Recap: Ken Paxton Impeachment Trial, Day Seven

Lawyers’ battles over evidence overtake anything of interest the witnesses say. Three witnesses testify. Paxton’s “body man" fails to land a body blow. All we remember is the one who did NOT appear.

         Welcome to our special coverage of the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton here at Life Its Ownself! Please subscribe and encourage others to do so. Your support inspires me to write and publish regularly. All my content is free, but your paid subscription is a big affirmation. Please let me know how I’m doing by 1) liking, 2) subscribing, 3) sharing with others, and 4) commenting below.

         But first, your moment of Zen … Laura Olson, Ken Paxton’s alleged mistress, waiting to be called to testify this morning. Alas, we shall not see or hear from her in this trial.

---

Wednesday, September 13, 2023, 10:00 p.m.

         Today was, by any measurement, the weirdest day of the trial yet. Before I try to summarize the three witnesses’ testimony, let me try to recap the ambient craziness.

         Laura Olson, Ken Paxton’s alleged former (?) mistress showed up. looking for all the world like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct.

         Then, like Ken Paxton and perhaps even Justice itself, she vanished from the Capitol, not to be heard from during this trial. The lawyers spent more time arguing minute points of evidence and procedure than they did questioning witnesses. (The one consolation was watching prosecution attorneys Erin Epley and Mark Donnelly throw the preening Tony Buzbee off his rhythm on some feisty evidence challenges.) Rusty Hardin prematurely rested the House managers’ case, an unforced error that Buzbee gleefully exploited. Buzbee asked the senators to dismiss some of the charges outright. The senators retired to deliberate, but the parties quickly summoned them back, having “agreed” to withdraw their motions. Then, just as Patrick called the defense’s first witness, there was another scrum at the dais, in the middle of which he mercifully adjourned for the day.

---

I.     Ray Chester Testimony and Cross-Examination

         Ray Chester is a partner in the McGinnis Lochridge firm and the longtime lawyer for the Mitte Foundation.

         He testified that the Mitte Foundation had suffered management problems during the early 2000s, but had addressed them by 2011 and been “squeaky clean” ever since.

         In the summer of 2019, the Mitte Foundation was in litigation with Nate Paul’s World Class Properties over Paul’s refusal to provide information to Mitte, which had made a $3 million investment in a World Class project. The parties had settled the case for $10.5 million, but World Class had reneged, and Mitte was trying to enforce the settlement.

         In the spring of 2020, the OAG inexplicably intervened in the lawsuit. It soon became clear that the OAG wanted them to settle “for pennies on the dollar.” The OAG pressed Mitte to go to mediation in what Chester described as an “already mediated, already settled” case. OAG’s conduct over the summer “cost us a lot of time and money,” Chester said.

         The case is now about to close, Chester reported, and Mitte will get $23 million, considerably more than the $5-6 million the OAG was asking them to take at that time.

         On cross, Chester admitted that Mitte had invested in other World Class properties, six in total. Most of them were fine, Chester summarized, but Paul “swindled” us on one and they had to litigate to get their money on this one.

---

II.    Drew Wicker Testimony and Cross-Examination

         Andrew “Drew Wicker was another gift from Central Casting – high school at Prestonwood Christian Academy, SMU undergraduate, master’s at Georgetown.  He’d worked for Don Huffines and various groups with “Liberty” in their name.

         Wicker was Ken Paxton’s “body man” – an aide to always accompany the A.G., keep him on schedule, and prepare him for meetings. The nature of his job meant that he frequently worked nights and weekends, always in close proximity to Paxton.

         Drew Wicker testified about a bunch of stuff:

         Paxton and Nate Paul frequently lunched together, usually at Polvo’s downtown location. Wicker attended some of these, as did other OAG managers. At one, for instance, Wicker heard Nate Paul’s theory about how law enforcement had done him wrong in the August 2019 raid;

         Wicker brought a file from Ryan Vassar to Paxton in late May, returning it about a week later. About that time, Wicker also delivered a file to Nate Paul for Paxton.  Wicker could not recall whether it was about the same size and thickness;

         Wicker saw Paxton and alleged mistress Laura Olson come out of an elevator at the Omni Hotel during the summer of 2020 when the Paxtons’ home was being renovated;

         On half a dozen occasions, Wicker went over to the Paxtons’ Tarrytown house to meet with contractors or adjusters after it suffered storm damage in the spring of 2020. Wicker overheard Paxton, discussing renovations with general contractor Kevin Wood, mention expensive changes to the kitchen, specifically new granite countertops and kitchen cabinetry. Wood said he would “check with Nate;”

         At some point in 2020, Paxton, who already had a state phone and a personal phone, got two more phones. He also got a Proton email account and began using the Signal app for some communications;

         The nature of his duties meant that Wicker received a stipend from the Paxton campaign. After Wicker left the OAG, the stipends continued, and he had to request the campaign cut them off. He later returned the excess money to the campaign as a donation.  

---

III.Blake Brickman Testimony and Cross-Examination

         Blake Brickman is the former deputy attorney general for policy and strategic initiatives. A native Texan and University of Kentucky law graduate, he was the chief of staff to both U.S. Jim Bunning and Kentucky governor Matt Bevin. In the latter part of 2019, Ken Paxton and Jeff Mateer recruited him to come to Texas and the OAG.

         Brickman first heard of Nate Paul from Paxton’s body man Drew Wicker, who was concerned that Paxton met frequently with Paul without it being on his official calendar and having dismissed his DPS security detail.

         By late September, Brickman was concerned that Paxton was doing “brazen things” to help Nate Paul, to the point where he was breaking the law. Brickman joined the other deputies in their meeting with the FBI on September 30. When they met with the FBI, they took “evidence” – their personal knowledge and recollections of Paxton’s improper behavior. They also sent a letter to the OAG Human Resources Department.

         By the next Monday, Brickman was on thin ice with new First Assistant Brent Webster. He described the work environment for the next two weeks as “hostile,” and he was terminated on October 20.

         He joined the whistleblowers in their lawsuit, which Paxton and the OAG fought vigorously until Paxton’s 2022 re-election. Then, it seemed, the OAG’s attitude changed and it initiated settlement negotiations. Brickman did not participate in the negotiations nor agree with the final proposal. He insisted on additional elements:

1)   Paxton to apologize personally for calling them “rogue employees;”

2)   Remove any mention of that term from the OAG website; and

3)   Agree not to dispute the Third Court of Appeals decision rejecting Paxton’s argument that he was not subject to the Whistleblower Act.

         Brickman’s demands were accepted. However, the House refused to ratify and fund the whole whistleblower settlement.

---

IV.     The Vibes

         Paxton was absent from the trial again today.

         Apparently, Paxton paramour Laura Olson, having been summoned to testify, told the parties she intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment on each question. The parties, knowing the time is short, agreed not to call her at all. Patrick’s formulation: “Laura Olson has been called and is available, but she has been deemed unable to testify.”

         The House managers moved this morning to amend House Rules of Impeachment 27 and 30(a). They asked the Court to compress what was two issues – removal from office and disqualification from future office – into one. Under Rule 7, the proposed change must lay out for 24 hours before it can be considered. This could be a very interesting discussion.

---

Important Programming Note

         I will be traveling the next few days, with limited access to the livestream of the trial. I will try to prepare a summary of each day’s events that evening, and also share some thoughts I’ve had on the whole trial.