Rogue Employees and ‘Austin Coincidences’: Highlights from Day 3 of Paxton’s Impeachment Trail

Thursday morning saw the third day of Ken Paxton’s Senate impeachment trial begin like the second day ended on Wednesday evening, with lead prosecutor Rusty Hardin having a tough time getting a full question out of his mouth before opposing counsel interjected with an objection. Also like the day before, the suspended attorney general was not present for his trial.

Houston trial attorney Anthony Osso Jr., who led the defense at the end of the day on Wednesday, seemed even more determined to object to as many of Hardin’s questions as possible. Osso also routinely objected to many of the responses by Ryan Bangert, one of the Paxton whistleblowers who had began testifying after lunch on Wednesday.

At one point early in the day, Hardin, who has been a legendary name in Texas law for decades, took particular exception to the much younger Osso’s tactics. For a few beats after snapping, “Will you let me finish?” Hardin pointedly glared at his counterpart and proceeded with questions to the witness only after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is presiding over the trial, prompted Hardin to begin speaking.

That was merely the introduction to yet another dramatic day in the Texas Capitol. Here are some of the highlights from day three of the Senate impeachment trial of suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Let’s Do Lunch

The members of the jury might’ve just finished their breakfast, but the first hot topic of the day’s testimony was lunch, of all things. Hardin walked Bangert through a series of questions describing a 2020 lunch attended by Bangert, Paxton, Paxton’s former personal assistant Drew Wicker and Nate Paul, the Austin real estate developer who is at the center of some of the articles of impeachment against Paxton.

“Nate Paul did almost all of the talking,” Bangert said about the lunch at Polvos Mexican restaurant. According to Bangert, Paxton not only didn’t interject during Paul’s comments over lunch, but it was clear the lunch plans, which already presented an unusual scenario, Bangert testified, were made even more problematic by how Paul was able to have a captive audience that he wouldn’t normally be able to have.

“I very much had the feeling I had been summoned to that lunch by Nate Paul, to hear his grievances and get on board with the Mitte Foundation intervention program,” the former deputy first assistant attorney general said.

As Osso continued to object on a steady basis – while also being overruled almost every time in the early going – Hardin continued asking about just how odd it was for Paxton to have the foursome pile into the same car and drive to lunch together to discuss intervening in the case with the Mitte Foundation in which Paul was involved.

“I told Drew [Wicker], that’s one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen,” Bangert said.

Google v. Nate Paul

Aside from the headline-grabbing elements, such as Paxton’s alleged extramarital affair and his allegedly receiving illicit, high-dollar home renovations, the trial is centered on the whistleblowers’ assertion that Paxton was using official state resources inappropriately to Paul’s benefit. While Bangert was still on the witness stand, Hardin used the occasion of an important group call to illustrate an image of an elected official ignoring more important work to focus on the needs of his campaign contributor and confidant.

Bangert said that as he and Jeff Mateer, who spent most of Wednesday testifying against Paxton, were only minutes away from what he said was a “significant call” with legal reps from many other states involved in the Google antitrust and consumer protection lawsuit, Paxton called Mateer and demanded his attention. Bangert said that even though the Google suit was a “major initiative” of the OAG, Paxton kept Mateer on the phone, causing a distraction that may have interfered with the beginning of the call.

Mateer believed the call was related to the hiring of outside counsel to investigate concerns expressed by Paul. Instead of allowing his team to focus on the Google suit, Bangert said, “The attorney general’s focus was on Nate Paul.”

The Use of the Office of the Attorney General

As Mateer had on Wednesday, Bangert repeatedly described his frustration and surprise at how Paxton insisted that he become involved in legal scenarios related to Paul. Bangert testified that the AG wanted outside counsel to investigate “the law enforcement actions concerning Nate Paul that would’ve included the search of his house and properties,” the witness explained. He also added a peek into the mindset of Paxton and Paul by noting, “The theory was that there had been an improper warrant obtained [against Paul], and I believe there were also allegations of a conspiracy.”

As the summer of 2020 rolled into the fall, Bangert said his worries about how far Paxton would go in his official capacity to assist Paul grew unavoidable.

“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,” Bangert testified.

Osso’s Austin Coincidence Question

During cross-examination on Wednesday, Tony Buzbee asked a witness if he had ever heard the phrase, “There are no coincidences in Austin.” The witness had not heard the phrase. On Thursday afternoon, Osso asked Bangert if he had ever heard the same phrase. The defense attorney made it sound like a common phrase used by anyone who knew anything in the state capital.

Had a narrator been providing a voiceover to the trial broadcast, the voice would’ve likely added, “no one seems to have heard the phrase except for Paxton’s legal team.”

On X (formerly known as Twitter), veteran state media personalities and people who would’ve certainly heard such a phrase if it was nearly as common as Buzbee and Osso suggested, took issue with the claim. One X account took it upon itself to consult a one-time OAG nemesis by entering the phrase in a Google search bar.

An account by the name of @TheSBCPlatform posted, “Google has also never heard the phrase ‘There are no coincidences in the city of Austin,'” along with a screenshot showing the empty results.

Google has also never heard the phrase "There are no coincidences in the city of Austin." #PaxtonTrial @RobertDownen_ pic.twitter.com/MbgenXTDHY

— SBC Platform (@TheSBCPlatform) September 7, 2023

Another New (Very Conservative) Witness

Introduced after lunch, the trial’s third witness was yet another staunch conservative and one of Paxton’s whistleblowers. Ryan Vasser, a lifelong independent Baptist and yet another witness with connections to the uber-conservative legal advocacy group the Federalist Society, cannot be painted with a “RINO” (Republicans in Name Only) brush.

Paxton and his supporters have for months blamed moderate Republicans and Democrats for the trouble he finds himself in, but like Mateer yesterday and Bangert today, Vasser is about as conservative as one can possibly be. After having Vasser detail his rise through the OAG ranks over the five years he was there, Hardin asked the former deputy attorney general for legal counsel how he felt about Paxton saying that Vasser and others were merely “rogue employees.”

Visibly emotional, Vasser replied, “It was hurtful.” As he used a tissue that had been handed to him to wipe his eyes, Vasser explained, “the statement of ‘being rogue’ is contrary to the years I’ve dedicated to my state.”