AUSTIN, Texas — The second whistleblower who went to the FBI about his boss, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, was back on the stand for day 3 of his impeachment trial.
Ryan Bangert, the former deputy first assistant attorney general under Paxton, testified Thursday that the authority of the attorney general's office was "hijacked" in 2020 to serve the interests of Nate Paul.
"It was unconscionable in my view. you were using criminal process had been harnessed to pursue the business enemies of an individual, Nate Paul, who also was under investigation by law enforcement," Bangert testified.
Bangert was referring to the outside attorney Brandon Cammack hired by Paxton to investigate the Mitte Foundation, a non-profit that was suing the Austin real estate developer.
Bangert said he felt pressured to attend a lunch with Paxton and Paul, which he thought was inappropriate because Paul was involved in a lawsuit with the state. Bangert said Paul “laid out grievances” vs. the charity suing Paul’s companies, said the AG did not push back. “That was one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen.”
Bangert said when he saw that subpoenas had been issued in the special counsel's investigation that were "outside the normal process of our office" he realized "there was nothing more I could do."
Bangert resigned in November 2020. By that time, he said, his duties in the attorney general's office had been taken away from him.
Bangert denied defense allegations that the whistleblowers were "staging a coup" when they went to the FBI.
“We were protecting the interest of the state and ultimately, I believe, protecting the interest of the attorney general and signing our professional death warrant at the same time.”
As we saw Wednesday, there was some rising tension between the two high-powered legal teams. As prosecutor Rusty Hardin questioned Bangert, defense attorney Anthony Osso repeatedly objected. Hardin grew increasingly agitated, at one point glaring at Osso in a moment of apparent frustration.
Thursday was the first time we heard from Osso, a native Houstonian who works for the Cogdell Law Firm. Dan Cogdill is also one of Paxton’s defense lawyers.
Tensions ramped up again when Osso cross-examined Bangert. He repeatedly ordered the witness to "answer yes or no" when he questioned him about why he went behind Paxton's back when he "outed him" to the FBI.
Bangert said it wasn't behind Paxton's back. But Osso pressed on.
"Mr. Bangert, I'm asking you 'yes' or 'no' questions," Osso told Bangert. "Did you tell Ken Paxton you were going to the FBI? Yes, or no?"
"I can't answer that question with a yes or no," Bangert said, before Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick instructed him to answer the question.
"We provided him with ample opportunity," Bangert replied.
Osso then pointed to a text message Bangert sent to his colleagues who were making the complaint against Paxton about a memo they had drafted. Bangert told them, "Sounds like we need to beef up the specific allegations."
Bangert explained to Osso that he felt the staffers needed to include additional allegations to "substantiate what had happened."
Third whistleblower gets emotional
The third whistleblower to take the stand was Ryan Vassar. He's one of the four who filed a lawsuit against Paxton that was later settled for $3.3 million.
Vassar got choked up when Hardin asked him how he felt about being referred to by Paxton as "rogue."
"It was hurtful," he replied.
"I worked for the state for eight years as a public servant, as one who values the commitment to public service to set an example for my kids, the people that I worked with, the people that I managed," Vassar said as he wiped away tears. "The statement of being 'rogue' is contrary to the years that I dedicated my life to the state."
Paxton continues to be a no-show for his trial. He hasn't been in the Senate Chamber since the first morning of day 1, but his attorney said he doesn't have to be there.
Day 2 highlights included alleged affair
The most dramatic moment of Wednesday's proceedings came when witness Jeff Mateer, Paxton’s former first assistant attorney general, talked about finding out about Paxton’s mistress and how that affair was part of an arrangement Paxton had with Paul.
“By that time, I had concluded that by that time Mr. Paxton was engaged in conduct that was immoral, unethical and I had good faith belief that it was illegal,” Mateer said.
Mateer told the jury that the affair was the missing piece that finally explained why Paxton had gotten personally involved in court cases involving Paul, an Austin real estate developer.
During this testimony, you could see Texas Senator Angela Paxton, Ken Paxton’s wife, paying attention and not changing her expression much, but she was taking diligent notes. She’s been doing that throughout the entire trial so far. While she’s a member of the jury, she will not be able to vote at the end.
Bangert took the stand next to describe how Paxton was going against the opinion of his staff on the issue of foreclosure lawsuits during the pandemic and pressuring them to go with a decision that would benefit Paul.
“He was acting like a man with a gun to his head,” Bangert testified.
“In what way?” prosecutor Hardin asked.
“Anxious. Desperate,” Bangert said. “Urging me to get this out as quickly as humanly possible.”
Paxton’s team is pushing back by trying to discredit how the whistleblowers perceived Paxton’s actions. The witnesses said Paxton was acting desperate or erratic, but defense attorneys say that was speculation. They also claimed Paul’s political donations to Paxton were so small as to not have a major effect on the attorney general. It’s likely this is going to be a common theme throughout the trial.
Significance of alleged affair
While Paxton can’t be charged for having an extramarital affair, some of the articles of impeachment stem from crimes he’s accused of committing related to his alleged mistress.
That includes Article 9, which is constitutional bribery. Paxton is accused of benefitting from Paul’s decision to hire the woman Paxton was allegedly having an affair with.
Next is Article 19, which accuses Paxton of engaging in private and public misconduct, like an affair, indicating he is unfit for office.
Finally, Article 20 is abuse of public trust. It accuses Paxton of undermining the lawful operation of the Texas government by using his official powers and obstructing justice. It also says he involved the AG’s office in a scandal harming the public’s confidence in the state government.