Impeachment: Breitbart News September 6th, 2023

: Published: 06 September 2023

Breitbart News Daily Podcast Ep. 383

In the world of politics, the process of impeachment has always garnered significant attention. On September 6th, 2023, Breitbart News covered the impeachment trial of Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas. This trial, marked by allegations of bribery and abuse of power, has become a buzzworthy topic in both state politics and national media.

Breitbart News September 6th, 2023 with Raven Harrison

Breitbart News Daily

Raven Harrison, a political strategist and former congressional candidate from Texas, joined Breitbart News on September 6th, 2023, to discuss the ongoing impeachment trial of Ken Paxton. The conversation revolved around the accusations against Paxton, the key players involved, and the possible motives behind the impeachment proceedings. Harrison provided valuable insights and analysis, shedding light on the complex dynamics at play in this high-profile trial.

Transcript

Mike Slater: And we saw it. I'm seeing it potentially. Looking forward to see more of the trial. It's just how it's being presented in the media. I see a pattern here of Ken Paxton, the attorney general in Texas, not taking an official stance yet. Got to see the trial. But the media never reports on any of the accusations. Like, that's weird. This Enrique Tario guy, whatever the head of the proud boys, not a single accusation in the paper. Nothing. All these articles, I don't see any accusations. We're going to do a ton of this tomorrow. We'll get to the bottom of what the accusations are. But we see how the media works. We see how they're not to be trusted.
Welcome back to Breitbart News Daily. This Ken Paxton story. Read 10 articles. And none of the articles ever said what why is being impeached. That maybe they'd be vague. Oh, bribery accusations about this real estate guy. And you're like, okay, what? What bribery? But the fact that so many Republicans in Texas were on board with this led me led me to believe that there might actually be something here. There may this may actually be a real impeachable thing.
If Republicans are like, well, man, Ken, come on, man. All right, this is pretty bad. We have to go against even our own party. But it turns out that there's some some genuine interparty arguing battle going on here. So what is what's going on this? What's the latest with this Texas Attorney General case? Raven Harrison is here to explain. Ken Paxton is the Attorney General of Texas. Very right wing pro Trump conservative guy. He was impeached in the state of Texas.
And now today or yesterday and today is his trial. The trial is in front of the Texas State Senate. The Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is the judge. There are 12 House representatives who are overseeing this a majority than Republicans. It's a Republican state. So it's Republicans who are doing this against the Republican Attorney General. The prosecution has lawyers. The defense has lawyers and the jurors are the 31 senators. But not one of them.
One of them is not a juror because one of the state senators is Ken Paxton's wife. So she has recused herself. She is not participating in the festivities. And two, my understanding is two thirds of the state Senate need to convict him. So it's 20. But there are 12 Democrats. So eight of the Republicans need to vote to convict him along with the 12 Democrats in order to have a conviction. So that's all I know. Raven Harrison is here. She's a political strategist, former congressional candidate out of Texas. Raven, how are you?
Raven Harrison: I'm doing great. I'm grateful you're here. Thanks for filling in all the cracks here. So did I say anything incorrect? Anything you want to amend there? The only thing we amended sounded great was that there are 21. They would have to have 21 votes to convict and remove Ken Paxton. So they would need nine Democrats to join the 12. But are already in there and you are correct that Angela Paxton was not able to be considered for this. So she didn't have to recuse herself. She's not able to participate in this because she's married to Ken Paxton.
Mike Slater: Makes sense. Okay.
Raven Harrison: But everything else spot on. Great. Tell me what the, what are the accusations against Ken Paxton, the attorney general?
Raven Harrison: Well, they started out with 16 articles of impeachment and then they amended later. Superceeding, that seems to be a common thing with four more. So they stem from bribery and very technical wording about abuse of trust. So basically misuse of his office and power and influence for personal gain. And it centers around a few key players, one of which being Nate Paul, who was a realtor and a developer, that they are trying to pin the majority of their case to of saying, you know, this guy was peddling influence.
And interesting because it would be a heck of a case the last time impeachment was used, the 106 years ago, in the Texas Senate. So this is really unprecedented of waters. But again, the timing of it seems to stem from, you know, we've got tension among the Republican party, tension with the upcoming election, and a lot of attention on Texas. But there was an incident with Speaker of the House, Dade Phelan, being allegedly intoxicated somewhere around the 16th to 19th of May, that Ken Paxton shortly within that on social media called for Dade Phelan's resignation, due to this incident that was apparently caught on video camera and that all of the House had witnessed.
Shortly after that, he called for Dade Phelan to resign and within 24 hours of his call for resignation, the articles of impeachment were drafted up.
Mike Slater: Wait, what did you say? So who who was drunk?
Raven Harrison: The Speaker of the House, Dade Phenal, was apparently there was an alleged incident with him being on camera intoxicated while at the gavel.
Mike Slater: Okay.
Raven Harrison: And Ken Paxton went on social media and various outlets to call for him to resign.
Mike Slater: Okay, what what first of all, open your car door. I had the video, I pulled the video up of him being drunk. So do you think he was drunk?
Raven Harrison: Well, I saw the video. I have to honestly say, I see politicians who act bizarrely all the time. I'm not really sure. But those who witnessed the video, those in Austin said that it was clear there that he was intoxicated.
Mike Slater: Okay, so if he was, what is the Attorney General Ken Paxton's official role in that?
Raven Harrison: Well, as the top law enforcement officer, I mean, I guess his job would be for accountability and saying, listen, this is, you know, unacceptable behavior. It's the very best unethical and you should resign. And everybody believes that within 24 hours, well, we know that within 24 hours, the rumor started about Ken Paxton being impeached.
So this was forwarded shortly after that. So now we're looking at is a complete division of protocol in the house. Through Memorial Day weekend, this impeachment was by whatever standards you want to give them, rushed through. So they were forced to vote. He had not had his witnesses present. He had not had his attorney present. He did not have a chance to confront his accusers.
All of the things are supposed to go prior to this step being taken. He was just removed. And so what you saw yesterday was the opening arguments of this trial, which has been long awaited, which is probably going to last some of them two to three weeks.
Mike Slater: Oh, wow. Okay. So the suggestion here, I think I got the video of the guy, the Speaker of the House being drunk. Let's see if this is it. Uh, hold on. That's quite then. Oh, this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U8OAIRFP7Q
[Clip Begins]
Dade Phelan: The amendment is the center of the author. Is there objection to the officer amendment? The chair has done the members adopted.
[Clip Ends]
Mike Slater: Okay. All right. So he was probably, he was probably drunk. So you're suggesting you're suggesting whatever. Uh, so you're suggesting that this is some sort of retaliation against the attorney.
Raven Harrison: Well, what I'm saying is that was the, the, the thought that as a predominant thought of Republican's in the beginning, it was not my thought. It was there. I was not there to witness the incident.
Mike Slater: Okay. So all right. Let's, okay. Point one. All right. Let's go to point two. What are the accusations specifically? Who is Nate Paul, Austin real estate developer?
Raven Harrison: Correct. He's a real estate developer. He is a Donator to Ken Paxton's campaign. Doesn't seem like he's his biggest or most profound.
Mike Slater: But $25,000. $25,000 in
Raven Harrison: $25,000. Well, considering, I just want to put in context that Ken Paxton has raised millions. So $25,000 and it was donated in 2018. So it wasn't a recent donation. So this center's around. They're saying bribery, peddling, uh, influence of the office. So the, the case that the impeachment lawyers would have to prove is what did Nate Paul get for what he supposedly donated to the campaign. So the defense arguments went, uh, opening arguments went into, so you're talking about a campaign donation now constitutes bribery than everybody in here is going to be impeached.
So it was a really contentious, but we're looking at bribery. We're looking at, uh, misuse of office and, uh, profiting for personal personal gain off of his influencing office. So that's what the, the majority of the articles that are around, and there are, there are 20 articles of impeachment.
Mike Slater: Geez. Okay. It says the house report claims that Mr. Paxton, attorney general, intervened in a 2019 federal, I believe fraud investigation into Mr. Paul's business, releasing law enforcement records that he hoped would aid his supporters defense. You know what that means?
Raven Harrison: Yes. That is what the actual indictment, one of the articles states, and it was very interesting to see the impeachment lawyers give a kind of summary of the case they were attempting to bring and with the kind of tying cord of nobody's above the law and the defense actually took aim at specific arguments. They said, listen, we're going to prove, we're going to show that he did not copy this record. He didn't have access to these records.
I mean, it was a very, very compelling, um, opening argument by the defense of showing how they believe this to be politically motivated. They even referenced the specific thing where, uh, and I apologize. Also, there was indictment having to do with, um, improper firing of whistleblowers and, um, retaliation against those who came forward against him were articles of impeachment.
Mike Slater: There are four whistleblowers. So what did they blow the whistle on? Was it this, that one thing we were just mentioning?
Raven Harrison: That's what they're saying. What the, uh, impeachment lawyers are saying is these people were Republicans. Uh, they were not, um, Paxton's enemies. They had no reason to come forward with this information unless it was true.
Mike Slater: Okay. That's a compelling argument.
Raven Harrison: And what the defense came back, that's a compelling argument, very compelling argument, but they went through, there was one example they referenced in particular, which was extremely damaging to this narrative, which was saying that the chief of staff at that time, you know, after coming forth, not coming forward to Ken Paxton with his supposed concerns or allegations, took Ken Paxton's name off of official letterhead and sent out correspondence with only his name on it. And the defense made the argument of going, I don't know in any universe, somebody who would keep their job. If you have a grievance against your boss, you first bring it to your, your, your boss.
If your boss doesn't address your grievance, then you take, you know, other steps, but you don't go through the step of removing your boss's name from official letterhead. And then going forward with your name only on it, he goes, he would have been fired and any job in any industry for that behavior. So that does not qualify him. So, as a whistleblower is more of a disgruntled employee. And that was interesting how that was laid out.
Mike Slater: Okay. How about this? The report also claimed that Mr. Paul funded a renovation of Mr. Paxton's home and hired a woman with whom the attorney general was having an extramarital affair. So this, this affair seems to be a center point in it all, which is awkward because his wife is in the Texas Senate too.
Raven Harrison: Well, I guess, depending on if there's merit to it, he'll be off your bit. You're correct. But the defense also took aim at that. They said, listen, this woman applied for a job. She's been doing a job. This woman that I'm talking about is Ms. Olson. As said, she's been doing a job as you would hire and apply for any other job. They also claimed that they're going to provide insurance receipts and documentation from USAA about the fact that the, the, uh, Paxton's paid for those renovations, that there's no tie.
There's no, there's no, no tie. It just, they, the defense strictly said it just didn't happen that they can prove that they paid for their own renovations. They have receipts and documentation from the insurance and home depot and a bunch of other sources.
Mike Slater: Okay. What about this affair? How does this play into it?
Raven Harrison: Well, how this plays into it is if you cannot tie it, they paid for their own home renovations. But what the biggest thing is there's been no tie. Now these are opening arguments. So we still have a ways to go, but there's no conclusive tie right now to Nate Hall and the $25,000 he gave in 2018.
And the repairs that were done on the home and they have a, a, a plethera of witnesses they intend to call to show that, Hey, he, they paid for their own renovations. They have the documentation, the emails and the proof from their insurance company. So that's going to be an interesting one.
Mike Slater: Is he admitting, is he admitting that there was an affair somewhere?
Raven Harrison: He is not. Now that one, that aspect of it, they went nowhere near. They talked about, we can prove that Nate Paul didn't pay for any of the reservation renovation. Interesting thing is they had emails from Nate Paul saying that he was going to, he thought that the attorney general was doing a horrible job, that he was not investigating these grievances he had and that he was going to sue him and so on and so forth.
So the defense went to the, the unprecedented length of saying, Hey, if this guy is bribing, you're doing a horrible job, he threatened to sue him that you're doing a horrible job. You're not a great AG, but that's not typically how it goes when you're bribing somebody.
Mike Slater: I need to cut you off here, Raven. We got one minute. Why, why are so many Republicans on board with this? Cause yesterday there was a vote in the Senate to move the trial forward or not. And more than 23 total senators said to let's move forward with the trial. Why are so many Republicans from the Texas house and the Texas Senate in support of impeachment and moving forward?
Raven Harrison: I think that you're seeing true proof, Mike, of the unit party that everyone talks about, that we are no longer separate, that we have the go along to get along Republicans, that we have a lot of chairs committees that are chaired by Democrat leaders and that there just seems to be no division among, you know, what the parties are fighting for right now, that they all seem to be in bed together. And I think what you're seeing is an establishment Republican standoff against people who are wanting true change and an embrace of conservatives and Republican values.
Mike Slater: Because Ken, Ken Paxton is a pretty right. Like, I don't know what's the right word. He's like a Trump.
Raven Harrison: He's a Republican and a conservative, but he's also a very strong Trump supporter. And a lot of people believe it's tied to his support of Trump, that they're coming after anything and anyone who is supportive of president Trump to remove him for 24.
Mike Slater: Okay. Cause he was, he was one of the attorney generals who did this like election interference, post election lawsuit stuff that maybe people stood in like, wow. All right. Wonderful analysis.
Raven Harrison: And you're the best record of attorney generals against Biden.
Mike Slater: Yes. Raven Harrison, Raven_TXwarrior, Texas warrior, Raven Harrison, follower on Twitter, political strategist, former congressional candidate, Raven. Well done. Thank you, ma'am. I feel informed. I feel like I got it. I understand what's happening. And now I can watch this trial knowing the context and the background as we move forward. Well done, Raven Harrison.

Wrap-up

The impeachment trial of Ken Paxton has garnered significant attention, not only from partisan politicians but also from media outlets like Breitbart News. The allegations of bribery and abuse of power have raised eyebrows and sparked debates within the Republican Party of Texas. The transcripts of the interview between Mike Slater and Raven Harrison provide a glimpse into the viewpoints and arguments surrounding the trial.

As the impeachment trial of Ken Paxton unfolds, it is crucial to stay informed and engaged with the latest developments. Follow reliable news sources and explore multiple perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of the trial's intricacies. Additionally, actively participating in discussions and debates surrounding impeachment helps foster a well-rounded and informed citizenry. Stay tuned to Breitbart News and other reputable outlets to stay abreast of the latest updates in this high-stakes political drama.