In the concluding era of President Joe Biden’s administration, the Justice Department made a quiet decision to not pursue charges against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, thereby halting a federal investigation that loomed over his political life. This probe, sparked by accusations from within Paxton’s own team, alleged that he had misused his office to benefit a political donor.
The decision, which remained unannounced until recently, put an end to an inquiry spearheaded by the public integrity section in Washington. This section had assumed control nearly two years prior, relieving Texas-based federal investigators who initially believed there was enough evidence to charge Paxton.
Two anonymous sources disclosed that the choice to forgo prosecution was reached in the waning days of Biden’s term. The outcome was driven by a senior career official’s concerns over securing a conviction, avoiding involvement from politically appointed leaders in these sensitive matters.
Dan Cogdell, one of Paxton’s attorneys, mentioned having received no official word from the Department of Justice, yet expressed skepticism about the feasibility of the case. Paxton reacted on social media, dismissing the investigation as a “bogus witch hunt,” borrowing a phrase often used by Donald Trump when addressing his own legal battles.
The Justice Department remained silent on the matter. As Paxton eyes a Senate run against Republican Sen. John Cornyn, his political resilience continues despite various legal challenges, including securities fraud charges and a Texas state bar probe linked to his actions during the 2020 presidential election.
While the federal investigation was a critical obstacle for Paxton, his legal troubles have seen mixed outcomes, with a historic impeachment ending in acquittal and an agreement to pay restitution to resolve criminal securities charges. The impeachment was instigated by allegations from his aides claiming wrongdoing on Paxton’s part, specifically favoring Nate Paul, a donor entangled in bribery accusations and litigation involving false bank statements.
Critics, including attorneys for the whistleblowers, criticized the decision to drop the charges, alleging political cowardice. They underscored their clients’ integrity in revealing Paxton’s purported criminal actions.
The Justice Department’s removal of west Texas prosecutors in charge of the case remains unexplained, despite demands for recusal from Paxton’s defense. Paxton strategically avoided whistleblower lawsuits to prevent potentially incriminating depositions.
As a staunch Trump advocate, Paxton’s political allegiance remains firm, reflected in his courtroom support during Trump’s legal struggles and his appearances at pro-Trump rallies. The still-lingering legal and moral questions were evidenced by scrutiny over the whistleblower fallout, marked by grand jury probes and inquiries surrounding Paxton’s office practices and personal conduct.
Despite opaque grand jury deliberations and evolving directions in this case, Paxton denounced the impeachment as a politically charged maneuver, while former advisers detailed questionable dealings involving his donor, further complicating an already contentious narrative.