Changes

In March 2023, the House General Investigating Committee announced an investigation into what it termed secretly at the time to be "Matter A".  There was no justification for the secrecy other than to conceal it from the public that had recently voted Paxton into office by a wide margin.

In March 2023, the House General Investigating Committee announced an investigation into what it termed secretly at the time to be "Matter A".  There was no justification for the secrecy other than to conceal it from the public that had recently voted Paxton into office by a wide margin.

In May 2023, the Committee revealed that the subject of "Matter A" was, in fact, Paxton.  The matter involved a request by Paxton that the Legislature approve payment of a $3.3 million settlement involving four whistleblower staff members that Paxton had called "rogue employees".

In late May 2023, the deceptive Committee released belatedly to the public that the subject of "Matter A" was, in fact, Paxton.  The matter involved a request by Paxton that the Legislature approve payment of a $3.3 million settlement involving four whistleblower staff members that Paxton had called "rogue employees".

On the 24th of that month the Committee heard the results of its investigating attorneys.  Among the allegations was that Paxton used his office to benefit a campaign donor by, among other things, 1) intervening in a lawsuit involving a charitable organization suing the donor for fraud, and then attempting to force the organization to settle for a fraction of the amount requested in the suit, 2) allegedly providing details of a search warrant to identify the people involved in a federal raid on the donor's business, and 3) attempting to interfere in a planned foreclosure on several properties owned by the donor by claiming that such sales were prevented by COVID-19 restrictions against "public gatherings" (while simultaneously chastising local governments for attempts to use COVID-19 as a basis for restricting public gatherings such as church worship services).

On the 24th of that month the Committee heard the results of its investigating attorneys.  Among the allegations was that Paxton used his office to benefit a campaign donor by, among other things, 1) intervening in a lawsuit involving a charitable organization suing the donor for fraud, and then attempting to force the organization to settle for a fraction of the amount requested in the suit, 2) allegedly providing details of a search warrant to identify the people involved in a federal raid on the donor's business, and 3) attempting to interfere in a planned foreclosure on several properties owned by the donor by claiming that such sales were prevented by COVID-19 restrictions against "public gatherings" (while simultaneously chastising local governments for attempts to use COVID-19 as a basis for restricting public gatherings such as church worship services).