Attorney General Paxton. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
For years, the formidable powers and protective shield of the Texas Attorney General’s office have proven indispensable to Ken Paxton, aiding him in fending off a barrage of ethics complaints, criminal charges, and even an FBI investigation. With the recent acquittal by the Texas Senate on corruption charges during his impeachment trial, Paxton’s remarkable political resilience has once again taken center stage. Moreover, he clings to the authority and legal defenses bestowed upon him by the attorney general’s office, bracing for the legal battles that still loom on the horizon.
Following his exoneration, the 60-year-old Paxton expressed gratitude to his legal team for their role in “exposing the absurdity” of what he termed “false allegations” against him. He pledged to resume his legal skirmishes, particularly against the administration of President Joe Biden. In a statement, Paxton decried the weaponization of the impeachment process for settling political disputes, deeming it not only wrong but also morally and ethically corrupt. He declared, “Now that this shameful process is over, my work to defend our constitutional rights will resume.”
However, Paxton’s return to office does not signify smooth sailing ahead, as he confronts formidable challenges on three distinct fronts. Firstly, there persists an ongoing federal investigation, initiated by the FBI in 2020. This investigation stems from allegations made by eight of Paxton’s top deputies, accusing him of bending the law to assist a wealthy donor, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul. These very accusations formed the nucleus of Paxton’s impeachment proceedings, with lawmakers citing the unresolved matter of a $3.3 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by four of these deputies as the impetus for the impeachment investigation.
During the impeachment trial, several of Paxton’s former deputies took the witness stand against him. They recounted their recourse to the FBI and testified to Paxton’s efforts to aid Paul in warding off a separate FBI inquiry. Furthermore, they revealed that Paul employed a woman with whom Paxton had engaged in an extramarital affair. Drew Wicker, another former employee, disclosed that Paxton’s second-in-command later discouraged him from cooperating with the FBI.
Meanwhile, Paul himself was indicted in June on charges of making false statements to banks. He pleaded not guilty and did not testify at the impeachment trial. The federal investigation into Paxton has extended over a protracted period, and its jurisdiction was shifted from Texas prosecutors to those in Washington, D.C., in February. In August, federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in San Antonio to scrutinize the dealings between Paxton and Paul, according to insiders with knowledge of the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity due to grand jury secrecy rules.
One source indicated that the grand jury heard testimony from Wicker, Paxton’s former personal aide. Wicker testified during the impeachment trial that he once overheard a contractor advising Paxton to consult with “Nate” regarding the costs of renovations to the attorney general’s Austin residence. Paxton, for his part, has consistently maintained his innocence. His defense attorney, Dan Cogdell, conceded in August that authorities were still conducting interviews with witnesses but expressed confidence that the case would ultimately falter.
THE SECURITIES FRAUD CASE
In the tumultuous legal saga of Ken Paxton, the year 2015 emerged as a pivotal moment. During that fateful year, Paxton faced indictments on charges related to the alleged defrauding of investors in a Dallas-area technology startup named Servergy. Central to these charges was the accusation that Paxton had failed to disclose his financial ties to Servergy, specifically his compensation for recruiting investors. These allegations carried a heavy potential sentence, ranging from five to a staggering 99 years in prison, should a conviction be secured. Paxton, however, remained resolute in his plea of not guilty.
It’s worth noting that these indictments landed on Paxton’s doorstep just months after he took the oath of office as Texas’ Attorney General. A remarkable twist of fate, indeed, as Paxton subsequently managed to secure both a second and third term in office despite the looming legal cloud.
Yet, Paxton’s path to trial has been far from straightforward. Legal wrangling ensued, embroiling the case in debates over whether it should be heard in the Dallas area or Houston. There were also changes in the judge assigned to the case, adding to the complexities. Moreover, a protracted battle unfolded over the compensation for the special prosecutors handling the case, further delaying proceedings.
In the wake of the Texas House’s decision, led by Republicans, to impeach Paxton, the state’s high criminal court ultimately ruled that his trial would proceed in Houston. The presiding judge, in August, indicated her intention to set a trial date following the conclusion of the impeachment trial.
During this period, Paxton’s defense attorney, Dan Cogdell, made a noteworthy observation. He suggested that if Paxton were to be removed from his office, it might open the door to the possibility of him considering a plea agreement in the case, introducing another layer of uncertainty into this protracted legal drama.
THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING
Amidst the whirlwind of Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial, another significant legal matter has remained on hold: an ethics case initiated by the State Bar of Texas.
The backdrop for this case dates back to 2020 when Paxton, in a move that sent shockwaves through the nation, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to effectively overturn the electoral victory of then-President Donald Trump’s challenger, Joe Biden. Paxton’s legal gambit rested on unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, a move that ultimately led the highest court in the land to dismiss his request.
Following this contentious episode, the State Bar of Texas found itself inundated with complaints alleging professional misconduct by Paxton and one of his deputies regarding their involvement in the Supreme Court suit. Initially, the bar refrained from pursuing these complaints, but it subsequently launched a comprehensive investigation. Last year, the bar escalated the matter by filing a lawsuit, seeking unspecified disciplinary actions against Paxton and his second-in-command, contending that they had been “dishonest” in their interactions with the Supreme Court.
Paxton, for his part, swiftly dismissed the bar’s suits as “meritless” and framed them as politically motivated attacks. His attorney general’s office asserted that, given its position within the executive branch and the bar’s affiliation with the judicial branch, these cases encroached upon the separation of powers enshrined in the state constitution.
Initially, a judge presiding over the case against Paxton’s deputy, Brent Webster, concurred with this argument. However, in a twist of legal fate, this decision was overturned on appeal in July. During the same month, another court scheduled arguments for the disciplinary case against Paxton, only to postpone them when it became apparent that they would coincide with his impeachment trial.
Remarkably, even after Paxton’s suspension from office, his attorney general’s office continued to defend him in this ethics case. If Paxton is ultimately found to have violated professional ethics rules, he faces the looming specter of disbarment, suspension, or other, lesser forms of disciplinary action, adding yet another layer of uncertainty to his legal odyssey.
COMMENTS