Recap: Ken Paxton Impeachment Trial, Day Two

Today's witnesses – top OAG leaders – are getting out their story about the “bizarre” behavior of Ken Paxton, which they attribute to his “inappropriate” relationship with Nate Paul.

         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 … Local artist (and friend of Life Its Ownself) Laura Atlas Kravitz is publishing a series of watercolor sketches from the Impeachment Trial. More of her artwork can be found here. Check it out!

Wednesday, September 6, 2023, 8:00 p.m.

         I decided to go down to the Capitol Building to watch part of Day Two of the Ken Paxton impeachment trial. There, I could sit in an uncomfortable seat, being shushed by Senate messengers, with no laptop and my cell phone turned off.

         I’M KIDDING! Other than the flop sweat from Ken Paxton’s lawyers and the cut-it-with-a-knife boredom of the senators, there is little that being there could help me experience. I could talk to a few senators I know, but they’re under a gag order, as are the Senate staff members.

         No, today was a day to watch the proceedings from the cool comfort of my home office.

         Day Two is done. Today was all testimony, mostly from Jeff Mateer, who was the First Assistant Attorney General for Paxton when the accumulated sh*t hit the fan. In due course he was followed by Ryan Bangert, another senior OAG staffer who became disillusioned and then alarmed by Paxton’s relationship with Nate Paul. Some highlights:

I.     The Key Rulings on Admissibility

         When we left yesterday, the parties and Dan Patrick’s legal team had gotten wrapped around the twin axles of executive and lawyer-client privilege. Paxton’s  argument: In all the relevant conversations, the whistleblowers and other witnesses were acting as his advisors, including giving legal advice normally covered by the attorney-client privilege. The House managers’ argument: These were not Ken Paxton’s personal lawyers. They were lawyers for the State of Texas, to whom they owed an ethical duty of loyalty and professionalism.

         Patrick’s ruling on this may have profound consequences for the House managers’ case, which depends on eyewitness testimony from a series of senior OAG managers, Paxton’s body man, and so forth.

         The parties met last night and agreed to pre-admission of a long list of exhibits, which they read into the record. Buzbee also announced that the defense team will withdraw its broad attorney-client privilege objections to allow testimony from the whistleblowers.  

---

II.   The Testimony Goes On

         The goal of any lawyer in a jury trial is to present a story to the jury that is believable and puts the facts into a context most favorable to their client, whether their client is a victim of a car wreck or the State in a criminal proceeding. The trial process itself can be agonizing – exhibits offered, admitted or rejected, witnesses testifying and being cross-examined, procedural objections to evidence and testimony, all of which are supposed to be woven together and rendered sensible in opening and closing arguments to the jury.

         As we go through the witness/evidentiary phase of the Paxton impeachment trial, I will try to summarize the narrative that each side is trying to present for each witness – assuming that I can discern that. And if I can’t figure out what story they’re trying to tell, imagine those poor senators having to remain awake and appear interested!

         Former First Assistant AG Jeff Mateer resumed testifying. His story, as Rusty Hardin would have him tell it: Mateer was a committed and deeply loyal employee who over the course of several months in 2020 became alarmed at what he saw as an inappropriate relationship between Paxton and Nate Paul that was spiraling into illegality. Together with the top managers, they determined Paxton had crossed the line, and so reluctantly went to law enforcement with their story.

         Mateer’s story, as Tony Buzbee would have him tell it: Mateer was an ambitious (Buzbee asked if he wanted to be AG) and fundamentally disloyal employee (he suggested he was somehow in cahoots with George P. Bush) who chose to believe bad rumors about Paxton without checking with him and eventually led a cabal of likewise disloyal employees to rebel (in Buzbee’s word, “a coup”) and go to law enforcement, even without proof that any of their suspicions were true.

         Buzbee’s cross drifted into the weeds a couple times.  He spent an enormous amount of time trying to get Mateer to admit he was not aware of a criminal referral to Brandon Cammack by the Travis County D.A.’s office. His point was that the cabal’s alarm at what Cammack was doing was unnecessary since it was within the scope of the now-infamous “second criminal referral.” But who cares? He was still acting under color of the OAG, without supervision or accountability to anyone in that agency.

         The next witness was Ryan Bangert, who was a division director under Paxton and Mateer. Unlike Mateer, whose position at the top of the org chart meant he was not involved in day-to-day matters, Bangert was at the center of Paxton’s most interesting mischiefs. First, Bangert testified, Paxton encouraged him to change the agency’s Open Records policy when Nate Paul sought access to legally protected records from law enforcement raids on his properties and home. Later, after Bangert got a promotion and was overseeing more departments, Paxton asked him to intervene in a lawsuit filed by a non-profit entity against some of Nate Paul’s businesses.  A couple months after that, Paxton asked him to draft a legal opinion arguing that homeowners would benefit from a COVID-inspired moratorium on foreclosure sales.

         “It was bizarre,” Bangert said of Paxton’s behavior. “He was acting like a man with a gun to his head.”

         Rusty Hardin was still questioning Bangert as the day ended. He will be back tomorrow to finish his direct testimony and then face cross-examination.

---

III. Some Impressions

         The Senate is back to its wicked ways. After multiple declarations that it would meet promptly from 9:00-6:00 weekdays and on Saturdays, the Senate adjourned an hour early yesterday, started almost an hour late today, and announced they would not meet this Saturday. To their credit, they were in session until 6:20 this evening.

         Paxton is absent from the trial again today. I think it likely we will not see him again until he is summoned to hear the judgment of the Senate upon him, and especially on the issue of whether he will be banned from public office in Texas henceforth.

         Buzbee’s was in the spotlight today as he cross-examined Jeff Mateer. He clearly got to Mateer, who was by turns flustered and then angry. (He did better when he was angry.) Buzbee has some neat tricks; for instance, he repeatedly questioned Mateer about then-Land Commissioner George P. Bush, suggesting that Bush was part of the whistleblowers’ cabal. After Mateer testified that he’d never even met Bush, Buzbee would say something like, “There are no coincidences in Texas,” letting the insinuation hang in the air for a few seconds, then moving on. I can see where it would impress juries.

         Rusty Hardin did elicit some laughs from the audience when, asking questions of witnesses, he twice said “Lieutenant Governor” when he meant “Attorney General.” The second time, he told Lite Guv Dan Patrick, who is presiding as judge, “I’m not trying to commit suicide, Your Honor.”

---

         I will publish another special edition of Life Its Ownself after tomorrow’s session.