Ken Paxton again asks Texas Supreme Court to stop his deposition scheduled for this week

After another round of unsuccessful appeals to quash his testimony under oath and end a wrongful termination lawsuit that kick-started a Texas House investigation that led to his impeachment, a defiant Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the Texas Supreme Court on Monday to again consider overturning his court-ordered deposition.

Paxton, who has continuously tried to avoid giving a deposition, scheduled for later this week, is arguing before the state's high court that a previous motion he filed to accept a final judgment in the case should negate the need for his sworn testimony.

As the whistleblowers — four former attorney general's office employees who say they were fired after complaining to the FBI about Paxton's possible misconduct in helping a friend and campaign donor — challenge Paxton's argument and continue pushing for his deposition, Paxton says the only thing left to decide are the terms of a settlement agreement, which is the plaintiffs' prerogative.

"Because the depositions are scheduled to begin this Thursday, February 1, with the Attorney General going first, OAG has no adequate means for obtaining relief through the regular appellate process," Paxton's attorneys wrote in advocating for an emergency stay of the deposition order.

Paxton's legal team is asking the Supreme Court to intervene by Wednesday, the same day as a previously scheduled hearing in Travis County state District Court to discuss Paxton's motion for a final ruling in the 4-year-old whistleblower lawsuit.

Making their recycled argument from previous appeals in both the state's Supreme Court and the 3rd Court of Appeals, Paxton's lawyers say the court-ordered depositions of the attorney general and three of his high-ranking deputies are uncalled for due to the attorney general's court filing indicating his intention to accept a final ruling to settle the case.

More: Impeach Ken Paxton? Texas Republican who voted to acquit says Senate needs to reconsider.

Additionally, Paxton argues that the District Court "abused its discretion" in mandating the depositions, again pointing to the potential settlement agreement as the only outstanding issue in the case.

"Once that damage is inflicted, it cannot be undone," Paxton's attorneys wrote in the Monday filing.

Earlier this month, Paxton filed a motion asking District Judge Jan Soifer to reconsider her previous ruling upholding the depositions, which Soifer again denied. Paxton on Friday filed an appeal with the 3rd Court of Appeals that it rejected later in the day.

In her ruling rejecting Paxton's motion, Soifer said the timetable of the depositions does not warrant an emergency as both sides have been aware of the impending testimony since it was first approved in December.

Paxton's office did not respond to an American-Statesman request for comment on his appeal Monday to the Supreme Court.

In responding to Paxton's appeal to the 3rd Court of Appeals on Friday, the whistleblowers' attorneys argued that the state's top attorney is trying to have it both ways by agreeing to no longer contest the plaintiffs' claims of abuse while also seeking to stop such evidence from being brought into public view.

The attorneys responded Monday with the same argument, saying "both lower courts properly refused to endorse OAG’s mockery of the judicial process."

Because of Paxton's unwillingness to address the whistleblowers claims or allow for evidence to be introduced to the public record, the attorneys argue that a court-ordered settlement might again be undermined by the Texas Legislature's refusal to fund the agreement out of a concern for missing evidence.

"What makes this case unique is that the Legislature has already considered and rejected OAG’s request for funding to resolve it," the attorneys wrote Friday. "And, legislators and Governor Abbott have expressed a need for a complete record to make that determination."

Last year, the Texas House rejected Paxton's request for $3.3 million to pay for a settlement between him and the whistleblowers. The House instead initiated an investigation into the whistleblowers claims and on May 27 overwhelmingly voted to impeach him on 20 charges, including bribery and abuse of office. The Texas Senate held an impeachment trial and ultimately cleared Paxton of wrongdoing in September.

The whistleblowers' legal team has argued that Paxton's "desperate" effort to short-circuit the proceeding in favor of a final ruling does not address the possibility of the former employees being reinstated nor does it respond to their argument that it would hinder their ability to develop a full record of the situation in court.

More: Border, abortion and guns dominate debate among Democrats seeking to topple Ted Cruz

"To render a valid judgment for Plaintiffs, a court must receive proof of the claims or OAG must admit the truth of the allegations and the justness of the claims," the attorneys wrote. "But OAG is trying to prevent both."

Outside of the courtroom, Paxton received blowback last week from a fellow Republican, state Sen. Drew Springer of Muenster, who criticized the attorney general's motion for a final ruling as an admission of guilt to the whistleblowers' claims.

Springer, who has announced he is not seeking reelection, called for another impeachment trial out of a concern that Paxton's defense team might have misled the upper chamber during the trial last year.

"While AG Paxton claims this decision is not an admission of guilt, the fact of the matter is it is an admission of guilt," Springer wrote in his letter to his colleagues requesting an additional probe. "He can't accept the whistleblowers' claims against him while touting that he's innocent against those very claims."

After Paxton said people should not be concerned with the exiting senator's "sour grapes," Springer, on "Seeing Red," a conservative political podcast, said Paxton's trial should have been conducted in a court of law, where politics would not have had such an effect on the final verdict.

"This should have always been done in a court of law. It probably shouldn't have been through the legislative process," Springer said. "There wasn't that kill-shot smoking gun that everybody was expecting to be able to see."

"I would never vote for Ken Paxton again," Springer said.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Paxton appeals again as deposition looms