The Texan Podcast - Inside the Impeachment: Paxton on Trial — Episode 2: Primary Challengers and the Lawsuit Settlement

Episode Date: August 30, 2023

Support The Texan by subscribing at: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/Welcome to Inside the Impeachment: Paxton on Trial.In this special podcast series from The Texan, we're delving into the historic impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, accused of bribery and abuse of office — charges that have set the stage for one of the most riveting political sagas in the Lone Star State.Inside the Impeachment offers an exclusive backstage pass to the trial’s drama, strategy, and real-time developments. Whether you’re a political junkie or simply curious about the inner workings of Texas governance, this podcast is your front-row seat to history in the making. What can you expect?Daily debriefs during the trial, starting September 5thIn-depth analyses of arguments from both sidesBackground context to help you follow the proceedingsExpert interviews and insider insights Ahead of our daily podcasts at the start of the trial, we're releasing our first episode to give you background on the allegations first raised by senior assistants to Paxton three years ago.Look out for Episode 2 in just a few days.

Mackenzie DeLulo, Senior Editor, The Texan Howdy folks, my name is Mackenzie DeLulo and I'm the Senior Editor of The Texan. Welcome back to our special podcast series, Inside the Impeachment, Paxton on Trial. In this episode, senior reporter Hayden Sparks and I discuss the legal fallout following the allegations raised by senior-level staffers in the office of the Attorney General. For over two years, and amid a competitive primary election, the whistleblower lawsuit dragged on in courts. During that time, the case never explored the substance of the allegations against Attorney General Ken Paxton as it first addressed the procedural matter of standing. The OAG argued that as an elected official, Paxton was shielded

from the Texas Whistleblower Act, an argument that the lower courts in Travis County disagreed with, but which the Texas Supreme Court has yet to address. By the start of the 88th legislative session this year, the OAG and the whistleblowers reached a settlement that would agree a payout of 3.3 million, an amount that the legislature would need to approve, and a request that served as the basis for the Texas House's investigation that led to Paxton's impeachment. Enjoy this episode and stay tuned for one more preview to give you the background context you need to follow the

impeachment process as the trial begins in the Texas Senate next week. Be sure to follow The Texan wherever you listen to podcasts to get our daily debriefs when the trial begins on September 5th. Welcome to episode two of Inside the Impeachment. Mackenzie DeLulo here with senior reporter Hayden Sparks. In episode one, we talked about Ken Paxton's political career and the whistleblowers whose allegations sparked the beginnings of an impeachment process. The now suspended Attorney General was impeached by the Texas House on May 27th. And we are now six days out from the beginning of the trial in the Senate where lawmakers will determine whether to sustain any of the 20 articles of impeachment and convict Paxton. Hayden, real quickly, can you remind us

about the nature of this trial and what exactly is on the line for Paxton. Paxton is facing many legal challenges that could end his political career and his legal career. But the impeachment proceeding is the challenge that could prohibit him from running for office in Texas for the rest of his life. The 20 articles of impeachment are pending in the Senate. And if the Senate sustains even one of those articles, he is automatically removed from office and forever and could potentially be forever banned from running for office in Texas again. remember that these charges are separate from the whistleblower lawsuit itself and the criminal charges in Harris County, which could send him to prison for life because he's facing two first degree felonies and one third degree felony, and all of those carry the potential of lengthy prison sentences. The impeachment trial is not a criminal trial per se. His attorneys have argued that it is a criminal proceeding for many purposes, but it is ultimately

a political and legislative proceeding by which lawmakers are seeking to remove him from office and place the office of the Attorney General in the hands of an appointee of Governor Abbott. So today, let's focus in on the whistleblower lawsuit and the events that led directly up to the House's impeachment. Who were the main opponents of Paxton after the whistleblower lawsuit was filed in November of 2020? I want to set the stage a little bit for the cast of people that was in opposition to Paxton in the months and years after the whistleblower lawsuit was filed. If y'all were here with us last week, we talked about some of the allegations in that whistleblower suit. and to give a little bit of inside baseball for the way that we cover things at the Texan and the way that really reporters are supposed to cover things, we don't presume that somebody is guilty before a trial. So when we say whistleblower lawsuit, that is, it's referred to that way

because it is under the Texas Whistleblower Act, but I'm going to refer to them as former employees because calling them whistleblowers is more or less assuming that the allegations are true. So I'm not casting aspersions on any of the people involved in that lawsuit, but I'll refer to them as former employees just for the's office, emphasis on his office, of retaliating against them for reporting suspicions of misconduct to the federal government. And the lawsuit is seeking damages for back pay, emotional distress, and other losses. Those former employees say they suffered as a result of retaliation by the Office of the Attorney General. In fact, the lawsuit even accused First Assistant Brent Webster of unlawfully disarming one

of the plaintiffs in that suit, David Maxwell, on the day he was brought in to be questioned and ultimately fired. So the primary opponents of, I say primary opponents, that could have dual meanings, but the main opponents of Paxton in the suit were clearly the former employees who sued him under the Texas Whistleblowers Act. But then there were other people who came along and tried to take Paxton down politically in the following election cycle as well. Yeah. So we have, just like you were alluding to there, people going against the attorney general

as former employees, opponents in that way. And we also have potentially political opponents as well. And I will, again, to plug the first episode of Inside the Impeachment, we did go by name over these former employees and kind of detail who exactly went to bat against the Attorney General in that way. So Hayden, why don't we talk about the political opponents? Obviously, these allegations come to light, these whistleblower allegations come to light. And very quickly, the Attorney General saw, which he had not seen for a long time, political opposition from members of his own party. So detail a little bit what the primary looks like after these allegations came to light. In 2022, there were plenty of

options for Republican primary voters who were displeased with Paxton's service as Attorney General. And he had been Attorney General, has been Attorney General since 2015. Eva Guzman was one of those primary opponents. She is a former Supreme Court Justice who would go on to serve on the House committee that investigated the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde. She ran against Paxton in 2022 and received almost 18% of the vote. She did not advance to the runoff, and she shared that reality with Congressman Louie Gohmert, who forewent a re-election bid to Congress to also run against Ken Paxton. Gohmert represented East Texas in the U.S. House for approximately 18 years. He served, I believe, from 2005 to 2023. He was wildly popular among conservatives in East Texas, and he received

a comparable share of the vote to Guzman. He received 17% of the vote. He would later revisit the primary and say Paxton produced false advertising during the campaign. It's not uncommon for political candidates to rehash their grievances after an election. This took on special meaning though, because this was after Paxton was impeached and Gohmert was coming back to say that he supported Paxton's impeachment and that he also had frustrations about the way Paxton conducted himself during the campaign. Those were the two people who did not make it to the runoff. Former Supreme Court Justice, sorry, go ahead. Sorry, Hayden. I'm just real fast. Gohmert, when you say he revisited the election, we're talking about, I believe it was, was it an op-ed that he published in one of the papers in his former congressional district?

Or how did he voice that discontent? It was an interview he gave to a local media outlet here in Tyler. He expressed that he believed that Paxton did not deserve to be in his office and backed the effort to remove him from office in the House of Representatives. This was not long after he was impeached. This is notable because Gohmert is, again, known for being a staunch conservative and outspoken about it too. He didn't just have a conservative voting record. He is known for being a supporter of former President Donald Trump and for supporting conservative policies across the board. Gohmert is not an establishment Republican, in other words, and he probably shared many of

the same voters as Paxton for many years. This is Gohmert saying he is opposed to somebody who is very much like-minded to him politically. Those are the two candidates who did not make it to the runoff. He defeated Gohmert and Guzman in the primary, but did not defeat Bush because Bush was able to advance to the runoff. And we'll talk about George P. Bush a little bit more in detail. Bush announced his candidacy on or about June 2nd, 2021. The next month, he sued the Biden administration on behalf of the general land office. Bush was land commissioner at the time of his announcement. He forewent a reelection bid for land commissioner to challenge Biden, then in the, excuse me, to challenge Paxton, then in the

Republican primary in March 2022, he received just under 23% of the vote. I was in attendance at Ken Paxton's, it was intended to be a victory party in March 2022. He said at the time that Bush advanced to the runoff, that the establishment got what they wanted. That was Paxton's big point, big takeaway from that night was the establishment had been seeking to get him out of office. And those who were opposed to his efforts to contradict the Biden administration were trying to get him out of office. And they succeeded by forcing him into a runoff with Bush. That was Paxton's position. And we were there covering his election night party, Paxton's. And that's what he said in McKinney with Senator Angela Paxton, his wife that night. However, Bush's bid for attorney general was ill-fated and he ultimately was clobbered by Paxton and the Republican runoff. Paxton received 68% of the vote

and Bush had opposed Paxton's efforts to oppose these whistleblowers as well. Bush once said that defending the office of the attorney general against the whistleblower lawsuit was a quote, monumental waste of taxpayer dollars, end quote. Bush was the last Republican to challenge Paxton before all of this took place. And I mean that in an electoral sense. Bush is the last Republican opponent Paxton had to face before going on to face his Democratic challenger in late 2022. So those are the Republican challenges that Paxton faced in 2022 before he had the task of asking the legislature to fund his settlement agreement. Yeah. And let's pause here and talk a little bit about the political dynamics at play between

these different candidates and maybe who the type of voter that tended generally to support each of these candidates, if they did not, in fact, support the attorney general at the time. So Louie Gohmert, I mean, I would say he would be the option for folks who politically align with someone like Ken Paxton, who had typically been a very conservative attorney general, who would actively, had a history of actively calling out or opposing Republicans who he deems to be flying in the face of his own party. So people who typically would have supported Paxton, but maybe had difficulty with the allegations levied against him while still

agreeing with him politically might have gone for Louie Gohmert, right? That was kind of the sect of the party that would support Gohmert. Guzman, man, I mean, she- May I add something on the Gohmert front? Of course. Perhaps. I think perhaps someone might have looked at Gohmert's name on the ballot and said, I agree with Gohmert, but I am concerned about Paxton's baggage, so to speak. If you look at the map of the Republican primary in March of 2022, many of Gohmert's votes came from East Texas. And in politics- He is beloved. He is absolutely beloved in East Texas in terms of like Republican circles, absolutely beloved. Right. And name ID counts for a lot in politics. If you recognize a name on the ballot,

if you trust that name, it's likely that a voter is going to back that candidate. Paxton is from North Texas. His stomping grounds are McKinney, Collin County. So he is not as personally known to voters in East Texas as Gohmert would have been. And Gohmert only received 17% of the vote. If that 17% had gone to Paxton, a runoff would have been avoided. But I think a big part of Gohmert's victory, and this is partial speculation on my part, I have to imagine that a big part of Gohmert's, I said his victory, a big part of Paxton being forced to a runoff was Gohmert's name ID in East Texas. Yeah, absolutely. In total agreement there. And it was interesting to see him continue to, just like you said, talk about the attorney general after the primary had

even ended. Eva Guzman, like you said, former Supreme Court justice, definitely appealed to a judicial crowd. Now, when judges run, and Hayden, you can speak to this better than I can, there is in no way a similar track record of political tendencies as there might be as a legislator. A legislator is literally taking votes on policies, so you have an idea of where they stand on any givenator. A legislator is literally taking votes on policies. So you have an idea of where they stand on any given issue. A judge is very different in that you can tell a lot about their philosophy. There's particularly their judicial philosophy by reading their opinions or their dissents, but you don't get the same insight into somebody's political affiliation within a party, like what, you know, faction of the party they might align most with,

in the same way you would a legislator. Now, she aligned with groups like, I believe TLR was very instrumental, Texans for Lawsuit Reform was very instrumental in donating to her campaign, which is a big group based out of Austin, that is known for donating, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates they agree with. Just like any interest group, there's nothing crazy about TLR. This is across the board how this works. But, you know, TLR had been very vocally supportive and financially supportive of a lot of statewide elected officials like Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and previously,

of course, Paxton as well. So watching them side with somebody, aside from the incumbent, was very fascinating in that regard. And she, again, is the only woman on the ballot. That was an interesting dynamic as well. Now, Bush, of course, he had the longest run against the attorney particularly unsupportive of either candidate. He had previously been very supportive of Paxton. And so it was interesting watching him not come out immediately and endorse Paxton in a race like this where he could where he is facing a very prominent and noteworthy challenger. So for a while, there was a question of whether Trump would endorse Bush or Paxton. And also interesting in that Bush's father is Jeb Bush, who Trump has held no punches from previously. And, you know, at the end of the day, he did, in fact, endorse Paxton, but he was very supportive. The former president was very

supportive of Bush in a lot of his statements and didn't really have anything negative to say about George P. Bush as he ran against Paxton. So that was a very interesting dynamic to watch play out. And I think, you know, we really did have two different factions of the party coming together head to head in that primary runoff with Paxton and Bush. Yes, I agree. Those were interesting dynamics in the months leading up to the runoff, especially with a name as prominent as Trump's undecided on who to support. Texas voters, however, were not indecisive. The victory of Paxton in that runoff showed that Paxton's base of support in Texas was strong, and it was not a particularly competitive runoff if it was competitive at all, because Paxton had successfully branded himself as the opponent of Biden among attorneys general,

not an opponent of Biden. And that is the brand that he has continued to display and exhibit to Texas voters to defend himself against this impeachment proceeding. Although Bush was not the last opponent that Paxton had in 2022, he did face a Democrat on the ballot, Rochelle Garza. She was a civil rights attorney, I believe she still is, and made plenty of mention of Paxton's legal troubles, including the indictment. She even referenced an old allegation that Paxton snatched a pin from a security checkpoint at a courthouse. And that was probably just a comical sideshow that went along with everything else going on was the security footage of Paxton supposedly grabbing someone's ink pen from the security bin at a checkpoint. Everything was covered in that general election. Garza was hounding Paxton for defending the abortion ban in Texas, but ultimately she received less than 44%

of the vote. A Libertarian candidate received about 3% of the vote, and Paxton took the election with a solid majority. That concluded all political efforts to oust Paxton in 2022. He faced another legislative session and another term after serving eight years in the office of the Attorney General already. And I want to say that this is, that Paxton in that general election finished up at 53.4% of the vote or something like that. He was only, this is last podcast I talked about, Paxton only finishing one percentage point behind Governor Abbott in a general election. And this is that general election. This is a very recent general election after he withstood a very contentious and expensive primary and primary runoff election,

where he still only finished one point behind a generally popular statewide elected Republican. So fascinating to watch that dynamic play out. Okay, so election wraps up 2022. The election wraps up. Where do we go from here in terms of opponents to Paxton's political career? Probably the most prominent opponent after that was Speaker Dade Phelan. Speaker Phelan sat down with CBS-DFW in February of 2023 and said he believed the settlement funds, that the paying for the settlement would not be a quote, proper use, end quote, of taxpayer funds, and Paxton would need to convince the legislature otherwise if he wanted the cash. This is the Speaker of the Texas House. Remember, if you listened to last podcast, Paxton was at one time a candidate for Speaker of the

Texas House. He was a member of the House for a decade, and this is the chamber that he was asking to fund the $3.3 million legal settlement. But aside from Speaker Phelan, House Republicans were also not too wild about this last-minute request for settlement funding because the request came shortly after the parties reached a tentative agreement while the case was in the Texas Supreme Court being litigated in the highest civil court in Texas. This summer, text exchanges between Representative Jeff Leach and one of Paxton's senior aides, Michelle Smith, revealed that Leach and other Republicans in the caucus were frustrated with Paxton asking for this money without keeping them in the loop. And they felt it was their duty to defend the taxpayers from Paxton's request for $3.3 million.

Paxton had just been sworn in for a third term as Attorney General after winning solid victories, both in the primary and the general election. And he was facing this opposition from a chamber where he served for 10 years. Those are the main people who were opposing Paxton leading up to this settlement and including to when he asked for the settlement. You have all of his primary and general election opponents, and then you have Speaker Dade Phelan and House Republicans. Yeah. So then let's pivot to the circumstances of the settlement. Talk to us about what those were and why the Speaker was opposed to funding it. At the beginning of the 88th Texas legislature, lawmakers were making big promises to voters because the state had a once

in a generation $33 billion budget surplus. And Governor Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Speaker Phelan disagreed on how exactly to spend that surplus. Speaker Phelan was emphasizing infrastructure. Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Patrick were emphasizing tax relief in different venues. They were proposing different plans for providing tax relief. But the panoply of all these policy positions was likely giving to the electorate the impression that this was going to be the year that we would have property tax relief and a real movement on infrastructure. Amid all of that is an attorney general who is asking for a slice of that cash, not necessarily the surplus, but taxpayer funds, to pay for a settlement after employees of his office, former employees, accused him of

abusing his position. The budget surplus is relevant here because of all these promises that lawmakers were making to voters. They were already in a politically perilous situation by having to say no to Paxton. And the House is ultimately the body that is tasked with sending the bill for the operation of government to the public, because bills to raise revenue can only happen in the House. The budget requires the approval of both chambers, but bills to raise revenue have to originate in the House. The House has a particularly pointed responsibility of taxing the people, and this is the entity that Paxton is asking to fund this settlement agreement. When Paxton went before the House Appropriations

Committee, he didn't have much to say. In fact, an attorney appeared with him on behalf of the OAG and answered almost all of the questions to the extent that the questions were answered at all. The OAG's primary contention was that the legislature paying this settlement would be less expensive than continuing to litigate it in court. And the OAG hung its hat on that argument, asking for the funding. Although, as we'll talk about in a minute, the Appropriations Committee was not exactly satisfied with the answers they received. Paxton had been arguing for years in this settlement lawsuit that he is exempt from the Texas Whistleblowers Act because elected

officials cannot be sued under this law, specifically the attorney general, the lieutenant governor, and the governor. Those are the three types of officials that Paxton said could not be sued under this law, contending it would give the judicial branch of government too much power regarding personnel issues. And he also continued to argue that these former employees suing him were not whistleblowers, that they were just disgruntled employees who were displeased with him for other reasons. And that's why they were fired. And in a minute, we'll outline some of the key events in this in the settlement lawsuit. Yeah. So then let's zoom out really fast and talk about, you know, the timeline here. Get an idea, wrap our minds around the

timeline of what we're dealing with. When were some of the key events in the settlement lawsuit that culminated in Paxton's impeachment? As we talked about last week, the lawsuit was filed in November 2020, a few days before the last of the eight employees who complained was fired. In October 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Third District rejected Paxton's argument that he is exempt from the Texas Whistleblowers Act. Fast forward to April 2022, Abbott and Patrick weighed in and asked the Texas Supreme Court to take up the case, contending that it belonged to a statewide tribunal to sort this out instead of a local court since it had such far-reaching implications for policy and the operation of the government.

Fast forward to February 2023, after the Texas Supreme Court took up the case, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to abate the case, essentially put it on hold as the parties reached a settlement. Part of the settlement was obviously the $3.3 million, but the OIG had to agree to apologize to the former employees for calling them rogue and remove a press release that criticized them. The following month after the former employees began negotiating a settlement with the OIG, accused Paxton of trying to get out of funding the settlement because the Supreme Court had placed the case on hold so the OAG could convince the legislature to fund the lawsuit. Paxton responded that it was

quote, inconceivable, end quote, that they would try to rush the settlement funding. In other words, Paxton pointed the finger back at them and said, y'all knew full well that this was going to require lobbying of the legislature to fund the settlement. So don't come back now and say that we're trying to delay this because y'all know how this works. This is a taxpayer funded settlement. That was essentially what Paxton's argument was. They came back and said, we're not going to hang on to this ad infinitum. If you want a settlement, you're going to pony up the cash to pay the settlement. And we're not to be expected to wait legislative session one after the other while the settlement goes unfunded. Because once the legislature gavels out, then these former employees have to wait at least until 2025 or 2027 or 2029 to get any of the

money that is part of the settlement agreement. So they went to the Supreme Court in March and said, Paxton's not doing his part. We need the case to resume. Today, the case is currently still under abatement, and that decision was made in April. So it's unclear what happens to the settlement if Paxton is removed from office. Even if the articles of impeachment are sustained, the legislature and Paxton's successor will still need to find a way to clean up this mess, because the only difference would be that Paxton is removed from the equation. If you look at the court documents, the lawsuit's not against Paxton, it's against the office of the attorney general. So if Paxton is gone, the only difference is that he's removed from the equation and the public may still be on

the hook for this $3.3 million. Yeah, which is the fascinating argument at play here is that, you know, this is specifically against the office of the attorney general. And like you said, if Paxton's gone, then he's gone and the office is still there. And okay, are they on the hook? And, you know, these allegations are against Paxton in his official capacity as well. And so then the House coming forward and saying, hey, we don't want to be on the hook of it. Incredibly, incredibly notable. So where is the lawsuit currently pending? As I mentioned, it's under abatement. And the last activity in the case was a filing by the former employees asking the court to lift the abatement so litigation could continue.

Because as I pointed out, they don't want this to go on forever and ever. They want some kind of resolution. I said earlier that Patrick asked the Supreme Court to take up this case because of its far-reaching implications. And I'll read a quote from one of his lawyers in the brief. He said, quote, the petition addresses matters of statewide importance as well as separation of powers questions that warrant review by this court. Regardless of the outcome of the case, this case relates to the interpretation of a Texas law, and the people of Texas deserve that a case of this importance be considered and reviewed by the highest court in the state,

end quote. And Governor Abbott made a similar argument in his amicus brief as well. This case could set precedents for what happens when the legislature removes an officer who was accused of misconduct that led to the settlement of a lawsuit against his office. Because as I mentioned, the taxpayers could still have to pay this money. And I'm not an attorney. I don't even know if Paxton can be held liable once he's left the OAG, because all of these accusations were against the office, not him in his personal capacity or him in his campaign capacity. So the lawsuit is still up in the air and the settlement may not happen. But if Paxton is removed from office on conviction of these articles of impeachment or one of them,

then the matter will then be between Paxton's successor and these former employees. So let's get back to how all of this relates to the subject at hand. How did the whistleblower settlement affect the investigation and the impeachment that we are now embroiled by? Well, when Representative Andrew Murr sat down with the Texan by phone in June for an interview. He told the Texan that this investigation was spurred by the whistleblower lawsuit. The reason the legislature began investigating Paxton is it wanted its own answers about this settlement. Remember earlier I said that Paxton and his attorneys did not give a lot of answers

to the House Appropriations Committee when they made an appearance asking for this money. They did not have enough information to work with, according to Murr, to make a decision whether this lawsuit warranted taxpayer funding. Consequently, they launched a confidential investigation to find out their own details. They hired a team of prosecutors, experienced prosecutors, in an effort to gather their own facts, and that investigation ended with them recommending that Paxton ought to be impeached. So this whistleblower lawsuit wouldn't have necessarily ended Paxton's career. It may have cost the OAG a lot of money or the taxpayers a lot of money, but the lawsuit by itself was not seeking anything other than reparations or damages for

the grievances these former employees claim they suffered. It would not have ended Paxton's career per se. What could end Paxton's career is the investigation and impeachment that used this settlement agreement as the basis for looking into the whistleblower's claims on their own. And of course, Murr is the chairman of the general investigating committee. He was appointed to that position by a house speaker, Dane Phelan. And that committee has really been very busy this legislative session,

which is a whole other, a whole other thing here. And notable too, that the investigating committee, when they did roll this all out, which we'll get into in the next episode, the public was unaware that this investigation was even happening. There were suspicions that the matter at hand, which was labeled matter B or matter A, I can't remember, but it was a lettered matter confidential to the public. The public generally thought it was something else and had

nothing to do with Paxton. It was not made public and not something that folks knew was happening behind the scenes. So let's just say that when it did roll out, it was a shock to many. So Hayden, why is the legislature acting against Paxton now instead of the session after the alleged misconduct took place? It would seem counterintuitive that legislators would wait until 2023 to act on allegations that were made in 2020, but they simply did not have any information to go on. As I pointed out, the whistleblower lawsuit was the basis for the investigation. So they couldn't act on this in 2021 because the lawsuit had not made its way through the courts yet. And all of

the information that they had in January 2021 was nothing that they hadn't had for years already. The securities fraud indictments against Paxton were handed up in 2015. And there were also many legislators who were outspoken about their issues with the 2020 election. Remember what was going on during 2021. Republican voters were very concerned about election integrity, and Paxton was and other states over the election results, but there were members of the House who did as well. So it wouldn't have made much sense for them to go after him on that point, even though there had been complaints to the bar and efforts to disbar Paxton because of his efforts over that. So House Republicans didn't have much to impeach him on in 2021. All they had in hand was really the complaint by the former employees and the whistleblower lawsuit and accusations that were already out there, had already been out there for many, many years.

And of course, they wouldn't go after him on a policy stance that many House Republicans were taking themselves. So they were not in a position in 2021 to go forward with this impeachment. And what started all of this, according to the House General Investigating Committee, was the request for the settlement funding. All of this culminated in the historic impeachment on May 27th. We were in the House chamber on the day of the proceeding, which will be the subject of our next episode. That's exactly right, Hayden. Thank you so much for breaking that down for us. Folks, we so appreciate you listening to our second episode of Inside the Impeachment. We'll be back with our last preliminary episode on Monday, and we'll begin our daily coverage once the trial begins on Tuesday, September 5th. So stay tuned.

Thanks for listening. Up next on Inside the Impeachment, Hayden and I will discuss the House's impeachment process that climaxed in the final days of the legislative session. Be sure to follow The Texan wherever you listen to podcasts to stay up to date on new episodes. And if you're on Apple Podcasts, leave a rating and review so that more people can find us and stay informed with news you can trust. And to support our work, be sure to subscribe at TheTexan.News. in Dodd News.