The House prosecutors didn’t call an important witness and had arguments with the defense attorneys about the suspended attorney general being bribed by Nate Paul. They missed out on a big opportunity and had a tough time dealing with the defense. But there were some serious allegations about the attorney general being bribed.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/69ab4f66e38342dab6d55c261e718215/0913%20Paxton%20Trial%20Day%207%20EG%20TT%2009.jpg)
The House impeachment managers, finished presenting their case against Ken Paxton on Wednesday in a very eventful day. One of the main things that happened was the question of whether the attorney general’s partner would testify or not. There was also an attempt to vote for an early verdict but it didn’t work out.
Paxton’s lawyers wanted to question an important part of the prosecution’s case. They said that Nate Paul, who is a friend and supporter of the attorney general, paid to fix up the attorney general’s home in Austin. This is the main focus of the trial.
Paxton’s lawyers wanted to raise questions about an important part of the prosecution’s case. They claimed that Nate Paul who is a friend and donor to the attorney general, paid to renovate the attorney general’s home in Austin.
The House impeachment attorneys were in a hurry on Wednesday. At the beginning of the day, the prosecution had 5 hours and 17 minutes left to present their case, while Paxton’s side had almost twice as much time.Rewritten in easy language for a mature man, using a friendly tone of voice:
The House impeachment lawyers were really rushing on Wednesday. When the day started, the prosecution had about 5 hours and 17 minutes left to present their case, while Paxton’s side had almost double that amount of time.
Around 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, towards the end of the seventh day of the trial, House lawyer Rusty Hardin made a mistake. He announced that the managers would rest, but he realized he spoke too soon. This meant that there couldn’t be any more questioning of the current witness by either side. Paxton defense lawyer Tony Buzbee was okay with this and instead of presenting the defense’s case, he asked for a dismissal of the articles of impeachment due to lack of evidence.
That caused quite a commotion as the jurors understood how important Buzbee’s request was. They gathered privately for around, 45 minutes to think about it.
When they came back, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who was in charge of the trial, said that Paxton’s lawyers decided to take back their requests to stop the trial. He also mentioned that the trial will continue and the defense will bring their own witnesses.In simpler terms: When they came back Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is in charge of the trial said that Paxton’s lawyers changed their minds and decided not to stop the trial. He also said that the trial will keep going and the defense will bring their own witnesses.
Wednesday was a really intense day during the trial. The House impeachment managers wanted to bring in a very important witness named Laura Olson. She is the woman who Paxton is said to have had a relationship with. But unfortunately, they couldn’t have her testify because they needed to give a 24-hour notice beforehand.
Get our biggest scoops and breaking stories, delivered to your inbox
Get our biggest scoops and breaking stories, delivered to your inbox
In the afternoon Olson was supposed to testify but something happened and she left the Capitol without speaking. Patrick mentioned that she couldn’t testify but two people who know about the situation said she planned to use her Fifth Amendment right to not answer any questions.
Olson testimony was a big deal. He was a key person in Paxton’s troubles since 2018 but he had never talked about their relationship before. In
May the House investigative committee tried to remove Paxton from office and they said that hiding the affair was his main reason for helping Paul. The people who came forward as witnesses last week also said the same thing.
Olson was by herself in the Legislative Reference Library patiently waiting for her turn to testify. A reporter at the Capitol mentioned that she had been waiting for hours.”
Wicker’s testimony was really tough for the House on Wednesday. The House impeachment lawyers worked hard to prove the 10th article of impeachment. This article claims that Paul paid to fix up the Paxtons’ home in Austin.Here’s a friendlier version for you, a mature man:
The House had a difficult time with Wicker’s testimony on Wednesday. The lawyers were trying their best to prove the 10th article of impeachment. This article says that Paul paid to renovate the Paxtons’ home in Austin.
Prosecutors couldn’t get in touch with Olson this morning, so they decided to reach out to another important witness named Drew Wicker. Drew is Attorney General Paxton’s personal assistant and is always by his side. He’s so close to the Paxton family that even Senator Angela Paxton considers him like a second son.
Wicker’s testimony posed a significant challenge for the House on Wednesday. The House impeachment lawyers worked tirelessly to establish the validity of the 10th article of impeachment. This article alleges that Paul paid for the renovation of the Paxtons’ Austin home. As a mature man, you may find it interesting to know that the lawyers made great efforts to present their case in a friendly tone.
Wicker testified that he overheard Paxton expressing his desire for granite countertops in the kitchen to the contractor working on the home. In response, the contractor mentioned that he would need to consult with Nate. Wicker understood this to refer to Paul.
But during cross-examination, Buzbee presented two photographs of the Tarrytown home’s kitchen. These photos were taken before the 2020 renovation and last month. Wicker confirmed that the pictures revealed no alterations to the counters cabinets or stove.
“Can we agree, Drew, that your concerns now have been put to bed, at least with regard to the countertops and the cabinetry?” Buzbee asked.
House impeachment manager
House impeachment managers have portrayed the renovation as a quid pro claiming that Paxton instructed his office to assist Paul in investigating his business competitors and the law enforcement officials looking into him. This has been a key focus of their argument.
Renovation Controversy Takes Center Stage: A Friendly PerspectiveSome individuals have portrayed the recent renovation as a part of a quid pro quo arrangement. They claim that Paxton allegedly instructed his office to assist Paul in investigating his business rivals and the police who were investigating him.
But let’s take a step back and consider the facts. It’s important to approach this topic with a friendly tone, especially when addressing a mature man like yourself.
The ongoing renovation has sparked a heated debate, with allegations flying left and right. However, it’s crucial to remember that allegations are just that – allegations. We should strive to maintain an open mind and give everyone involved a fair chance to present their side of the story.
As a mature man, you understand the value of fairness and due process. It’s essential to let the investigation run its course and allow all parties involved to provide their explanations. Rushing to conclusions without all the facts can lead to misunderstandings and unnecessary tensions.
So, let’s keep the conversation friendly and respectful. By doing so, we can ensure that the truth prevails and justice is served.
Buzbee kindly guided the jury through a collection of documents that clearly demonstrated a contractor invoicing the Paxtons, an insurance company approving a claim payment to the Paxtons, and subsequently, the attorney general instructing the trustee of the family’s blind trust to disburse the exact amount of $121,617 to the contractor.
The House’s evidence for this item was mostly circumstantial. Their exhibits had previously highlighted that the construction firm, Cupertino Builders was managed by Raj Kumar a man closely associated with Paul.
House lawyer Erin Epley has put forth the suggestion that Paxton and Paul may have only entertained the idea of installing granite countertops, without actually going through with it. She further suggests that Paxton altered his plans upon learning about the report made against him to law enforcement. Notably, the payment date of Sept. 30, 2020 coincides with the day the whistleblowers reported Paxton to the FBI.
“I guess I’ll end where the defense began,” Epley said, parroting a line from Buzbee. “There are no coincidences in Austin.”
“The trial is set to pick up again at 9 a.m. on Thursday, and we have an exciting first defense witness lined up for you, University of North Carolina professor Michael Gerhardt. He’s not just any witness – he’s an expert on impeachments! Get ready to hear some fascinating insights from him.”
The House is currently facing a disadvantage as it seems to have only two hours of questioning time left, while the defense has approximately four hours. This could potentially create a scenario where witnesses called by Paxton’s team may not be thoroughly cross-examined if House lawyers are not concise. It’s important for the House to be mindful of time and ensure effective questioning to avoid this situation.
After both sides have concluded their witness testimonies, the lawyers will be granted one hour to present compelling rebuttal evidence. Following that, they will have an additional hour for their closing arguments. This allows them to effectively address any remaining concerns and make their final case. Rest assured, this process ensures a fair and comprehensive presentation of the evidence.
In addition to the other drama on Wednesday, the House has put forward a proposal to change the trial rules, aiming to increase the consequences for Paxton. The lawyers representing the chamber have filed a motion requesting that if Paxton is convicted, he should automatically be disqualified from holding any state office again. Currently the decision for “disqualification” is a separate vote that would follow the conviction.
Proposed changes to the trial rules now require a 24-hour notice and a two-thirds vote of the senators. The House has put forth the rule change on Wednesday morning, making it eligible for a vote at the same time on Thursday. This update ensures that all senators have ample time to review and consider the proposed changes before casting their vote.
Paxton’s side strongly opposed the proposed rules change expressing concern that it would involve “modifying 100 years of precedent on the fly. As a mature man, you may appreciate their perspective on this matter.
