Paxton attorneys file motion to quash articles of impeachment

(The Center Square) – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attorneys filed a motion on Tuesday to quash the articles of impeachment against him, arguing they violate the state and U.S. constitutions.

The motion asks the state Senate to require the House to amend the articles or prohibit the House managers from prosecuting them. If the Senate doesn’t outright quash the articles, his attorneys asked the Senate to grant a request for a Bill of Particulars.

Paxton’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, issued a statement accompanying the motions stating they were filed. He did so after a motion Paxton’s attorneys filed on Friday was leaked to the media prior to it being published on the Senate impeachment proceedings website. Unlike previous motions, the Senate published Tuesday’s motions on the same day.

“We have filed a Motion to Quash and a Request for Bill of Particulars asking the Texas Senate to order the House to produce information consistent with the law and Senate Rules,” Buzbee said.

The motion to quash states that the articles of impeachment, “which serve as a charging document against the Attorney General are unconstitutionally vague. … the Articles must say what acts the Attorney General took and identify what laws he is alleged to have broken to justify this impeachment. He cannot be impeached on an allegation as content-free as that he – for example – ‘misused his official powers by causing employees of his office to perform services for his benefit and the benefit of others,’” citing Article XVII.

This article is “just a statement that the Attorney General did something, alone or with someone else, to benefit someone, himself or someone else, somehow. The Texas Constitution and United States Constitutions require more,” they argue, citing federal law.

Many of the articles don’t meet this requirement, they argue, which is why they must be amended to meet the constitutional requirement. If the House “cannot do so consistent with this court’s rules, the unconstitutionally vague Articles must be quashed until the House can comply with the Texas and United States Constitutions. Alternatively, this Court should order the House to timely file a bill of particulars that more specifically alleges the wrongful actions the Attorney General is alleged to have taken with respect to each Article.”

A motion to quash “challenges whether a charging instrument on its face gives the accused effective notice of the specific acts he is charged with,” his attorneys argue, citing Texas Appeals Court rulings.

The motion also cites examples of how the articles of impeachment fail to meet basic legal standards. They fail to satisfy constitutional and statutory pleading standards, fail to specify which articles allege criminal offenses, fail to specify the alleged manner or means that converted permissible acts to impeachable offenses, and fail to identify key individuals or actions involved in any alleged misconduct, according to the motion.

Articles VII and XV allege that false or misleading statements were made in a written report, the motion explains, but they don’t specify what the false or misleading statements are.

Article IX and X allege bribery without specifying when the alleged bribe was solicited or accepted, among other specifics required by law to make such a charge.

Article XVI alleges conspiracy but doesn’t identify the intended felony, purported co-conspirators, or overt act, which is why the attorneys argue the article must be quashed.

Articles XVIII, XIX, XX are “hopelessly vague” and “downright formless.” One alleges Paxton acted “contrary to the public interest” by violating one or more of the “Texas Constitution, his oaths of office, statutes, and public policy” by committing “acts described in one or more articles,” without specifying what the violations are.

The article, his attorneys explain, “is little more than a statement that the Attorney General did something that violated some law and was bad in some way: if this is sufficient for a charging instrument, then the constitutional and statutory requirements of specificity and fair notice are meaningless.”

Article XIX accuses Paxton of being unfit for office because of “misconduct, public or private,” which his attorneys argue “could refer to literally anything the Attorney General has ever done that the prosecution conceives of as ‘misconduct.’”

The motion also states that the House should be required to amend the articles in compliance with the Texas and U.S. constitutions or the House managers must be barred from prosecuting them.

“The Articles fail to allege with even a semblance of particularity the manner and means by which Attorney General Paxton committed an impeachable offense, depriving him of the constitutionally required notice sufficient to prepare for his defense,” his attorneys argue.