The impeachment proceedings of Attorney General Ken Paxton have been making headlines for their salacious nature and the involvement of credible witnesses. Despite the absence of hard evidence, the testimonies of these witnesses have raised questions about Paxton's conduct and judgment in his role as Texas Attorney General. In a recent interview on WBAP, political strategist Raven Harrison provided insights into the ongoing impeachment hearings and the significance of the credible witnesses.

WBAP September 11th, 2023 with Raven Harrison

WBAP Afternoon Show

During the WBAP interview, Raven Harrison discussed key moments and developments in the impeachment hearings against Ken Paxton. One crucial aspect that emerged was the involvement of Paxton's former chief of staff, Catherine Missy Kerry, who testified as a witness. Missy Kerry brought up the alleged extramarital affair involving Paxton and a prominent donor, shedding light on the potential misuse of office and funds. Harrison noted that this was the first time tangible evidence was being presented, rather than mere conjecture and hearsay.


  • Chris Merrill: It's been trial it got salacious today as his former was it is his chief of staff as his former chief of staff Catherine Missy Kerry was my Missy was called to the impeachment hearings as a witness and she brought up the extramarital affair the alleged extramarital affair which he says was confirmed. Paxton has never confirmed that alleged extramarital affair. Why is that important because the accusations are that a relationship that Ken Paxton had with the big donor involved not only the donor you know making donations to Ken Paxton but also employing the paramour of the attorney general at the time and keeping things hush hush joining you right now as political strategist Raven Harrison and Raven this is well it's high drama playing out and it's it's certainly not one of those things where we can say although Paxton is trying it it doesn't seem people are gonna get angry with me for saying this but it doesn't seem partisan it's not that is that we have Joe Biden versus Donald Trump here you've got right Paxton versus you know a bunch of Republican leaders from the House and from the Senate here so how well does it work to try to spin this as being a conservative a true conservative versus Rhino that seems to be the the the plan by the defense
  • Raven Harrison: well yeah they've been doing a really interesting job of that because up until this Missy Kerry Catherine Missy Kerry who is the former chief of staff for Ken Paxton until she got on we haven't been hearing the key thing that people have been looking for which is evidence you know they they've taken an entirely different direction with her in so far we're still on the direct examination of of her we have not gotten to the redirect but it has been objection-palooza coming from the defense and it's been very casky because this is the first avenue where they're going over the other it's been we heard something we had a strong feeling he was doing this we had you know premonition somebody somebody somebody said this happened the old telephone game but this is a situation where this woman is saying I directly overheard some woman in a cafe saying something and went back it turned out that woman was Laura Olson but through all the objections it took us about 20 minutes to get there but basically now we're taking this it from a different direction of saying okay did he misuse now we're talking about did we misuse the office were funds used to cover this where whereas before everything has been really conjecture and hearsay so this has been a very different direction and on her saying that that Ken Paxton confirmed this affair to the campaign staff and to the others with Angela Paxton right there in presence and you know how she reacts she cried so that is a very different departure for how from how this has been going to date
  • Chris Merrill: Raymond Harrison is a political strategist the thing is with an affair there's it's it's not illegal it's not something that we would impeach somebody for they would have there have to be something else attached to it right I mean even Bill Clinton it was the lying right
  • Raven Harrison: so well that he used his security detail that now what they're saying is the members of the security team members of the campaign team who were I don't want to say complicit in this but we're a part of having to cover his activities is he supposed to be doing something the Attorney General is doing and instead he's out having an affair on the taxpayers time that's where they're trying to now redirect this because you're right having an affair you know they're you know we're not talking about this is not a moral issue this is whether it's it's legal or he's somehow broken you know his his oath to do that now whether or not he's just a lousy husband really up to to Angela but that's what we are we're getting into the meat of right now on the direct now remember it's gonna be a whole different story when Busby comes up for the the cross examination but right now it's being painted as it was a betrayal of the taxpayers trust that he's been when he was supposed to be doing Attorney General she's not specified what he hasn't actually done it sounds like more than anything her in her her testimony that it just made everybody in the office uncomfortable to know that he was having this affair and that's her words to according to them he's confirmed it so she's speaking as if this is a known fact but again she hasn't as of yet been able to demonstrate how that affected his ability to do his job
  • Chris Merrill: and we should also point out that one of the articles of impeachment would accuse this donor Paul of bribing Paxton by hiring this woman Olson with whom Paxton allegedly was having the affair and that he gave her a job as part of a quid pro quo and I'm using the terms correctly here Raven I want to make sure I get everything right
  • Raven Harrison: you're making it correctly but it's also you have to put that in context so he is she said that she was introduced as a realist realist she was her realtor so everything around Nate Paul is being is real estate so that would kind of jive that she was working in a field that she was authorized or credible to work in so it wouldn't be that out of the the scope that she was hired by a realist a real estate developer somebody who has real estate experience but yeah right now it's still in the very selatious of you know wow you know this is a he had an affair he admitted it you know this just goes into his judgment and his character but she seems to be echoing a sentiment that has not gone well which is we didn't agree with his decision and Buzzby is continually gone he's the attorney general he's the one elected to make those decisions so ultimately if he doesn't agree with your decision that's terrible but it's not against the law and
  • Chris Merrill: it Buzzby as a Paxton's defense attorney I should point out Raven Harrison is our political strategist so Raven as you pointed out there's a lot of well we don't have any documented evidence but here's what we witnessed we don't we didn't see a transfer of funds we didn't see you know an agreement written out or we didn't hear the phone call they said if you hire her I'll do this or whatever it might be right we didn't see any of that stuff but the witnesses that they're bringing forward here generally are pretty pretty I don't want to say unimpeachable because I'm confusing let's say credible witnesses you've got people who are pretty strong in some other very conservative groups as well which is why some of this whole it's the rhinos are out to get them conspiracy theory seems a little bit weak to me but I do think there is strength in saying there is no direct evidence there's no direct evidence there's no direct evidence but at some point enough circumstantial evidence from enough credible individuals certainly has to make people think there's a lot of smoke here for there not to be fire
  • Raven Harrison: well it does but when you have actual lawyers I mean we are talking about the Vassar is a lawyer to other lawyers so he's not just a lawyer he's a lawyer that lawyers go to when they have questions about legality and and illegality and so the issue I'm having is you're right I mean they're raising this over and over but we're hearing a common thread what did you have that was tangible when before you went and made a claim to the FBI saying that this man's the criminal and I'm that's what we're not hearing right now that should really confuse the lawyers it'd be different if it was you or I saying you have a strong suspicion but this is a lawyer he deals in legality and evidence and proof so before you went and and and labeled this man a criminal to the FBI what was your compelling evidence and all we've heard is well somebody said this and we didn't like this guy we didn't think he should choose him and it that's not evidence that's an opinion so what you're trying to just zip down is but yes as far as credibility goes they've got the who's who they've got some really you know having Maxwell form us former ranger that guy was respect when you have the cross-examiner going hey I'm not accusing you of any malfeasance let's just get that out I mean that's a huge show of respect so yes we have credible witnesses many credible witnesses and a lot of circumstantial what we don't have is hard factual evidence which is what we normally deal in when you're talking about the scope of a man's job or his life in his family has huge impact
  • Chris Merrill: yeah I just wonder how this would I love that you Raven brought up you know it isn't you or I because if you were I were on trial it'd be a different situation altogether one we could plead ignorance and a lot of different situations right there's there's there's something to that but I also wonder I mean one of the things that has been discussed numerous times in media mainstream media Fox Newsmax media all this kind of stuff it doesn't matter is that our criminal justice system oftentimes has been tainted a bit by some of our CSI shows or reports on DNA evidence and everyone wants this they want the smoking gun whereas that maybe isn't always necessary sometimes it is a case built on circumstantial evidence so I wonder how much the credibility plus the circumstantial evidence will go to this case to your point though I'm sort of I'm sort of struck with that same notion that I go oh yeah but where is the where is the tie here is was the narrative drawn behind the scenes and the narrative wasn't necessarily accurate so how does Paxton fight that going forward from a political standpoint if he if he is acquitted at the impeachment trial how does he go forward with his career
  • Raven Harrison: it's going to be a tough sell but that's the the gravitas of what we're talking about here when people say the justice system is broken it is broken but again we didn't follow due process to get to this point so this is where you have to be and instead I always tell people whether it's
  • Chris Merrill: in fairness though this isn't this is neither a criminal nor civil trial this is an impeachment right so the due process
  • Raven Harrison: I mean this is he was elected to this job he's now being removed he's having his family his everything under question and I just believe that should rise to a level higher than I heard that somebody paid the repairs on his house and that's what we're hearing from lawyers who deal in evidence who deal in process and procedure all we're hearing so far is that he might be you know a lousy husband and that we didn't agree with every decision but the problem is if he gets to make the 4.2 million people elected him to make those decisions so before you take this man's career in his livelihood you better if it was me I would want more than just you know he heard this I overheard this and I had a good faith belief this is a man's life we're talking about here so the justice system has to be applied equally she's be blind death and I guess for this trial kind of stupid but you know we need to make sure that we we stay on and not trying in public opinion but there's a lot of circumstantial but so I haven't heard a ton of hard evidence and before man's livelihood gets torpedoed we should make sure we have that
  • Chris Merrill: all right bad family member not an impeachable offense gotta have direct evidence elected by the people and so let's see that smoking gun before we before we ruin somebody's life over it and their legacy for that matter that's right all right very good Raven thank you so much always great to talk to you can't wait to check in again on this looking forward to it


The impeachment hearings against Ken Paxton have taken a dramatic turn with the testimony of credible witnesses such as Catherine Missy Kerry. While hard evidence is still lacking, the testimonies have raised concerns about Paxton's ethics and the potential misuse of his office. However, it is crucial to remember that having an affair, in itself, is not an impeachable offense. The focus should be on whether Paxton abused his position and violated his oath of office.

As the impeachment hearings continue, it is important to follow the proceedings closely and examine the evidence presented. It is essential to ensure that the justice system remains fair and impartial throughout this process. Let us hold our elected officials accountable while also demanding transparency and the reliance on concrete evidence in matters of such significance.