(The Center Square) – On the 3rd day of the impeachment trial of suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a former deputy legal professional common who was once fired for insubordination, and who later sued claiming wrongful termination, mentioned he and different former staffers had no evidence to strengthen their declare that Paxton allegedly dedicated a crime.
The fees levied within the 20 articles of impeachment introduced via the House General Investigating Committee are in accordance with unsworn statements equipped via 3 witnesses who’ve up to now testified within the impeachment trial, amongst others. They come with fees of bribery, abuse of public agree with, being undeserving for workplace, amongst different allegations. Four articles had been held in abeyance.
On Sept. 30, 2020, previous to being fired or resigning, former OAG staffers filed a grievance with the FBI alleging Paxton will have dedicated a crime involving Austin actual property developer Nate Paul.
On Thursday, one of the fired staffers, former deputy legal professional common for prison suggest Ryan Vassar, testified that he and different staffers had no evidence to strengthen the grievance they filed with the FBI, which is the root for the impeachment articles.
The admission was once made all over pass exam via Mitch Little, a spouse with Scheef & Stone LLP, one of Paxton’s protection legal professionals.
Little requested Vassar questions associated with an FBI grievance he and others made.
“Did you tell the FBI that Attorney General Paxton had legally disclosed confidential material to someone, yes or no?” Little requested.
“I disagree with the phrasing of the question,” Vassar spoke back. “We alleged illegal activity could occur.”
“But you didn’t know that Paxton had disclosed anything to anyone?” Little requested.
“No,” Vassar spoke back.
“You were hoping the FBI would sort it out,” Little endured.
“We had formed a belief in good faith that the attorney general was engaged in illegal activity,” Vassar mentioned.
“But you didn’t know,” Little endured.
“That’s the point, we had no evidence that we could point to but had reasonable conclusions that we could draw,” Vassar spoke back.
“Let me get this straight. You went to the FBI and reported him for potential crimes without any evidence? Do I have that correct?” Little requested.
“We went to the FBI based on our belief that criminal activity had occurred,” Vassar mentioned.
“That was not my question,” Little mentioned.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who’s presiding over the trial, interjected and instructed Vassar, “Please answer the question, yes or no.”
Little repeated the query, pronouncing, “I want to get this straight. You went to the FBI on Sept. 30 with your compatriots and reported the elected attorney general of the state for a crime without any evidence. Yes?”
“That’s right,” Vassar spoke back. “We took no evidence.”
“Did you gain any after that?” Little requested.
“We weren’t collecting any evidence,” Vassar mentioned, “Evidence of what?”
“Evidence of a crime committed by the attorney general elected by 4.3 million people,” Little spoke back.
“I don’t recall,” Vassar spoke back.
“Don’t you think that’s something you should recall?” Little requested.
Little additionally addressed a number of of the fees levied within the articles of impeachment.
Regarding Article 1, Little requested Vassar if he knew anything else in regards to the Mitte Foundation and the state statute cited within the article. Vassar spoke back, “I don’t know anything about it.”
Regarding Article 2 alleging Paxton misused his workplace to learn Nate Paul associated with actual property belongings he allegedly owned, Little requested Vassar, “you don’t know for sure” if the valuables “belonged to Nate Paul, do you?”
Vassar spoke back, “Nothing other than what’s been reported in the media.”
“You don’t know if this article is true, do you?” Little requested.
“No sir, I didn’t write this,” Vassar mentioned.
Regarding Article 4, which alleges Paxton “illegally” acquired information from his personal workplace, Little requested: Paxton “didn’t properly access anything in office?”
“No, not what I’m aware of,” Vassar spoke back.
“He can access whatever file he wants, yes?” Little requested. “True,” Vassar mentioned.
Regarding the Article 5 accusation that Paxton employed an legal professional to learn Nate Paul, Little requested if the legal professional “wasn’t a prosecuting pro tem, was he?” Vassar spoke back, “No.”
Regarding Article 6 allegations associated with Paxton firing workers, Little requested, “Don’t you think Paxton had a right to be upset with you for reporting him to FBI with no evidence?”
“I suppose he’s entitled to whatever feelings he may have felt at the time,” Vassar mentioned.
In reaction to allegations that Paxton approved a bribe to renovate his house in Article 10, Vassar mentioned, “I don’t know the elements of bribery. I am not a criminal lawyer.”
“Do you know who paid for the Paxton kitchen renovations?” Little requested. “No,” Vassar spoke back. “I have no direct knowledge.” In reaction to questions in regards to the allegations, he mentioned, “I think it was [about] redoing the kitchen counter tops.”
In June, Tony Buzbee, lead legal professional for Paxton, held a news convention appearing footage of receipts and insurance coverage claims for Paxton’s kitchen renovations. The Center Square additionally acquired copies of receipts on the time, which display that Paxton paid for the renovations.
“Did you see any documents exchanged with FBI” to strengthen a bribery allegation, Little requested.
“No,” Vassar mentioned, including that he and the opposite staffers “didn’t provide any documents to FBI.”
[/gpt3]