Texas Democrats are the only party in Texas fighting for police and the rule of law. R leadership offers a criminal as a Senator, an AG candidate who thinks the job is “defeating the left”, the guy who owns Zorro Ranch to run voucher money, and a racist who wants to deport citizens for being brown to lead O&G. How one could pretend to be pro law enforcement and vote for RPT’s slate is riveting. Gina is the way.

This is a fact-driven account of why Ken Paxton was impeached—and why those facts matter now that he is asking Texans to send him to the United States Senate. I am grateful that The Dallas Morning News gave space to this evidence and to why it still matters. You can read the published version here: dallasnews.com/opinion/comme…. Because the published version is available only to subscribers, below is the essay as I submitted it. —- Impeachment prosecutor: Ken Paxton is unfit for office The evidence against him is relevant again now that he’s asking for our votes. Three years ago this month, Attorney General Ken Paxton faced removal from office by the Texas Senate after being impeached by the Texas House, 121 to 23. The vote was remarkable. Sixty Republicans joined 61 Democrats. More than 70% of House Republicans voted to impeach a member of their own party. This once straight-ticket Republican voter was proud. I served as chief counsel to the Texas House General Investigating Committee, led the investigation into Paxton, and later served as a trial attorney in the Senate. Those facts matter now because Paxton is asking Texans to send him to the United States Senate. The central story behind Paxton’s impeachment is less complicated than volumes of evidence make it seem: Paxton relentlessly used the Office of the Attorney General for the private benefit of his friend and donor, Nate Paul, and received benefits from Paul in the form of home renovations. Here’s how: Paxton pressed his office to release its copy of the federal criminal investigation of Paul to Paul — an extraordinary break from policy. He advocated against a Texas bank and charity. He directed his staff to enter litigation in which the state was not needed and demanded that the charity accept millions less than it was entitled to receive from Paul. Another unnecessary intervention prevented a Texas bank from foreclosing on a multimillion-dollar asset tied to Paul. Paxton also attempted to use government power to intrude into Texans’ private records. He installed a secret “prosecutor” as Paul’s personal resource, answerable only to Paxton, Paul and Paul’s attorney. The man was given a title he did not know was fake and an agreement he did not know was invalid. He was never paid or entered into the OAG human resources system. Paxton instructed him to take direction from Paul’s attorney and use OAG resources against Paul’s perceived enemies. Thirty-nine subpoenas targeting Texas citizens followed. The arrangement remained hidden until an alert banker called the OAG. Each action served to aid Paul’s federal criminal defense or save him millions owed to others. All of this was presented as evidence during Paxton’s trial. He used the weight of his office and powers hidden from public view to enrich himself and his friend. In my opinion, that is abuse of office. It is disqualifying. Then there were the renovations to Paxton’s home. Paul is a real estate developer. By Paxton’s own account, upgrades related to Paul were worth at least $121,000. We know because that is what Paxton ultimately paid, after he was caught getting them for free. Records and testimony link the upgrades directly to Paul. The work was completed by July 2020, yet there were no charges. On Sept. 30, 2020, Paxton’s senior staff reported him to the FBI for bribery and abuse of office related to the subpoenas and renovations linked to Paul. Paxton then directed an unsolicited payment to the purported contractor. There were no estimates, invoices or payments before Sept. 30. Metadata shows the lone invoice was created Oct. 1. It was backdated to appear to have been issued on Sept. 1. It was not delivered. For me, the facts preceding Sept. 30 sufficiently establish bribery and abuse of office. The Sept. 30 payment after the report solidifies it. The Oct. 1 backdated invoice is simply offensive. Continued…