AUSTIN — A week after the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton concluded, four members of the prosecutorial team said they were hopeful going into the two-week event that they would receive a fair trial, but they argued in the end that it was a “political trial.”
“A lot of us were naive enough to think that principle would win out over politics,” said Dick DeGuerin, one of the lead prosecutors.
DeGuerin, Rusty Hardin, Erin Epley and Harriet O’Neill were part of a panel at the annual Texas Tribune Festival, often called TribFest, on Saturday. The panelists discussed the results of the trial, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s post-vote comments and more.
Paxton was acquitted on Sept. 16 by the state Senate of all 16 charges lodged against him, including corruption, disregard of official duty and constitutional bribery. Many of the charges were tied to his relationship with Austin real estate developer and friend Nate Paul.
Prosecutors said they knew they lost after the first vote, which was 14-16, with all 12 Democratic senators and two Republican senators voting in favor of acquittal. Most of them maintained this record.
“The challenge is we were putting facts up against politics; that was clearly the hardest part,” O’Neill said.
Following the vote, Patrick, who is not a lawyer by training but presided over the trial as president of the state Senate, chastised the House for its speedy impeachment process.
The House voted on the articles of impeachment within 48 hours of receiving the recommendation of the House General Investigating Committee. Patrick said this was not enough time for the 149 members to study the articles of impeachment or hear from witnesses under oath.
Paxton was impeached in the House in May by a 121-23 vote, with two lawmakers voting “present” and three absent. A simple majority was needed from the 149-member chamber. Sixty representatives who voted to impeach were Republicans.
The Senate was voting to remove Paxton from office.
The prosecutors said they truly believed they had received a fair trial until Patrick’s comments, which they said made clear to them that it was “all an act.”
“You cannot match impartiality with that speech; that said more than anything in the world. I was dumbfounded,” Hardin said. “That may be the most classless, political moment in my life.”
“We don’t want to sound like sour grapes. The fact is we lost, OK? …But I do think there was a different outward message and an inward message that none of us knew about,” Hardin added.
When asked if they could have done anything differently to change the outcome, O’Neill said she did not believe so.
“It was kind of weird from the beginning and we didn’t realize it,” she said.
There has also been a lot of back and forth on what happened with Laura Olson, with whom Paxton allegedly had an affair. She had been subpoenaed to testify and nearly did, before it was announced abruptly that she would not. Ultimately, it was said during the trial that Olson was “present but unavailable to testify.”
In a Senate journal statement released Friday, state Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin, said Patrick prevented Olson from testifying.
Patrick responded with his own statement, saying he “listened to all sides’ arguments” and asked the defense and the prosecutors to come to an agreement. It was then that Epley suggested the court publicly announce, “She’s present, but not available,” Patrick recounted.
During Saturday’s panel, Epley said prosecutors believed Patrick would rule in favor of Olson in granting her motion to not take the stand. It was then that she offered the statement as a compromise.
The prosecutors also applauded the whistleblowers and the House managers, many of whom are Republicans, for putting their reputations and careers on the line during the impeachment process.
Paxton and his supporters have vowed to put up primary challengers in their races.