#Dade Phelan

[liberalsarecool]

The TX AG Ken Paxton under criminal indictment is telling TX House Speaker Dade Phelan to resign because he was drunk.

On the job. He was drunk with the gavel in his hand.

Texas Republicans are disgusting.

See drunk Dade Phelan below:

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Zach Despart at Texas Tribune:

BEAUMONT — Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, the top electoral target for a far-right faction of Republicans intent on controlling the Legislature, emerged victorious Tuesday over a well-funded challenger endorsed by Donald Trump and his allies.

Phelan defeated former Orange County Republican Party chairman David Covey, who also had the backing of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton and former Texas Republican Party Chairman Matt Rinaldi. In doing so, he avoided the ignominious fate of becoming the first House speaker to lose a primary in 52 years. With all precincts reporting, Phelan was up 366 votes — within the margin that Covey can call for a recount. Covey, however, conceded in a speech to supporters at his election night party in Orange shortly after 9:30 p.m. Phelan, 48, who has seen his popularity plummet among Republicans since he backed the impeachment of Paxton on corruption and bribery charges exactly one year and one day ago, was defiant in his victory speech at JW’s Patio in Beaumont. “I will be your state rep for HD 21 and I will be your speaker for the Texas House in 2025,” Phelan said to a raucous crowd of more than 100 supporters. “This was a true grassroots effort — not the fake grassroots.”

Covey, a 34-year-old first-time candidate, not only forced Phelan into a runoff in March but secured more votes than the two-term House speaker. That outcome shocked many in the district, as Phelan was previously reelected four times without Republican opposition and hails from one of the most prominent families in Beaumont. Candidates for the Texas Legislature who trail after the first round rarely win their runoffs. Phelan carried the unique advantage of being a statewide leader with a prolific roster of political donors. Through May 20, his campaign reported spending $3.8 million on the runoff, more than double Covey’s $1.6 million. Their combined hauls amounted to what was almost certainly the most expensive state House race in Texas history. It was also an ugly contest — Phelan accused Covey of running on “lies and deceit” — where the candidates attacked each other in a flood of mailers and television advertisements.

[...] Phelan’s win is a major blow to the party’s ultraconservative faction that is led ideologically by Patrick and Paxton and financed by megadonors like West Texas oil magnate Tim Dunn. It is a group that rejects compromise and bipartisanship, demonizing Democrats and the Republicans willing to work with them. This ascendant wing has supplanted the party’s traditional focus on taxes and regulations with highly divisive social issues like transgender rights and book bans. In defeat, that group did not go quietly. Covey called Phelan an "Austin swamp creature" who only secured reelection through the support of Democrats, which he said was a "brazen act of betrayal." Paxton, an early endorser of Covey who had campaigned for the challenger as late as Tuesday afternoon, echoed the claim. The attorney general, who had vowed revenge against Phelan for supporting his impeachment, said the speaker had "blatantly stolen an election from the hard-working people of his district" by courting Democrats. Paxton said Republicans should move to closed primaries — a priority of the far right — and he issued a warning to members of the House.

[...] But whether Phelan can hold on to the speaker’s gavel is unclear. One of his own committee chairmen, Republican Rep. Tom Oliverson of Cypress, declared his candidacy for speaker in March. But no members have publicly endorsed Oliverson, and while his reelection was in doubt, Phelan was able to keep the rest of his caucus from open rebellion. [...] Attacked by his enemies as a RINO, Phelan was also widely considered more conservative than his predecessors, Phelan secured passage of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, permitless carry of handguns and several first-in-the-nation border security bills. Phelan was easily reelected speaker in January 2023 with all Democrats and almost all Republicans in support; conservative rumblings of dissatisfaction amounted to a paltry three votes for another candidate. And he batted away far-right criticism of the House’s longstanding practice of appointing Democratic committee chairs, appointing them to lead eight of 34 committees.

Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan (R) staves off MAGA wing/Farris Wilks/Tim Dunn-funded candidate David Covey to narrowly keep his seat and his Speakership gavel.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Republican lawmakers in Texas want to create a state security force to patrol the US-Mexico border that critics have characterised as a "vigilante death squad policy."

Dade Phelan, the Republican speaker of Texas' House of Representatives, told a meeting of the Texas Public Policy Foundation that he plans to introduce a bill that he says will "make national headlines and change the conversation on border security," according to The Intercept.

The bill — House Bill 20 — would allow Texas' Department of Public Safety to hunt, arrest, and deport undocumented migrants.

The group would be comprised of law enforcement officers and civilians under the direction of a governor-selected chief. The members of the group would also be extended immunity from criminal prosecution relating to their actions on the border. They will be directed to "arrest, detain, and deter individuals crossing the border illegally including with the use of non-deadly force."

The group will also apparently be authorised to "use force to repel, arrest, and detain known transnational cartel operatives in the border region."

A piece of companion legislation would make undocumented entry into Texas a state crime, with first-time offenders subject to a year in prison, two years in prison for second-time offenders, and life in prison for individuals with prior felony convictions.

Democrats in Texas are opposed to the bill, likening the legislation to a "vigilante death squads policy."

“This dangerous, radical, and unconstitutional proposal which empowers border vigilantes to hunt migrants and racially profile Latinos is going to result in the death of innocent people,” Victoria Neave Criado, the Democratic chair of Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said in a statement last week. “MALC is going to do everything in our power to kill this legislation just as Latino State Representatives for the past 5 decades have fought against Klan-like proposals.”

Mr. Phelan anticipated the opposition, and claimed he was prepared to take the matter to the conservative-majority Supreme Court if Democrats challenge the law.

This isn't the first time the state has tried to create a border protection force beyond the federal US Customs and Border Protection agency. In 2021 Republican Governor Greg Abbott initiated "Operation Lone Star" that placed National Guard troops at the border. However, the $4bn endeavor was met with numerous controversies, including the deaths of several National Guard members, some to suicide, and allegations of human rights violations that resulted in a Justice Department investigation.

The operation has shown no notable difference in the rate of undocumented border crossings or transnational drug trafficking.

If the case is challenged and successfully survives a Supreme Court ruling, it would change the way all border states could police the southern border.

[gwydionmisha]

‘Literal dumpster fire’: Infighting erupts among Texas Republican leaders

[jkanelis]

Sanity prevails in SE Texas

Here’s a glimmer of good political news for those who care about such things: Sanity won the day Tuesday in a highly contentious race for a Texas House of Representatives seat in the Golden Triangle region. State Rep. Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, fended off a challenge by a MAGA candidate, David Covey, and won the Republican Party nomination. OK, this isn’t just a House seat that was at…

[boobachu]

This is hilarious WTF

[texasobserver]

From “Millions of Texans are About to Lose Their Health Insurance” by TXO Winter/Spring Editorial Fellow Sara Hutchinson:

Last November, Tiayana Hardy gave birth to her first child, a baby girl named Laylani. 

“She came a week before her due date, but I can’t complain about that,” said Hardy. “She was born healthy, she’s an easy baby, and motherhood is amazing.”

But Hardy has concerns about her future. She is still experiencing bleeding related to the delivery as well as continuing postpartum anxiety. And now the Garland resident is about to lose the Medicaid coverage that got her through her pregnancy.

Hardy is far from alone. An estimated 2.7 million Texans—mostly children and new moms— are expected to lose their Medicaid insurance in the next few months, some as early as June. That’s almost half of all Texans now on the Medicaid rolls. Most of those affected had had their earlier coverage extended by the public health declaration that came during the COVID-19 pandemic. The declaration expires at the end of March. 

Now the state must begin a federally mandated review of its entire 5.9 million-member Medicaid caseload. Texans who no longer qualify will lose their coverage, but so could current eligible recipients who fail to complete required paperwork for recertification.

“Advocates are very, very concerned right now,” said Jana Eubank, CEO of the Texas Association of Community Health Centers. “Families aren’t even going to know what’s going on, and they’re just going to lose coverage and show up at a doctor or a health center, and they’re going to be told, ‘Oh, you’re not on Medicaid anymore.’”

For over a year, public health advocates have raised concerns about Texas Health and Human Services’ (HHSC) ability to handle this recertification process, which begins April 1 and is expected to be finished within 12 months. State officials are apparently worried, too: HHSC recently requested an additional $143 million to cover more staff to process the approaching onslaught.  

“It’s probably the largest enrollment event, if not the largest enrollment event since the ACA [federal Affordable Care Act],” Eubank said. 

Parents Tiayana Hardy and Desmond Gentle pose with their baby, Laylani, born Nov. 30, 2022. Hardy has relied on Medicaid to cover her health care needs since she became pregnant last year, but she’ll lose that coverage once the public health emergency expires.  

Medicaid, a federal entitlement program administered by states, provides health insurance for low-income residents who cannot afford private insurance. Nearly half of Texas children depend on the program, as do 51 percent of moms, whose prenatal care and hospital bills are covered.

In this, the most underinsured state in the country, millions of people fall outside of Medicaid coverage due to Texas’ strict eligibility criteria and Republican leaders’ refusal to accept billions of federal dollars to expand the program. The state’s requirements around income eligibility mean the vast majority of working poor Texans make too much to qualify for coverage. 

A single mother of two would need to earn less than $4,000 per year to be eligible for Texas Medicaid insurance, while childless adults are ineligible no matter how poor they are. Eligibility requirements ease for single pregnant women, who may make up to $2,243 a month, but that coverage cuts off two months after birth regardless of their care needs. 

Despite Republican leaders’ past opposition to any expansion of Medicaid, Texas Speaker of the House Dade Phelan and Governor Greg Abbott both have named postpartum Medicaid expansion as a top priority for this session. But even if it passes, it won’t come soon enough to prevent confusion and distress for low-income families. 

Under the national public health emergency initiated by the federal government in March 2020, no Texan who qualified and was enrolled in Medicaid could be dropped from the program. That meant Texas moms like Hardy who would have ordinarily lost their insurance two-months postpartum have been able to maintain their coverage for the duration of the pandemic. The same is true for Texas children who would have aged out of the program.

As a result, the state’s Medicaid rolls grew from 3.5 million before the pandemic to 5.9 million today. Federal dollars provided the financing for this temporary expansion.

But with the public health emergency set to expire, advocates say, families are now scrambling to find new coverage options and navigate a complicated and bureaucratic reenrollment process. 

Of particular concern are the millions of Texas children currently enrolled in Medicaid who could miss prescription refills or have to forgo doctor’s visits if their parents are unable to complete the upcoming recertification process. According to state data, 4.2 million Texas children currently rely on Medicaid to access healthcare, up from 2.8 million prior to the pandemic. 

“You’re going to go to your pharmacy to get your prescription renewed and they’re going to say, ‘Oh, you don’t have coverage anymore.’ Or you’re going to take your kids for their scheduled well-child visit to get vaccinations for school. And they’re going to say, ‘Oh, you don’t have coverage.’ That’s when they’re going to find out,” said Diana Forester, who oversees health policy at the children’s advocacy nonprofit Texans Care for Children. The organization recently launched a website to help Texans navigate the end of continuous coverage.

[bighermie]

RINO Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan Fires Warning Shot at Senators Who Spared Paxton: "Not the End... Those Who Allowed Him to Keep His Office Will Have Much to Answer For" | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

[kaelio]

At the start of this week, the Texas Legislature was sliding toward the conclusion of yet another underwhelming, but basically normal, session. Lawmakers had wasted a lot of time and effort, and soon they would go home. But the calm was illusory. By the end of the week, everything was in flames: blood was sloshing down the Capitol’s marble halls like the building was the Overlook Hotel.

Attorney General Ken Paxton called House Speaker Dade Phelan a drunk, urging him to resign and “get the help he needs”; later that afternoon, a House committee announced it had been investigating Paxton for months. The Texas House met Saturday, and after about four hours of debate, voted to impeach Paxton. To paraphrase Mao: everything under the dome is in chaos; the situation is excellent. There’s been a lot of news coverage of the events of the last week. But this being Texas, it’s all underlaid by decades of lore, animosities, and seemingly unaccountable behavior. So if you’re trying to get in on the fun, here’s a primer.

Who is Ken Paxton—and why won’t the haters let him do his thing?

Paxton is the attorney general of Texas, the top law enforcement official in the state. In theory, as the job description suggests, this should be a man or woman of unquestionable integrity. In practice, Texas AGs have often been scoundrels. It is an ideal job for a scoundrel, counterintuitively: there are few constraints on your behavior and a lot of opportunities to make money. Dan Morales, the last Democratic AG in Texas, went to prison for trying to parcel out state settlement money to a friend.

What sets Paxton apart from his predecessors is the sheer width and breadth of his scoundrelhood. One of the problems of writing about Paxton is that there’s never quite enough space to lay out all the things he’s alleged to have done wrong. (The word “allegedly” is going to get a workout in this article.) That has helped him enormously. This stuff can be difficult to keep track of. It’s the scandal version of Montgomery Burns’s disease door: There’s so much that none of it seems to break through.

[metalheadsforblacklivesmatter]

I don't have words for this.

-fae

[progressivepower]

Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan Wins GOP Primary Runoff, Fending Off Anger Over Impeachment http://dlvr.it/T7XTGQ

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

In his first interview since he was acquitted over the weekend in a historic impeachment trial, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) lashed out at the Biden administration and the Lone Star State’s House Speaker Dade Phelan (R) over his impeachment and trial.

“So you think that the effort to remove you from office really came from the Biden administration?” commentator Tucker Carlson asked Paxton in the interview, posted to the platform X.

“I really do,” Paxton said, adding that he thinks “that’s where it was instigated.”

The Attorney General alleged that the impeachment was a way to get him “out of the way” after he filed lawsuits against the administration.

Paxton, who had been suspended from his post since the Texas House voted to impeach him earlier this year, was acquitted by a jury of state senators over the weekend on all 16 articles of impeachment he faced.

Paxton had been accused of misusing the powers of his office to aid a friend and campaign donor, but after more than a week of witness testimony before the senators, none of the articles of impeachment received the two-thirds votes required to convict.

Paxton and his allies have decried the proceedings as politically motivated. In a statement after the verdict, he bashed the “sham impeachment” and “the weaponization of the impeachment process to settle political differences.”

The Attorney General has also taken aim at Republican Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, and told Carlson that the lawmaker is “controlled by the Democrats.”

“I don’t think he particularly has an ideology. He’s like, ‘I want to stay in power. I’ve cut this deal to be Speaker with Democrats,'” Paxton alleged of Phelan.

Though other Paxton allies have also piled criticism onto the Texas House for the impeachment, Phelan has stood by the effort.

The Speaker said in a statement after the verdict that it’s “unfortunate” the impeachment process resulted in returning control of the Texas AG’s office “to an individual who, I believe, clearly abused his power, compromised his agency and its employees, and moved mountains to protect and benefit himself.”

[mariacallous]

The pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly was one of the most vocal opponents of a sweeping anti-abortion law that passed in its home state of Indiana, last August, saying that the measure would make it hard to attract talent and would force it to look outside the state for growth.

But in the weeks and months that followed, Lilly continued to financially support Republican candidates and politicians who support bans on abortion across the country, including many who celebrated the reversal of Roe v Wade.

It was not alone.

A Guardian analysis of other major US companies’ political donations shows that those who suggested they would help female employees skirt statewide abortion bans, by offering to pay for out-of-state medical costs for those seeking abortions in states where the option was illegal, continued to financially back candidates who have called for abortion bans. They include Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Comcast, Citigroup, AT&T, and Amazon.

The analysis suggests that while some of America’s largest employers want to be seen as supporting reproductive health for their female workers and their families, the abortion issue has not affected their financial support for Republican candidates who have promised to further erode those workers’ reproductive rights.

Lilly made financial contributions to Texas state senators anti-choice Republicans Charles Schwertner and Charles Perry, and Texas state speaker Dade Phelan, who has said he does not see any need to change Texas’s current law, which forces women who have been raped to carry their pregnancies to term.

Since Roe was overturned, Lilly has also given financial donations to US senators Rand Paul, Oklahoma’s James Lankford, and Mike Crapo, among others who supported overturning abortion rights. The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Amazon, the second-largest private employer in the US, said it would cover out-of-state abortion travel for employees on its health care plan, but not contractors who make up most of its workforce.

But even as it vowed to help some of its female workers get access to abortion care, it continued to support Republican candidates like Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, who wrote in an op-ed for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that the fight against abortion was “really just beginning”.

“We will always stand for the rights of the unborn until abortion is not only illegal in all 50 states, but unconscionable,” he wrote.

Amazon’s political action committee also gave donations to David Valadao, a California Republican who co-sponsored a “life at conception” act, which states that it would guarantee a right to life at the “moment of fertilization”, and Tony Gonzales, who has an A+ rating from anti-choice group Susan B Anthony List. Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.

AT&T, the US telecommunications company, has said it would cover the cost of travel for medical procedures within 100 miles of an employee’s home address because it values the health of its employees to make sure they can access “a full range of health care benefits when they need them”.

But the company has also supported dozens of Republican candidates since the 24 June decision to overrule Roe, including Texas’s Jodey Arrington, who has called abortion “a moral stain on the fabric of America” and supports a federal ban on abortion. It has also donated to Greg Steube, a Florida Republican who has said that, with Roe overturned “no misguided judicial decision can block states from applying murder and assault statutes to protect the unborn from abortion”. In Georgia, it supported Republican Andrew Clyde, who has said abortion should be “abolished entirely” except if the mother’s life is at risk, and Barry Loudermilk, who has tweeted the work of the pro-life community was “just beginning” after the Dobbs decision that overturned a federal right to abortion. In Maryland, AT&T supported Republican congressman Andy Harris, who said Dobbs had not created a crisis in healthcare, and Jack Bergman of Michigan who supports a federal ban on abortion.

An AT&T spokesperson said the company’s political action committee has “never based contribution decisions on a legislator’s position on abortion”.

The spokesperson added: “Our employee PACs contribute to candidates in both parties and focus on policies and regulations that are important to investing in broadband networks and hiring, developing and retaining a skilled workforce with competitive wages and benefits. It is inaccurate to assert that contributions to elected officials equate to supporting all of their policy positions.”

In the aftermath of Dobbs, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta said it would reimburse travel expenses “to the extent permitted by law” for those who need to access out-of-state healthcare and reproductive services. But it also supported – among others – candidates like Don Bacon of Nebraska and Bob Latta of Ohio who co-sponsored a bill to ban abortions federally. A Meta spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Citibank has said post-Dobbs that it would provide travel benefits to employees who need “access to adequate resources” but continued to support Republican candidates who support a national ban on abortion, like John Hoeven of North Dakota. It also donated to Jerry Moran of Kansas, who has said life begins at conception and “supports legislation protecting life at its earliest stages and in all conditions”.

Kara Findlay, head of corporate communications at Citi, declined to comment.

Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, has said it would support thousands of dollars of medically necessary travel expenses after Roe was overturned, but continued to make political donations to Republicans who support abortion bans, like Benjamin Cline of Virginia, who once proposed legislation that would mark the anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision as the “Day of Tears”, which would commemorate “59 million lives lost” due to abortion services being protected.

The company did not respond to a request for comment.

[beardedmrbean]

Every conservative justice on the Supreme Court bowed out of deciding a case stemming out of Texas.

In a rare move, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all sat out deciding whether to hear MacTruong v. Abbott, a case arguing that the Texas Heartbeat Act (THA) is constitutional and that the state law violates federal law. The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.

Monday's order list from the Supreme Court states that the six conservatives on the bench "took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition." Because there were not enough justices for a quorum—the court needs at least six and only Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson remained—the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.

The case was brought by MacTruong, a U.S. citizen who resides in New Jersey, against the six conservative justices, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives Dade Phelan and former President Donald Trump. MacTruong alleges the defendants were involved in either passing, enacting or upholding the THA because he believes the Dobbs decision was incorrectly decided and thus, Roe v. Wade is still law.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending federal access to abortion.

Judicial politics expert Alex Badas told Newsweek that the justices may be ineligible to partake in the decision because of the court's recent statement on its ethics. "A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties," the statement said.

"I believe being named in the suit falls into this category of disqualification," Badas said.

Affirming the decision from the Fifth Circuit, which ruled against MacTruong and decided that he did not have standing to sue, the Supreme Court effectively tossed the suit altogether.

"The Fifth Circuit was unanimous against MacTruong," Badas said. "It is worth noting that two of the three judges who heard the case were appointed by Democratic presidents. These judges may be sympathetic to his claim that Dobbs was incorrectly decided but it shows that his legal case for standing is very weak that they vote against him."

Badas noted that MacTruong has other pending cases involving the same issue, but it is likely that they will end like this case, "with him losing and the courts issuing decisions arguing that he lacks standing."

Other plaintiffs named in the suit include the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, President Joe Biden, California Governor Gavin Newsom, actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Tesla Founder Elon Musk, singer Britney Spears and media expert Norah O'Donnell.

[ausetkmt]

A Texas House committee on Wednesday heard explosive new testimony from lawyers investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, including that he appeared to provide a friend with confidential FBI documents and committed other potentially impeachable crimes in an effort to help him retaliate against adversaries and federal officials.

Many of the details have been outlined in a whistleblower suit that accuses Paxton of firing four top aides as retaliation after they reported the alleged misconduct to federal authorities.

BACKGROUND: Donor in Ken Paxton bribery case loses appeal as he seeks to avoid jail time for contempt of court

But Wednesday’s testimony painted the fullest picture yet of the ways in which Paxton allegedly leveraged the resources of his office to help the friend and campaign donor, Nate Paul. It also created a new and immediate threat for Paxton, who has denied all wrongdoing, since the House General Investigating Committee could recommend that the chamber censure him or begin impeachment proceedings.

“Would it be fair to say the OAG’s office was effectively hijacked for an investigation by Nate Paul through the attorney general?” asked Houston state Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston.

“That would be my opinion,” said investigator Erin Epley, a former Harris County prosecutor.

The investigators listed a number of laws that Paxton may have violated, including abuse of official capacity and misuse of official information, both of which are felony offenses. The FBI is reportedly investigating the allegations, though no charges have been filed.

The revelations come as tensions are boiling over between Paxton and House Republican leaders in the final days of the legislative session. On Tuesday, the attorney general called for House Speaker Dade Phelan to resign after claiming he presided over the House while drunk, alluding to a video that appeared to show him slurring his speech. He also slammed Phelan for not passing enough conservative priorities.

A spokeswoman for Phelan said Tuesday that Paxton’s statement was “a last-ditch effort to save face” in anticipation of Wednesday’s hearing. Phelan has publicly opposed a request from Paxton that the Legislature use taxpayer dollars to settle the whistleblower suit.

Paxton has survived repeated scandals, including a federal securities fraud case that has stalled for nearly eight years. On Wednesday, he accused Phelan, a fellow Republican, of trying to "disenfranchise Texas voters and sabotage my work."

"The false testimony of highly partisan Democrat lawyers with the goal of manipulating and misleading the public is reprehensible," he said in a statement. "Every allegation is easily disproved, and I look forward to continuing my fight for conservative values." 

LATEST: AG Ken Paxton calls for House Speaker Dade Phelan to resign over slurred speech

The House investigators, a group of attorneys with experience in public integrity law and white collar crime, said they reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, including emails, contracts and criminal complaints, and interviewed 15 people since March. All but one of those interviewed said they had “grave concerns” about Paxton retaliating against them for their participation.

The investigators said Paxton’s involvement with Paul set off a chain of departures at the agency that has since gutted it of experienced senior staff. Because of that, they said, Paxton has had to increasingly rely on outside counsel for casework – at a big expense to taxpayers.

“At this stage, the office of the attorney general spends approximately $40 million on outside counsel in an office that previously was well-funded and had a deep roster,” Epley said. 

Paxton signed a tentative settlement with the whistleblowers in February for $3.3 million, but the deal is effectively dead because the Legislature has declined to fund it, which whistleblowers have said was a condition of the agreement. The session ends on Monday. 

“The state must honor its solemn promise to compensate them for their lost wages and other demands,” attorneys for the four whistleblowers said in a statement, adding: “No public employees, especially those left at the AG’s office, are going to report this kind of public corruption in the future if the Legislature leaves our clients hung out to dry.”

The investigators also touched on the criminal securities fraud allegations against Paxton and suggested that he may illegally hold more than one homestead exemption — a type of tax break that applies to a person’s primary home. They did not provide additional details.

State Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, the committee chair, said it was “alarming” and “very serious” that taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for Paxton and others’ wrongdoings.

“That’s something we have to grapple with,” he said. “That’s challenging.”

ALSO READ: Corruption investigation into Texas AG Ken Paxton's shifting to Washington

Paxton allegedly ignored staff to step in for Paul

Over three hours of testimony, investigators described a pattern in which Paxton would bypass staff and ignore their recommendations, aggressively pushing for actions that benefited Paul.

Terese Buess, longtime former Harris County prosecutor who headed the public integrity division, said Paxton violated the state’s open records law to help Paul obtain information about the FBI’s activities involving his case, including a raid it had executed against his home and business office.

Paul, who is in the middle of multiple bankruptcies proceedings and financial litigation, had wanted the attorney general’s office to uncover details about the federal investigation into him and his businesses, the investigators said. Paul donated $25,000 to Paxton’s re-election campaign in 2018.

The attorney general’s office, which is charged with determining whether information needs to be released, had issued a “no-opinion” ruling on the matter – the first time it had done so in decades. The office receives about 30,000 requests per year.

Buess said Paul should have been denied the documents, since the open records law has a clear exception for law enforcement matters, yet Paxton pushed for its release. 

Paxton told staff he did not want to use his office “to help the feds” or the state Department of Public Safety, Buess said.

According to Buess, Paxton obtained his own copy of the documents and then directed an aide to hand-deliver a manila envelope to Paul at his business. After that, she said, Paul's attorneys stopped asking for the FBI records. Investigators don’t know whether the documents were in the envelope.

Another former Harris County prosecutor, Mark Donnelly, told the committee that an attorney of Paul’s had recommended that Paxton’s office hire a young and inexperienced lawyer named Brandon Cammack as outside counsel to help Paxton investigate the federal officials looking into Paul. It was a conflict, since Paul had requested the investigation in the first place.

Donnelly did not name the attorney who referred Cammack, but Hearst Newspapers has reported on the relationship between Cammack and an attorney who represented Paul, Michael Wynne, both from Houston.

Paxton hired Cammack as a “special prosecutor” against the advice of his staff, according to the investigators. They suggested that Cammack was able to use the unredacted FBI report from Paxton to pinpoint the targets of 39 subpoenas, which went to Paul’s business interests and law enforcement officials.

Backing up another claim from the whistleblower suit, the investigators said Paxton pressured his office to issue a legal finding during the pandemic that foreclosure sales had to stop because of public health restrictions – a ruling that went against the advice of his staff.

Such opinions can take up to six months to publish, but Paxton pushed for it to be finalized in two days. Donnelly said the only logical explanation for that was he wanted it “complete before the foreclosure sale of certain properties related to Nate Paul entities” coming up the next week.

Paul’s attorneys went on to cite the attorney general opinion in about a dozen foreclosure sales involving his properties, Donnelly said.

Investigators also found that Paxton pressured his office to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the Roy F. & Joann Cole Mitte Foundation, an Austin-based nonprofit, against Paul alleging fraud. Again, Paxton’s staff had disagreed with his efforts.

The attorney general’s office withdrew from the suit in October 2020, immediately before the whistleblower letter went out reporting Paxton to federal law enforcement.