Political theater? Hardly, Tarrant lawmakers say, citing overwhelming evidence against Paxton

Texas Rep. Charlie Geren held up a letter that he had placed on lawmakers’ desks earlier in the afternoon, as a swarm of reporters took photos of the sheet.

A headline in bold, serif font: “Honor and Humility. Where are they?”

The letter was from former House Rep. David Simpson, a Longview Republican, and was dated Saturday: The day members of the House of Representatives would take a historic vote on whether to impeach the three-term Texas attorney general.

They voted 121-23 in favor of the 20-article impeachment resolution, with most Republicans supporting sending the articles to the Senate.

The mood in the chamber was uncharacteristically somber for a House that has a reputation for being lively. Heated debate, chatter from members as they roam the floor and even the occasional lighthearted prank usually plays out over the course of the session. But on Saturday afternoon, while lawmakers considered impeachment, most stayed put in their desks, focused on their colleagues who made the case for or against Paxton’s impeachment.

The Republican majority who voted for the articles said they couldn’t look past that evidence warranted a Senate trial. Those who opposed had concerns with the procedure and timeline.

And Paxton and his office have said the attorney general hasn’t had the opportunity to share his defense and pointed to politics as the motivating factor for the impeachment proceedings.

“We understand the gravity and importance of this vote,” said Rep. Craig Goldman, a Fort Worth Republican who chairs the House GOP caucus. “No one in there took that vote lightly. Whether they fought, voted for it or against, not one person voted lightly on it.”

Paxton, who first took office in 2015, has been under indictment for securities fraud since that year. The case hasn’t gone to trial. The FBI is also investigating him for allegedly abusing his office to aid a campaign contributor, real estate investor Nate Paul.

Paxton has been a subject of a related whistle blower lawsuit by four former employees. The House investigation came after Paxton settled that suit for $3.3 million, which would be paid with taxpayer dollars if approved by the Legislature. The articles of impeachment relate to the years of legal troubles and claims that he abused his office to benefit Paul.

All but two of Tarrant County’s House lawmakers voted to impeach Paxton.

“It’s certainly a stunning reversal of Reagan’s 11th commandment, where thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political science professor.

Rottinghaus has studied political scandals, and a common thread in a polarized era is that partisans stand up for fellow partisans, he said.

He thinks the millions for a settlement payment didn’t sit well with the lawmakers, in addition to the “overwhelming” evidence against Paxton, acts that could be seen as a “stain on the state.”

“Political theater”?

Inside the chamber, much of the opposition centered on the process itself: The amount of time lawmakers had to consider the resolution and concerns that Paxton and his team hadn’t had the opportunity to share their defense.

Outside the chamber, over the past two days and in the hours after the impeachment vote, Paxton cast the investigation and proceedings as “political theater” and a “politically motivated sham.” Saturday evening his office shared a news release that included a report from the attorneys representing him in the whistleblower suit that disputed the findings of the House General Investigating Committee.

“I am beyond grateful to have the support of millions of Texans who recognize that what we just witnessed is illegal, unethical, and profoundly unjust,” Paxton said a Twitter post. “I look forward to a quick resolution in the Texas Senate, where I have full confidence the process will be fair and just.”

Some Republicans disputed the idea that the proceedings were political.

“I don’t believe the people in that room that voted today believe that it was political theater,” said Rep. Stephanie Klick, a Fort Worth Republican. “People outside the building were trying to make it political theater. We took our jobs seriously.”

Geren, a Fort Worth Republican who served on the investigating committee, told his colleagues from the floor that some members had “received telephone calls from General Paxton personally, threatening them with political consequences in their next election.”

He later said Paxton “does not deserve to be in office.”

Even as Arlington Republican Tony Tinderholt shared concerns about the proceedings being political — on the floor he questioned the credentials and party affiliation of attorneys who laid out the case against Paxton before the House General Investigating Committee and noted that both former President Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz had weighed in — the opposition was centered on impeachment process.

“We want this process to be unquestionable,” Tinderholt said. “We want it to be the highest standards. And I think today what we did is cheapen impeachment 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 of sorts and determine if there’s enough evidence to warrant a trial in the Senate, where Paxton would have an opportunity to give his rebuttal.

There was enough evidence, said several Tarrant County lawmakers in statements or interviews with the Star-Telegram.

Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, a Southlake Republican, said the same in a written statement.

“Having watched the committee hearing, scrutinized its transcript, and devoted hours to listening to testimonies and debates, 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 justify further impeachment proceedings.” And while he did have concerns about Paxton’s removal from office as the proceedings continue, even though there hasn’t been a full evidentiary trial in the Senate, he ultimately decided his oath of office compelled him to vote for the impeachment resolution.

They were among the nine Tarrant County representatives to vote for impeachment.

Euless Democrat Salmon Bhojani said the evidence was overwhelming.

“The decision to impeach an elected official is one that should never be taken lightly,” he said. “This vote is historic — one that shows 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 that the evidence warranted impeachment.

“For years, I have called the Legislature to investigate Mr. Paxton and hold him accountable,” he said in a written statement. “The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the state of Texas, yet for years, Mr. Paxton has conducted himself as if he is above the law, prioritizing his personal and political interests above the very important duties of his office.

But for others who voted against the resolution and Rep. Harold Dutton, a Houston Democrat, who took a neutral position by marking himself “present not voting,” there were still the concerns about a lack of due process.

The process lacked transparency, said Tinderholt.

Fort Worth Republican Nate Schatzline was concerned that members were not given access to evidence or allowed to question witnesses. It was Thursday night when they were presented with copies of the articles of impeachment and a transcript of Wednesday’s House General Investigating committee hearing when committee lawyers laid out their findings.

“I think anytime we’re dealing with impeachment, I think naturally, politics is going to play a role. I tried to silence the noise on that,” Schatzline said.

The freshman lawmaker said he spent the couple of days after getting the articles and transcript combing through the material and watching the video of the hearing. Most of the constituents he heard from wanted him to vote “no” on the impeachment, he said.

“However, what I let every single one of my constituents who asked me know is here’s my intention ... I want to get all the facts,” he said. “I want to get all of what they say could be potential evidence, read through it, and have my own conviction tell me whether or not I believe that he should be impeached or not.”

What’s next?

The articles now head to the Senate for trial. It hasn’t been said when those proceedings could begin. Several senators issued uniform statements noting they would act as a jury and therefore not discuss the matter.

“Know that we will faithfully follow the constitution and the law, and we will honor our sworn oaths,” the statement reads.

Geren told lawmakers he’d given them a copy of the Simpson letter early in the hours-long debate on the impeachment resolution.

“Honor and Humility. Where are they?”

“Republican leaders and loyalists 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 being the highest law enforcement officer of our state,” the letter reads. “How can legislators do that with honor?

“Honor demands that those in authority use their power to try him and remove him from office, not out of vindictiveness, nor to seek to gain political advantage, but out of compunction; not from condescension, but in humility believing that with the grace of God we would resign if we fell into the same circumstances and betrayed those we are sworn to serve.”