In the ongoing impeachment trial of Ken Paxton, the prosecution providing no evidence has become a central point of contention. On WBAP's September 8th, 2023 episode, political strategist Raven Harrison provides insights into the trial proceedings and highlights the moments that highlight the absence of substantial evidence.

WBAP September 8th, 2023 with Raven Harrison

WBAP Afternoon Show

Raven Harrison, a well-informed political strategist, appeared on WBAP to discuss the impeachment trial of Ken Paxton in Texas. Harrison emphasized the lack of concrete evidence and referred to the trial as a political intrigue rather than a serious legal proceeding. The trial was described as a "clown show" and a potential witch hunt.

During the episode, several key moments from the trial were highlighted to underscore the absence of evidence. The first assistant Attorney General was questioned regarding the lack of evidence he presented to the FBI. His response revealed that he interpreted the question to be about documentary evidence handed over at the meeting, rather than tangible proof of the allegations. This exchange exemplifies the confusion around the definition of evidence within the trial.

Rusty Hardin, one of the prosecutors in the trial, challenged the definition of evidence in terms of law enforcement and the search for truth. The defense objected to the question, but Hardin persisted to clarify the prosecutor's understanding of evidence. The exchange shed light on the prosecutors' questionable grasp of the concept.


  • Brad Skaggs: Let's start with the is it a clown show is it a It's a it's a it's it's political intrigue. It could be a witch hunt It could be a lot of things. We're just not really sure the impeachment of Ken Paxton here in the Great state of Texas continues. There have been a few bumps in the road But as usual we have our very own Raven Harrison on the line right now political strategist and Knower of all things quite frankly. Hey Raven. How are you?
  • Raven Harrison: I'm doing great. We're gonna call up the soap opera as the stomach turns,
  • Brad Skaggs: right? I mean, it's I was thinking about you today when I recorded this little piece of audio from the From the trial because it has to do with the evidence the first assistant AG Getting up there and say he didn't have any evidence anyway. So here is the prosecutor up there Kind of read I guess redirect and play it you tell me what it is Here we go
  • [Clip Begins]
  • Prosecutor: now when you answered the question you recall answering the question is you had no evidence that you took to the FBI In that meeting correct you recall that answer.
  • Assistant AG: Yes sir I do.
  • Prosecutor: Well, tell me Tell me what you mean by that answer when you say you took no evidence
  • Assistant AG: Well, the way that I interpreted opposing counsel's question was documents Documentary evidence of what we took to the meeting with the FBI took for law enforcement After this position you might want to say thank God, but you're not a trial lawyer. Are you?
  • Assistant AG: Yes, sir
  • Rusty Hardin: Do you have any idea how evidence is defined in terms of law enforcement or people? Wanting to find out what happened in a situation
  • Defense: objection your honor calls for speculation
  • Rusty Hardin: We'll be asking his argument. Does he have any idea? That's all I'm asking
  • Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: Sustained rephrase.
  • Rusty Hardin: All right in this particular situation. Did you take your body?
  • Assistant AG: Yes, sir
  • Rusty Hardin: Did you take your voice?
  • Assistant AG: Yes, sir.
  • Rusty Hardin: Did you take your brain?
  • Assistant AG: Yes, sir.
  • Rusty Hardin: Did you take your experience?
  • Assistant AG: Yes, sir.
  • Rusty Hardin: Did you take your knowledge of the last nine months?
  • Assistant AG: Yes, sir.
  • Rusty Hardin: Did you take what things you personally knew of? In addition to going with people who may have known other things
  • Assistant AG: Absolutely
  • [Clip Ends]
  • Brad Skaggs: there you go. That's what they're now defining As evidence that's it. I mean, I thought that was our fed Yeah, it's it really was one of those moments where it depends on what your definition of the word is is
  • Raven Harrison: Is is? Yes, it was that was a redirect that was them desperately trying to salvage Because it was a really interesting layout of they had, you know Banger on the on the stand then they put Vassar on the stand and they're going down the line right now They had former ranger Dick Durbin on but this guy in particular is he's an attorney for attorneys So for context when attorneys have questions and there are things in the AG's office This is the guy they go to and it's like did you have evidence? No, you know had a good faith belief But the best was the layout of is Ken Paxton. Is he a harsh guy or is he gentle because he's gentle is he kind? Yes, has he been for five years? Yes. Have you ever raised his temper? No And go through this litany. Did you have his cell phone number? Yes, you didn't did you feel like you need to call him? And he goes no, I don't owe him anything and then he said why do you why did you do this? Why did you sue him? He goes because I need the money I have to provide for my family and I'm just thinking oh my goodness
  • Brad Skaggs: Wow it's again it for those of For those in the population who are concerned with this it It is so difficult for I think and at least it was for me to understand exactly what they're trying to say He did because it sounds like well, you know, he used his position because and to help somebody but there's no I mean It just it sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook
  • Raven Harrison: It is because what they're basically doing is they're playing two sides of the fence They're saying you know This was a good faith because it is against the law to knowingly make a false report or a claim So they are trying to justify how That you you felt so egregious in what he was doing that it compelled you to go to the FBI without talking to him You went the FBI you went to the governor's office, but you didn't tell him and now what you're saying is we had absolutely no evidence None they're showing them paper after paper. It's it's Uncut and these are lawyers Brad. These aren't we're not talking about we just pick somebody off the street Hey, what do you think about these are lawyers,
  • Brad Skaggs: but he but he took his body and his brain and his experience and and honestly I was looking into the you know, like Rusty Hardin I guess is the is one of the prosecutors, right?
  • Raven Harrison: Yes,
  • Brad Skaggs: I think yeah, and he's got he's the one that we were listening to I think In that interchange he's got quite the quite the career. He was he represented Arthur Anderson in the Enron thing Warren moon Wade Boggs The the the yes most recently the Tyler Skaggs no relation mainly because it spelled it back when the the picture Od'd I think in a in a motel room and so he's got quite the quite the track record
  • Raven Harrison: He does but you definitely I see an energy Disparity and what's going on with that and the one that they are you know, they're interviewing that they had on the stand was the one who? Who represented David Koresh?
  • In the branch Davidians for that whole Waco debacle that happened, you know I think almost 20 years ago But the issue is just the fact that right now it's so balanced what you're hearing is actual lawyers Lawyers employed by the state who are saying, you know, we didn't have a strap of evidence He's the third person to get on the stand We haven't heard it from Dick Durbin yet But we the third person to get on the stand and say that where did you hear this?
  • What was your evidence? What compelled you to feel that Ken Paxton had broken the law and he said I heard from somebody else Somebody, you know one of the other people that was on the stand I honestly and my mind is blown by this you guys are attorneys, you know what evidence is and You're saying you heard that their house repairs were made by this person and you went to the FBI That just seemed like a great step a to step B You know Brad hurt my feelings so this afternoon. I'm gonna be calling the FBI and say he's a criminal I just I honestly can't believe what I'm hearing in terms of the prosecution trying to make this case of Just going you know and them giving their answers.
  • They're giving why was his name removed from the letterhead? What do you mean? Why would they remove from the letterhead? He's the AG Well, we have lots of versions of the lever letterhead and when you get to the point I will highlight yesterday of saying whenever you hear the attorney say would you like to consult? With a criminal attorney before you answer And he just said no kind of very cocky and it was it was extremely uncomfortable So for the people who aren't watching that those those are the popcorn moments is when you've got lawyers saying they don't know What evidence is
  • Brad Skaggs: Right?
  • Raven Harrison: You know answer questions with I didn't I don't know if it's illegal Is that legal? I don't know but it's illegal
  • Brad Skaggs: depends on what your version of your version of illegal is
  • Raven Harrison: Exactly.
  • Brad Skaggs: Oh incidentally, I just look and I couldn't believe it either. It's been 30 years since Waco Just FYI 30 good grief. I'm a
  • Raven Harrison: long time ago But this guy represented David, you know The the leader of the branch David Ian, but I'm just saying it we've got a real interesting who's who on the stand right now All of them a former and just feeling like it's okay To there really the prosecution is really hammering home that you really believed in good faith That a crime had been committed and the defense is really hammering home that your lawyers you deal and you have no evidence There's no paperwork for this
  • Brad Skaggs: It's I think the the thing to remember here is that the real winners in all this and I was just I Hadn't looked it up Is are the lawyers I'm trying to figure out what Rusty Hardin's hourly fee is and I'll bet it is not cheap
  • Raven Harrison: None of them are cheap. I mean, I think they've even brought that up It's definitely the first gentleman who was on the stand was saying that they allocated $50,000 and now that's his personal attorney and that was Contentious, but you you earmarked that money for counsel for Ken Paxton and he's your attorney He does well Ken could have used him and I'm like how that would have been a conflict He can't represent you and Ken Paxton So just it's really it really is a dumpster fire at this point.
  • These people are speaking well, but essentially what we're hearing a lot of is does Ken Paxton have the legal authority to make these Decisions it finally goes with him and they're admitting we just didn't agree We didn't think he made the right decision It's like well 4.2 million people decided that Ken Paxton is the one to make that decision not you So they've got a real image problem with this right now
  • Brad Skaggs: You think this is still gonna last what last time we talked. I think you would you think two three weeks?
  • Raven Harrison: I Thought two weeks and I that's if we have enough witnesses that can hold up We've got one crying on the stands We have you know them getting testy on the stands if they can hold out Then we'll see if we can get this but so far. I don't see any witnesses that has done the prosecution any good
  • Brad Skaggs: Hmm. All right. Well, we'll keep our eye on it and Let me know if you if you find any more popcorn moments It's it's tough for me to sit there and pay attention Completely throughout the course of the trial, so I'm counting on you.
  • Raven Harrison: I got you covered.
  • Brad Skaggs: Thank you Raven Harrison political strategist and All around good person to turn to when you need you need to get things figured out in the courtroom


The WBAP episode shed light on the lack of evidence and the confusion surrounding its definition in the impeachment trial of Ken Paxton. The trial, characterized by some as a political farce, has yet to produce substantial evidence to support the charges against Paxton. With witnesses failing to provide convincing testimony, the prosecution is struggling to build a compelling case.

The ongoing impeachment trial of Ken Paxton raises important questions about the standards of evidence and the integrity of legal proceedings. As listeners, it is crucial for us to pay attention to the facts and evidence presented in such trials to ensure that justice is served. Stay informed and engaged in the political landscape to hold our leaders accountable for their actions.