Lawyer alleges Paxton hired him to target foes, then abandoned him.
AUSTIN, Texas — Personal Injury Lawyer Testifies: Duped by Attorney General
A personal injury lawyer hired by Ken Paxton to investigate crimes that wealthy political donor Nate Paul alleged testified before the Senate on Tuesday that he was duped by the now-impeached attorney general.
Brandon Cammack, a 34-year-old Houston defense attorney, revealed at Paxton’s impeachment trial that he believed he had been hired by Paxton as an employee of the attorney general’s office in 2020. However, he was abandoned by Paxton after federal investigators intervened in a wild subpoena spree that Cammack had waged with Paxton’s blessing.
Unforeseen Consequences
“I had a whole entire life before all of this. … I had clients,” Cammack said. “I didn’t ask for any of this. You guys reached out to me to do a job, and now you’re pulling the rug out from under me. I’m getting cease and desist letters. Now my name’s being thrown through the mud in the media.”
Cammack’s journey began when he received a call on Aug. 22, 2020, from Michael Wynne, the attorney for real estate developer Nate Paul. Wynne recommended Cammack to Paxton for an undisclosed matter, leading to a conversation between Cammack and Paxton the following day. Paxton expressed his desire to hire someone for a “criminal investigation,” and they scheduled a meeting at Paxton’s government office in Austin.
During the meeting, Paxton explained that he was searching for an outside lawyer because his own staff refused to work on the case. Cammack was among several people being interviewed for the position. Paxton sent Cammack a contract in early September, solidifying his belief that he had secured the job. Cammack agreed to work for $300 per hour.
However, it was only after receiving the contract that Cammack discovered Paul was under FBI investigation and had filed a complaint against the federal magistrate who signed a search warrant for Paul’s property.
An Energetic Encounter
Cammack met with Paul at his office in Austin, where Paul passionately shared his side of the story and showed Cammack the search warrant. Cammack found Paul’s claims convincing and relayed the information to Paxton during their meeting later that day.
“I was fired up about the opportunity,” Cammack said. “I was excited to be working on a project with the attorney general’s office.”
Despite his excitement, Cammack admitted feeling confused about why Paxton’s senior aides were not handling the case. Paxton explained that he couldn’t get his office staff to work on it. Cammack also expressed concerns about his existing workload, but Paxton assured him it would be simple.
As the investigation progressed, Cammack reported developments to Paxton and proposed issuing grand jury subpoenas to gather more information about the warrant. Paxton approved the move, and Cammack sent out nearly 40 subpoenas. However, this triggered a complaint to federal officials from one recipient, leading to unexpected consequences.
A Shocking Turn of Events
Cammack was reassured by Paxton throughout the process, believing that everything was going well. However, his confidence was shattered when two U.S. Marshal’s Office federal agents showed up at his Houston office to inquire about his work with Paxton.
Confused and seeking answers, Cammack returned to Austin to meet with Paul, Wynne, and Paxton. Instead of finding clarity, he was fired on the spot and informed that he would not be paid for his weeks spent investigating and issuing subpoenas.
“Are you saying that these guys took you over to a Starbucks outside the office, terminated your contract, told you you weren’t going to get paid, and then drove off?” asked House prosecution attorney Rusty Hardin.
“That’s what it looked like,” said Cammack.
Paxton now faces 16 articles of impeachment for alleged white-collar crimes. The Senate is expected to make a decision on the charges later this week after hearing from eight witnesses.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...