Paxton impeachment witness: feared OAG had been ‘hijacked’

Palestine Herald Press
Ali Linan CNHI Texas statehouse reporter
September 7, 2023

AUSTIN — A witness in the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and one of the eight whistleblowers who reported him to the FBI said he did so because he believed the office had been “hijacked” to benefit a friend of Paxton’s. That witness, Ryan Bangert, is the former deputy first assistant in the Office of Attorney General.

“I was deeply concerned that the name and authority and power of our office had been, in my view, hijacked to serve the interests of an individual against the interests of the broader public,” Bangert said.

Paxton currently faces 16 articles of impeachment, which include bribery, misuse of public office and unfitness for office. An additional four articles may be brought up at a later time.

Paxton pleaded not guilty to all charges on the opening day of the impeachment trial.

Many of those charges stem from Paxton’s relationship with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate executive and Paxton campaign donor.

One morning, Bangert said, Paxton asked him and other attorneys to join him at lunch where Paul was also in attendance. Bangert told the court that at the time, he felt the invitation was more a directive he could not turn down.

“The strong impression that I had developed was I had been summoned to that lunch by Nate Paul to hear out his grievances, and to convince me to get on board with the Mitte Foundation intervention program,” Bangert said.

The Mitte Foundation is a nonprofit organization that had invested with Paul. As Paul’s businesses were failing, the foundation sued Paul over financial record disputes. Paul was asking the Office of the Attorney General to step in, Bangert said.

Bangert added that during this meeting, which happened sometime in the summer of 2020, the OAG was focused on COVID decisions, as local entities were constantly reaching out on how to approach the pandemic, as well as the preparation of a large multi-state lawsuit against Google.

“We were devoting far more resources to Nate Paul than we ever should have, given the importance of those issues,” Bangert said.

The events of the day were “unconscionable” — never did Bangert believe he would be asked to use a criminal process to pursue the private enemies, he said.

But it was the hiring of Brandon Cammack, an outside lawyer, to investigate complaints made against Paul, that threw him, Bangert said. Cammack’s hiring is at the center of another charge against Paxton. The House alleges that Paxton hired Cammack to investigate a baseless complaint made by Paul, by issuing more than 30 grand jury subpoenas in an effort to help him.

“As a staffer, you have fidelity to the Constitution and fidelity to your principal. Those two things should always align. Unfortunately, over the previous nine months, they have been drifting further and further apart,” Bangert said.

Bangert said when he saw that the subpoenas had been issued, outside of the normal process of the OAG, to pursue a criminal process against private citizens to benefit one individual, it became clear to him that there was nothing more he could do.

“The Attorney General was determined to harness the power of our office to fulfill the interests of a single individual, against the interests of the state,” he said.

In his own line of questioning, Anthony Osso, representing Paxton, attempted to conclude that a foreclosure opinion issued by the Attorney General was not written solely to benefit Paul.

Paxton wrote an opinion stopping outside foreclosure sales from occurring, citing the pandemic, but this was contrary to Paxton’s opposition to other COVID-19 closures, and because Paxton had just previously fought to keep churches and other entities open. Paul, a campaign donor and friend of Paxton’s, would have benefited from the opinion because he had a pending foreclosure sale.

Osso insinuated that Bangert drew an incorrect conclusion about the foreclosure, and also highlighted that Paxton has a background in real estate law while Bangert does not. Osso added that a week after the Attorney General issued his opinion on foreclosure, former president Donald Trump issued an executive order that mimicked the AG’s attitude toward foreclosure sales. Bangert said he was unaware of the executive order.

Osso also pushed back on Bangert’s assertion that Paxton’s opinion on foreclosures was “unconscionable” and contrary to other OAG policies. He argued that there is no definition in the state code on what settlement services the OAG can be involved in, therefore it is in Paxton’s place to issue the order.

“The word foreclosure does not appear (in the definition), but that's why you engaged in legal analysis and construction, which means that somebody else, another attorney — perhaps the Attorney General — could have a different viewpoint as to what a settlement service is,” Osso said.

Paxton remained absent for the third day of the trial. He was impeached in the House in May 121-23 with two selecting present-not voting and three absent. A simple majority was needed from the 149-member chamber. Sixty representatives who voted to impeach were Republicans.

In the Senate, there are 31 senators — 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans. Despite Paxton’s wife’s - state Sen. Angela Paxton - inability to vote, prosecutors must still secure a two-thirds majority vote of at least 21 senators in order to remove Paxton from office.

Officials said they believe the trial will last at least two weeks.