The House General Investigating Committee uncovered Bribery, Conspiracy, Abuse of Office, Misappropriation of Public Resources, Obstruction of Justice & more
By State Rep. Andrew S. Murr
Some of my fellow Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives are facing criticism in their home communities after voting to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton. We expected questions from even our own supporters when we took the vote to impeach, but we also understood that we could not ignore our constitutional responsibility to impose this unique – and fully warranted – form of public accountability for a fellow officeholder.
Resolutions condemning Paxton’s impeachment, such as the one passed recently by the officers of the Collin County Republican Party, focus entirely on the process used for impeachment in the House. Curiously, they do not suggest that the House got any of the facts wrong. As the Chairman of the House General Investigating Committee (right,) and the author of the Impeachment Resolution, I am compelled to explain how the House’s actions on this matter in recent months have been squarely within the bounds of the Texas Constitution, state law and the House’s own rules of procedure.
Our committee began investigating Paxton after he requested $3.3 million in taxpayer money to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by four former aides who had sounded the alarm – at great risk to themselves – regarding his alleged wrongdoings.In short, Paxton was making a request for hush money.
He declined multiple opportunities to explain himself and answer questions about the settlement.
Paxton was asked by the House Appropriations Committee to explain why so much money was requested, and he was afforded a standing invitation by the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee – which has direct oversight over his agency – and he declined to explain any facts regarding the whistleblower lawsuit or why the millions of tax dollars were appropriate to settle such a serious case.
Whistleblower acts exist to shine sunlight on misconduct and illegal acts within the government.
Paxton’s request for this money before any meaningful discovery could proceed in the case – and his refusal to explain why taxpayers should provide it – prompted further investigation.
The committee retained a brain trust of seasoned, conservative prosecutors and investigators. For months, using skills honed over more than 100 combined years of prosecutorial experience, they interviewed witnesses, including 15 former high-level employees at the Office of the Attorney General under Paxton – all of whom, with one exception, expressed grave concerns that he would retaliate against them for giving those interviews.
Knowing Paxton’s history, we proceeded conscientiously with respect to witnesses/victims and the information and leads they were able to provide. This was not unlike the work performed in our communities every day by law enforcement and prosecutors to gather information and present their cases to a grand jury for indictment.Much of the alleged misconduct the committee uncovered involved behavior that occurred before the 2022 election. Some have incorrectly suggested that this evidence not be considered in an impeachment trial in the Senate. Legally, there is nothing to preclude its introduction.
In fact, the last two officials to face impeachment (in 1917 and 1975) were convicted for misconduct that occurred during prior terms.
Further, while the voters may have been aware of allegations against Paxton, the facts of the case have never been so thoroughly compiled and publicly aired.
This is in large part due to Paxton’s pattern of delay, distraction and deception.
Further, while the voters may have been aware of allegations against Paxton, the facts of the case have never been so thoroughly compiled and publicly aired.
This is in large part due to Paxton’s pattern of delay, distraction and deception.
Additionally, while some try to expand and redefine the House’s role in impeachment, the Constitution is clear. The Constitution vests the power to impeach in the House, and the power to try the accused officer and render judgments is vested in the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment. The House found that the evidence of abuse of office, criminal acts, and obstruction of justice warranted a trial, and the only venue for having that trial is the Texas Senate, where all sides present arguments, evidence and witnesses.
- READ MORE: Chairman Murr: Here's Why Ken Paxton Had to be Impeached
When the House cast an overwhelming vote to impeach Attorney General Paxton, we fully understood the gravity. In fact, Mr. Paxton must be held accountable for his flagrant abuses of office – and of the public's trust.
Taxpayers expect the state’s chief law enforcement officer to honor the oath we all swore – requiring us to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of this state, so help us God.
For many of us who represent solidly conservative areas, the safest political choice might have been turning our gaze away from Paxton’s corruption. Fortunately, I serve in the Texas House with men and women who put principle above politics and, after reviewing the facts presented by our committee, took the difficult-but-necessary vote to impeach.
The members of the House fulfilled our constitutional responsibility – and adhered to our oaths of office, even when Paxton did not.
Now the members of the Texas Senate should have the opportunity to exercise theirs.
State Rep. Andrew S. Murr is a Republican who represents District 53 in the Texas House of Representatives. He is Chairman of the Texas House General Investigating Committee.
