Did The Defense Mean To Do This?

This impeachment trial started with Paxton asking the Lege to fund the settlement of the suit filed by the employees he fired.

Under questioning by Paxton lawyer Amy Garza, defense witness Henry de la Garza, human resources director at the attorney general’s office, testified that he recommended firing four Paxton deputies who reported their concerns about Paxton’s behavior to the FBI: Mark Penley, David Maxwell, Blake Brickman and Ryan Vassar. 

De La Garza argued that they were “high-level policymakers” who were exempt from the whistleblower law, which he said applies only to employees hired through the merit-based civil service system. He added that under Texas law, employers can fire non-union employees without cause. 

He said several of the employees violated the agency policy prohibiting insubordination, and he recounted how he had advised in memos that they be terminated. De la Garza denied that the whistleblowers were fired in retaliation for going to law enforcement. 

And De La Garza said that it was First Assistant Brent Webster, not Paxton, who ultimately fired the whistleblowers. Paxton hired Webster after Jeff Mateer, his previous chief deputy, resigned after joining the others who were talking to the FBI. 

Prosecution lawyer Daniel Dutko pointed out that the attorney general’s office had made a similar argument to a Texas appeals court as it considered a lawsuit filed by four of the whistleblowers. The court ruled that the former employees could sue Paxton under the state whistleblower act. 

“So when the senators are deciding whether this is a valid argument or not, they can disregard it, right?” Dutko asked De la Garza.  

“I defer to the Senate to do the right thing,” the human resources director responded.

So the defense is: the Senators should agree with De la Garza over the court of appeals, and at the same time settle the suit the same court of appeals upheld.

I’m not saying the prosecution did a stellar job, but if this is the defense’s third witness at the start of their case, I hope the others went better.

I accepted a promotion in this agency at a very critical time, and I assured myself and I assured my wife if there were ever anything I saw that were illegal or unethical, I would step away,” Kinghorn told Hilton. “I’m still here. I’m proud of the work we do. I’m proud to serve General Paxton. I’m proud to be part of this agency.” 

When Epley took over, she zeroed in on a remark Kinghorn had made to Hilton describing the office as Paxton’s “law firm.” Pressed on that, Kinghorn said the “most important part of my job as a public servant is to faithfully serve my principal and the people of Texas.” 

That prompted Epley to ask Kinghorn who he thought his client was. He replied: “The attorney general.” 

“Would you believe me if I told you that when you work for the office of the attorney general, you are under his authority … but your client is and only ever is the state of Texas?” Epley asked. 

Kinghorn did not answer. Hilton cut off the line of questioning with an objection that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick sustained.

Houston, I think we’ve found the root of the problem.

LATE UPDATE: The defense presented four witnesses, and rested. They did not offer testimony rebutting all 16 articles, and only offered four employees of the AG’s office who pretty clearly thought the sun rises because Paxton is here, and that rainbows come out of his ass. Also he’s a really good guy who never did anything wrong and is being persecuted by the FBI and the Texas Rangers. 

And those fired employees deserved it, even though Paxton settled with them and…well, you know.

Closing arguments on Friday. The only question left is: how much longer do the Senators want to be in Austin?

I’m guessing they’d like a little time at home before coming back for another special session (school finance and vouchers, again. Something to look forward to.)