Sen. Sarah Eckhardt slams Lt. Gov. Patrick's performance in Ken Paxton impeachment trial

In a scathing post-mortem of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment trial, Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin, said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick lacked the skill and neutrality to preside over the proceedings and that those legal inquiries should be overseen by an experienced judge.

"I recommend that, like almost every other impeachment trial in U.S. history, any future Impeachment tribunal select an experienced jurist with a strong reputation for neutrality to preside," Eckhardt said.

Eckhardt's remarks came in a written debriefing to the Senate Journal that she titled a "message in a bottle" to future impeachment courts. Her letter, obtained by the American-Statesman and expected to be made public this week, presents an unsparing evaluation of Patrick, who as the Senate's presiding officer has unmatched power over legislation and committee assignments and, as such, is rarely challenged publicly by members of the 31-person chamber.

Analysis: Why the Senate voted to acquit Ken Paxton on each impeachment article

Her criticism builds upon her concerns from this summer when Eckhardt was among just three senators who voted against the rules the Senate proposed for the trial, citing Patrick's outsized influence on the proceedings.

"Patrick is not a lawyer," Eckhardt wrote in the recent letter. "This was evident in his inconsistent and often legally indefensible rulings on motions and objections. Also, he does not have a reputation for neutrality. This was evident in his fundraising immediately prior to the trial and his statements of extreme bias from the bench immediately after the verdict was returned."

Patrick's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The Senate rules allowed for Patrick to recuse himself and hand the trial's management to a senator or to a jurist who is not up for reelection next year. Instead, he hired a judge to assist him — Lana Myers, a retired Republican appeals court justice from Dallas.

Not guilty: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton acquitted in impeachment trial

From the bench Saturday, Patrick unloaded on the Texas House for advancing the impeachment to the Senate in what he called a rushed process that did not afford Paxton or his lawyers an opportunity to challenge evidence before trial. Patrick said he will look to pass legislation to allow for a defense counsel to examine witnesses before the House takes an impeachment vote. He also called for an accounting of all taxpayer money spent on the impeachment proceedings, which he followed through on this week in a formal request to the state's auditor.

Patrick's criticism — unusual for a judge — raised new questions about his biases after his campaign accepted $3 million this summer from a pro-Paxton political action committee. In her letter, Eckhardt said that, although Patrick called for a fundraising moratorium during the trial, senators in future proceedings should establish one at a much earlier date.

With the acquittal, Paxton was reinstated as the state's top lawyer. The three-term Republican had been suspended from office since May 27 when the House voted overwhelmingly to impeach him. At trial, he faced 16 impeachment articles related to bribery or misuse of office in his relationship with Austin businessman Nate Paul. Had he been convicted on even one count, Paxton would have been removed from office with the potential to then be disqualified from ever holding elected office in Texas.

Ken Paxton impeachment trial: How each Texas Senator voted

Eckhardt, a former criminal prosecutor in Travis County, said that what began as bipartisan deliberations "began unraveling" Friday afternoon as Republican senators "sagged under the weight of political pressure." Only two of 18 GOP senators voted to convict Paxton on any charge. To that end, she suggested the need for an investigation into the sources and funding of a social media campaign pressuring senators to acquit Paxton.

Eckhardt also addressed what she described as two curious decisions by Patrick. One was to block House prosecutors from soliciting testimony from Laura Olson, Paxton's alleged mistress, who was central to an impeachment article that said Paul gave her a job in exchange for Paxton providing him with legal services outside the scope of the office.

Eckhardt said that senators should have had their own legal counsel to push back against Patrick's decision to keep her from testifying.

"If a lawyer representing the senators was on hand for that decision, she or he could have spoken to all senators, together or individually, about the legal standards and options available and, at the senators’ direction, asked questions or made demands of the presiding officer," Eckhardt said.

Olson, who showed up to the trial on a subpoena, was expected to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination had she been required to testify.

'Heaviest vote you will ever cast': Why Rep. Jeff Leach urged senators to oust Ken Paxton

Eckhardt also questioned Patrick's influence on time limits. In the rules passed by the Senate, the prosecution and the defense were each granted 24 hours to present evidence. Patrick ruled that time spent on objections from opposing counsel would count against the side presenting its case at the time. This, Eckhardt said, affected the prosecution's case by limiting the evidence it could publish to the jury. It is unclear what, if any, evidence the prosecution sacrificed to meet the time limit.

"For reasons no senator can explain (another reason for senators to have legal counsel), the Lt. Gov. asked and both parties agreed to narrower limits on their time than was allowed in the Senate Rules," she wrote. "In the future, I suggest a pretrial conference with the parties and representatives of the Senate (perhaps the Senate’s lawyer) after which the Senate sets time limits appropriate to the alleged facts."

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Sen. Sarah Eckhardt slams Lt. Gov. Patrick's work in impeachment trial