(C) Texas Tribune This story was originally published by Texas Tribune and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . The Blast: Theories behind Springer’s buyer’s remorse [1] [] Date: 2024-02 The latest bit of Capitol gossip surrounds state Sen. Drew Springer and the motivations behind his letter asking for a second shot at trying Attorney General Ken Paxton. In case you missed the big story, Springer, a Muenster Republican who voted to acquit the attorney general of impeachment charges last year, wrote a letter yesterday to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and his colleagues asking if there is a legal mechanism to reopen the impeachment proceedings. Springer is believed to be one of the Republican senators who was on the fence about whether to convict Paxton of some of the charges. Notably, Springer is retiring after this term, and his acquittal votes could be the last thing his time in the Legislature is remembered for. Specifically, Springer named Article VI as one where Paxton has issued an “admission of guilt” in his recent court filing saying despite Paxton’s claims otherwise. Article VI accused Paxton of violating the Texas Whistleblower Act by retaliating against the whistleblowers. “At this stage, and the point of this letter, I am asking the Senate whether there is a legal mechanism to reopen the impeachment proceedings,” Springer wrote. “Failure to at least consider this possibility runs the risk of AG Paxton making a mockery of the Texas Senate.” It’s pretty plain as day that there is no mechanism to reopen impeachment proceedings, and Springer knows that. If it wasn’t a genuine question, why, then, did Springer write the public letter? “I suspect that, since he’s not running for reelection, he agreed to speak out on behalf of his Senate colleagues who were nervous about being attacked by the political machine,” one source in the government circles said. “He could have just decided, ‘WTF, I’m going to blast Paxton in a public comment,’ but the longer well-written press release suggests something else entirely. I think it will help some of the other senators/leadership by saying that they were duped by Paxton and [Tony] Buzbee.” Another source called this theory a widely-held sentiment within Lege circles. But if senators genuinely feel duped rather than trying to cover their behinds, it makes you wonder — what did senators expect would happen as Paxton’s legal proceedings played out? Did they expect Paxton to be vindicated in the courts as well or did they just feel blindsided by Paxton’s effective admission? With Patrick’s response to Springer likely to simply be “no” as it comes to whether the Senate could pretty please retry Paxton, the next question is what happens when Paxton’s whistleblower case judgment comes out. The Legislature will still be on the hook to pay the whistleblowers, and, because of Paxton’s decision to not contest the facts, taxpayers could be slapped with a high judgment amount well north of $3.3 million. Procedurally, the understanding is that double jeopardy is OK in impeachment proceedings because it’s a political trial. In that case, there’s nothing stopping the House from charging Paxton with a rewritten Article VI — and doing it the right way, satisfying state Rep. John Smithee’s procedural concerns. And if senators are now feeling a bit humiliated after Paxton made a “mockery” of them After last summer’s tug-of-war over whether the impeachment trial should be handled more like a criminal trial or a civil trial, even if the House redrafts Article VI and sends it over, Patrick might dismiss it on the basis of double jeopardy. Only expect the House to revisit impeachment if they get assurances from the House that things will go their way in the Senate. Another possibility is that the “he fooled us” strategy could be an offramp for Republican electeds to throw Paxton under the bus as the legal cases against the attorney general bear fruit. “Donald Trump is never afraid to go under oath and be deposed and tell you he’s innocent,” Springer said this afternoon on the Seeing Red podcast. “Ken Paxton is refusing to do that now.” We’re less than a week away from Paxton’s court-mandated deposition, when he will personally be on the record in court. Things could get interesting real quick. [END] --- [1] Url: https://mailchi.mp/texastribune/the-blast-theories-behind-springers-buyers-remorse Published and (C) by Texas Tribune Content appears here under this condition or license: Used with Permission: https://www.texastribune.org/republishing-guidelines/. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/texastribune/