - Abuse of the Opinion Process. Claim: Paxton caused employees of his office to draft an AG’s opinion and reverse their legal conclusions to benefit a Paxton donor. AG’s opinions must be requested by certain outside parties, the AG cannot initiate this process legally. The investigation revealed he asked a Senate member to serve as the requestor to attempt to legitimize his actions.
Disregard of Official Duty - Abuse of the Open Records Process. Claim: Paxton directed his staff to act contrary to law and legal precedent.
Disregard of Official Duty - Misuse of Official Information. Claim: Paxton obtained access and provided information beneficial to a donor that had not been publicly released to the public.
Disregard of Official Duty - Engagement of Cammack. Claim: Paxton allowed an outside attorney, who was not properly deputized, to conduct an investigation on behalf of the AG’s office to benefit a donor’s business, and allowed that attorney to issue 30 grand jury subpoenas.
Disregard of Official Duty - Termination of Whistleblowers. Claim: Paxton terminated high-level employees who made good faith reports of illegal acts by Paxton to law enforcement that Paxton.
Misapplication of Public Resource - Whistleblower Investigation and Report. Claim: Paxton directed AG employees to conduct an investigation and publish a misleading report regarding the claims by the terminated staff.
Disregard of Official Duty - Settlement Agreement. Claim: Paxton entered into a settlement agreement with the former employees and agreed to pay the settlement from public funds. This action delayed the employees case against Paxton so that this was not ongoing during the 2022 Election process, depriving the electorate the opportunity to make an informed decision.
Constitutional Bribery - Paul’s employment of Mistress. Claim: Paxton’s requested that his mistress from an outside of his marriage affair was hired by a donor and in return Paxton provided favorable legal assistance and access to the donor by the AG’s office.
Constitutional Bribery - Paul’s providing renovations to Paxton’s home. Claim: The Paxtons accepted services related to renovations to the Paxton home from a donor and in return, Paxton provided favorable legal assistance and access to the donor by the AG’s office.
Obstruction of Justice - Abuse of Judicial Process. Claim: Paxton concealed the facts of his Collin County grand jury indictment, causing delays in the trial and depriving voters from the opportunity to make an informed decision when voting.
Obstruction of Justice - Abuse of Judicial Process. Claim: Paxton benefited from the filing of a lawsuit by a donor, that interfered with the payment of prosecutors in his security fraud case, which caused a delay in the trial and depriving voters from the opportunity to make an informed decision when voting.
False Statements in Official Records - State Securities Board Investigation. Claim: Paxton made false statements to the State Securities Board in connection with his investigation for failure to register as required by law.
False statements in Official Records - Personal Financial Statements. Claim: Paxton failed to disclose his financial interests in personal financial statements.
False statements in Official Records - Whistleblower Response Reports. Claim: Paxton made false or misleading statements in the investigation of the firing of his staff.
Conspiracy and Attempted Conspiracy. Claim: Paxton acted to conspire or attempt to conspire with others on multiple occasions as described above.
Misappropriation of Public Resources. Claim: Paxton misused his official powers causing employees to perform services, using taxpayer resources, that would personally benefit Paxton and his donors.
Dereliction of Duty - Claim: Paxton violated his oath of office by engaging in the activities listed in these claims.
Unfitness for Office - Claim: While holding office, the attorney general has engaged in conduct that demonstrates he is unfit for office.
Abuse of Public Trust - Claim: While holding office, the attorney general misused the office which has led to the loss of public confidence in the office.
The Impeachment Process
Impeachment is simply a charge of misconduct against an office holder. It is the first step in the process to remove an elected official from office.
The House GIC issued a letter on May 26th that outlined the House procedures for conducting the impeachment debate. The House will allocate four hours of general debate on the resolution, allocating 40 minutes for opening remarks and 20 minutes for closing remarks. During the remaining times, each side, those in favor and those opposed, will be given the opportunity to present in equal time.
If the House successfully votes in favor of impeachment, the next step is the Texas Senate for a trial. Following the trial, the Senate would need a ⅔ vote (21 senators) to remove Paxton from office.
The Texas House will meet on Saturday, May 27th at 1:00 PM to vote on Impeachment. It will take a majority vote in the Texas House. There are currently 64 Ds and 85 Rs (1 member short of the 150, because of a resignation), it will take 75 votes to impeach.
You can watch the entire process at https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/