Tensions heightened between the prosecution and defense during Thursday’s impeachment proceedings against Ken Paxton as Ryan Bangert, the former first deputy assistant of attorney general and the second whistleblower to testify, retook the stand.
As the hearing started, neither Tony Buzbee nor Paxton were on the Senate floor. In Buzbee’s place was Houston-based criminal defense attorney Anthony Osso who sat in Buzbee’s seat as lead prosecutor Rusty Hardin picked back up with his line of questioning.
Hardin first asked Bangert about concerns he and other whistleblowers shared regarding Paxton’s relationship with Nate Paul, a real estate investor who was a close friend and political donor. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Jeff Mateer the former first assistant attorney general, testified that Paxton had used his position to assist Paul in legal matters.
Bangert said he grew increasingly worried about Paxton’s involvement with Paul after attending a lunch meeting where the real estate investor rattled off claims that he had been the wrongful target of litigation brought forth by the Mitte Foundation – a charitable organization – and federal and state law enforcement investigations.
Bangert recalled speaking to one of his colleagues after the meeting describing Paul’s allegations regarding his ongoing legal troubles as unlike anything he had seen before during his career as a lawyer.
Hardin then addressed the “midnight opinion” or the COVID-19-related opinion that revoked the ability to host in-person foreclosure sales. Bangert said his concerns escalated as the formal procedure requiring several employees of the attorney general’s office to review each opinion issued was not followed.
“I felt like there had been a break in trust at that point,” Bangert said.
Bangert echoed Wednesday’s testimony from Mateer, and said Paxton knew the whistleblowers opposed the attorney general’s efforts to hire Brandon Cammock, a special prosecutor for outside counsel regarding Paul’s claims.
When asked by Hardin, Bangert rejected Buzbee’s statements that reporting Paxton to federal authorities was akin to “staging a coup” against the attorney general. Instead, Bangert said, there was no “real road map left,” and the whistleblowers’ “hands were forced.”
Bangert testified that despite Paxton not listening to their concerns, the whistleblowers tried to communicate with the attorney general after reporting him to federal authorities. In a group text chain, Bangert said he and the other former top deputies sent a text letting Paxton know they had gone to law enforcement.
Paxton wrote back and said he was “happy as always to address any issues or concerns” but then advised the whistleblowers that they could correspond with him via email, which Bangert said made it seem like Paxton was unwilling to address what had happened.
Bangert claimed that his duties were scaled back in the attorney general’s office, as he was told he would no longer oversee the special litigation unit. He resigned due to the office’s culture and environment at that time.
Osso started his cross-examination of Bangert by challenging the statements that Bangert had previously made that his role and responsibilities were removed.
The defense attorney said he resigned, so no wrongful act was taken against him regarding termination of employment, contradicting Bangert’s allegations that he was forced out due to reporting Paxton.
Osso also addressed concerns the whistleblowers had that Paxton used his power to turn over records to Paul and the real estate investor’s lawyer Michael Wynn, and asserted that the attorney general office’s public records division never released any documents to Paul or his lawyer, despite these claims.
This directly went against allegations made by the House impeachment managers included in the impeachment articles that Paul received documents related to an ongoing FBI investigation with Paxton’s help.
Osso then circled back to the COVID-19 opinion, which is when the back forth between the two intensified. The defense attorney asked Bangert if he went around signing documents at will, to which Bangert said no.
Since Bangert was texting Paxton while drafting the opinion, Osso asked him why he didn’t at that point tell Paxton he would not continue.
Then, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick interrupted, telling Osso and Bangert to stop talking over each other, a problem throughout much of Thursday’s proceedings, which caused Hardin to object numerous times.
The tense back and forth interaction was followed up by an emotional moment from Ryan Vassar, former deputy attorney general for legal counsel and the third whistleblower to testify.
Vassar began to tear up as Hardin referred to Paxton’s description of the former top deputies as “rogue employees.” Vassar said it was “hurtful” that Paxton would have called him or any of the other whistleblowers this, particularly given the years of service they provided to Paxton and the state.
During Vassar’s testimony, he affirmed the confidential records related to Paul’s ongoing legal troubles were not released to the real estate investor. However, Vassar clarified that the attorney general had tried to get these documents to Paul.
Vassar said he told Paxton that these records, should not be provided to Paul, but Paxton refused to accept this.
Paxton instead asked that the top deputies find a way to release the investigative documents despite an opinion already drafted by the attorney general’s office, which recommended that the records be withheld from Paul.
Vassar said the office ended up issuing a ruling on the matter that took no opinion on whether the documents should be released.
According to Vassar, the inconclusive ruling was a first for him while working for the attorney general; however, it prevented the records from being made available to Paul. Vassar did not address the accusations made in the articles of impeachment by the House impeachment managers, which allege that Paxton was still able to get the documents to Paul.
Thursday’s proceedings ended after initial cross examination by another Paxton defense attorney, Mitch Little, who brought up the question yet again of whether Vassar and the other whistleblowers “owed” Paxton a call prior to reporting the attorney general.
Vassar said he would not have changed any of the actions or approach the top deputies took against the attorney general. The Senate is set to hear more from Vassar on Friday as cross examination by Little continues.
This article appears in Jan 1 – Dec 31, 2023.
