(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Paxton Impeachment Closing Arguments: Case Now in the Hands of the Senate [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2023-09-15 Dan Patrick opened a little after 9 am. The proceedings started with a prayer led by Carol Alvarado, a Democrat from Harris County, Each day of the proceedings begins with a prayer which is led by a different Senator. Not sure how this person is chosen, but it appears to be random. Most of the prayers (all Christian) have asked for things like wisdom, patience and the good of Texas. Today, Senator Alvarado asked for common ground and humility as the Senators face this challenge. Alvarado asked for unity, integrity, and a shared commitment to the people of Texas. Patrick then thanked the clerks and bailiffs, who received a round of applause. He introduced his staff—“all strong legal counsel”—and Judge Myers. Patrick declared that everyone had “done our best to prepare for a fair trial” and described the hours of preparation. He then went over the rules in detail, both to ensure that the media report things correctly and that the public fully understands what’s going on. Each side has one hour for closing statements. The House had informed Patrick that they will open with 10 minutes and reserve the remaining 50 minutes to follow Paxton’s side. Patrick reminded everyone that Angela Paxton cannot vote, but her non-vote does not change the threshold to convict of 21 votes. The Senators are to base their decisions only on the testimony and evidence presented. Statements by attorneys—and even Patrick himself—are not evidence. Paxton is presumed innocent and had a right not to testify. The Senators must determine proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each allegation. All 16 articles must be voted on separately. Conviction on any one allegation will result in Paxton’s removal from office for the remainder of his term. If Paxton is convicted on any article, there will be another separate vote on whether Paxton should be permanently enjoined from any state office. Patrick noted that this is “not a normal trial” and that Senators would be voting individually (and on the record) and not as a group like traditional juries. Once arguments have concluded the proceedings will be in recess. The Senate is on a form of “soft sequester,” that is, they will be allowed to leave the Capitol overnight under strict orders to speak to no one about the case (calling families to check in is OK) and not view any news media. Patrick expects them to deliberate until at least 8 pm today, but they are “welcome to work longer if they choose.” If no decision, the workday tomorrow (Saturday) will go from 9 am to 8 pm. If no decision, then Sunday deliberations will start at noon. If they aren’t ready to vote by Sunday night, Patrick might decide to go into a hard sequester. “I’m sure all of you have spent the night in your offices on occasion.” Once the Senate informs Patrick they are ready to vote, he will post notice on the Senate Impeachment site and alert the media at least 30 minutes in advance. A friend who was attending live noted that he did not see the same crowd of folks in red Paxton shirts that he had at the opening. Friend speculated that either they didn’t have the patience to sit through the whole trial or they were demoralized by the evidence. He also noticed a group of “suits” sitting nearby, and recognized the person sitting nearest to him as David Maxwell. The whistleblowers had been excluded from the trial during testimony, but were allowed to be present during closing arguments. My friend had the opportunity to say “thank you” to Maxwell for his “bravery and integrity. I hope the others heard.” One major difference in the two sides (procedure and presentation-wise) is that the opening and the main closing statements were given by House Impeachment Manager Andrew Muir instead of their attorneys. Muir took his first ten minutes to remind the Senators of their “heavy and solemn responsibility” as well as their opening oaths on the Sam Houston Bible. As he did in the opening, Muir kept the focus on the witnesses and played back relevant clips of their testimony. Paxton’s relationship with Nate Paul “facilitated the life that Paxton wanted” but it “tore the AGs office apart.” Muir also challenged Paxton’s claim that he only wants the truth—yet Paxton had been absent from the proceedings except to enter a plea and now for the closing. Buzbee’s closing was mostly rhetoric and claims that there was “nothing there” in terms of evidence. He continued accusations of a “political witch hunt” and that Paxton had already been found guilty in the media. He also argued that the articles weren’t even drafted properly (when they start pointing at picky linguistic details, it is a sign that there isn’t much of a substantive argument). Buzbee did go through each article, pointing to facts in isolation and minor discrepancies. He even alluded to yet another conspiracy that somehow the George P. Bush family was involved, announcing that “the Bush era in Texas ends today.” He also spent some time disparaging the whistleblowers—who, as my friend reports—were sitting in the gallery. Buzbee finished by saying he—the son of a butcher and high school cafeteria worker who had become a lawyer—was “honored” to represent Ken Paxton. Paxton’s secondary attorney Dan Cogdell took the last 5 minutes, and he didn’t have much to add. Cogdell said he has been representing Ken Paxton for 10 years and wondered rhetorically why no one called him (uhhh…attorney-client privilege maybe?). He then did what most defense attorneys do and spoke about reasonable doubt. “It’s not a crime to investigate if something is a crime.” In his second part, Muir did an excellent (and very effective) job of going through each article, playing clips of relevant testimony and pointing the Senators to specific exhibits they should review when considering that article. I am not just saying this because I favor the prosecution. Frankly, think Paxton’s attorneys did better on objections and cross-examination than the House attorneys did, so this is purely a professional/practical assessment. (Admit that I found myself yelling objections more than once during the trial that I thought Rusty Hardin should have been doing.) Moreover, the Senators (like most jurors anywhere) likely appreciate some direction before they begin digging through mountains of evidence. Although I personally do not think the House has proved bribery, apparently there are a number of documentary exhibits that support this, which Muir walked through. He also incorporated a term that has been used by both sides throughout the trial (and usually elicits laughter) that “There are no coincidences in Austin,” pointing to too many “coincidental” timings of payments. There is also documentary evidence (which we did not hear testimony on) about an Uber account Nate Paul had set up in the name of a “David P.” that paid for rides between Paxton’s home, Nate Paul’s business, and Laura Olson. (Uber documents can be found in Volume 2 of House Board of Managers Documents at Exhibits 89 and 89-A or pp 692-702). This account was apparently discontinued after the AG employees went to the FBI. There are also some digital communications in evidence, and Muir asked rhetorically, “Why would Nate Paul need to know the schedule of renovations on the Paxton home or see photographs?” So…sounds suspicious, but still pretty circumstantial. Throughout his argument, Muir would refer to the “Trump FBI” (these events occurred over the course of 2020) to counter the current Republican narrative that the feds/DOJ cannot be trusted. They claim to be about “law and order,” but apparently this is only important when their guy is in charge. Paxton’s behavior is “typical of someone who is guilty: deflect, deceive and demonize.” Why does this sound so familiar? Muir periodically returned the focus to the witnesses, at one point playing a clip where one of them described how they felt about the joint decision to report Paxton to the FBI. “We were protecting the interests of the state and the interests of the Attorney General’s office while signing our own professional death warrants.” Muir also emphasized the number of times Paxton’s executive staff (futilely) urged him to “come clean.” Muir urged the Senators to look at the entirety of the evidence and suggested that “reasonable doubt” does not require the exclusion of all doubt. If the Senators buy into Paxton’s arguments that it doesn’t matter what he does because he won re-election, this would open all public offices in the future to the “biggest self-serving crook.” The Senators have “everything in common with the whistleblowers, who lived by their values. If you don’t hold Ken Paxton accountable, your entire legacy could be re-written and thrown away.” He concluded by reminding them of their oath on the Sam Houston Bible and urged them to “do the right thing.” A short finishing close was given by House member Jeff Leach. Leach began by stating that his remarks had not been reviewed by anyone else on the House team. Leach addressed Paxton personally in a wrenching speech about how Paxton had at one time been a friend, mentor, and “brother in Christ.” Leach had block-walked for Paxton and donated to his campaign. The door to the 8th floor was always open. But a few years ago, the door closed and the phone calls stopped. “We shouldn’t have to be here….The People of Texas deserve answers.” He told the whistleblowers in the gallery, “The House has heard and seen you.” [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/15/2193555/-Paxton-Impeachment-Closing-Arguments-Case-Now-in-the-Hands-of-the-Senate Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/