TEXAS AG IMPEACHMENT: Paxton’s Mistress ‘Deemed Unavailable to Testify’

Texas House “prosecutors” started Day 7 of the impeachment trial of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton by calling Laura Olson as a witness. Witnesses testified that Paxton called a meeting in September of 2018 and admitted to his top brass and his wife that he had an affair with Olson.

There was a meeting with House Manager attorneys and the defense at the “bench” after Olson was called to the stand. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, President of the Texas Senate, acts as “judge” in these proceedings. He found that Olson could not appear until about 3:30 in the afternoon because she had not received 24-hour notice as required under the rules.

After much anticipation, Lt. Governor Patrick announced in the afternoon that House Managers called Laura Olson, “She is present but has been deemed unavailable to testify.” When a senator shouted out a question about this, Patrick repeated the statement and said that all he would say was that the parties had agreed that Olson “has been deemed unavailable to testify.”

Breitbart Texas reported that Paxton’s former chief of staff, Katherine “Missy” Minter Cary, testified on Day 5  about her knowledge of his extramarital affair, in particular, about the staff meeting where Paxton acknowledged his infidelity to his staff and wife, Texas Senator Angela Paxton (R-Mckinney). Other former staff member witnesses testified about what happened at this meeting.

Ken Paxton served as a Texas state senator with his constituency centered in Collin County, a county also pivotal to Senator Angela Paxton’s election. Senator Paxton has not been sworn in as a juror but is required by the Texas Constitution to be present. She cannot vote, deliberate, or ask witnesses any questions.

Cary testified that the staff complained about Paxton’s behavior, saying his relationship with Olson was causing disruption and morale problems. Paxton called off his security detail, and his calendar was left open at times, and schedulers and other staff did not know where he was. It also caused staff to work extra hours and on weekends. Angela Paxton would call the office looking for General Paxton, and staff members were uncomfortable answering her phone calls.

Cary approached Paxton about her ethical concerns and the possible ramifications of his behavior. He misused the office by using state resources and time to benefit himself and/or another person. She told him he was vulnerable to bribery.

“I told General Paxton quite bluntly it wasn’t my business who he was sleeping with, but when things bleed over into the office and into the state work, it becomes my business.” Paxton called the meeting after his chief of staff told the AG he needed to tell his wife about the affair.

Cary learned in 2019 that Paxton was still having an affair with Olson. She talked to Paxton, and he told her he still loved Olson. She testified he yelled at her, was very angry, and stormed out of her office.

Article IX, entitled “Constitutional Bribery-Paul’s Employment of Mistress,” charges:

While holding office as attorney general, Warren Kenneth Paxton engaged in bribery in violation of Section 41, Article XVI, Texas Constitution.

Specifically, Paxton benefitted from Nate Paul’s employment of a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair. Paul received favorable legal assistance from, or specialized access to, the office of the attorney general.

Article XVI, entitled “Conspiracy and Attempted Conspiracy,” states, “While holding office as attorney general, Kenneth Warren Paxton acted with others to conspire, or attempt to conspire, to commit acts described in one or more articles.”

Many of the articles of impeachment relate to Paxton’s alleged dealings with Nate Paul. FBI agents arrested the Austin real estate developer in June for making false statements to financial institutions and understating the value of his bank accounts and other assets. Paul donated $25,000 to Paxton’s campaign and hired his mistress, Laura Olson.

Texas Penal Code section 36.02 provides:

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;(2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official; or(4) any benefit that is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or that is an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, if the benefit was offered, conferred, solicited, accepted, or agreed to pursuant to an express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion if such exercise of official discretion would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit; notwithstanding any rule of evidence or jury instruction allowing factual inferences in the absence of certain evidence, direct evidence of the express agreement shall be required in any prosecution under this subdivision.

This section also provides that:

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.

(c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:

(1) the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or

(2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.

(d) It is an exception to the application of Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of Subsection (a) that the benefit is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code.

(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Article XVIII of the impeachment articles is a “catchall” that charges, “While holding office as attorney general, Warren Kenneth Paxton violated the Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes, and public policy against public officials acting contrary to the public interest by engaging in acts described in one or more articles.”

Article XIX charges that Paxton “engaged in misconduct, private or public, of such character as to indicate his unfitness for office, as shown by the acts described in one or more articles.”

Article XX charges that Paxton abused the public trust, “bringing the Office of Attorney General into scandal and disrepute to the prejudice of public confidence in the government of this State, as shown by the acts described in one or more articles.”

Ken Paxton has not attended the impeachment proceedings except for the first morning when he was required to enter a guilty or not guilty plea. Defense attorney Tony Buzbee entered his client’s “not guilty” plea.

Video archives of the impeachment proceedings can be found on the Texas Senate Impeachment website. The articles of Impeachment, the Rules of Procedure for the Court of Impeachment, the witness list, all motions filed by the House Board of Managers and Paxton’s defense team, exhibits, and other potential evidence are posted on the Texas Senate Court of Impeachment website.

Lana Shadwick is a writer and legal analyst for Breitbart Texas. She is a trial lawyer who practices criminal defense and family law in East Texas. She was a Texas prosecutor and family court associate judge in Harris County, Texas.