A historic resolution passed by the Texas House of Representatives has sent shockwaves through the Lone Star State’s political landscape. The resolution, brought forth by the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, officially impeaches Attorney General Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr. on a multitude of charges, backed by a series of meticulously detailed articles of impeachment.
The impeachment trial will start Tuesday, September 5, 2024. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick will assume the role of the presiding judge, while the senators will act as jurors. According to the established rules, if Paxton is found guilty on any of the impeachment charges, he will be ousted from his position for the remainder of his four-year term, set to conclude in 2026. Furthermore, such a conviction could result in a permanent prohibition from holding any public office within the state.
ARTICLE I: Disregard of Official Duty – Protection of Charitable Organization
In this first article, it is alleged that Paxton failed to fulfill his role as the guardian of charitable organizations, as mandated by Chapter 123 of the Property Code. It is claimed that Paxton’s actions adversely affected the Roy F. & JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation in favor of Nate Paul.
ARTICLE II: Disregard of Official Duty – Abuse of the Opinion Process
Article II accuses Paxton of abusing his official power by manipulating the issuance of legal opinions. It is alleged that Paxton used his position to obstruct foreclosure sales related to properties linked to Nate Paul, concealing his actions through a convoluted scheme involving a Senate committee chair.
ARTICLE III: Disregard of Official Duty – Abuse of the Open Records Process
Paxton is further accused in Article III of misusing his authority under Chapter 552 of the Government Code, ordering his staff to act against the law regarding public information requests. This included refusing proper decisions and issuing decisions that contravened the law and legal precedents.
ARTICLE IV: Disregard of Official Duty – Misuse of Official Information
Article IV alleges that Paxton improperly accessed non-public information for the benefit of Nate Paul.
ARTICLE V: Disregard of Official Duty – Engagement of Cammack
Paxton is charged with engaging Brandon Cammack in an investigation based on a baseless complaint in Article V. This resulted in over 30 grand jury subpoenas being issued, all seemingly in favor of Nate Paul or his business interests.
ARTICLE VI: Disregard of Official Duty – Termination of Whistleblowers
Article VI contends that Paxton violated whistleblower laws (Chapter 554 of the Government Code) by terminating employees who had reported his illegal actions to law enforcement authorities. This was allegedly done in retaliation, with Paxton also engaging in a campaign to damage the whistleblowers’ professional reputations.
ARTICLE VII: Misapplication of Public Resources – Whistleblower Investigation and Report
Paxton is accused of directing the use of public resources in Article VII to conduct a sham investigation into whistleblower complaints and produce a lengthy report containing false or misleading statements in his defense.
ARTICLE VIII: Disregard of Official Duty – Settlement Agreement
Article VIII asserts that Paxton concealed his wrongful acts connected to whistleblower complaints, entering into a settlement agreement paid from public funds. This delay was allegedly advantageous to Paxton, depriving voters of critical information when voting for attorney general.
ARTICLE IX: Constitutional Bribery – Paul’s Employment of Mistress
Paxton is charged with constitutional bribery in Article IX, benefiting from Nate Paul’s employment of a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair, allegedly resulting in favorable legal assistance for Paul.
ARTICLE X: Constitutional Bribery – Paul’s Providing Renovations to Paxton Home
Article X alleges Paxton benefited from renovations provided to his home by Nate Paul, again resulting in favorable legal assistance for Paul.
ARTICLE XI: Obstruction of Justice – Abuse of Judicial Process
Paxton is accused of abusing the judicial process in Article XI, using it to delay the trial related to his indictment for securities fraud, allegedly depriving voters of an informed choice during the election.
ARTICLE XII: Obstruction of Justice – Interference with Prosecutors
Article XII claims that Paxton benefited from a lawsuit filed by Jeff Blackard, a campaign donor, which disrupted payment to prosecutors involved in his criminal securities fraud case, causing further delays in the trial.
ARTICLE XIII: False Statements in Official Records – State Securities Board Investigation
Article XIII charges Paxton with making false statements to the State Securities Board during their investigation into his failure to register as required by law.
ARTICLE XIV: False Statements in Official Records – Personal Financial Statements
Article XIV accuses Paxton of failing to accurately disclose his financial interests in his personal financial statements, required by law.
ARTICLE XV: False Statements in Official Records – Whistleblower Response Report
Paxton is charged with making multiple false or misleading statements in the response report issued by his office in relation to whistleblower allegations.
ARTICLE XVI: Conspiracy and Attempted Conspiracy
Article XVI alleges Paxton conspired or attempted to conspire to commit acts described in one or more articles.
ARTICLE XVII: Misappropriation of Public Resources
Paxton is charged with misusing his official powers to have employees of his office perform services for his benefit and that of others.
ARTICLE XVIII: Dereliction of Duty
Article XVIII contends that Paxton violated the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes, and public policy against public officials acting contrary to the public interest.
ARTICLE XIX: Unfitness for Office
In Article XIX, it is alleged that Paxton engaged in misconduct, public or private, indicative of his unfitness for office.
ARTICLE XX: Abuse of Public Trust
The final article, Article XX, accuses Paxton of using his official powers to subvert the government’s lawful operation and obstruct justice, damaging the Office of Attorney General’s reputation and public confidence.
As this impeachment process unfolds, it promises to be a landmark event in the political history of the State of Texas, with ramifications that could extend far beyond its borders.