(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
All Articles of Impeachment Against Ken Paxton Survive Motions to Dismiss: Trial Day 1 [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2023-09-05
All of the articles of impeachment survived Paxton’s Motions to Dismiss.
Courtesy of Texas Tribune
Dan Patrick started the proceedings with a prayer led by Senator Phil King, who asked for wisdom, good health for all participants, and care for the “unattended business” at home.
Patrick did not swear in the Senators (who are serving as jurors) as a group, but required them to take their oaths individually. It was “their decision” whether or not to place their hand on the historical Sam Houston Bible, which marked the seriousness as well as the historical significance of the proceedings. The mood was definitely solemn, and many of the Senators were dressed in black or other dark colors (the temperature is still near or above triple digits in Texas). Angela Paxton, however, had on a bright red suit.
Court reporters and officers were sworn in next, followed by the House Managers and all the attorneys.
What followed was the tedious voting on a number of pre-trial motions. For purposes of this vote, Senators were deciding whether or not to dismiss all or specific articles. In order to “win,” Paxton only needed a majority (16 out of 31 votes), which did not happen on any of Paxton’s Motions.
Here are the vote results (votes against Paxton’s Motions to Dismiss):
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss all Articles: 24 to 6
Paxton’s Motion to Exclude Conduct Prior to 2023: 22 to 8
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss a group of specific articles: 22 to 8
Paxton’s Motion to Quash the Articles of Impeachment: 24 to 6
Paxton’s Request for a Bill of Particulars: 24 to 6
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Article I (improper intervention in a lawsuit involving the Mitte Foundation in order to benefit Nate Paul): 22 to 8
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Article 2 (misuse of authority to prepare an opinion that favored Nate Paul/straw requestor): 22 to 8
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Article 3 (disregard/misuse of authority in a public information request contrary to law): 23 to 7
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Article 4 (disregard/misuse of authority in improper access of public information to benefit Nate Paul): 24 to 6
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Article 5 (misuse of authority to engage Brendan Kammack and issuance of grand jury subpoenas to benefit Nate Paul): 22 to 8
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Article 6 (misuse of authority in termination of whistleblowers in violation of law and due process): 21 to 9
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Articles 7 & 15 (misapplication of public resources involved with whistleblower “sham investigation” and false or misleading statements in official records): 21 to 9
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Article 8 (disregard of official duties by concealing improper actions and entering into settlement agreement obligating public funds): 20 to 10
Paxton’s Motion to Dismiss Articles 9 & 10 (constitutional bribery/Nate Paul’s employment of mistress and renovations to Paxton’s home): 24 to 6
Paxton’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance Articles 16-20 (misapplication/misuse of public resources; violations of constitution and other illegal acts; unfitness for office; abuse of public trust; obstruction of justice; bringing office of AG into disrepute): 21 to 9
Paxton’s Motion to Exclude “Illegal Evidence”: 22 to 8
As you can imagine, all of the Democrats voted against Paxton’s motions. The following eight brave Republicans also voted against all of Paxton’s motions. This does not necessarily mean that they believe Paxton is innocent, but they do want to hear the evidence (or think the public has a right to hear the evidence):
Brian Birdwell (District 22)
Pete Flores (District 24)
Kelly Hancock (District 9)
Joan Huffman (District 17)
Phil King (District 10)
Mayes Middleton (District 11)
Robert Nichols (District 3)
Drew Springer (District 30)
The following four Republican Senators mostly voted against Paxton, although they voted in favor of dismissal on a few of Paxton’s requests:
Bryan Hughes (District 1)
Charles Perry (District 28)
Charles Schwertner (District 5)
Kevin Sparks (District 31)
The following six Republican Senators are clearly in Paxton’s camp:
Paul Bettencourt (District 7)
Donna Campbell (District 25)
Brandon Creighton (District 4)
Bob Hall (District 2)
Lois Kolkhorst (District 18)
Tan Parker (District 12)
After the Senators voted (and we knew that the trial would proceed on all of the Articles), Patrick ruled on a number of other pending motions, most which dealt with questions about procedure that Patrick had already addressed in prior orders.
One substantive motion was whether or not Paxton could be compelled to testify. Citing the 1886 Boyd v United States, Patrick ruled that he was treating the impeachment as a criminal trial: The standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and Paxton can NOT be compelled to testify.
Patrick denied Paxton’s motion to exclude evidence of political contributions on the grounds that this is already available to the public through the Texas Ethics Commission. Paxton’s challenge to jurors for cause was also denied.
Attorneys for the House Managers alerted Patrick to the fact that they had extended Paxton the courtesy of agreeing to automatic admission of documents, but no corresponding agreement from Paxton. Paxton’s attorney, Tony Buzbee retorted that, “We’ll do it like we’re supposed to.” I expect Patrick will take this into consideration when we hear the inevitable objections.
After a short break, Paxton appeared briefly, only long enough to stand while the Articles were read. At first Buzbee preceded each “not guilty” with a diatribe about the “falsity” and “baselessness” of the accusations. An objection from DeGuerin to refrain from time-wasting “speeches” during the plea stage was sustained by Patrick.
Just before lunch, six witnesses were brought in to be sworn and admonished by Patrick that they were required to remain outside the proceedings except while testifying and that they were not to watch any of the broadcasts or read/watch media articles about the proceedings.
House General Investigating Committee Chair Andrew Muir opened for the prosecution. Muir invoked Sam Houston (who was elected as President of the Republic of Texas on this same day in 1836) and his grandfather, former TX Governor Coke Stevenson (1941-1947). Paxton has violated his oath of office generally by putting his self-interest above the people of Texas. Muir quoted Abraham Lincoln: “If you want to test a man’s integrity, give him power.”
Muir told the Senators that they “sit as a unique juror.” Muir briefly mentioned some of the facts, and further promised that some of Paxton’s acts may be “shocking.” He praised the courage of witnesses who are going to testify, saying that they “knew retribution would be swift and vicious.” Muir said that the witnesses felt this pressure, the House investigators felt it, and the Senators are “feeling it now.” He ended with another quote from Sam Houston: “Do right and risk the consequences.” Muir reserved 42 minutes to be applied to presentation of evidence.
Buzbee started his opening with the proposition that there is “nothing” to the case. He asked rhetorically whether Paxton would get a fair trial because the case has already “been tried and convicted in the press.” He praised Paxton’s record as being “effective and aggressive.” He then proceeded to disparage the investigation as being “rushed,” House Speaker Phelan as being “drunk” on May 19th (which is why Paxton called for his resignation 4 days later), and impugned the witnesses as being disloyal, greedy (the whistleblowers involved in the settlement), or wrongfully assuming what could have been verified by checking with Paxton.
Both Buzbee and one of his co-counsel got into the weeds of the facts, along with conclusory statements like “political contributions are not bribes.” Paxton’s attorneys alleged that the Paxton’s paid for all of the repairs to their home (and they have receipts to prove it), Nate Paul made demands but “got nothing” from the AG’s office, no foreclosures were actually prevented, and Paxton’s purported mistress is still “doing real work at her real job.” Fortunately, Patrick had advised the Senators previously that opening arguments were NOT evidence, because it certainly sounded like they were testifying.
Paxton’s basic defense arguments were (1) voters and not politicians should be the ones who decide whether Paxton remains as AG, and (2) emphasis on the standard of proof—which is “much higher” than the probable cause standard used in the House (analogized to a grand jury). Paxton’s attorneys had one minute remaining to be applied to their case in chief.
Right now, Rusty Hardin is examining Jeff Mateer, a former First Assistant AG. Mateer’s conservative (and religious evangelical) bona fides have been established, countering the charges that this is some type of liberal or deep state witch hunt. We are now in the story about the AG’s interference in the lawsuit involving the Mitte Foundation against Nate Paul. Buzbee is objecting to almost everything, making it somewhat hard to follow (deliberately).
Can’t promise that I will have updates each and every day, but will be following and updating periodically throughout.
You can follow the proceedings here.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/5/2191679/-All-Articles-of-Impeachment-Against-Ken-Paxton-Survive-Motions-to-Dismiss-Trial-Day-1
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
