(The Center Square) – A fourth witness for the prosecution who testified at the impeachment trial of suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton testified that Nate Paul and his attorney, Michael Wynne, didn’t ask him to commit a crime, appearing to contradict the allegations made in impeachment articles 6, 7, 9 and others held in abeyance.
Former Texas Ranger David Maxwell, who led the law enforcement division of the Office of the Attorney General, was fired for insubordination and later sued claiming wrongful termination. His, and others’ unsworn testimonies, were used by the House General Investigating Committee to levy 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton alleging bribery, abuse of public trust, being unfit for office, among others.
In his cross examination of Maxwell, Houston criminal attorney Dan Cogdell referred to transcripts of meetings Maxwell, former OAG staffer Mark Penley, Paul and Wynne, held on July 12, 2020, and August 5, 2020.
Cogdell said, “You say you reviewed the transcripts of the July 12th interview and … the August 5th interview. Show me the language in either interview that they asked you commit a crime.”
“They aren’t in the interviews, they are in the document you are looking at,” Maxwell said, referring to a Power Point presentation provided to the OAG on August 5, 2020. Paul asked the OAG to investigate federal search warrants that were used to search his home and businesses he believed were altered two days after the searches were executed.
Cogdell asked more than once, “show me, Ranger, where in this PowerPoint did Mr. Wynne ask you to commit a crime or Mr. Paul ask you to commit a crime?”
Maxwell said the PowerPoint was created “to guide” the OAG investigation. Cogdell asked again, “where in the transcript, what words did they use to describe to you that they desire a crime to be committed?”
“They obviously did not state they wanted a crime to be committed,” Maxwell said. “What they wanted was an investigation.”
“Your position, Ranger, is two private citizens coming in and asking for an investigation into whether or not search warrants were illegally created is a crime?”
“Following through on the investigation is a crime,” Maxwell said.
“If that’s a crime, I’m going to be on death row,” Cogdell said. “I investigate the legality of search warrants all the time. That’s what I do. What crime is it Ranger for them to ask you to investigate the legality of a search warrant?”
Maxwell said to conduct the investigation would be “obstruction of justice and interfering with a federal investigation.”
“In fact, doesn’t Mr. Wynne say over and over in the transcript he does not want to interfere with a federal investigation, he does not want to obstruct justice? Doesn’t he say that?” Cogdell asked.
“He does,” Maxwell replied.
“The fact that he’s saying he doesn’t want that done you think it’s a crime because?” Cogdell asked. “His actions bely his words,” Maxwell replied. He did not explain what actions he was referring to.
Cogdell pointed out that if Maxwell believed they committed a crime he would have arrested them, which he didn’t. Instead, Maxwell told them, “We are going to look every which way into this,” according to the transcript. Cogdell asked if this was correct, to which Maxwell replied, “That is exactly right.”
Penley also said, “We are going to look into these allegations,” and thanked them for documents they provided, according to the transcript. “Do those words sound like the words of an 18-year experienced federal prosecutor that believes a crime has been committed?” Cogdell asked.
“No,” Maxwell replied.
“Do the words spoken by Mr. Penley suggest in any shape, form or fashion that he believes a crime has been committed?”
“Absolutely not,” Maxwell said.
Toward the end of his questioning, Cogdell asked, “Let me get this straight, Ranger, if the feds break into my house, break the door down, hold my wife at gunpoint, kick my dog, cut off my internet, search my house without a warrant and I want that crime to be investigated you’re telling this jury with a straight face that that’s obstructing justice and interfering with a federal investigation? That’s your position?”
“They did have a search warrant,” Maxwell said. “And they did execute it and it was lawful.”
Maxwell previously testified that he had no intention of investigating if the search warrants were lawful or had been tampered with. His refusal to do so is partially what led to his termination, he alleged in his lawsuit.
“You don’t know if it was lawfully issued or not. You don’t have a clue, do you?” Cogdell asked.
“Have you ever analyzed the search warrant affidavit to see if it establishes probable cause for each of the search warrants that were issued?”
“Ranger, are you smart enough to understand my question and are you smart enough to answer my question?” Cogdell asked.
Maxwell provided a nonresponsive answer.
Throughout Cogdell’s line of questioning, Maxwell repeatedly asked him to repeat his question, appearing not to hear. Maxwell later testified this was a tactic he used to “throw off” Cogdell.
