(The Center Square) – An attorney at the center of allegations made by the Texas House in impeachment Article 5 levied against suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton disputed the content of the article.
Houston criminal defense attorney Dan Cogdell, representing Paxton, cross examined criminal attorney Brandon Cammack, who refuted allegations about him and Paxton.
Cammack is cited in Article 5, which states: “While holding office as attorney general, Warren Kenneth Paxton misused his official powers by violating the laws governing the appointment of prosecuting attorneys pro tem. Specifically, Paxton engaged Cammack, a licensed attorney, to conduct an investigation into a baseless complaint, during which Cammack issued more than 30 grand jury subpoenas, in an effort to benefit Nate Paul or Paul’s business entities.”
Referring to the allegation that “Paxton misused his official powers by violating the laws governing the appointment of prosecuting attorneys pro tem,” Cogdell asked, “would you agree you were not a prosecuting attorney pro tem?”
“Yes sir,” Cammack replied. A prosecuting attorney pro tem, as defined by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, would fill in for Paxton if he were disqualified to act or absent, which he was not in 2020.
Cogdell read the next line in Article 5, which states, “Paxton engaged Brandon Cammack, a licensed attorney, to conduct an investigation into a baseless complaint,” asking him “you never believed you were part of an investigation into a baseless complaint?”
“No,” Cammack replied.
Cogdell read the last line in Article 5, which states, “During which Cammack issued more than 30 grand jury subpoenas, in an effort to benefit Nate Paul,” and asked, “You would agree that was not your purpose. You were not there to benefit Nate Paul or his business entities?”
“Absolutely not. I didn’t know Nate Paul’s entities,” Cammack replied.
Cogdell also addressed another claim, saying, “if there has been a suggestion made in this court room before these 31 senators that it is somehow wrong or illegal to investigate the legality of a search, that is not your world view, agree with me?”
“I agree with that,” Cammack said.
Investigating the legality of a search warrant is “what is born into a criminal defense attorney, you agree with me?” Cogdell asked.
“That is what we do,” Cammack replied.
“Any criminal defense lawyer … that’s been practicing longer than six weeks has probably challenged the legality of a search warrant, you agree with me?” Cogdell asked.
“Yes sir,” Cammack replied.
“Has probably looked into conduct of law enforcement agents in creation of a search warrant?” he continued; “The execution of a search warrant?”
“That’s right,” Cammack said.
“That’s called Wednesday in our business,” Cogdell said.
“That’s called Wednesday,” Cammack repeated, agreeing with him.
“Would you also agree that we have the choice of challenging the legality of searches but we have an obligation to do it on behalf of our clients, right?” Cogdell asked.
“Right, we’re just on the other side of it,” Cammack replied.
“If we don’t do that on occasion, we can get sued by the client, right?” Cogdell asked.
“That’s right,” Cammack said.
“We can have a grievance filed against us by the client, the state bar or someone else … right?” Cogdell asked.
“That’s right,” Cammack said.
“When you were asked by Ken Paxton to investigate the possibility of an illegal search warrant,” Cogdell asked, Cammack clarified, “It was an investigation into potential violation of the Texas penal code, which is what I’m familiar with doing. It would be in my wheelhouse.”
He also said Paxton’s concern was that this “was a serious accusation and requires serious focus if someone is doing something like that they should be held accountable for it.”
The House General Investigative Committe levied 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton, including allegations of bribery, abuse of public trust, being unfit for office, among others.
One of the allegations in the trial is that because Paxton’s top deputies wouldn’t investigate whether a search warrant had been altered, Paxton hired outside counsel to investigate. Paxton signed a contract with him, which his subordinates argued he couldn’t do and for which the House impeached him.
At no time did Paxton “suggest the investigation was baseless, right?” Cogdell asked Cammack, to which he replied, “No.”
Former OAG deputy Ryan Vassar, who was fired for insubordination and sued, drafted Cammack’s contract and emailed it to Paxton on Sept. 3, 2020, according to an OAG report, which includes a copy of Vassar’s email.
In cross examination of attorney Brandon Cammack, at the center of Article 5 allegations, Houston powerhouse criminal defense attorney Dan Cogdell representing @KenPaxtonTX breaks down how the allegation is false, identifying “three strikes, although you only need one.” pic.twitter.com/PHCE5UpXdW— Bethany Blankley (@BethanyBlankley) September 13, 2023
In a separate cross examination of Paxton’s former chief of staff, Katherine “Missy” Cary, she testified on Sept. 11 that she told Paxton he had the legal authority to sign the contract with Cammack.
Paxton’s lead attorney Tony Buzbee asked her, “Your boss called you because he wanted to legally do the right thing and you provided him advice? He wanted to know how to properly sign an outside contract, didn’t he?
“He wanted line and verse … and called you, ‘Missy, I’m having a disagreement with this Penley fella. He’s refusing to do his job. He’s insubordinate. I need to know under the statutes if I have the legal authority to sign the contract.’
“And you gave him advice didn’t you? And you said, ‘Ken you do.’”
“Correct,” she said.
“Why are we here?” Buzbee turned around and asked members of the jury.
In Tony Buzbee’s cross of @KenPaxtonTX COS Katherine Missy Cary, she testified Paxton had the legal authority to sign a contract with outside counsel, contradicting Jeff Mateer’s testimony and the allegations made in Article 5 for which the House impeached Paxton. pic.twitter.com/zOo8kmKn4Z— Bethany Blankley (@BethanyBlankley) September 13, 2023
