Office of the Attor­ney Gen­er­al Releas­es Out­side Law Firm’s Report Find­ing No Vio­la­tions of the Law or Agency Procedure

The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) released a comprehensive report that unequivocally refutes incorrect testimony that was heard in the House General Investigating Committee. Based on the inaccuracies, falsehoods, and misstatements provided in that testimony, the Texas House chose to proceed with the illegal impeachment of Attorney General Paxton.

The General Investigating Committee’s politically motivated investigation against Attorney General Paxton is predicated on long-disproven claims grounded in hearsay and gossip. In August of 2021, after nearly a year of diligent investigation into these claims from former employees, the Office of the Attorney General released an exhaustive report that ultimately refuted each of the former employees’ allegations. In that report, the OAG stated it would further investigate the allegations and supplement as necessary. Subsequently, the OAG retained an outside law firm to conduct further investigation into the claims of retaliation by the former employees.

This law firm investigation culminated in a report that documents the OAG’s legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for terminating each of these individuals. This report, along with other clarifying and ultimately exonerating information, could have been readily available to the committee investigators had they merely asked.

Furthermore, an official from the Office of the Attorney General was physically present at a hearing of the House General Investigating Committee on Thursday, May 25. The official offered to testify and sought to inform the House General Investigating Committee about this matter, including by supplying the report, which the official had a physical copy of with him. However, the House General Investigating Committee specifically chose to ignore the official’s offer to testify because they were narrowly focused on advancing an illegal action that would disenfranchise voters who duly elected the Attorney General. They were not interested in the truth. They were interested only in crafting a highly curated, one-sided case to overthrow the will of the voters.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/office-attorney-general-releases-outside-law-firms-report-finding-no-violations-law-or-agency

A Maricopa County judge declined to award sanctions sought by county lawyers against Republican Kari Lake and her legal team after a three-day trial that affirmed Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs' election victory.

Lake, who has been fighting to overturn the results of November’s election for months, lost again on May 22. Lawyers for the county filed a sanction request after the trial, writing that an assertion by Lake’s team that the election was “rigged” was “heinous and profoundly harmful.” They noted that one of Lake's own witnesses disproved her team's contention that the county had not conducted signature verification of ballots.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, however, ruled Friday that Lake's failure to prove her claim by clear and convincing evidence doesn't mean it was "groundless" and "not made in good faith."

"Even if her argument did not prevail, Lake, through her witness, presented facts consistent with and in support of her legal argument," Thompson wrote.

There were rumblings of a revolt against the agreement by House Freedom Caucus members after it was released. They likely couldn’t kill the agreement on their own, but they can make McCarthy’s life miserable depending on how far they take their displeasure.

“No one claiming to be a conservative could justify a YES vote,” Rep. Bob Good tweeted Saturday night.

That view was not unanimous within the group. But GOP Reps. Jim Jordan and Warren Davidson, both Freedom Caucus members, liked what they saw of the deal.

And McCarthy, speaking to reporters, touted that the deal had “historic reductions in spending,” no new taxes, no new government programs and would make reforms to “lift people out of poverty,” referring to the adjusted work requirements.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/28/mccarthy-debt-right-wing-rebellion-00099114

After ruling against Kari Lake in a remanded election trial challenging her gubernatorial loss to Katie Hobbs, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson rejected Maricopa County’s motion for sanctions against Lake on Friday, just three days after their attorneys filed the request. The county’s attorneys asserted that Lake’s team made several false statements to the court. Lake’s attorneys filed a response opposing the request on Thursday.

Thompson laid out the standard for awarding sanctions. He cited A.R.S. § 12-349, which states that sanctions are warranted where a party “brings or defends a claim without substantial justification or primarily for delay or harassment, unreasonably expands or delays the proceeding, or engages in abuse of discovery.” Thompson added, “The statute defines ‘without substantial justification’ as ‘groundless’ and ‘not made in good faith.

Thompson addressed one of the defendants’ claims specifically, but didn’t even bother going over the rest of them, brushing them off in a broad dismissal. The claim he went over was the assertion that “Lake ‘unnecessarily expanded these proceedings’ by intentionally misstating the content of a witness’s testimony in her Rule 60 motion and that she proceeded to trial on a claim she knew lacked factual merit based on her own witness’s statements.” Thompson cited Lake’s accusation that “Maricopa County officials, instead of attempting to cure ballots, systematically pushed mismatched ballots through for tabulation without following the required procedures.”

Thompson disagreed with the defendants’ characterization of the standard for sanctions. He said, “This view mistakenly looks beyond trial to the ultimate resolution of the merits and does not allow for presentation of evidence to prove a disputed claim.”