Day Two of the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr. began with Paxton withdrawing his assertion of attorney-client privilege as to conversations and other evidence that occurred during his time as AG. The temperature of the senate “courtroom” was heated as the “Prosecution” called two key witnesses — one who testified about blackmail concerns and identified the AG’s alleged extramarital affair as the reason for the AG’s improper actions.
A fiery defense asked questions on cross-exam about the timing of impeachment witness and whistleblower resignations and the filing for law license reinstatement of George P. Bush, Paxton’s future opponent in the AG election. Defense counsel asked the AG’s first assistant whether he was trying to pull off a “coup.”
Right off the bat, Tony Buzbee, one of Paxton’s lawyers, told the presiding “judge,” Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, that the defense withdrew their assertion based on the privilege because “Attorney General Kenneth Paxton has nothing to hide.” He added that the team withdrew the objection to “save all of us some time” but warned that while the defense team withdrew the assertion of privilege, they would be “focused on hearsay.”
The defense team had motioned that the attorney-client privilege protected against the admission of testimony of conversations between the AG and his staff and also prevented the admission of Office of Attorney General (OAG) documents. Day one had concluded with Senate President Patrick saying he would research the privilege issue during the evening’s recess. The attorney-client privilege is found in the rules of evidence. The privilege protects conversations between attorneys and their clients and encourages clients to feel free to communicate with their legal counsel and staff.
Scott Braddock, editor of the Forum Report, responded to this defense move on X, formerly Twitter:
House Impeachment Manager’s key witness, former First Assistant Jeff Mateer, testified that he resigned after key staff went to the DOJ and the FBI. “By that time, I concluded that Mr. Paxton was engaged in immoral, unethical conduct, and I had the good faith belief that it was illegal.” Mateer said he has not filed a lawsuit against the suspended AG.
On cross-examination by Tony Buzbee, Mateer said that at one point, he believed General Paxton was being blackmailed. He also testified that he asked Paxton if he was under any “undue influence.” Paxton answered, “No,” but Mateer added, “But his actions did not reveal that.” Mateer cited Paxton’s allegedly moving a “woman” from San Antonio, referring to an extramarital affair, and Paxton’s “unusual actions” relating to his attention on donor Natin “Nate” Paul. The Austin real estate developer is currently a central figure in the pending impeachment trial of AG Paxton. Paul is named in several of the articles of impeachment approved by the Texas House of Representatives, Breitbart Texas reported. FBI agents arrested Paul in June. The 23-page indictment includes eight counts of making false statements to financial institutions.
Buzbee tried to cast doubt on the validity of the first article of impeachment, asking Mateer, “It is a good opportunity to put this to bed.” Article I charges that “Paxton violated the duties of his office by failing to act as public protector of charitable organizations” as required by the Texas Property Code. Specifically, “Paxton harmed the Mitte Foundation in an effort to benefit Paul.” The formidable lawyer asked Mateer questions about the distinction between the duty to protect charities and protecting the public. The key witness replied, “I don’t think they are necessarily exclusive, Sir.” Buzbee also tried to split hairs when asking Mateer whether a legal opinion at issue in Article II was a formal AG opinion. Paxton is accused of a charge that Paxton misused his official powers in issuing legal opinions for the benefit of Nate Paul. The opinion recommended that Texas stop foreclosures in Texas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Buzbee was attempting to characterize it as informal legal guidance.
Buzbee drilled Mateer about his consideration and potential hiring of Johnny Sutton. Sutton served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas from 2001-2009. Then-President George W. Bush appointed him.
Mateer explained that after potential criminal implications were raised, he considered hiring Sutton to represent the agency and top brass and looked into whether money was legally allocated for it, but ultimately decided not to hire Sutton. Buzbee fired that Sutton was in the senate gallery and got Mateer to acknowledge that Sutton was concurrently representing him. During the heated exchange about attorney’s fees, including attorney’s fees costs for House Impeachment manager attorneys, Mateer asked Buzbee, “What’s your rate?” Buzbee retorted, “You’ll find out soon enough.”
House Manager impeachment “prosecutor” Rusty Hardin objected to Buzbee’s continued use of “speaking objections,” giving speeches and interjecting issues he wanted the senate jury to hear instead of merely stating his objection. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, President and acting “judge” of the impeachment proceedings, sustained the objection.
Buzbee also asked why Mateer signed documents on letterhead where Paxton’s name was removed. Mateer said he signed the letter but “did not focus on that.” Mateer denied removing Paxton’s name or knowing who removed it from the official letterhead. Buzbee asked Mateer if he knew the Texas Penal Code’s prohibition in section 37.10 against altering government documents. Mateer denied knowledge of the statute. Buzbee accused Mateer and others of trying to stage a Coup. Buzbee asked questions highlighting the timing of impeachment witness and whistleblower resignations and the filing for legal license reinstatement of George P. Bush. Bush was to be Paxton’s future opponent in the next AG election.
When specifically asked whether he knew whether Nate Paul paid for renovations at the Paxton home, Mateer said Marc Rylander and another close aide of Paxton told him that Nate did. Mateer had no personal knowledge of the situation and told Buzbee he would have to ask Rylander. Buzbee countered that he would.
Article XVIII of the impeachment articles is a catchall” that charges “While holding office as attorney general, Warren Kenneth Paxton violated the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes, and public policy against public officials acting contrary to the public interest by engaging in acts described in one or more articles.”
Video archives of the impeachment proceedings can be found on the Texas Senate Impeachment website. The articles of Impeachment, the Rules of Procedure for the Court of Impeachment, the witness list, all motions filed by the House Board of Managers and Paxton’s defense team, exhibits, and other potential evidence are posted on the Texas Senate Court of Impeachment website.
Lana Shadwick is a writer and legal analyst for Breitbart Texas. She is a trial lawyer who served as a Texas prosecutor and family court associate judge.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.