The Texan Podcast - Inside the Impeachment: Paxton on Trial — Day 9

Episode Date: September 15, 2023

Read more about the impeachment: https://thetexan.news/paxton_impeachment/Today, suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton’s defense team and the House Board of Managers gave their final arguments in the impeachment trial, and senators began their deliberations on the articles of impeachment.Here’s a recap:For the first time since the first hours on day one of the trial, Ken Paxton attended the proceedings. He sat between his lawyers and listened to the closing arguments. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick read, at the request of both parties, all the articles of impeachment to the jury of senators prior to the closing arguments. “I have no idea how long the jury is going to deliberate. It could be hours, it could be days,” said Patrick. “Like any defendant, the attorney general is not required to prove he is innocent or produce any evidence at all.”The trial rules allow the House Board of Managers to divide up their hour-long allotment for an opening statement. Rep. Andrew Murr, chairman of the General Investigating Committee that brought the articles to the full Texas House of Representatives, gave a 10-minute opening statement. “Paxton had hired the best and brightest to run his office,” said Murr, looking to reinforce the credibility of the whistleblowers the House Board of Managers called to testify.“The power of the [Office of the Attorney General] cannot and should not be handed over to a private citizen to be used to attack their perceived enemies,” Murr contended, referencing the allegations that Paxton used his office to benefit Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.Tony Buzbee, one of Paxton’s lawyers, then spoke for almost an hour, leaving about five minutes for his colleague Dan Cogdell to close. “The Bush era in Texas ends today,” shouted Buzbee from the microphone at the front of the chamber. “We thought it had ended in the primary when Ken Paxton beat George P. Bush 68 to 32.”Buzbee alleged that Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) supported the impeachment because he “got his feelings hurt” and presided over the House chamber while intoxicated.Murr took to the microphone again and presented clips of testimony from the trial — including from whistleblowers like David Maxwell and Jeff Mateer — to combat Buzbee’s arguments and reiterate the case made by the House. Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano), a member of the House Board of Managers who is from Collin County like the Paxtons, was the final speaker for the House. He said he had considered the attorney general a “brother in Christ,” “political mentor,” and friend. Buzbee objected to Leach’s speech, saying he was providing testimony. Leach was allowed to finish.Senators were then dismissed and began their deliberations behind closed doors without access to their phones, news coverage, or media.Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney) is barred from participating in the deliberations or voting on the articles of impeachment.

Howdy, folks. This is Mackenzie DeLullo, Senior Editor at The Texan. Welcome back to another episode of Inside the Impeachment, Paxton on Trial. Today, suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton's defense team and the House Board of Managers gave their final arguments in the impeachment trial, and senators began their deliberations on the articles of impeachment. Here's a recap. For the first time since the first hours on day one of the trial, Ken Paxton attended the proceedings. He sat between his lawyers and listened to the closing arguments. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick read at the request of both parties all the articles of impeachment to the jury of senators prior to the closing arguments. I the articles of impeachment to the jury of senators prior to

the closing arguments. I have no idea how long the jury is going to deliberate. It could be hours. It could be days, said Patrick. Like any defendant, the attorney general is not required to prove he is innocent or produce any evidence at all. The trial rules allow the House Board of Managers to divide up their hour-long allotment for an opening statement. Representative Andrew Murr, chairman of the General Investigating Committee that brought the articles to the full Texas House of Representatives, gave a 10-minute opening statement. Paxton had hired the best and brightest to run his office, said Murr, looking to reinforce the credibility of the whistleblowers, the House Board of Managers called to testify. The power of the OAG cannot

and should not be handed over to a private citizen to be used to attack their perceived enemies, Murr contended, referencing the allegations that Paxton used his office to benefit Austin real estate developer Nate Paul. Tony Busby, one of Paxton's lawyers, then spoke for almost an hour, leaving about five minutes for his colleague Dan Cogdell to close. The Bush era in Texas ends today, shouted Busby from the microphone at the front of the chamber. Busby alleged that Speaker Dade Phelan supported the impeachment because he got his feelings hurt and presided over the House chamber while intoxicated. Murr took to the microphone again and presented clips of testimony from the trial,

including from whistleblowers like David Maxwell and Jeff Mateer, to combat Busby's arguments. Representative Jeff Leach, a member of the House Board of Managers who is from Collin County like the Paxtons, was the final speaker for the House. He said he had considered the Attorney General a brother in Christ, political mentor, and friend. Busbee objected to Leach's speech, saying he was providing testimony. Leach was allowed to finish. Senators were then dismissed and began their deliberations behind closed doors

and without access to their phones, news coverage, or media. Senator Angela Paxton is barred from participating in the deliberations or voting on the articles of impeachment. Enjoy this episode. Howdy folks, Mackenzie DeLulo here, and we are on day nine of the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate. Witness testimony is done. Closing arguments are done. Senators are now deliberating behind closed doors and we have no clue when a verdict will be reached. There is a possibility that the vote could happen tonight. So we're recording now in the late afternoon to cover what we know and we'll have to add a bit on to this podcast if something does change. But for now, I'm joined by Brad Johnson and Matt Stringer and Hayden Sparks.

Hayden, it's been so long. We're so glad you're back. How are you feeling? How are you doing? How does your brain feel? Well, the last time I found myself in this situation was when I covered the murder trial earlier this year, and I spent hours and a couple of days waiting at the Travis County Criminal Courthouse for a verdict in the murder trial. And now we're not waiting

around in a courthouse, but we're certainly waiting around for a verdict from a very non-traditional jury and a very non-traditional court. One could say it isn't a court at all, but this proceeding is supposed to resemble a trial. So it all feels very familiar, but this hasn't ever happened before. So pretty soon I'll head back over to the Capitol and wait until 8 p.m. or until they have a verdict, one or the other. Yeah, lots to discuss today. So we are primarily going to be discussing the closing arguments from both parties that were held today in the chamber of the Texas Senate. But notably, for the first time since day one of the trial, Ken Paxton himself was in the chamber. Hayden, I want you to give

our listeners a little bit of insight into how that all went down. When did he get there? Like, what can you tell us about his arrival in the Texas Senate? Well, we're up in the gallery, not on the floor. So it's difficult to say exactly what his demeanor was. But when I arrived in the Senate chamber gallery, he was already on the floor sitting casually with his attorneys. Ken Paxton, by his constitution, is not a very animated person, it doesn't seem. I don't know him personally, but he is not one to make a lot of faces or be really, he's very different than his attorney, Tony Busby. In other words, he seems to be a nonchalant person when he's in person. So he really sat quietly with his attorneys and leaned over and you know what people do when they're

sitting together they tell i guess little inside jokes or past notes and that seems to be what he was doing he hasn't been there for the entire trial but i well that's not quite true he was there for the first half of the first day of the trial until lunchtime until lunch when he and then he took off and did not attend the trial until today for closing arguments by both parties yeah absolutely so let's get into the lieutenant governor's opening statements he started off the day kind of giving a rundown of what to expect ran through some of the rules he also read all 20 articles or excuse me 16 articles he read just the ones that are not held in abeyance right do we know that for sure give me i can't remember yeah i can't remember either i don't think he don't recall just just just just

the 16 i can't imagine why he would read the ones that were in abeyance yeah he didn't i can't there you go but confirmed so 20 or 16 articles he read those out loud. He said he did so at the request of both parties. And that was a very surreal moment to hear these articles of impeachment being read out loud ahead of closing arguments. Just so surreal in the Senate chamber. He emphasized that Paxton is not required to prove innocence. He talked about how, you know, as I've like, I have no idea how long the jury is going to deliberate. It could be hours. It could be days. We're literally wondering that as we speak. Brad, what stood out to you from Dan Patrick's opening statement?

I think just the basic info of, you know, each of these items will be voted on by the members. After the conclusion of these closing statements, the senators will go deliberate. It may take days. They will remain, for the most part, in the Capitol until they come to an agreement on a final verdict. To your point about emphasizing the burden of proof. Not only did he say, you know, it's beyond all reasonable doubt, but also that not just that you must also judge this to be impeachable has to be both. And so I feel bad for him having to read every single one. Like I, he did pretty well. He didn't trip up at all. And I would not have wanted to do that,

but I guess that's part of the responsibility. He thanked his staff who had been sitting behind him. They basically the entire time helping him, I'm sure behind the scenes quite a bit, but overall, I think for his role in this, it ended pretty well. and he managed this court if we're going to call it that Hayden uh very well and especially in a particularly contentious

situation I think he especially for having not gone to law school had any schooling in law he did quite a good job overseeing this. Although watching Patrick preside over this was a bit like watching a pre-med student do heart surgery because he's trying to rule on these objections by these eight, $900 an hour attorneys, or that might be overstating their compensation a little bit, but he's, like you said, never been to law school and never been a judge. So it was something else to watch him try to resolve all those conflicts. But another note, he told senators that they can go home at 8 p.m. this evening and they

have to come back and deliberate for another 11 hours. I suppose they'll be allowed to eat, take a break to eat, but they do that for the weekend. After that, he said, if they do not reach a verdict, they might be sequestered and he might make them sleep in their offices. So I think the idea is this is your life until you make a decision. There is not going to be a nine to five thing where they get to come in and out and consult with people and confer with different consultants or whatever.

He was very clear, told them you are not to speak with anyone except close family members and even then no trial talk. Do not talk about the case. Can't even watch TV. Yeah, no TV, no internet. They tv yeah no tv no internet with them they're not allowed to have their phones in the deliberation room it is they're locked down basically they can go home to sleep and that's just for this weekend after that he may say you have to sleep at the capitol and correct me if i'm wrong i believe these are the hours so from when the closing arguments ended until 8 p.m

tonight unless a verdict is reached earlier of course but that's the hours. So from when the closing arguments ended until 8 p.m. tonight, unless a verdict is reached earlier, of course, but that's the hours to which they are required to deliberate if no verdict is reached tomorrow beginning at 9 a.m. until 8 p.m. again. And if they do not reach a verdict in that time, they'll come back on Sunday starting at noon. I believe that's to give senators the opportunity to attend their churches. And then from noon on, basically, Lieutenant Governor was like, no breaks. So if you have to go through the night, like there's no end point after that. You basically from noon on Sunday on are, you know, sequestered essentially until you

determine what the verdict is and it can come to an agreement on a vote. So not that every senator will have their individual votes, but until they all know how they're voting on each individual article. Okay, well, let's jump into Mer's statements of how this will work with closing statements. We had both the House Board of Managers, as well as Paxton's defense allotted an hour for closing arguments. The House Board of Managers was able to divide up their hour so that they could, you know, begin and end.

And they would sandwich kind of Paxton's defense's closing argument. So, Murr started with a 10-minute opener. Matt, I'm curious from that 10 minutes, I mean, a lot of this we've heard before, but was there anything that stood out to you? And again, Andrew Murr is the chairman of the House General Investigating Committee that started this all. You know, Murr pretty much reiterated a lot of his talking points from his speeches given on the House floor whenever the House initially impeached him. You know, you saw that comment again where they essentially characterized Paxton's actions as giving the keys of the Attorney General's office over to Nate Paul.

Maybe what differed in his approach from the last is he sandwiched a lot of his speeches with segments from the trial of the various witnesses' testimony, playing excerpts for the senator jurors to listen to and then basically giving his interpretation of what was said to substantiate the allegations. Yeah. He said the office of the attorney general can't be handed over to a private citizen to be used to attack their perceived enemies, referring to Nate Paul there, said that the Attorney General's office had the best and the brightest, and said too that Paxton could have deferred to the advice of his senior staff about these Nate Paul allegations, and he didn't. I want to move on to, it was only 10 minutes, and Murr went over a lot more later on, so let's move on to Busby's 55 minutes. So the defense had an hour, all consecutive

minutes there. Let's go ahead and talk about Busby's arguments. Hayden, what stood out to you in his closing argument? Well, for one thing, he stole almost all of Dan Cogdell's time because Cogdell was supposed to give, get up. And according to him, give a 30 minute closing argument as well. Busby got up and spoke for 55 minutes, leaving his colleague with five minutes to give the closing. So that was, which I couldn't tell if Cogdell was upset by that or if that was the plan. I couldn't tell.

No, I think, I don't think it was the plan because he got up and said he expected to have 30 minutes and I think he had to condense it all down to five minutes. He did not. He seemed taken aback by it. I think that's why he mentioned it when he got up there because at one point,

and I don't know if you could see this on the cameras, but Cogdell physically got up and started walking to the podium, presumably because he thought it was about to be his turn to speak and busby kept talking and he stopped on his tracks and turned around and walked back to his desk so i don't know what was going on there but it definitely seemed when cogdell got to the podium that he was surprised by how little time he was going to have and then he definitely as he gave his um his closing argument it sounded as time he was going to have. And then he definitely, as he gave his closing argument, it sounded as though he was trying to condense what he had taken down.

But Busby's main points were that nothing came out in the trial to substantiate any of these charges. And I don't want to try to do a recap of the whole argument but he more or less said that a campaign donation in 2018 of 25 000 which is a small fraction of ken paxton's total raised campaign account and the amount of money he raised in 2018 does not constitute a bribe. And throughout his speech, he would say things like, if a campaign donation is a bribe, line up. We're going to have to impeach a lot of people in Austin.

If an affair is impeachable, we're going to be doing a lot of impeaching. And he also ridiculed a couple of the people, the former employees, Ryan Vassar and David Maxwell in particular, because really the whole contention that Paul paid for Paxton's home renovations is based on a remark that Andrew Wicker thinks he overheard a contractor say to Paxton, I'll have to check with Nate. And there were some other things that they brought up around that, but that allegation stems from Wicker. They called Wicker to the stand and in their limited time, they emphasized that in their testimony, but many of the other people involved in this were not called to the

stand. So that allegation centers on Wicker's perception of what happened, which he admitted on the stand that he has little direct, if no, if any direct knowledge of the home renovation, just based on what he overheard. So Busby really hammered that point. And he hammered the point that Laura Olson got her job on merit, according to him, and that it was not a bribe paid to Paxton. He further argued that the articles of impeachment are inaccurate in many ways, such as its statement that the attorney general is tasked with protecting charities when in fact the OAG is tasked with protecting the public interest in charities which are two separate concepts that um they emphasized at trial as well so those are just a handful of some of the arguments he mentioned but he um he really really hammered uh those points in his

closing yeah the the whole no evidence thing that we've heard a lot from Paxton's team was, you know, Busby's a very emphatic speaker, a very powerful public speaker. He certainly made that point very evident that he wanted to hammer that home. Brad, what other things did you find notable in Busby's closing? Well,

he was, his demeanor was very confrontational as he's been the entire time. He's, he's a very forceful speaker and arguer. He discussed the Johnny Sutton situation with all the whistleblowers hired this one attorney whom he alleged has ties to George P. Bush. That led him into saying, you know, the Bush era is ending, making this

declaration that an assertion that essentially George P. Bush and his family and backers were behind this whole impeachment process. He then discussed, lobbed an accusation at the speaker that this entire thing was done because Ken Paxton, uh, called on speaker Dave Phelan to resign for allegedly being drunk while overseeing the house. He referenced the video that we've all seen, um, that the speaker still has not commented on one way or the other. Um, but also the timeline he asserted there during that argument is just not true the um uh the call for his right for speed the speaker's resignation came out about 20 minutes after the general investigating committee announced that they

would have a hold of abrupt meeting and this was after all the Brian Slate and stuff was done. So nobody knew what the heck they were doing. And then eventually later that day, they announced subpoenas of people, including some figures at the Office of the Attorney General. And so then it kind of became clear what matter A had been about the whole time that had been existing since March. Right. So there was that

he also took aim at a couple uh whistleblowers specifically he kind of he mocked both ryan vassar and david maxwell um in how they responded on the stand um you know he criticized maxwell for being dishonest uh which is a big argument that has been made by the defense since his testimony. He mentioned Vassar crying on the stand after being called a rogue employee. He was. Which Maxwell, that criticism of Maxwell, for those who don't remember all these witnesses, which we have to remind ourselves all the time. But Maxwell is the former Texas Ranger who was the head of the law enforcement division of the OAG. So a very tenured law enforcement officer that both sides in their own ways, Cogdell specifically from the defense, have found ways to be respectful of and revere.

And that's kind of the approach, even from the questioning of the defense, was to have some deference to his career. And so Busby then getting up there and doing that was very notable it's just like a change of of approach toward maxwell very different tact than what his co-counsel dan cocktail took which cocktail did later on which we'll get to this but he said you know what was his like the carton of milk has expired for maxwell or something i can't remember the exact quote something to that effect um saying that if he believes that that was the right procedure then obviously he's no longer fit to be in law enforcement um or something like that was pretty close to the

argument that he made um which again was very different from his line of questioning when he was face to face with maxwell anyway continue but uh overall you know busby went kind of point by point um underscoring the holes that the defense has poked in certain arguments from the prosecution from the house board of managers during this trial hayden mentioned the one about the charitable trust um the the another one they talked about was the legal opinion side that you know essentially the attorney general can do it's within his authority to um adjust or work on these legal opinions there's nothing wrong with that similar um you know argument made at various points and he ended um i believe the bush part was pretty close to the end um but i think he brought it up a couple times though okay um but you know basically his job was to paint this as a conspiracy which he had done throughout

the trial but he really wrapped it up in this and part of the part of the support for that was none of these former employees have paid sutton for his legal work and they admitted that on the stand that he's been representing them for years and they haven't paid him a dime so it's they haven't even said when they're going to pay him so it's pro bono so not even an agreement right there are future payment and attorneys do that sometimes when they're going to pay him. So it's pro bono. There's not even an agreement for future payment. And attorneys do that sometimes when they really care about a case. But there's something in this for Sutton. And I think that gap of what is Sutton's interest in this is something that Busby tried to put Phil in that blank and say, he's, they're all upset that Bush lost the runoff. And that's why he's helping them do this because they're trying to vindicate

Bush's ill-fated candidacy last year. Yeah. That's the argument. Um, and that I do want to home in on those two points. I think the biggest moments for Paxton supporters in this where, or when Busby said, you know, Dave Phelan got his feelings hurt and that he was presiding over the house while intoxicated, while drunk.

That was what Busby said. And that went wild on social media. And then the other moment was when he very emphatically said that the Bush era in Texas is ending. And those both of those points have gone very viral in ways on social media. So that's where the Paxton team is kind of hanging its hat. And I will say too, very notably, I think there are a lot of arguments Busby made that were for a different audience than the senators. He certainly addressed a lot of evidence, but there were a lot of points that I think he was directly petitioning voters or

talking to voters and supporters of Paxton, which is the interesting thing about this trial it's political it's public facing but the jury is these 31 that well really 30 senators who are going to make the decision at the end of the day so um i do think you know the defense did a great job of outlining a lot of their arguments but there were definitely some lines in there for Paxton supporters who are outside of the Capitol. And one other thing he mentioned was about the affair that, you know, if, if we started impeaching people for affairs, um, then we're going to be here for the next hundred years, which is a line he basically said earlier in the trial. Um, you know, of course, Paxton is not being impeached for having an affair. It's, it's actions in relation to the alleged actions in relation to the affair but um the

point you know point was made and yeah um you know that resonated as well on social media but um yeah it was and then he exchanged hands with with dan cogdell which was just kind of odd yeah five minutes left in the time. Cogdell got five minutes on the clock. I think he got a total of six. I think Dan Patrick let him go over one minute. Letting finish his thought. Yeah, exactly.

But I'm curious. Cogdell's five minutes very quickly. I think some top lines were Cogdell said he had been Paxton's lawyer for eight years and said that the house managers or just leadership could have called him and asked about these concerns instead of going this route. He spoke about how great the House's legal team is, saying that these are some of the greatest lawyers in Texas, but also alleging that they could not put together a cogent case that could convince anyone of these things or that they occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the testimony of Brandon Kamek, who was that special counsel or prosecutor, if you ask, you know, whoever you're asking on the witness stand, that Paxton hired to inquire into Paul's complaints he was alleging, said that he was conducting a legitimate investigation. So Cogdale also hammered that home.

I want to move on to Murr's final statement here. And the last, I don't know, 50 or so minutes, 45 minutes or so that the House had was divided up into two sections where Andrew Murr, Representative Andrew Murr, the chairman of the General Investigating Committee, went up and gave his portion and then it was followed up. The closer was representative Jeff Leach of Collin County of Plano, a Republican. And that was, I don't think anybody expected that. It was very interesting. So Matt, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Murr's final statement and the, you know, the arguments that he laid. He brought, like you said earlier, a lot of evidence forward, played a lot of clips. What stood out to you from his final statement? Well, and just to be clear, you know, he played a lot of clips from witness testimony,

which I guess technically, depending on the nature of the testimony is witness or is evidence, you know, despite the defense objections or characterizations that there was no evidence whatsoever, but you kind of have to take those facts one at a time because a lot of that testimony was based on things that they would ultimately characterize as, well, I had a reasonable belief or that sort of thing. And the defense did a good job providing alternative possibilities to create doubt. But once again, I think Murr just, he really emphasized playing those audio clips from witness testimony and providing his characterization of what was found, going one after another, highlighting some of probably their best witnesses from Ranger Maxwell's statements to some of the other ones that testified

to the state of the morale within the office that the affair caused and pretty well summarized his point just by rounding up what was said and reviewed and revealed during the trial. Yeah, absolutely. And those clips were, like you said, a lot of their best moments. Hayden, anything stand out to you from Murr's

final argument, closing arguments? There wasn't a lot in Murr's closing that we have not heard before. Unfortunately, a lot of this comes down to subjective interpretation, because if in a murder trial or in a robbery trial, the suspect on the trial on trial either committed the murder or he didn't. So in this case, you're looking at a lot of different actions that Paxton took that the decision here is, was this driven by his desire to placate Paul for some personal benefit? Or was he taking actions that are within the zone of reasonable disagreement, I think is the phrase that I heard the defense say. For instance, we can't get into the mind of Ken Paxton and know for 100% certainty whether he didn't issue that so-called midnight opinion because he was trying to help homeowners. So they're asking the Senate to trust these individuals who testified that based on their judgment and their history with Paxton, that he was not doing that in good

faith. But there's nothing that Murr can hold up to say, here's proof positive that Paxton was not doing this to help homeowners homeowners or that he was not legitimately accessing these documents or that Angela and Ken didn't, Paxton did not have some kind of deal, unspoken deal with Paul about the home renovations. But at the same time, um, like Vassar,

Vassar's original testimony, when he said there's no evidence and then they spent the entire trial basically trying to clean up after that and say that a witness who saw something and testifies that that is evidence the the senate is going to have to rely on that verbal testimony and whether or not they are going to um trust the the judgment of those people. Or if Ken Paxton's argument that he was the duly elected attorney general and he had the power to make those decisions, even if employees in his office didn't like them, that may be the argument that carries the day if he gets acquitted. Yeah, absolutely. that may be the argument that carries the day if he gets acquitted. Absolutely. I'd like to make one point that I remember listening to Hayden just now from Merge closing.

And that was there was a lot of discussion on both sides of the standard of evidence, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest threshold, which you see in criminal trials and all that sort of stuff. And Merge just at something very interesting. He said, um, there can be doubt and you can still convict. Um, he then started elaborating on that saying, um, you know, uh, is it reasonable doubt or not? And I just thought it was interesting for him to try and go there and and explain to some senators who may think that there's reason there's some doubt in this thing and and and kind of create this difference between doubt and reasonable doubt I don't know for me that was an interesting little nuance and that's

it's a razor thin yeah nuance because what they have to decide if they whether their doubt is reasonable that's entirely subjective it just feels like a really risky move for murr to make to have to to be pushed up against the wall where he's having to explain the difference between doubt and reasonable doubt like if you're you're threading a needle it seems like at that point yeah for sure it's razor thin um i do want to move on before we run out of time here to jeff leach's closing argument this was very notable. A lot of connections between Leach and the Paxtons, even just in terms of their areas that they're from or represent in the legislature. Paxtons are from Collin County. We've talked about it and written about it before.

They are very important members of their community in Collin County, and they've been like the hometown heroes in a lot of ways for Republican activists up there in Collin County. Leach himself represents Collin County. A portion of Collin County is from Plano. And so there is a lot of connection and they've worked together a lot over the years. And so Leach getting up there, even just from a geographical standpoint and providing this closing argument was very notable. Brad, what words are your takeaway from his closing argument? Give us a rundown of what he said. Well, he basically laid out the fact that he and Ken Paxton have been close for years, or at least were once very close. You know, they went to the same church for a while. I don't believe they still do, but they at least did um he said it was kind of heart-wrenching for him to have to do this to get up there and you know in his words do the right thing and um and not out of a vendetta for someone he's known for a long time but kind of the ankle he took was to protect the office and

in the state which has been a large part of the argument from took was to protect the office and the state, which has been a large part of the argument from the house managers this whole time. Whether you believe that or not is a different story, but that's been the case they've been making. He called Paxton a friend, of course, and a political mentor, referred to him as a brother in Christ. It was a much different approach than what Mert did. This was an appeal. This was not methodically running through and doing a last minute foundation for the case. Or a reminder, a refresher of what witnesses said this was uh yeah like you

said a personal appeal yep and uh there was even an objection during it from busby right yes um over the relevance of the things that leach was saying specifically kind of the testimony he was offering about ken paxton saying that he was testifying instead of closing the argument so that was the the objection uh dan patrick kind of dismissed it and let leach finish but um yeah it was it was interesting um it was an interesting close to the closing statement for the the house and something i didn't foresee but in hindsight makes a lot of sense for why that why they did it and i will say also it was in one way powerful for one lawmaker like busby and cogdell are lawyers by trade very skilled trial lawyers they know what

they're doing in front of a jury and how to operate within a trial. But for a lawmaker who has worked on legislation, who holds a similar office to the members of the jury to get up there and say those things, and kind of, there's obviously a very purposefully relation between, you know, Leach and the senators. And that was part of the strategy of the House Board of Managers there. I think we've heard a lot from Murr. So at this point, there's almost like a little bit of a disconnection there. Like he's the spokesperson for the House Board of Managers there. I think we've heard a lot from Murr. So at this point, there's almost like a little bit of a disconnection there. He's the spokesperson for the House Board of Managers, hearing from another lawmaker. And he even at one point, he called out certain senators by name. It wasn't not called them out, but he referenced certain senators by name and was talking about, okay, abusive office. What does that look like? And how does this

in your shoes as a senator, like reflecting it back upon the senators? And that's a powerful thing to hear from a colleague of yours that the lawyers in the on Paxton's defense are unable to make that relation in the same way that somebody like Leach could. So fascinating. And again, that all comes down to who your audience is as a you know somebody who's up there making these closing arguments which it is risky though because you just said who's their audience the whole defense argument is this shouldn't be the audience because leach leach's personal falling out with paxton or his personal feelings or all this love loss it has nothing to do with the charges so So they were really opening the door wide open for Busby to object there. And I can't remember how Patrick decided on the, I think he told the senators, you decide what the evidence is. And he didn't really say one way or the other, but that is the defense argument. And they said that over

and over again was more than 4 million Texans already decided this in November. So all of these, all of these emotional arguments about Ryan Vassar's feelings and Jeff Leach's feelings and David Maxwell's feelings don't have any bearing on whether Ken Paxton should be in office. And I think Busby, because he didn't have another rebuttal after Leach, wanted to get that in one more time, that this is not relevant to the charges. So again, just like Patrick said, it's going to be up to the senators, whether they believe all of those people who had all of those conservative credentials and who were hand chosen by Paxton, if the senators believe their testimony that they witnessed Paxton break the law. And that's going to be the issue that they decide, not whether or not Jeffach and and ken paxton had some kind of falling

out about all of this yeah absolutely and how much that appeal is imprinted on the minds of the senators i think is the question is how much does that in like how much do they let that inform or do they entirely not let it inform at all another thing leach is really sticking his neck out here more than already has um you know he is going to be probably targeted for a primary undoubtedly he is in the backyard of the paxton's he has been the most notable of the gop delegation in collin county all of whom voted to impeach ken paxton um so sticking his neck out even more basically ensuring that he gets some sort of recourse for this whether he you know maybe odds are he probably beats his primary but that's just you know the power of incumbency but still that's gonna be a tough fight yeah and um he's gonna be

maybe not patient zero for that but uh he's gonna be up there for who the paxton allies target yeah which we have a lot of theories in the office about how that will all break down when primary season does come we won't bore you with that now but regardless it was a fascinating uh end to the trial the official end of the trial is i mean it's done like everything's over now all that we're waiting for now is a verdict um as the senators continue to deliberate behind the scenes. A reminder that Senator Angela Paxton is not in on those deliberations. She is not part of them or privy to the conversations happening behind closed doors. She will also not be taking part in any of the votes that happen once a verdict is reached and it's time to vote. So just keep that in mind. We got 30 senators there. Hayden, I really fast want you to explain to our

listeners, there are four articles that have been held in abeyance. Reminder listeners what that means and what that could mean for the end of the trial and a verdict being decided. If my understanding of the rules is correct, the articles that are held in abeyance will need to be dismissed no matter what the decision is at the no matter what the the verdict is on the other articles of impeachment they're considering 16 charges they will make a decision on those charges then the rules say that somebody can make a motion to dismiss they don't have to and that motion may or may not succeed so it is conceivable that Paxton will be acquitted or that the charges will not be sustained. And then the articles that are held in abeyance will be tried

at a later time. So this may not be the only impeachment trial that happens because if a majority of senators do not vote to dismiss those charges, the rules say Patrick schedules further proceedings in the case, and it doesn't specify what those proceedings are. Yeah. So, and that decision can be made whether, it's not hinged on their verdict on the first 16 articles, in other words. So they do have more decisions to make after this. They have to decide if they convict Paxton,

if he's going to be barred from running for office in the future in Texas. And then they have to decide if they're going to try these other four charges or if they're going to throw them out. Yeah. And that's where I do think it is unlikely that they would bring those charges back, but the possibility is there and it's important for folks to realize that as well. Right. Because if he's removed from office, then Murr's whole

contention has been that the purpose of this is to protect the public. So if Ken Paxton is a danger to the public, according to the Senate, then removing him from office would satisfy that. And bringing the charges that are in abeyance back would strictly be for the purpose of putting on the record that he was guilty of those if he is in fact guilty of them. Yeah, absolutely. Brad or Matt, any final thought? And Hayden, any final thoughts on the proceedings today? We had so much to go over. Closing arguments are intense in that they try to cover everything yeah i think um the fact that it's five o'clock right now and we still haven't had any word means is very close to the two-thirds required if the defense had won the day this would be a very quick verdict um if votes were well short they would have gotten it over with by now but But it doesn't mean that they'll convict. But the fact that they haven't announced anything yet

proves to me that the votes are very close. What time did it go to them? I can't remember. It was about lunchtime. It was noon. And remember, too, that there are 16 charges and 30 senators. So that is a lot of discussion to be had. And they have until eight tonight, right? They have until eight this evening. And they, if they don't have a decision

by the end of today, then they have to come back tomorrow at 9am. Back at it. It's like school. I mean, I think there are, we've discussed the various charges. There are some that have a lot more behind them than others. You know, there will be a handful to get tossed immediately that i'm sure they don't even discuss um well and and like i like i said during the preview podcast they really spread two accusations over 20 different articles of impeachment so they're probably back they probably grouped it in their minds into um they're not even talking about the securities fraud charges because those are in abeyance but it's really they all are about nate paul so if they don't think that paxton's uh interactions with paul were corrupt then that kind of the the whole

case falls apart there so it is 16 charges that they're debating, but it's really one central accusation. Yeah, absolutely. Matt, any final thoughts, quick final thoughts? Well, I'm just kind of,

um, curious to see what happens. Yeah. Um, at this point we've, we've, I think we've pretty thoroughly reviewed. Matt's like, get me some dinner. That's what I'm asking. And like Brad tweeted today, Brad tweeted, I think we've pretty thoroughly reviewed.

Matt's like, get me some dinner. That's what I'm saying. And like Brad tweeted today, Brad tweeted, no one knows what is about to happen. Yeah. I just want to reiterate that. Because you've got a lot of people talking, acting like they've got a crystal ball that everyone else doesn't have. Yeah, exactly. Nobody knows.

The only people that know are the ones in that deliberation room right now hammering it out. It's weird to think that patrick doesn't know because he's usually the one calling almost all the shots i saw someone say today that you know this is like one of the first votes in the senate that we've had where we didn't know the outcome already that's so true well dan patrick reiterated today too that he will not be taking a vote which you know could have been added to the Senate rules. And he operated as the presiding officer of the Court of Impeachment and did not put it into the rules that he would be taking a vote on this.

I wouldn't want to take a vote if I were him. Oh, and I think we talked about this before also. He's done a pretty masterful job of finding that political line of carrying out the trial. He's received praise from all around that he's done a fantastic job helping guide fair rules preside over everything just just all a's on that grade yeah stayed out of all sorts of hot water well folks we do have a programming note before we let you get back to your evening we will not be publishing or recording another episode of the podcast until we do have a verdict

so expect us back with an episode after the verdict is decided. So basically, if tomorrow, Saturday, no verdict is decided, then we will be back on Sunday or Monday or whenever it does mean that the Senate comes back and says, hey, we're taking the vote. We so appreciate you checking in with us each and every day, listening to us debrief the proceedings. And we'll wait for the verdict and we'll catch you on the next episode. Thank you so much for tuning in to Inside the Impeachment, Paxton on Trial. For access to all of our team's coverage on this historic proceeding, visit thetexan.news and subscribe today.