Impeachment Trial Witnesses Share Explosive Testimony on Bribery and Corruption Allegations Against Suspended AG
The third day of the impeachment trial against suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton brought forth two crucial whistleblowers who provided compelling testimony regarding allegations of bribery and corruption. These witnesses, who had reported Paxton to the FBI for his alleged misconduct, shared their fears and shed tears as they recounted their experiences.
Lead prosecutor Rusty Hardin began the day by questioning witness Ryan Bangert, a former deputy first assistant attorney general. Bangert’s testimony shed light on how whistleblowers believed Paxton was pressuring the office to benefit Austin real estate investor Nate Paul, a campaign donor. Bangert revealed that Paxton had insisted on hiring outside counsel to interfere in Paul’s legal troubles, which he saw as a clear attempt to favor one person.
Disturbed by this unethical abuse of power, Bangert decided to report Paxton to the FBI. He stated, I went to the FBI because I believed that the attorney general had abandoned his obligation to work on behalf of the interests of the people of Texas, but rather to serve the interests of one person – Nate Paul.
Central to Bangert’s testimony was Paxton’s issuance of an informal legal opinion that seemed to solely benefit Paul’s financial interests. Paxton ordered his office to issue an opinion declaring foreclosure sales unsafe amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Whistleblowers claimed this decision contradicted the office’s efforts against COVID restrictions and was intended to help Paul avoid foreclosure on his properties.
According to Bangert, this opinion bypassed the formal review process by the opinion committee. He remarked, The name and authority and power of our office had been hijacked to serve the interests of an individual against the interests of the broader public.
Paxton’s defense team, on the other hand, accused the whistleblowers of attempting a coup against their former boss. Defense attorney Anthony Osso repeatedly questioned Bangert about whether he had informed Paxton about his FBI complaint before filing it. While Bangert initially avoided answering with a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ he eventually responded that he had not informed Paxton.
To counter the defense’s portrayal of the whistleblowers’ actions as a mutiny, Hardin guided Bangert to emphasize that they were protecting the state’s interests and believed they were also safeguarding the attorney general’s interests, even if it meant risking their professional future.
The defense’s claim that the whistleblowers were rogue employees brought tears to the next witness, former Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel Ryan Vassar, who found the accusation hurtful.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Mitch Little continued to accuse Vassar and the other whistleblowers of staging a coup against Paxton. Little questioned the justification for going to the FBI without sufficient evidence. Vassar admitted, That’s right. We took no evidence.
The trial’s third day concluded around 7 PM, with the next session set to resume on Friday morning at 9 AM.
