August 8th, 2023 – A conversation about the Paxton trial with the DMN’s Lauren McGaughy

[00:00:34] Jim Henson: And welcome back to the second reading podcast. I’m jim henson director of the texas politics project at the university of texas at austin We’ve been on hiatus for a month or so Trying to get out of town and or broiling in the heat here in Texas, but I’m happy to be back today with Lauren McGaughy And to have Lauren join us again I was trying to remember the last time you were here, but it’s it was probably it was probably 2019.

Yeah. Yeah Lauren is an investigative reporter for the Dallas Morning News, where she focuses on state politics and policy, and that really doesn’t do justice to the enormous amount of ground that she has covered since coming to Texas in 2014. Most recently, she has returned again. There’s a Godfather 3 joke here that we’ll, we, I’ve already made off, off mic, so we won’t do it again.

But most recently, she’s returned again to covering a story. That she has a lot of background and a lot of history with that is a story of the now suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton and his legal, ethical political travails. Yeah, and it’s a beat that you spent, you have spent a lot of time on. So thanks for coming

[00:01:44] Lauren McGaughy: back, Lauren.

It’s really good to have you back here. Um, I, I don’t know if I’m happy to be here, . I, I’m happy to see

[00:01:49] Jim Henson: you. But well that’s, that’s awful. Nice. You have covered Paxton a lot and broken a lot of big. News on this story over the years. Um, we can back on some of that as we go. I think let’s start with kind of the news of the moment this week.

Um, and that is the latest filings in the case, most of which came from the defense from the Paxton side. But there was an interesting filing by the uh, The prosecution by the house managers that we’ll, we’ll talk about. So this past Saturday, August 5th, and we’re recording, uh, on schedule on Tuesday morning, uh, was the deadline set by the Senate rules, um, for motions to be considered by the quote unquote court.

And I think it’s worth even noting at the outset that the, even the process of that is interesting. So there’s a series of deadlines we’ll talk about, but the filings will be considered first by the Senate Special Committee on Rules and Procedures, uh, for the Court of Impeachment to use its formal title.

Um. And they will report back to the court on on what they think. Now, the status of that report strikes me as a little vague. We’ll get to that, too. So why don’t you tell us a little bit, you know, to start with you, you and your colleague, Phil Jankowski, wrote a good piece of the Dallas Morning News this week covering those, uh, uh, those filings and giving us some subtle interpretation of this, I thought, which we can tease out.

So tell us. So tell us a bit about what we learned about where the case is, the Attorney General’s tactics from those filings. Sure.

[00:03:28] Lauren McGaughy: Yeah, I think at this point, uh, We know a good bit about what Paxton’s defense is shaping up to be, what it’s shaping up to look like, and you’re right, uh, his lawyers have filed a couple dozen, a few dozen different motions, some of them kind of seem like they overlap, like They’ve filed multiple motions on why the articles of impeachment should be thrown out for each motion.

Different, different arguments. There are going

to be tasked with presenting the case for removing Paxton from office. But what we, we can see pretty clearly in Paxton’s motions to dismiss, of which there are many, is that in many cases, he’s not actually. Arguing that what that the actions he’s accused of didn’t happen. Uh, he’s arguing that if they did happen, they were either not illegal, not, uh, there was something wrong with them, and they are definitely not impeachable offenses.

So very, he’s not necessarily saying I did do them, but he’s saying, Hey, look, these things aren’t that serious. Uh, they’re just some of this is in the course of business being an elected official running a huge state agency. And I think one of the most interesting arguments we saw in these filings from over the weekend was about the bribery allegation against him.

So taking a step back 20 articles of impeachment, they cover A whole slew of things, not just this particular relationship he had with Nate Paul, this Austin businessman who’s accused of bribing him, but also his eight year old’s securities fraud cases, and then a handful of kind of quote unquote, you’re a bad guy allegations stuffed in at the end, like, you know, dereliction of duty and that kind of thing, but the bribery motion to dismiss that particular article Phil and I found really interesting because he talks about how, you know, elected officials do a lot of things in the course of a typical day, and that might help some people, it might help a constituent, constituents help elected officials, maybe not intentionally, maybe intentionally, and there was a great line in there that was like, all of these things I’m accused of.

There may be a quid there. There may be a quo there, but there’s no quid pro quo, right? There’s nothing to tie everything together to show that I intentionally asked for something From Nate Paul and he intentionally gave it to me with the understanding that we were swapping favors And so so that was between

[00:06:15] Jim Henson: my constituent service and paleness

[00:06:17] Lauren McGaughy: Exactly.

Yeah, he even says like you’re basically trying to turn a friendship into something dirty and I think that a really strong argument his lawyers made in that filing is they had, they had a line that said something like if this is bribery, then anything that an elected official does in the course of their day could also be considered bribery.

And I think that, personally, I feel like that argument was is directed at the senators themselves. I mean, the jurors that are going to determine whether he’s removed for office are also elected officials who also have constituents asking them for favors and, and their job as an elected official is to serve their constituency, right?

So I think they’re going to make that argument directly these guys at like, Hey, look, we all do this kind of stuff. It’s not Dirty. It’s not bad. It’s just what happens. It’s like really

[00:07:07] Jim Henson: good constituent service. Exactly.

[00:07:10] Lauren McGaughy: You know, I mean, if it happened at all, it’s a

[00:07:12] Jim Henson: little, it’s a little jokey, but, but it is also, I mean, I think you raise a really interesting point.

That was one of the, you know, one of the. The themes of the article, one of the things I really liked about the article, you had a, a quote from, I think, a law professor at UNC maybe. But anyway, you know, there was a line in there that was, that really perfectly captured, I think, what is important, challenging, difficult to understand about that, this process and what also makes it difficult to predict.

And that’s that line that,

you know, this process It’s a hybrid of the two. Right. And, you know, I think one of the things that the point you’re making, which I think is an excellent one, that that argument about The nature of the relationship with Paul and, you know, the accusation that you’re just reading the worst possible, making the worst possible interpretation appeals to the jury really underlines the degree to which, you know, the jury is a bunch of elected officials in what is In its ultimate intention, not a criminal trial, but a political, exactly.

And we say political trial, and it sounds like you’re talking about the Soviet Union or something, but that ultimately is what’s

[00:08:25] Lauren McGaughy: going on. Yeah, we were just talking off. Not

[00:08:27] Jim Henson: that it’s like the Soviet Union, but it’s a political process.

[00:08:30] Lauren McGaughy: We were just talking off. Mike about the Ferguson v. Maddox case, which is kind of the only legal precedent, strong legal precedent we have for impeachment.

And, you know, this is back somebody from the executive branch. Exactly. Back in, you know, 1917 when Paul Ferguson was impeached and that went all the way to the state Supreme Court. He’s questions of whether he could be impeached and when and how and on what charges and in that, um, you know, they, they make it very clear that like, They say something.

But the court said something in there about, uh, you know, this, the crime, the allegation doesn’t have to be in the penal code to be impeachable, you know, this, these are two separate and apart things. But that said, the Senate ultimately has the power to determine what is impeachable and what isn’t. And so they could make it much more of a criminal.

like trial if they wanted to. It’s totally up to their discretion. And that’s that’s kind of where we get to the gray area here is Paxson’s arguing that all these things should be dismissed, that this is a criminal trial, that he hasn’t been given his due process, that none of these allegations are real crimes, if they even happened, if he even did them.

And we’re gonna have to see how the senators feel about that. And he is playing directly to them in their understanding of where the line is between. You know, big, great constituent services and something else.

[00:09:59] Jim Henson: Yeah. Something a little more nefarious. Right. You know, I, I want to, I want to come back to that, to some elements of that point, but, you know, another thing I wanted to ask you, what you thought about that, you know, I kind of picked up in reading those, the latest, the latest big batch of filings.

And there’s, there’s a little bit of this in some of the earlier filings, but it really came up in a couple of the, the more recent batch. And that is. You know, as you say, there’s, there’s not much of contesting of the facts of Paxton’s actions per se. There’s a couple of spots for me a little bit, they edge into that.

But the other thing I thought was very interesting and that I frankly had not thought about much, we were talking, you know, I’m not a lawyer. Sometimes, you know, these things get pointed out to you by lawyers, you go, oh, okay. But, you know, a couple of the, in a couple of those pleadings, or three or four of them really that I can remember offhand.

You know, there’s this kind of thing that the defense attorneys do in the pleadings that say, you know, these guys are really used the wrong language and we’re sloppy in the way that they put some of these charges together. And, you know, I mean, In the same way that, I guess, you know, Paxton is innocent until proven guilty, you know, I want to wait and see what the response of the House managers and their lawyers are.

But I’m wondering what you made

[00:11:22] Lauren McGaughy: of that. That was a really interesting argument for sure. But an example of that is they said, okay, there’s this article of impeachment about These whistleblowers and these whistleblowers went to the FBI and then they got fired and, you know, said they were retaliated against and, and they wrote, they didn’t name these whistleblowers.

So, you know, who are they? We know who they are. We think we know who we come on, we all know who they are, but they didn’t explicitly name them. The article of impeachment is unconstitutionally vague, and they make that argument for several of them, and I thought that was definitely super interesting, um, and something in that, uh, Ferguson v.

Maddox ruling was a little bit, I couldn’t really tell whether they were weighing in on how specific an actual article of impeachment needed to be or just how specific impeachment allegations need to be. But there was a line in there about the nature of impeachment is that it’s kind of general. You know, you’re making a general statement about This guy’s a baddie, or whatever, and he deserves to be out.

And, uh, I wonder if that, in that instance, they were referring to the specific words on the page, or just kind of, you can be impeached for anything. under the sun if the, if the Senate thinks that, you know, it’s fine. So that, that argument about things not being specific enough or them making mistakes, um, you know, little turns of phrase that maybe aren’t quite accurate, uh, they also, Paxton’s lawyers also argue that they’ve misinterpreted state law a few times, that they don’t understand, the House managers don’t understand what the Attorney General does, what the Attorney General is tasked with.

requiring, requiring to do under state law that was specific to the, um, Mitty Foundation arguments of the AG’s office, whether it needs to be defending charitable organizations from being taken advantage of, or if they just need to be kind of overseeing them to make sure that the, the public trust is, you know, strong in those institutions.

And, um, you know, I’m not a lawyer, but reading. The law, uh, it doesn’t seem to say that the A. G. ‘s office has to be on the side of the charitable organization. So that was very interesting. But again, it’s up to the Senate whether they think, well, it doesn’t really matter whether they misinterpreted law or they left out a name.

We still think the allegation itself underlying allegation is concerning enough to take up

[00:14:07] Jim Henson: another one. I thought was interesting. I would add to that list that You know, and again, I haven’t, I haven’t gone, I need to go back and kind of relook at all the various reference points here was their characterization of the attorney general opinion versus the informal opinion that they say he issued, which I thought was another interesting name.

piece of that. And interesting in a way because it, it also intersects this issue of, you know, another, you know, a particular aspect of the jury pool, which is, you know, uh, uh, the position of Senator Hughes and all of this. For

[00:14:48] Lauren McGaughy: sure. Well, now we have Senator Campbell thrown in a bit. Um, you know, if people…

Want to read our Dallas morning news exclusive on that, but

[00:14:58] Jim Henson: we’ll talk a little bit about that Yeah, you guys really kind of elevated that or you know set some more light on the position of Senator Campbell and all this So tell us a little about that. That

[00:15:07] Lauren McGaughy: was I mean just in general People have to remember that these every single one of these senators has some kind of relationship with Pax and good or bad, right?

they’ve they’ve campaigned for him, they’ve campaigned against him, they’re friends of his, you know, they, whatever, right? They’ve served with him, they’ve given his campaign money, they’re whatever. Um, they have been in each other’s weddings, all of that kind of thing. Um, but there’s only, there’s been a few, Concerns raised by, you know, whether it’s Democrats or outside groups or whatever, about a handful of them and, um, Senator Hughes is, is referenced in one of the articles of impeachment.

And then, uh, we reported, geez, was it only last week? Um, uh, that, uh, the this alleged affair that Paxson had with a woman who worked for Nate Paul, that she previously worked for Senator Campbell by, by all, by all measures. She is just someone by the same name that worked for Senator Campbell. Um, there’s been some reporting from the New York Post, uh, about that relationship.

And so, you know, this, this, Employment apparently happened with, with Senator Campbell happened before she worked for Nate Paul, and there’s no indication at this point that Paxson was involved in any way, but you know, I’m sure people are asking, well, if she worked for Nate Paul immediately afterwards, why did she leave Senator Campbell’s office?

If this alleged affair did happen, did that play into it? And should Campbell be a juror in this process if she’s has a direct link to someone mentioned in article impeachment, but we haven’t seen um, Patrick express any concern with any individual senator’s ability to, to, to be a juror. Even before Angela Paxson was forced to recuse herself, he didn’t express partially recuse herself.

Yeah, he didn’t express concern even with her. And so, um, I don’t know the experts we talked to said they don’t, they don’t see any other juror, any other senator being asked to not vote on his removal. But again, anything’s

[00:17:18] Jim Henson: possible. It’s been one of the really fascinating aspects of this to me, the way that, you know, look, one of the things has come up in this conversation already and just to kind of bring it out maybe is that, you know, one element of that hybrid of the political and the legal in this whole thing is that, you know, there’s been no jury constituted.

the defendant like this in the history of, you know, regular judicial proceedings, right? Right. I mean, the entire Senate for a lot of the reasons or most of them for a lot of the reasons that you just talked about would be disqualified from any strictly. legal judicial

[00:18:02] Lauren McGaughy: proceeding as a juror. One of the experts said that expressly to us.

They said in any other situation, if this was a criminal trial in a court in Texas, uh, none of these people would be sitting on the jury. Um, but this isn’t

[00:18:16] Jim Henson: that well, and that’s the thing you have, you know, and I think is, you know, whether you’re sympathetic to Paxton or hostile to Paxton, it’s a kind of thing that you really just have to keep.

In the back of your mind at all times, and I think, you know, for people that, you know, like you, you’ve spent a lot of time as a legislative reporter in that chamber, and it’s kind of hard to imagine what the feel in the room is going to be like, for example, should they be discussing, you know, the The role of Paxton’s alleged affair and the role of Nate Paul in hiring, you know, the, the, the person of interest there as, you know, all of these centers that even with a colleague who is married and who was.

You know, the person that was, you know, that was the wife in all of this, right?

[00:19:13] Lauren McGaughy: I mean, it’s just, and would they call Campbell as a witness? Would they say, did you know, would they, you know, I mean, right. Who knows? Uh, I, I’m for, for people that don’t, haven’t spent so much time in that building, the Senate is known.

As being sometimes frustratingly locked down in terms of oratory and, um, you know, there’s this very strict veneer of collegiality between members, even if they’re having a pretty rough debate on the floor. Dan Patrick has Has tried to maintain a very tight grip on what should and can be said, um, raised voices, that kind of thing.

And so, um, I, I definitely think that’s going to be true for the trial too. He’s, he’s, he’s not going to want things to get out of hand, but, but he’s also faced with these impeachments. Allegations touching on some very sensitive topics, you know, it’s not just business and money and alleged bribes it like you said, it’s personal relationships and marriages and

[00:20:20] Jim Henson: it’s, it seemed to me, you know, and then, you know, and then in another, you know, you know, pivoting from that part, which I think is being the almost irresistible part, particularly you mentioned the post article, particularly for people reporting from out of state.

It’s like, what, his wife’s a senator. You know, it’s, you know, it’s understandably irresistible as a story. I mean, you know, to me, the huge situation is in some ways more awkward, you know, not for the attorney general, but maybe a little, but certainly for the lieutenant governor. For

[00:20:51] Lauren McGaughy: sure. Um, one of the experts we talked to said that the fact that A senator who’s going to be a juror in the case is referenced in an article of impeachment not as a third party, but as someone who’s alleged to have directly helped Paxton do the alleged wrongdoing he’s accused of doing, I mean, as as a fixer of sorts.

Um, the expert couldn’t believe that that person would still be impeached. So, um, Be able to vote. Um, and again, any of this can change at any point. I mean, the Senate has the Senate set the rules that said Angela Paxson can’t vote on removal. So I would think that they they would have to agree again if they’re going to take someone else out of the mix.

But, um, yeah, that was something that That was very difficult to swallow for these impeachment experts. We talked to that. Sure. They all know him They are they’re all gonna have some relationship with a statewide elected official, but some of this stuff is more concerning Right. Well

[00:21:53] Jim Henson: in the underlying, you know, look the institutional politics of this or such that you know in recent sessions You know, Senator Hughes has been one of the lieutenant governor’s most frequent and reliable exponents in pursuing his agenda

[00:22:06] Lauren McGaughy: for sure and and you know The real, the real thing to watch in this whole trial is Dan Patrick.

Dan Patrick is by all accounts the most or one of the most astute political minds in this state. He is incredibly intelligent. He is incredibly good at playing the game in front of the camera, behind the camera. He, he, I mean, I think political observers now, and tell me if I’m wrong, are saying he’s, he is the most powerful lieutenant governor we’ve had since, you know, the ones that, whose names adorn buildings here in Austin.

And he really does loom large. Over this trial, over that chamber, over the Republican majority in that chamber, and over people specifically like Senator Hughes and others, who he’s deputized to be kind of his stars in the Senate, and how much will, how he feels about the allegations against Paxton bleed into you.

I mean, it’s, it’s what everyone’s asking. What does Dan Patrick want, right? He’s not a juror. He’s supposed to be the judge, but he is so incredibly powerful, um, and so astute that we’re all asking ourselves that.

[00:23:28] Jim Henson: Yeah. I mean, I think that’s been one of the key questions all along is, you know, I mean, the operational question is, you know, how does he behave as a, you know, presiding officer slash judge, given all of these cross currents we’ve talked about?

You just raised his position. Um, The views of the senators of him and their history with him. You know, and, and, and I read the rules to give him quite a lot of latitude. Oh,

[00:23:53] Lauren McGaughy: for sure. Yeah. They, yes. Yes. Dan Patrick is, is, you know, and he’s not a lawyer. As far as we know right now, he, neither he nor the Senate have retained.

outside legal counsel. He has lawyers in his office, obviously, but we, we’ve asked them repeatedly, you know, have you brought any impeachment experts on, you know, and they haven’t at this point, to this point, at least. And so, uh, Pat, Patrick and the senators have placed a lot of control over these proceedings in Patrick’s lap.

And so we’re going to have to see how he uses it. Uh, and, and by all accounts publicly, he’s been, he’s, he’s played this very, uh, I mean, very, um, kind of being the parent in the room, you know, being I’m not going to comment on this process. It’s very serious. It’s going to be fair to everyone involved. And I believe in this institution.

And he’s just been very, um, straight backed and and kind of playing this elder statesman like

[00:24:51] Jim Henson: role. You know, it’s interesting. I mean, I think that that that follows from what you were saying a few minutes ago about it. The role he often plays when the Senate is can be is is convened and operating in public of being the stern parent and not, you know, you, you know, you’re raising your voice.

[00:25:14] Lauren McGaughy: Exactly. Yeah. And we saw that happen this past session with Roland Gutierrez, you know, and his upset over gun laws, gun restrictions, not passing in Texas and Patrick really came down on him pretty hard for raising his voice on the floor. And I. I’m sure that if that happens in these proceedings, he might even be even more stern because this hasn’t happened in a million, a hundred years, a hundred plus years.

And he doesn’t want, he doesn’t want it to reflect poorly on him. You know, he’s getting older. He’s already thinking about legacy, uh, his legacy. You can see it in, in everything that he does. And I’m sure that he, he wants to make sure that this is, um, is something that, that

[00:26:02] Jim Henson: Um, and that’s, you know, a piece of something we were talking about before we, we started and that is the, the cost benefit analysis and stark terms that everybody is doing as they consider quote, unquote, the facts of the case, you know, particularly in the Senate, but you know, in the house too, I mean, everybody involved is trying to figure out, You know, how they’re going to balance what is clearly a degree of mobilization on Paxton’s behalf in certain quarters of the Republican Party, and particularly the activist part of the party.

You know, and, you know, our polling has not been helpful on that because what, you know, what we found for anybody, I don’t think, I mean, we found that Democrats views of the justification of the impeachment were pretty predictable. Right. But Republicans were split evenly, right? I mean, we basically, as people listen to the podcast, we’ve talked about it a few times.

But, you know, essentially when we said, do you think the House of Representatives was justified or not justified, 31% of Republicans said justified, 30% said unjustified, 39% said they didn’t know, kind of jury’s out. So. The kind of public opinion support you might look to among Republicans. It’s often reassert that can be reassuring on some issues Say border security, it’s just not present or hasn’t been thus far

[00:27:26] Lauren McGaughy: Well, and you know, most of the Republicans in the house voted for impeachment and we’ve even seen this week or last week Jared Patterson who is by By many accounts, one of the most conservative, uh, you know, right wing members of the House quote tweeted me and, you know, was like, Oh, so first he said he didn’t do it.

And now he said maybe he did it, but it’s, it’s nothing’s wrong with it. Like, what’s up with this guy? That was really surprising to me. You know, this, this isn’t a black and white thing for Republicans. Um, and you know, we see that in the fact that, Abbott’s, uh, you know, statewide elected officials have not been coming vocal publicly to his aid.

You know, he has, he has Donald Trump, which is big for him. And he has Senator Cruz, which is big for him. But, um, people are not willing at this point to expend political capital defending Ken Paxton. And, um, that’s really telling. Yeah. I mean,

[00:28:25] Jim Henson: I think there are a lot of people that have, you know, there are the handful of people that seem to be most active in defending them are people that are.

Have never been or are no longer in office. And the math for them I think is different. It is, yeah. You know, um, you know. Before we go on, you mentioned the house and I don’t want to, you know, I don’t want to like, uh, sell the house short here. Um, did you find anything interesting in the house motions in response?

I mean, I thought the cell phone thing I hadn’t really noticed was kind of interesting. I,

[00:28:58] Lauren McGaughy: I hadn’t noticed that either. Yeah. The, the house managers are arguing that, uh, Apparently Paxton’s team is going to under the current rules would be allowed to use their cell phones during the trial But the house managers and their their side wouldn’t be able to use it So if they caught that dichotomy there that that’s good on them.

We’ll have to see I Be hard. I’d be hard pressed to see why there should be Different rules for different side. Yeah, but other than that We hit we haven’t seen much more from Kind of the quote unquote prosecutorial side on how they plan to present this, uh, later in the month, uh, the sides are going to have to present witness lists.

And I think that might be the clearest window into how deeply the prosecutors decide to get, you know, is, is the alleged mistress going to be on that list? Right. Uh, is Nate Paul going to be on that list? Um, or is this really going to be narrowly focused on these whistleblowers? Um, if they’re, if they keep it narrowly focused, I, I, I would be surprised.

I mean, this, this is, yeah,

[00:30:09] Jim Henson: it doesn’t seem to be what the tactic was. It, it,

[00:30:11] Lauren McGaughy: it doesn’t. And I think people would be asking why didn’t you call this person if they don’t include them on the list. But I think there’s a lot going on behind the scenes probably too that we’re not seeing. Um, so yeah, that’s what I’m waiting for.

Well, that brings

[00:30:28] Jim Henson: me to a question I want to, you know, we’re winding down, but I want to ask you a couple of, you know, You know, reportery questions. So, you know, how much harder has the gag order made it to report this story? And, you know, I’m curious. I’m curious, like how, because, you know, one of the things that was interesting to me, again, on the political side of the defense filings, that huge body of filings was that.

And, and there was a story I think in the Texas Tribune today to this effect that, you know, the language in the filings that are part of the legal process sort of allows the defense to in a way sidestep the gag order by, you know, for lack of, you know, this is a gross generalization by kind of calling bullshit on the house in the filings, but then saying, Hey, no, these are just a legal document.

We’re not. We’re not opining per se, right?

[00:31:24] Lauren McGaughy: Yeah. I mean, I think you’re totally right. Uh, we, we saw Tony Busby, one of Paxson’s lawyers go on Mark Davis’s radio show and just read from the filings, which like you said, it can be pretty bombastically written. Um, and just say, it’s

[00:31:43] Jim Henson: assaultive on the, and insulting to the house.

You

[00:31:45] Lauren McGaughy: know, I’m not violating the gag order cause I’m reading from the legal filings. Um, but you know, um, legal filings are, are filed with those, that kind of language all the time. Um, in fact, the prosecutors in Ken Paxton’s securities fraud case often use very colorful language over the years in those filings.

So I think that’s been a really interesting tactic. We haven’t seen the house managers. Uh, we’ve kind of seen them. Shut down their public communications. We were seeing Andrew Murr, you know, writing op eds And we were getting quotes pretty frequently from from their lawyers and now they’re, well, I can’t talk because of the gag order So yeah, we’ve seen the two sides Interact with that order very very differently and I kind of understand why both of them are doing what they’re doing.

Paxton, Paxton needs to play this out in the court of public opinion as much as humanly possible before he gets to the trial date because if, if behind the scenes he is not pressuring the jurors, um, this is the only way they’re going to feel pressure to vote a certain way is if their constituents continue to hear about this, are upset about it, and right to them, call them, you know, threaten not to give them money.

Um, and they hear that through the grapevine. So I understand why Paxson’s guys are still out there reading pro forma, uh, and why the lawyers want to kind of be very careful. Uh, the lawyers on the other side want to be very careful and make sure they’re not Sticking in Patrick Dan Patrick’s craw because they want to start out with a good relationship with him Yeah, uh from

[00:33:27] Jim Henson: the outset i’m trying to ask this in a way that you can actually answer You know, I mean it I mean what I what I want to say is You know, has it also meant, you know, when I asked about whether it was harder to report?

Does it also mean that people are like not talking to you off the record as much and things like that? Oh, come

[00:33:47] Lauren McGaughy: on, you know, I’m not going to talk about

[00:33:49] Jim Henson: that! Well, I’m not asking like, who’s, yeah, but I mean, I mean, because I, you know, look, I mean, I run in I’ve been out of town a lot, but, you know, even people that I know that are not elected officials or whatever are pretty reticent to talk, even even if it’s confidential, even if you swear it’s off the record.

I mean, it does feel to me like, you know, and I’m not everybody, but that. People are paying attention to the gag order. I think it’s got to make it a

[00:34:16] Lauren McGaughy: little bit harder more So there’s been a chilling effect. Let’s just say and in some way it’s been a little easier to report certain aspects of it because there’s not a press conference every day in which Tony Busby and Dan Cogdell are not only reiterating what they just wrote, but then making all these other statements that we have to report on.

So there’s in some ways less public information out there that we have to deal with, so we have to figure out how to. Work with that. Um, but yeah, there there has people are being careful. I will say people are being careful. Yeah But the gag order is on public Statements of a certain nature, right and I actually think some of them are over interpreting it, you know Patrick was very clear that he’s not saying you can’t talk about her a word about her a word about it Yeah, you just you can’t say anything disparaging.

You can’t share information about you know discovery that the other side might not have or who you’re going to call as witnesses, you know, he just doesn’t want, he doesn’t want this thing to be tried before it’s tried. Um, right. So, um, it’s already, yeah, it’s, it’s happening anyway, but, uh, so,

[00:35:32] Jim Henson: um, so, so we’ll end and, and, um, you know, I want to end by just saying.

Look, you’ve been living with this story for a long time,

[00:35:41] Lauren McGaughy: almost 10 years

[00:35:42] Jim Henson: now. Yeah. And you know, you took a little bit of a break in terms of being on other beats and, but you know, you’ve been close to this for a long time across a couple of different jobs. Does it feel like you’re going to reach a denouement on this?

or are you still in the sense of like, this is just never going to end? I’m just wondering, like, your sense of it as you’re back, as you’re back kind of full time on this, right?

[00:36:03] Lauren McGaughy: I, this is all I do. Um, it’s historic. So, you know, I would expect no less. And he, Paxton’s also our local guy, you know, he’s, he lives in, in North Texas, but, uh, I think so much of it depends on what the.

The trial outcome is, you know, if, if he’s removed, no matter what happens, there’s going to be fallout stories, you know, if he’s removed, how does that affect the elections? You know, uh, are people going to be running on that? Is he going to run for something else? Are they going to bar him from ever holding public office?

Is he going to challenge that in court, um, is if he does or doesn’t get removed, what’s that mean for his wife’s career? She, by all accounts, is the more outgoing, personable of the pair. Um, and she’s already been tied up in some of his troubles, um, because of the alleged affair and this process server. So it’s just things over the years.

Driving the truck the day of the serving. Yeah, and um, but you know, say if he gets removed, does she… Does she, do they ma and pa Ferguson this thing, or does she move on and, and kind of go her own way and say, this is my time to kind of be more independent politically? Um, because she is seen as, as Uh, a rising star having that potential having that potential.

Yeah. So I think for me, um, I try not to think of it as like, where am I in the, in the reporting process of this story? Because they’re going to be around, whether he’s removed from office, whether he wins, um, he’s going to be a force, I think, uh, in it. The election, at least the near term elections, whatever happens, and it’s going to be very impactful for what happens in the elections.

If he wins, how do the other statewide elected officials deal with the fact that they did not come out swinging for him? Right, how does, and how does he, and how does he deal with that? Yeah, and he’s going to be seen as vindicated and is he going to be critical of them for not sticking up for him more strongly?

I mean it, I think it’s going to, it’s, it’s a story that has legs and it could, um, If he remains in politics, this could be a huge boost for him. Uh, and so, I, mental health wise, don’t try to anticipate anything because, um,

[00:38:26] Jim Henson: Yeah, all the signs are,

[00:38:28] Lauren McGaughy: it’s All the, who, all the signs are, who knows? I mean, I really, people are asking me, how do you think, what, what are the, what are the tea leaves saying?

And, and I truly do have no earthly idea how this could go. Which makes it pretty. interesting, um, uh, and makes me feel like I need to stay pretty nimble mentally. So, so as not to burn out on it before the news even happens, you

[00:38:55] Jim Henson: know? Yeah, I mean, and it’s a, you know, it’s, it’s a lot.

[00:38:58] Lauren McGaughy: It, it is a lot

[00:38:59] Jim Henson: going on

[00:39:00] Lauren McGaughy: with this.

And as we, you know, as we’ve even touched on. He’s, he’s also under securities fraud indictment. He’s also being sued by a state bar disciplinary committee for his role in the 2020 election. The whistleblower lawsuit that created these articles of impeachment is pending still, uh, against his agency. And so, you know, there’s four or five things happening in the background too, in addition to the impeach, impeachment that.

We didn’t even talk about it, so,

[00:39:23] Jim Henson: so a lot happening. Yeah. So yeah, yeah. You’re in it for a while. Sure. We’re all in it. We’re all in it. Yeah. You know, well. So, uh, with that, thanks again for coming back, Lauren, and I know you’re busy because there’s a lot of stuff to read and a lot of people to talk to, really appreciate you coming back.

Um, as always, thanks to our excellent production team in the dev studio in the College of Liberal Arts here at UT Austin. If you found us on one of the podcasting Forms, you’ll find some of the data that I mentioned today and any all kinds of other stuff at our website, Texas politics dot u texas.edu.

You will of course find Lauren mc in the Dallas Morning News very frequently of late for reasons we’ve talked about. Uh, thank you for listening and we’ll be back soon with another second reading podcast,

the second reading podcast. is a production of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin.