Ken Paxton Is Just Not Very Smart

 Ken Paxton plopped a small stone into a big pond this week:

“The impeachment managers clearly have a desire to threaten me with harm when they released this information last week,” he said in a statement. “I'm imploring their local prosecutors in each individual district to investigate the criminal offenses that have been committed.”

What the House impeachment managers did was to release to the public the documents gathered and used during Paxton’s impeachment.

Under a new Texas law, Paxton claims this release amounts to “posting an individual’s personal information such as a home address or telephone number with the intent to cause harm to that individual or their family." (That’s the language in the article, which isn’t necessarily the statutory language.) In short, the AG says he’s been doxxed, and he’s not having it.

The first problem is, the information he’s claiming was improperly released, is already in the public record:

It is not clear which address is in question. Several of Paxton's addresses are available through already-published public records, often found online from any location through local municipalities' appraisal district databases. 

House lawyer Rusty Hardin, who prosecuted Paxton, said Monday that the documents released last week contained the same information that was included in other documents that had already been filed or were admitted into the impeachment trial without objection. 

He also said that the information about Paxton's residence is available through public records, and has been for years. Further, he said the release of documents was not conducted with an intent to cause harm to Paxton as he alleged — it was "simply a repeat of public information to anyone that wants to look into it."

That last comment from Mr. Hardin is crucial. This will be 12 criminal complaints in 12 counties. Criminal prosecution requires a showing of intent.  I assume, arguendo, the language I quoted earlier tracks the statutory language, because that’s what would be needed to cross the line from being a phone directory (ask yer Grandpa! 👴🏻 Punk kids!) (or a public record), to being criminally actionable. But how does Paxton show that intent? That’s the third problem: who’s bringing these criminal complaints to court?

The article is a bit fuzzy, here. It says, twice, that Paxton will “bring” these complaints to the counties of residence of the House managers. Does “bring” mean deliver them to the county attorneys or D.A.’s? (I’ll be honest, I’m not sure who would have jurisdiction.) Because Paxton can’t file them himself: not as a private citizen (which it seems to me he’d have to do), nor as the Attorney General of Texas.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has told Paxton, twice, that the AG doesn’t have any criminal jurisdiction, except to provide resources to local prosecutors if invited to.  I assume Paxton got that message:

"The impeachment managers clearly have a desire to threaten me with harm when they released this information last week,” he said in a statement. “I'm imploring their local prosecutors in each individual district to investigate the criminal offenses that have been committed.”

Not exactly employing what grammarians call the “voice of command.” Because Paxton has no command and, as I say, it seems to me any criminal damage is personal, not peculiar to the office. I think it a peculiar argument to say the AG’s office is injured because the general public knows where the office-holder lives. Any injury accrues to the individual, in that case. 

Paxton the individual can’t direct local Texas prosecutors to do shit.

This confusion extends to the prosecutors themselves:

District attorneys or their representatives in three counties home to impeachment managers — Brazoria, Harris and Tarrant — said they had not received any such complaints as of Monday afternoon from Paxton. 

A spokesperson for the attorney general's office did not immediately respond to an inquiry seeking clarification. Neither did the other district attorney's offices who are home to other impeachment managers.

So it appears Paxton plans to file these criminal complaints as a private citizen (as one does). He might try to swing the weight of his office behind them, but the local prosecutors are free to say: “Nope. Not touching that turkey with a club.” Which I expect they would, as proving intent against an individual for making government documents publicly available is the hornbook example (legal reference, very sharp!) of a stinking pile you’ll end up filling your boots with.*

I think Rusty Hardin deserves the last words on this cluck of an idiotic idea:

If Paxton makes good on his pledge to file the criminal complaints, Hardin said his Houston law firm will consider countering with a criminal complaint against Paxton for making a false report to police. 

"This is the exact kind of bullying, uninformed vengeful act that we predicted if the attorney general was not impeached," Hardin said. "He's trying to misuse the criminal justice system to cower and punish people who sought to impeach him under the law. It's just one more outrageous, vengeful act by a man who has no business being attorney general."

Mr. Hardin is right on both counts.

*Regarding boots and shit 💩:

House impeachment manager Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, said in a statement that Paxton's attack was a form of retaliation against people he deems his enemies. He suggested Paxton should "stop trying to harass legislators" and instead focus on the attorney general's office. 

“Growing up on a ranch, I was taught to keep the manure on the outside of my boots. Mr. Paxton’s baseless threats about filing criminal complaints are horse manure, and they are filling his boots full," he said.

Goddammit, but sometimes I am just so happy to be from Texas.