Texas Rep. Charlie Geren displayed a letter he had placed on lawmakers’ desks earlier in the afternoon as a swarm of reporters snapped photos of the sheet.
A title in bold and serif: “Honor and humility. Where are they?”
The letter was from former House Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, and was dated Saturday — the day members of the House of Representatives will hold a historic vote on whether to impeach the three-term Texas attorney general.
They voted 121-23 in favor of the dismissal resolution of 20 articleswith most Republicans supporting sending the articles to the Senate.
The mood in the chamber was unusually somber. The house has a reputation for being lively. Heated debates, chatter from members as they pass the floor, and even sometimes light-hearted banter throughout the session. But on Saturday afternoon, as lawmakers considered impeachment, most remained at their desks, focused on their colleagues who argued for or against the resolution.
The Republican majority that voted for the articles said they could not see beyond that the evidence warranted a Senate trial. Those who opposed it had concerns about the procedure and the time frame.
And Paxton and his office have said the attorney general has not had a chance to share his defense and have pointed to politics as a driving factor in the impeachment proceedings.
“We understand the gravity and the importance of this vote,” said Rep. Craig Goldman, a Fort Worth Republican who chairs the House GOP caucus. “Nobody took that vote lightly. Whether they fought, whether they voted for it or voted against it, not one person took it lightly.”
Paxton, who first took office in 2015, has been charged with securities fraud since that year. The case has not gone to trial. He is also being investigated by the FBI for allegedly using his office to help a campaign contributor, real estate investor Nate Paul. Paxton has been the subject of a whistleblower-related lawsuit by four former employees. The House investigation came after Paxton settled that lawsuit for $3.3 million, which will be paid with taxpayer dollars if approved by the Legislature. The articles of impeachment relate to years of legal trouble and claims that he abused his position to benefit Paul.
The story continues
All but two from Tarrant County House lawmakers voted to impeach Paxton.
“It’s certainly a stunning reversal of Reagan’s 11th commandment, where you don’t speak ill of a fellow Republican,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.
Rottinghaus has studied political scandals, and the common feature in a polarized era is that partisans defend their peers, he said.
He believes the millions for a settlement payment did not sit well with lawmakers, in addition to the “overwhelming” evidence against Paxton, acts that could be seen as a “stain on the state.”
Inside the chamber, much of the opposition focused on the process itself: the amount of time lawmakers had to consider the resolution, concerns that Paxton and his team had not had a chance to share his defense
Outside the chamber, Paxton over the past two days and in the hours after the impeachment vote called the investigation and proceedings “political theater” and a “political farce.” On Saturday evening, his office shared a press release that included a report from the lawyers representing him in the whistleblower lawsuit that disputed the findings of the House’s General Investigative Committee.
“I am beyond grateful to have the support of millions of Texans who recognize that what we have just witnessed is illegal, unethical and deeply unjust,” Paxton said on Twitter. “I look forward to a speedy resolution in the Texas Senate, where I have full confidence that the process will be fair and just.”
Some Republicans questioned the idea that the proceedings were political.
“I don’t think the people in this room who voted today believe it was political theater,” said Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth. “People outside the building were trying to turn it into a political theater. We also take our work seriously.”
Geren, a Fort Worth Republican who served on the investigative committee, told his colleagues on the floor that some members had “received phone calls from General Paxton personally, threatening them with political consequences in their upcoming elections “.
He later said Paxton “doesn’t deserve to be in office.”
While Arlington Republican Tony Tinderholt shared concerns that the proceedings were political, he questioned the credentials and party affiliation of the attorneys who brought the case against Paxton before the House General Investigations Committee and pointed out that so much President Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz had pondered: the opposition was focused on the impeachment process.
“We want this process to be unquestionable,” Tinderholt said. “We want the standards to be the highest. And I think what we’ve done today is make impeachment cheaper in the state of Texas.”
Others who supported the impeachment vote pointed out that the House’s job is to act as a grand jury and determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial in the Senate, where Paxton would have a chance to give his rebuttal.
There was enough evidence, several Tarrant County lawmakers said in statements or interviews with the Star-Telegram.
Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, said as much in a written statement.
“Having watched the committee hearing, reviewed its transcript, and spent hours listening to testimony and debate, there is no doubt that the evidence against the attorney general is substantial and compelling,” he said.
Rep. David Cook, in a written statement, stressed that the House’s job is to determine whether there are “sufficient grounds to warrant further impeachment proceedings.” And while he had concerns about Paxton’s removal from office as the proceedings continue, even though there hasn’t been a full Senate trial, he ultimately decided that his oath required him to vote for the resolution of impeachment
They were among the six Tarrant counties that voted for impeachment.
Euless Democrat Salmon Bhojani said the evidence was overwhelming.
“The decision to remove an elected official is a decision that should never be taken lightly,” he said. “This vote is historic, one that shows that no one is above the law in our state, even at the highest levels of government.”
Grand Prairie Democrat Chris Turner, whose district also includes Arlington and Mansfield, agreed the evidence warranted impeachment.
“For years, I have called on the Legislature to investigate Mr. Paxton and hold him accountable,” she said in a written statement. “The Attorney General is the ultimate law enforcement officer for the state of Texas, but for years, Mr. Paxton has acted as if he were above the law, prioritizing his personal and political interests over about the very important duties of his position.
But for others who voted against the resolution and Rep. Harold Dutton, a Houston Democrat, who took a neutral position by marking himself as “absent,” there was still concern about the lack of a due process
The process lacked transparency, Tinderholt said.
Fort Worth Republican Nate Schatzline was concerned that members would not have access to evidence or be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. It was Thursday night when they were presented with copies of the articles of impeachment and a transcript of Wednesday’s House General Investigations Committee hearing when the committee’s lawyers presented their findings.
“I think any time we’re dealing with impeachment, I think politics is naturally going to play a role. I tried to silence the noise,” Schatzline said.
The freshman lawmaker said he spent the two days after getting the articles and transcript going over the material and watching video of the hearing. Most of the constituents he heard from wanted him to vote “no” on impeachment, he said.
“However, what I made known to all my constituents who asked me is that is my intention. … I want to know all the facts,” he said. “I want to get everything they say could be potential evidence, read it and let my own conviction tell me whether or not I think he should be impeached or not.”
The articles now head to the Senate for consideration. It has not been said when these proceedings might begin. Several senators issued uniform statements noting that they would serve as a jury and therefore would not discuss the matter.
“Know that we will faithfully follow the constitution and the law, and honor our oaths,” the statement said.
Geren told lawmakers he had given them a copy of Simpson’s letter earlier in the hours-long debate on the impeachment resolution.
“Honor and humility. Where are they?”
“Republican and loyalist leaders are attacking Speaker Phelan with ad hominem instead of dealing with the fact that our Attorney General has asked the Legislature to appropriate funds to ameliorate his misconduct while in charge of the our state’s law enforcement,” the letter says. “How can legislators do that with honor?
“Honor demands that those in authority use their power to judge and remove him from office, not out of vindication, nor to seek political advantage, but out of compunction; not out of condescension, but with humility believing that with the grace of God we would resign if we were to fall into the same circumstances and betray those whom we have sworn to serve”.
