Sign in Subscribe

Explosive Lawsuit Alleges Witness Tampering in Paxton Impeachment

Shadow Seeker

• 9 min read
Explosive Lawsuit Alleges Witness Tampering in Paxton Impeachment

Two Paxton Defense Lawyers Sue First Assistant AG, Claim "Blackmail Scheme" and Fabricated Sexual Harassment Allegations

In a bombshell federal lawsuit filed today in Austin, two lawyers who successfully defended Attorney General Ken Paxton during his 2023 impeachment trial have accused the state's First Assistant Attorney General of orchestrating a systematic campaign of witness tampering, retaliation, and fabricating sexual harassment allegations to destroy their careers.

The 14-page complaint filed by Stone Hilton PLLC—the firm founded by former Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone and former Chief of General Litigation Christopher Hilton—paints a damning picture of corruption within the Texas Attorney General's office, alleging that First Assistant AG Brent Webster engaged in what they describe as a "conscious blackmail scheme" to punish them for refusing to participate in illegal conduct during the impeachment proceedings.

Witness Tampering and Obstruction During Ken Paxton's Impeachment

The lawsuit provides new details about alleged witness tampering during the 2023 impeachment proceedings. According to the complaint, Webster:

  • Demanded disclosure of confidential attorney-client information from Stone and Hilton, threatening retaliation when they refused
  • Attempted to pressure potential witnesses to flee Texas to avoid subpoenas that would reveal information harmful to Webster
  • Threatened to terminate OAG employees who didn't provide testimony favorable to Paxton's defense
  • Instructed witnesses not to speak with Stone or Hilton without Webster's approval, despite Stone and Hilton being Paxton's official defense counsel

Stone and Hilton say they repeatedly warned Webster that he was "obstructing justice, committing official oppression, and tampering with witnesses," but Webster ignored these warnings.

The complaint also includes a separate report Stone and Hilton filed with the State Bar of Texas detailing numerous alleged violations of professional conduct rules by Webster.

Historical Context: The Broader Paxton Impeachment Corruption

Today's lawsuit adds new evidence to a growing pattern of corruption surrounding Paxton's impeachment trial, which has been marked by allegations of jury tampering and judicial bribery:

The $3 Million Bribery Scandal

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the Paxton impeachment was the revelation that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick—who served as the presiding judge over the trial—received $3 million in donations and forgivable loans from Defend Texas Liberty PAC, the primary group opposing Paxton's impeachment, just weeks before the trial began.

This unprecedented judicial bribery occurred as follows:

  • June 2023: Defend Texas Liberty PAC, led by former state Rep. Jonathan Stickland and funded by oil billionaires Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, gave Patrick a $1 million donation and $2 million forgivable loan.
  • The timing was crucial: This occurred just as the Senate was finalizing trial rules and Patrick was establishing his broad judicial powers over the proceedings.
  • The amount was staggering: $3 million represented Patrick's largest single donor for a politician not up for reelection until 2026 who already had over $16 million in his campaign account.

Defend Texas Liberty's Intimidation Campaign

The same PAC that bribed Patrick also orchestrated a systematic intimidation campaign against potential jurors:

Patrick's Compromised Position

Despite receiving the $3 million bribe, Patrick attempted to deflect criticism by claiming he also received money from "the other side." However, analysis showed this claim was largely false—most of his other major donors were either neutral or actually Paxton supporters, not opponents.

Patrick's defense of the money became even more problematic when it was later revealed that Defend Texas Liberty PAC had hosted white supremacist Nick Fuentes for at least one meeting. Patrick eventually announced he would use the $3 million to purchase Israeli bonds, but only after weeks of defending the payments.

The Trial Rules

Under Patrick's leadership, the Senate established trial rules that gave him unprecedented power compared to previous Texas impeachment proceedings, including the authority to unilaterally rule on motions without input from other senators. This concentration of power in the hands of someone who had just received $3 million from Paxton's primary supporters raised obvious questions about the trial's integrity.

Patrick's Unprecedented Powers Included:

  • Unilateral Motion Control: Unlike normal court proceedings where judges must follow established law, Patrick was given discretionary authority to "rule on each motion, or at his or her option, shall submit the question to a vote." For most pretrial motions, the rules stated "The presiding officer of the court shall rule on each such motion" without requiring any Senate input.
  • Complete Evidence Control: Patrick received final authority over "all questions of evidence, including questions of relevancy, materiality, or repetition of evidence." This meant he could unilaterally decide what evidence senators were allowed to see—essentially controlling the entire factual basis for their decisions.
  • Witness Manipulation: Patrick gained exclusive power to compel witness attendance through subpoenas, hold witnesses in contempt, and control all witness examination procedures. He could determine who testified and under what circumstances.
  • Enforcement Powers: The rules granted Patrick authority to "make all lawful orders, rules and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice" and to employ licensed peace officers for enforcement—powers typically reserved for actual judges with lifetime tenure and ethical constraints.
  • Communication Suppression: Patrick issued sweeping gag orders preventing any discussion of the case merits, controlling all information flow about the trial.

The Corruption Timeline:

  • June 19-30, 2023: Patrick receives $3 million from Defend Texas Liberty PAC
  • June 21, 2023: Senate adopts rules giving Patrick dictatorial powers
  • July 18, 2023: The $3 million payments become public

This concentration of power in the hands of someone who had just received $3 million from Paxton's primary supporters raised obvious questions about the trial's integrity. Patrick essentially functioned as both judge and interested party, with no meaningful oversight or appeal mechanism for his decisions.

The Predetermined Outcome

The Senate ultimately acquitted Paxton on all charges in a largely party-line vote, with Republicans citing insufficient evidence despite testimony from multiple former Paxton aides about his misconduct. The trial's outcome appeared predetermined given the financial incentives and pressures at play.

Broader Implications for Texas Government

This lawsuit represents the latest chapter in what has become a sprawling corruption scandal involving some of Texas's most powerful political figures. The allegations paint a picture of:

  • Systematic witness tampering during a historic impeachment trial
  • Judicial bribery of the presiding officer
  • Ongoing retaliation against those who refused to participate in illegal conduct
  • Abuse of taxpayer resources for personal and political gain

The case raises fundamental questions about the integrity of Texas government and whether anyone will be held accountable for what appears to be one of the most brazen corruption schemes in recent state history.

As this federal lawsuit proceeds, it promises to expose additional details about the corruption that plagued Paxton's impeachment proceedings. With Stone and Hilton demanding a jury trial and seeking punitive damages, the case could result in significant financial penalties for Webster and his co-conspirators.

More importantly, the lawsuit may finally provide the accountability that was absent from the rigged impeachment trial itself. While Paxton was acquitted by senators who had been bribed or intimidated, federal court operates under different rules—ones that don't allow $3 million payments to judges or systematic witness tampering.

The truth about the Paxton impeachment scandal is finally coming to light, and it's even worse than anyone imagined.

The Enterprise

A Criminal Organization Operating Under Color of Law

The evidence revealed in today's lawsuit, combined with the documented events surrounding the Paxton impeachment trial, presents what legal experts would recognize as sufficient grounds for federal investigators to examine potential violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.¹ The federal RICO statute was designed precisely for situations like this—where an alleged criminal enterprise operates through a pattern of racketeering activity.

The Enterprise

The evidence suggests the existence of an enterprise consisting of:

Core Figures:

  • Ken Paxton (Texas Attorney General)
  • Brent Webster (First Assistant Attorney General)
  • Dan Patrick (Lieutenant Governor/Impeachment Trial Presiding Officer)
  • Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks (Billionaire financiers)
  • Jonathan Stickland (Defend Texas Liberty PAC leader)
  • Ralph Molina and Josh Reno (OAG executives)

Associated Entities:

  • Defend Texas Liberty PAC
  • Texas Office of the Attorney General
  • Various coordinated political organizations

Pattern of Racketeering Activity

RICO requires a pattern of at least two predicate crimes within a 10-year period.² The allegations surrounding the Paxton situation could provide grounds to investigate multiple potential federal offenses:

Potential Federal Crimes Warranting Investigation:

  • Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201): The timing of the $3 million contribution to Patrick immediately before he presided over Paxton's impeachment trial raises questions that could warrant federal examination³
  • Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503): Allegations of witness tampering and interference during impeachment proceedings⁴
  • Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241): Coordinated retaliation allegations against Stone and Hilton⁵
  • Mail/Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343): Use of official communications to allegedly spread false information⁶
  • Extortion Under Color of Official Right (18 U.S.C. § 1951): Allegations of threats to obtain compliance⁷

State Crimes (potentially qualifying as RICO predicates):

  • Official Oppression: Abuse of government power for personal gain⁸
  • Tampering with Witnesses: Pressuring testimony and threatening retaliation⁹
  • Theft: Alleged misappropriation of taxpayer funds for personal use¹⁰
  • Perjury: Potentially false statements made under oath during proceedings¹¹

The Alleged Scheme's Structure

Federal investigators could examine whether the network operated through multiple coordinated layers:

Financial Layer: Investigation could determine whether Dunn and Wilks used funding through Defend Texas Liberty PAC to purchase improper influence.

Political Layer: Examination of whether Patrick's judicial decisions were influenced by contributions, and Paxton's role in directing alleged improper activities.

Operational Layer: Investigation of Webster, Molina, and Reno's alleged activities including document fabrication and retaliation against potential witnesses.

Enforcement Layer: Review of whether Stickland and associated PACs engaged in improper intimidation campaigns and pressure operations.

Ongoing Investigative Opportunities

Federal investigators could examine whether criminal activity continues through:

  • Alleged ongoing retaliation against Stone and Hilton
  • Potential misappropriation of taxpayer funds
  • Possible obstruction of investigations
  • Continued operations within the Texas Attorney General's office

Potential Cover-Up Activity

Investigators could examine whether systematic cover-up efforts provide additional grounds for federal charges:

  • Webster's alleged fabrication of harassment allegations
  • Coordinated release of potentially false documents
  • Attempts to suppress evidence when exposed
  • Use of legal proceedings to cement false allegations

Interstate Commerce Requirements

RICO requires that any criminal enterprise affect interstate commerce.¹² This standard could be met through:

  • Federal court proceedings involving the Texas AG office
  • Interstate political fundraising operations
  • National implications of state impeachment proceedings
  • Economic impact on interstate commerce through corrupted legal processes

Why Federal Investigation is Warranted

The interconnected nature of the allegations suggests this may not be isolated misconduct, but rather a coordinated organization that has systematically influenced Texas government operations. RICO's enterprise framework provides federal investigators with tools to examine whether organized corruption requires an organized response.

The pattern of alleged criminal activity spans multiple years, involves numerous potential predicate offenses, and suggests a continuing enterprise that could pose ongoing threats to democratic institutions. Federal investigation could determine whether RICO provides the appropriate framework to address these allegations comprehensively.

Investigative Recommendation

Federal prosecutors should seriously consider opening an investigation to determine whether RICO charges are warranted against this alleged criminal enterprise. The evidence patterns are consistent with cases that have successfully been prosecuted under RICO, and the ongoing nature of the alleged conspiracy suggests immediate investigation may be necessary to prevent further potential corruption.

The Paxton situation presents the type of systematic alleged criminal organization that RICO was designed to investigate. Federal examination could determine whether prosecution is appropriate.

The Paxton corruption scandal represents exactly the type of systematic criminal organization that RICO was designed to combat. It's time to use it.

This is a developing story. Additional details will be added as they become available.

Citations:

  1. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
  2. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) (defining "pattern of racketeering activity")
  3. 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of public officials and witnesses)
  4. 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally)
  5. 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy against rights)
  6. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (Mail fraud and wire fraud)
  7. 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Interference with commerce by threats or violence - Hobbs Act)
  8. Tex. Penal Code § 39.03 (Official oppression)
  9. Tex. Penal Code § 36.05 (Tampering with witness)
  10. Tex. Penal Code § 31.03 (Theft)
  11. Tex. Penal Code § 37.02 (Perjury)
  12. 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (requiring effect on interstate commerce)
  13. 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (Criminal penalties and forfeiture)
  14. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (Civil remedies including treble damages)
  15. 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a) (maximum prison sentence)
  16. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights)
  17. Stone Hilton PLLC v. Webster, Case No. 1:25-cv-00983 (W.D. Tex. filed June 25, 2025)
  18. Texas Senate Resolution No. 35 adopting rules for Paxton impeachment trial, June 21, 2023 (29-page resolution providing unprecedented judicial powers to Lt. Gov. Patrick)

Source Documents:

Sign up to read more confessions.

Enter your email
Subscribe

DISCLAIMER: Texas Scorecard Confessions is NOT affiliated, associated, endorsed by, or in any way connected with Texas Scorecard. The Texas Scorecard website can be found at https://texasscorecard.com/.