What Did Ken Paxton Say Under Oath? A Senate Candidate Wants the Records Unsealed — Is America Better Yet?

Two sworn depositions from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have remained largely outside public view for years.

Now his opponent in the race for the U.S. Senate wants Texans to see them before they vote.

On August 26, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico's campaign filed a petition in the 417th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas, asking the court to make Paxton's 2019 and 2022 deposition transcripts public.

The Texas Legislative Reference Library independently lists the filing as Calco Land Development LLC v. Unity Resources LLC, et al., No. 417-04885-2016, and describes Talarico's intervention as an effort to obtain access to Paxton's depositions because the records could contain information important to voters in the 2026 Senate election.

That much is public record.

What the complete transcripts establish is not.

And that distinction matters.

What the depositions are about

The testimony came from a long-running civil dispute involving Unity Resources, an energy company with which Paxton previously had significant connections.

Paxton had served as a lawyer and board member for Unity and invested in the company. The litigation eventually involved Paxton's financial adviser and former business associates and included allegations of securities fraud among the parties.

Paxton himself was not originally a defendant in the civil case. Lawyers for former associates Byron Cook and Joel Hochberg later succeeded in having him designated a "responsible third party," arguing that his involvement made his conduct relevant to the dispute.

Paxton gave one deposition in 2019.

He was deposed again in 2022.

Both became the subject of restrictions on public access.

The underlying civil dispute was ultimately settled in 2023.

What has already been reported

Although the full 2019 transcript is not publicly available through the ordinary court record, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that it had obtained a copy.

According to the Journal's reporting, Paxton acknowledged giving certain Unity-related material to attorney Mitch Little, who was representing another party in litigation against Unity.

That raised questions about whether the material was protected by attorney-client privilege.

Little disputed that characterization, saying there was no conflict and that the records were not privileged. Paxton's campaign called the Journal's account inaccurate.

The Journal also reported that Paxton said he could not remember answers to numerous questions during the 2019 deposition.

Those are reported findings about one transcript.

They are not the same thing as a judicial finding of misconduct or a criminal admission.

The contents of the complete 2022 deposition remain even less clear publicly.

The claim that requires caution

Attorney and commentator Michael Popok, joined by Texas Rep. Nicole Collier, recently discussed the effort to release the records and the possibility that Paxton's testimony contains evidence of criminal conduct.

That possibility deserves investigation.

It should not yet be reported as fact.

Neither Talarico's campaign nor the public has been shown, through the court record now available, that Paxton confessed to a crime in either deposition.

Talarico's filing argues instead that the testimony raises "substantial ethical questions" and that voters have an interest in seeing what Paxton said under oath.

That is the claim the available evidence presently supports.

If the transcripts are released, their actual words can be examined against Texas law, professional-conduct rules and the other evidence in the case.

Until then, saying that Paxton "admitted to crimes" would go beyond what the public record establishes.

Why voters have an interest

This is not simply an argument over an old civil lawsuit.

Paxton and Talarico are competing for a seat in the United States Senate.

The Associated Press reports that Talarico's effort to unseal the documents is part of his campaign's broader focus on Paxton's legal and political history. Paxton's campaign calls the effort politically motivated and an attempt to distract from Talarico's record.

Both political motivations can be considered without answering the central transparency question:

Should sworn testimony by a candidate for the United States Senate remain sealed when the testimony concerns conduct that may bear on his professional ethics and public responsibilities?

Talarico argues that it should not.

Paxton is entitled to contest that request and to dispute allegations about what the testimony means.

Ultimately, the court—not either campaign—will decide whether these particular records become public.

A separate securities case

The Unity litigation should also not be confused with another securities case involving Paxton.

Paxton was indicted in 2015 on felony securities charges arising from allegations that he recruited investors into the technology company Servergy without disclosing that he would be compensated.

Cook and Hochberg were connected to that dispute as well, which is one reason questions concerning the separate criminal case arose during the Unity litigation.

Those charges did not result in a criminal conviction.

That history provides context for the depositions, but it does not prove what either sealed transcript contains.

The larger question is the record itself

There is an unusual feature to this story.

The public controversy does not arise because everyone has read Paxton's testimony and disagrees about what it means.

It arises because voters cannot read the testimony at all.

One transcript dates to 2019.

The other dates to 2022.

The civil dispute has been settled.

It is now 2026, and Paxton is seeking a seat in the United States Senate.

The question before the court is therefore also a question about public accountability:

When sworn testimony involving a public official may bear on that official's conduct, how strong must the justification be to keep it from public inspection?

The court's eventual ruling should help answer that question.

The transcripts themselves may answer several others.

What remains unknown

Is America Better Yet? has not obtained the sealed deposition transcripts.

We therefore cannot independently determine:

• everything Paxton said during either deposition;
• whether any statement constitutes evidence of a crime;
• whether any attorney-client information was improperly disclosed;
• what additional context surrounds the portions previously reported;
• what the 2022 testimony contains; or
• whether the court will grant Talarico's request to open the records.

Those questions remain open.

They should remain labeled as such.

What happens next

The most important next document is not another campaign statement.

It is the court's ruling.

If the judge orders the depositions unsealed, Is America Better Yet? will examine the transcripts themselves and compare the testimony with the pleadings, contemporaneous records, applicable ethics rules and statements made by the people involved.

If they remain sealed, the court's reasoning for keeping them from public view will itself deserve scrutiny.

Either way, the record—not speculation—should determine what comes next.

Sources

• 417th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas — Calco Land Development LLC v. Unity Resources LLC, et al., No. 417-04885-2016; Talarico for Texas intervention seeking access under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a.
• The Texas Tribune, Aug. 26, 2026 — reporting on Talarico's petition, the Unity litigation and the two Paxton depositions.
• Associated Press, Aug. 26, 2026 — reporting on the unsealing request and responses from the campaigns.
• The Wall Street Journal — reporting concerning Paxton's 2019 deposition and the dispute over allegedly privileged Unity records.
• The Texas Tribune, Sept. 15, 2022 — contemporaneous background on Paxton's deposition and the relationship between the Unity litigation and his separate securities case.

Watch Is America Better Yet for updates. Subscribe free to get new reporting by email.

Questions, corrections or records relevant to this reporting may be sent to iaby-general-inbox.bagging303@passmail.com.

Artificial intelligence assists with research organization, source comparison and editing at Is America Better Yet. AI-generated material is not treated as evidence. Material factual claims are checked against the underlying record before publication.

I write for you.

— Roberto

https://www.isamericabetteryet.org

© 2026 Is America Better Yet? All rights reserved.