We will return live to the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney general ken paxton aftemorning of pretrial motions and we expect Opening Statements to get underway this afternoon. Live coverage here on cspan. Again, waiting for openingstf texas senator ken paxton. The texas senate is considering 20 articles of impeachment against the attorney general, which include bribery, abuse of office, and obstruction of justice. The charges stem from allegations brought to light in late 2020 by general paxtons own senior staff. They say he did political favors for a federally indicted Real Estate Developer and Campaign Donor in exchange for a Kitchen Remodel and a job for a woman with whom paxton was having an alleged affair. No criminal penalties are associated with impeachment and attorney general paxton will not automatically lose his state pension if convicted. Hes currently suspended without pay pending the trials outcome. Attorney general paxton denies doing anything wrong. Again, opening arguments in the trial expected to start shortly live here on cspan. All rise. The court of impeachment of the texas senate is now in session. The honorable Lieutenant Governor and president of the senate, dan patrick, now presiding. May be seated. I am going to take your suggestion into consideration on exhibits, if time is spent from your side. Thank you very much. At this time, Opening Statement by the managers. Mr. Presiding officer. One housekeeping matter before that. Yes . The attorney general seeks a ruling from this court that to the extent privileges, attorneyclient privilege, executive privilege, etc. , may apply, those are held by the attorney general. Now, were not asking the court it rule in any particular statement or any particular document as privilege at this time but for purposes of the managers Opening Statement, Going Forward in this case, we ask that this court rule that those privileges, which all attach during the time at which the attorney genoas the elected serving duly attorney general attached to him, conversations he had with other parties, where he was the client seeking legal advice from subordinates and essentially directing official functions and to the extent those are implicated, we seek a ruling that those privileges, that they belong to the attorney general. Do you have a response . Yes. I do want to recognize and reflect in light of the courts earlier analogy to a criminal case, i want the record to reflect that the attorney general is not here. Maybe hes coming at some time today but i think if were going to it talk about this being a criminal case, that the defendant ought to be ordered to appear throughout this. Just as everyone else. Thats number one. But number two is, were prepared to address this issue. There is a motion to, i think, one of the third parties had a motion on the attorneyclient issue that they were trying to raise. I would have thought we would have dealt with this before now, just as we were getting ready to do Opening Statements. They knew they had this issue all along. If the court wants to hear argument on it now, mr. Gardner was always prepare to do it on our side. Wed be prepared to engage in the argument. But its the discretion of the court to proceed. Under the rule, the attorney general paxton was required to be here. Addressing that first point. Throughout the trial. Im still thinking of your motion. I want to clarify under resolution 36, he was required to be here today but not all day. So let me clarify that. Yes. [indiscernible] as per the rule, he was here at 9 00, as required. I didnt see anything else in the rule that required him to be here any other time. Youre right. Correct. Please come to the bench. Please approach. We have asked for the record, the paxton team, counselors to come forward. I will address. And members, let me just not remind you but when were meeting at the bench, the juries may not come up jurors may not come up because of the conversation. Ill rule on your motion as they come up. And members of the jury, i want to remind you that statements made in the Opening Statement is not evidence and its an outline of what theyre going to present. With that, mr. Burr. Yes. Having a hard time hearing. Those mics are lowered. I dont think they were intended for them to be standing at the table talking. With that, if you could make sure that for those of us who have a hard time hearing in this chamber, that they try to be closer to the microphones. Yes, senator. The requirement was to be sitting at the mics at the table, not standing. So when you come to the podium you can stand. But be sure you get into the mic because the echoes in here are very difficult. Thank you. You have 60 minutes. Mr. President , senators, today is an important day. On this day in 1836, sam houston, whose bible you used for your oath today, was elected president of the republic of texas. Today is also an important day because we begin this impeachment trial. While impeachment is rare, the drafters of our state constitution recognized that there are times when this extraordinary remedy is needed to protect the state and its citizens from a Public Office holder who has abused the power of his office by putting selfinterest above that of the people of texas. The drafters concluded that this great deliberative body, the texas senate, is best positioned to determine when this remedy is appropriate. Mr. Murr earlier this year, mre legislature seeking 3. 3 million in taxpayer money to settle a whistleblower lawsuit. Mr. Paxton would not answer any questions about the underlying claims. He has successfully blocked any discovery in the case for almost two years. And he refused to justify the settlement. The house investigated the serious allegations raised by the whistleblowers. The house uncovered egregious misconduct and abuse of office by the attorney general of the state of texas and voted overwhelmingly to prefer articles of impeachment to the senate. This is why we are here. The allegations in the articles reveal that the states top lawyer engaged in conduct designed to advance the economic interests and legal positions of a friend and donor to the detriment of innocent texans. Mr. Paxton turned the keys of the office of attorney general over to nate paul so that mr. Paul could use the awesome power of the Peoples Law Firm to punish and harass perceived enemies. I was raised in rural texas. Where a persons honor is more important than money, where integrity matters. And by a family deeply affected by political corruption. This is precisely the type of grave official wrong that our Texas Supreme Court has said warrants impeachment. My grandfather, who was privileged to serve the state of texas for many years, had a favorite quote from abraham lincoln. Nearly all man can stand adversity. But if you really want to test a mans character, give him power. Mr. Paxton has been entrusted with great power. Unfortunately rather than rise to the occasion, hes revealed his true character. And as the overwhelming evidence will show, hes not fit to be the attorney general for the state of texas. Mr. Paxton argues that the senate should not exercise its constitutional duty to decide whether its conduct merits impeachment. Because voters were aware of the allegations and still reelected him. He claims that the senate should abide by the alleged will of the voters. However, this ignores the intent of our framers of the constitution. Impeachment was included in the constitution after the Founding Fathers debated and rejected the idea that elections could singularly protect the public against abusive office holders. In other words, drafters agreed that impeachment was and is necessary to protect against abusive officials because it was simply too easy for them to use the powers of their office to conceal the truth until after the next election. The concept of the forgiveness doctrine is not in our constitution and does not apply here. The courts have made that very clear. And even if it did, the doctrine presumes that voters know all the facts. The voters did not and do not know the whole truth. Mr. Paxton went to great length to hide his misconduct from the public. The evidence will show that he used massive resources of his office to prepare and issue a sham report that allegedly exonerated him. The evidence will show that this report contains false and misleading information about the allegations against him and about the whistleblowers themselves. And he also lied about the independent nature of this investigation. Documents will show that he played a key role in drafting that report. The constitution says the senate has the power and the duty to decide this case and to protect the people of texas from someone who has violated his oath and has shown he does not respect the law. The witnesses and the evidence will show you that mr. Paxtons conduct merits the exercise of that power. And the witnesses and the evidence will show and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he should be removed from office and prevented from ever holding a position of trust in the state of texas again. Mr. Paxton argues that the articles do not allege impefpable county impeachable conduct because they do not allege that he committed a crime. We do allege that he committed crimes. We have detailed that mr. Paxton received favors, including Home Renovations that helped in concealing and continuing an extra marital affair, in exchange for the office of attorney general punishing nate pauls enemies. However, we dont have to show some type of quid pro quo to establish that his conduct should result in impeachment. As the Texas Supreme Court made clear regarding the impeachment of governor ferguson 106 years ago, wrongs justifying impeachment dont have to be crimes. Wrongs justifying impeachment are broader than that. Because they have the purpose of protecting the state, not punishing the offender. Mr. Paxton should be removed from office because he failed to protect the state and instead used the power of his elected office for his own benefit. And this was wrong. The oath of office that we all took to protect the citizens of state and to uphold the laws of this state and this constitution mean something. It isnt just words on paper. Literally an oath to god. And mr. Paxton had an obligation not to abuse his office for his own benefit. He betrayed his constituents and the sacred public trust thats been given him. And in texas we require more from our Public Officials than to merely avoid being a criminal. The witnesses you will hear from are remarkable people. Until they refused to follow mr, they were his most trusted, handpicked advisors and they believed in his conservative mission for the office of the attorney general. The problem isnt their commitment to conservative governance changed. It is, at the end of the day, mr. Paxton wasnt the man they thought he was. And he wasnt the man he publicly proclaimed to be. His trusted advisors are not rhinos or part of some deep state storyline. They are movement conservatives, guided by their faith. These witnesses will explain step by step how they discovered that mr. Paxton grew increasingly intent and passionate about helping his partner, nate paul, escape civil and criminal legal troubles that he was facing. They will describe in chilling detail when they connected the dots of mr. Paxtons slow creep of corruption. The senior staff were outraged when they discovered that mr. Paxton had directed a young, inexperienced outside attorney to obtain grand jury subpoenas to harass and interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. Subpoenas that had been improperly issued to d. P. S. Officers, a federal judge, attorneys involved in a civil lawsuit against nate paul. And even court staff. And the subpoenas sought intensely personal information, including cell phones and email records. Now, im not going to detail in this opening all the allegations against mr. Paxton. Youre aware of many of them. You sit as a unique jury. Having known mr. Paxton and familiar with some of the facts. But even a quick summary of some of the evidence that youre going to hear is shocking. One of mr. Paxtons many acts of deceit involves a member of this chamber, at a time when the policy of the state was, texas is open for business during covid. Mr. Paxton directed his staff to issue a legal opinion advising that statewide foreclosure sales not move forward. Mr. Paxton was adamant that the opinion, which came to be known as the midnight opinion, be issued before the end of the weekend, just in time for nate paul to use it to avoid a foreclosure sale the following tuesday. This conduct benefited nate paul and it harmed businesses and people impacted by foreclosure. Mr. Paxton also used the power of this office to harm a charity, solely to benefit nate paul. The office of the attorney general is charged with the responsibility of intervening in lawsuits when its necessary to assist a charitable organization. As youll hear, the first and only charitable case mr. Paxton took a personal interest in was the nitty foundations lawsuit against nate pauls entities as an investor. The evidence will show that mr. Paxton directed his office to intervene in the lawsuit, to stay the case, and allow the a. G. s office the opportunity to pressure this charity to accept a lowball settlement offer. This would have saved tphaeuts paul millions of dollars. Nate paul wanted materials on raids on his home and businesses. In an attempt to learn how the police knew info, mr. Paul wanted the full police file, even though no police file may be disclosed due to the wellestablished Law Enforcement exception. Mr. Paxton pressured his deputies to authorize the release of this information. Had he succeeded, mr. Paxton would have created precedent allowing any person under criminal investigation, whether for a violent felony or a sex offense, to obtain confidential information about the investigations of their conduct. Mr. Paxton simply did not care that his request to release information to nate paul would have put police and victims across the state at risk. Unfortunately the house investigation revealed that mr. Paxtons relationship with mr. Paul was far more extensive than even his closest advisors knew. Over the course of three months, mr. Paxton personally met with nate paul more than 20 times. Many times mr. Paxton would ditch his security detail and nate pauline set up a secret uber account that allowed mr. Paxton to secretly visit nate paul and others. To conceal his efforts, mr. Paxton communicated in off the book ways, using burner phones, encrypted messaging apps, and secret email addresses. Mr. Paxtons brazen abuse of the criminal Justice Division at the office of attorney general is finally what caused eight of his senior staff to report him to the police. The question that haunts them and should frighten all of us is what would have happened if they had not reported him . How far would mr. Paxton have gone in using the power of the Attorney Generals Office to harass and punish his and nate pauls perceived enemies and hurt innocent texans . Mr. Paxton tries to defend his actions by isolating each event and claiming that standing alone they cant support impeachment. You cannot and should not view each act in a vacuum. The evidence will show that theyre all connected. Theyre all connected by mr. Paxton and his desire to deliver for his partner, nate paul. Mr. Paxton will also argue that the acts represent differences of opinion on policy. Or efforts to help a constituent. But the witnesses will explain to you that mr. Paxtons actions have nothing to do with implementing conservative policy. And in fact his efforts violated those very principles. Mr. Paxtons senior advisors were fully aware of the dire consequences of reporting him to Law Enforcement. They knew retribution would be swift and vicious. The choice they made to report him to the police was one of the hardest of their lives. But they will tell you that there really wasnt a choice at all. Sam houston, who on this day in 1836 was elected president of a new and free republic, reminded t pbgsans texans, do right and risk the consequences. Do right and risk the consequences. Doing the right thing is sometimes not easy. Sometimes we must do the right thing in the face of enormous pressure to remain silent. The witnesses felt this pressure. The house felt this pressure. And the senate is feeling this pressure. Its unfair and its wrong but despite the forces that seek to intimidate the senate, you have taken the first steps toward the truth by giving the people who did the right thing a chance to testify. Despite the attacks that they know will continue to come, the witnesses will do the right thing once more and they will take this witness stand and they will provide the clarity that the senate needs and that the public deserves to find out what was really happening behind closed doors. As chair, i resolutely give this statement with the support of and on behalf of the board of managers. And on behalf of the texas house. You all provided us with an hour to make an Opening Statement. But we prefer to yield back the rest of that time to the most important folks that will show up in this room. The witnesses. The same witnesses that mr. Paxton has been so desperate to discredit and intimidate and to silence. We are honored to be able to give them their day in this honored and rare court, for we simply seek justice on behalf of the people of texas. Thank you, mr. President. Does the defense wish to make an Opening Statement . We do, your honor. I think we have 15 minutes to break. Is that the rule . Youre up right now. Play it please the court. I stand in this hallowed chamber, in this historic proceeding, on behalf of the duly elected attorney general of the state of texas. The prosecution and the press, and im sure here, will tell a whopping story. Its a tale full of fury. It signifies nothing. And you may wonder why i say that. Because when we are done, i believe that no matter your party affiliation, and no matter where you stand now, you will conclude what i have concluded. That there is nothing to this. Ken paxton gave nothing of significance to nate paul. Nate paul received nothing of significance from ken paxton. This whole case is a whole lot of nothing. I make my living trying cases to texas juries. Cases are supposed to be decided only