Do you see a story in these documents we should pursue, or do you have another tip? Reach us at tips@kut.org.
Witnesses subpoenaed before Texas last year accused him of bullying them during the proceedings and argued they shouldn鈥檛 have to answer questions under oath, .
The Texas Newsroom filed a public records request for all documents files with the Court of Impeachment. In response, the Texas Senate released hundreds of pages of previously-unreleased documents that pull back the curtain on the proceedings, revealing behind-the-scenes fights between Paxton鈥檚 defense team and the prosecution.
They also show more about who was made to testify under oath 鈥� and who wasn鈥檛.
To ensure a full and transparent public record of the historic impeachment trial, the first to take place in Texas in nearly half a century, . The records are in batches in the order they were received with no redactions or other additional alterations made.
Below are three things that stood out in the filings.
Many of the records were requests from potential witnesses, including the woman with whom Paxton allegedly had an extramarital affair, not to produce documents or answer questions under oath.
It is unclear how Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who served as judge, ruled on many of their requests. When asked for an explanation, Patrick鈥檚 spokesman, Steven Aranyi, said they were handled properly.
鈥淭he matters were addressed by order of the court, agreement between the parties, withdrawal by the filing party, or not broached because the matter was moot,鈥� Aranyi told The Texas Newsroom.
Central to the impeachment trial were allegations raised by a group of whistleblowers that , a campaign donor and Austin-based real estate investor, bribed Paxton to receive favorable treatment at the Office of the Attorney General. Paxton was accused of bribery, conspiracy and general unfitness for office and faced approved by the Texas House.
After a 10-day trial, the Texas and reinstated him to office.
Dan Cogdell, one of Paxton鈥檚 defense attorneys, said he was happy with Paxton鈥檚 win and was now focusing on future cases 鈥� not looking back to impeachment. He is also defending Paxton in .
鈥淚 have neither the time nor the inclination to continue to argue about the DNA of any breadcrumbs that remain,鈥� Cogdell told The Texas Newsroom.
鈥淸She] has done nothing wrong:鈥� Laura Olson did not want to testify
One of the articles of impeachment accused Paul of getting favorable treatment from Paxton after he hired , a woman with whom Paxton allegedly had an affair.
The newly-released records show Olson pushed back against demands that she testify or produce phone records about their alleged romantic relationship.
鈥淢s. Olson is not a party to these proceedings and has done nothing wrong. This intrusion into her personal life cannot be justified,鈥� Olson鈥檚 lawyer wrote filed Sept. 5.
A week later, more than halfway through the trial, stating Olson would tap her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if ordered to the stand. She also expressed confusion over why her client was being called to appear at the court because she had been assured Olson would not have to testify at all, the records show.
鈥淪he should not be called as a witness, as it would be a waste of time, and could only be for an improper purpose,鈥� Olson鈥檚 lawyer wrote .
Prosecutors that day, according to reporting at the time. Sporting a white dress and , Olson appeared in the court to wait her turn on the stand.
But, after several hours鈥� delay, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick determined that she was given fewer than 24 hours鈥� notice to appear and
She never took the stand.
Nate Paul pushed back on subpoena to his lawyers
Paul, the man at the center of the corruption allegations against Paxton, opposed attempts to have two of his former lawyers testify. filed on Sep. 5, Paul argued his ex-counsel couldn鈥檛 answer questions on the stand about their private legal matters.
鈥淲e also request a hearing outside the presence of the public and the jury to resolve this motion,鈥� Paul鈥檚 attorney at the time wrote.
It鈥檚 unclear whether he got it.
Paul himself never testified.
Three months before the trial, a federal grand jury for alleged financial crimes unrelated to Paxton. He pleaded not guilty. His trial, , won鈥檛 start before the general election in November.
Whistleblowers accused Paxton鈥檚 side of harassment
The impeachment records show other witnesses produced thousands of pages of documents ahead of the trial at Paxton鈥檚 demand.
But they argued the attorney general鈥檚 lawyers wanted to go farther, filing broad subpoenas they argued were only meant to bully them.
James 鈥淏lake鈥� Brickman, one of the whistleblowers, wrote on Aug. 15 that within a week in response to Paxton鈥檚 requests. He asked the court to allow him to withhold other records, which he said had no bearing on the trial.
鈥淭he Subpoena contains wildly-expansive requests for broad and vague categories of information and clearly seeks to burden and punish Brickman by purporting to require him to search for and produce unspecified documents, including privileged documents, attorney work product, and communications and documents having no bearing on the Impeachment trial,鈥� Brickman鈥檚 lawyer wrote.
Jordan Berry, Paxton鈥檚 longtime campaign consultant who was not a whistleblower, said Paxton鈥檚 requests for documents .
, Berry鈥檚 lawyer said Paxton asked him to turn over years of his communications with elected officials and members of the media, and a decade鈥檚 worth of information about contributions to the attorney general鈥檚 campaign account.
鈥淭he subpoena appears to be a cynical tool of harassment and invasion of constitutionally protected interests, perhaps motivated as revenge for the fact that [Berry] ceased providing general consulting services to Paxton in Fall of 2020,鈥� his lawyer wrote.
Berry did not testify at trial.
He did not respond to a request to comment for this story.
Copyright 2024 KUT News. To see more, visit .
