AUSTIN – Attorney General Ken Paxton’s staff blindsided him when they publicly attacked him earlier this month, a move he says was made to set the narrative.
The media firestorm began when former First Assistant Jeff Mateer, along with six other aides, accused Paxton of abuse of office and bribery. Mateer, who resigned on Oct. 2, quit right before accusing his former boss of criminal conduct.
However, according to Paxton, Mateer was about to be placed on administrative leave before resigning because of his handling of a complaint made by Austin resident Nate Paul.
Paul, a real estate investor, had his home and offices raided by the FBI last August. More than a year later, he has yet to be charged with any offense.
Following the raids, Paul filed a complaint with the Travis County District Attorney’s Office. The complaint was then referred to the Office of the Attorney General.
Paxton told The Record that the investigation simply sought the answer as to whether warrants had been illegally altered in violation of state law – warrants that were only presented after law enforcement agents finished raiding Paul’s home and offices.
“My own staff attacked me publicly … all I ever asked them to do was find the truth,” Paxton said. “I was about to put Mateer on emergency investigative leave for issues related to this particular incident. I think he found out about it and decided he wanted to leave and set the narrative.”
Mateer wasn’t the only staffer Paxton had placed in the crosshairs.
Paxton also placed on investigative leave David Maxwell, the OAG’s director of law enforcement, and Deputy AG Mark Penley – two individuals mentioned by name in a letter Paul’s attorney sent to Paxton over the weekend.
The letter, authored by Paul's attorney Michael Wynne, states Maxwell, a former Texas Ranger, met with Paul and berated him for bringing the complaint, telling him that he would never believe that law enforcement executed a search without proper authorization no matter what evidence Paul presented.
Paxton says he watched a video of the meeting between Maxwell and Paul.
“It was not a good interview - it was pretty harsh,” he said. “It was clear he (Maxwell) had no interest in doing an investigation.”
According to Wynne's letter, Paul met with Maxwell for a second time and was “regrettably” greeted with the “same hostile attitude.” Paxton and Penley also attended the second meeting.
“It seems like my office did everything possible to stop an investigation of some law enforcement agencies,” Paxton said. “I can only come to the conclusion that there was an effort to cover up the reality of what really happened. This wasn’t supposed to be a complicated investigation.”
The real trouble with Paxton’s employees, however, began after the attorney general appointed outside counsel to review Paul’s complaint, the AG said.
“After all the frustration, it seemed like a good idea to bring in an independent investigator,” Paxton said, adding that after executing the contract he told the investigator to “find the truth no matter which way it falls.”
Afterwards, Paxton says he met with Mateer on Sept. 28 to talk about outside investigator contracts.
“In that meeting Mateer told me I didn’t have the authority to sign contracts,” Paxton said. “I said ‘that makes no sense to me. That cannot be right.”’
Paxton says Mateer proceeded to tell him that he was the one with authority to sign contracts. Paxton then asked Mateer to show him where in the law it states the attorney general does not have authority to sign contracts.
After several requests to produce the law, Mateer finally provided Paxton with a “big stack of papers with policies related to contracts” that he went through when he got home later that night.
“When I read it, I realized what he (Mateer) had been telling me was false,” Paxton said. “Not only do I have the authority to sign contracts, there are certain contracts that only I can sign. It was disturbing to find out that I had been misled.”
Paxton says he was “stunned” and immediately called Mateer, who then told him he would resign if Paxton continued to pursue the contract.
“I was surprised by his comment after giving me false information,” Paxton said. “I don’t know why there’s so much turmoil over this investigation. I’m not impugning every law enforcement agent. We all should be held accountable. We all have to follow the law.”
Despite not wanting to, Paxton says his office dropped the investigation because Travis County closed the file.
“There are some red flags here worth investigating,” he said. “We’re looking at all options. I want to make sure your constitutional rights are protected, no matter who you are.”
Mateer did not return requests for comment.