Scorecard Confessions

Dan Patrick, Angela Paxton, and the Impeachment Trial Rules

Shadow Seeker -

Since the Texas House's vote to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, Scorecard Confessions has diligently reported on intriguing developments involving various actors associated with The Enterprise, a group of allies connected to Texas Scorecard. These developments range from ethical concerns such as conflicts of interest to the assurance expressed by certain individuals regarding a "fair" trial in the Texas Senate.

RPT Chairman Matt Rinaldi and The Enterprise have displayed a notable level of confidence in the expectation of a fair trial for Paxton in the Senate. This unwavering assurance raises eyebrows, suggesting a belief in a favorable outcome leading to Paxton's acquittal.

Concerns arise over senators who may serve as jurors but have direct conflicts of interest related to Paxton's alleged crimes or individuals involved in those crimes. For instance, Angela Paxton, the wife of the defendant, is alleged to have received a bribe, while the mistress involved in Paxton's affair previously worked for Senator Donna Campbell.

Moreover, questions have been raised about Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who presides as the "Judge" in the impeachment trial. Patrick has financial ties to The Enterprise, and his impartiality has been called into question due to his financial interest in ensuring Paxton remains Attorney General. The donors behind The Enterprise have contributed substantial amounts to Patrick's and Paxton's campaigns, as well as to the campaigns of many House members who voted against Paxton's impeachment. This raises concerns about the potential compromise of Patrick's integrity.

Scorecard Confessions has been at the forefront of providing accurate information to readers, predicting future events, and offering insights into the signaling tactics employed by The Enterprise and its allies. Our reporting sheds light on the implications of these developments and aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation.

Patrick's Premature Assumptions and the Impeachment Trial

The impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas has taken a surprising twist with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's confident assumptions about the trial's outcome. During a recent appearance on the Mark Davis show, Patrick expressed his belief that the Senate must address the impeachment or else the House will “keep Paxton away from doing his job forever,” implies the Senate will do the opposite.

Patrick's confidence in predicting the Senate's inclination to acquit Paxton, even before the trial process has begun, has raised eyebrows and piqued interest. Such assumptions, made prematurely, leave room for speculation about Patrick's access to insider information or potential underlying motivations that may be influencing his statements.

The implications of Patrick's assertions go beyond mere curiosity, as they raise important questions about the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings. The Senate, functioning as the ultimate jury in this impeachment case, is entrusted with the responsibility of objectively evaluating the evidence and arguments presented. By expressing unwavering certainty about the trial's outcome, Patrick's remarks cast doubt on the integrity of the process.

Moreover, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's recent remarks about the impeachment trial's outcome raise further concerns about his consistency and adherence to the principles he previously espoused. Throughout the impeachment process, Patrick has emphasized the importance of treating him as a judge and the senators as jurors, thereby refraining from discussing the case in order to maintain impartiality.

However, his confident assumptions implying Paxton's acquittal on the Mark Davis show seem to contradict his earlier stance. This inconsistency is perplexing and raises questions about Patrick's true intentions and commitment to upholding the integrity of the trial. The apparent deviation from his initial position adds another layer of doubt regarding the fairness of the proceedings and the potential manipulation of Senate rules.

Angela Paxton says she will vote in her husband's impeachment trial

Amidst the anticipation surrounding the Senate rules for Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment trial, Senator Angela Paxton's recent remarks have raised eyebrows and stirred controversy. In what many perceive as a disingenuous attempt, Senator Paxton suggested that voting against her husband's acquittal would be a disservice to her constituents.

However, it is crucial to note that Senator Angela Paxton's involvement in her husband's alleged criminal activities adds a significant layer of complexity to the situation. Notably, she made headlines for her role in a peculiar demand for "tile, not granite" countertops in exchange for an unredacted FBI search warrant before its execution.

Michael Quinn Sullivan Brings Out the Eyeball Emojis...Again.

Michael Quinn Sullivan, in his typical fashion, resorted to his well-known tactics once again, employing the use of deceptive eyeball emojis to feign surprise and pretend ignorance of behind-the-scenes developments.

This behavior echoes Sullivan's past actions, where he strategically projected an air of shock while simultaneously Texas Scorecard's axis of allies was implicated in orchestrating protective measures for Bryan Slaton, as previously disclosed by Scorecard Confessions.

Sullivan's recurring pattern of telegraphing involvement of Texas Scorecard's axis of allies while attempting to portray himself as unaware is reminiscent of his prior maneuvers. It brings to mind instances where he pretended to be taken aback by unfolding news regarding Slaton, while the axis of allies associated with Texas Scorecard were actively engaged in crafting strategies to safeguard Slaton, as previously reported.

The unfolding developments in this case give rise to grave concerns that bear a striking resemblance to aspects commonly associated with investigations involving organized crime. The presence of three jurors entangled in glaring conflicts of interest, a judge who has unquestionably accepted financial contributions from the influential backers of The Enterprise, and who has further extended loans to the defendant, coupled with the defendant's standing allegations of tampering with grand juries and Senate juries, alongside accepting substantial financial support from The Enterprise, collectively paint a disturbing picture of a web interwoven with potential corrupt practices. These intricate elements bear a striking resemblance to the very factors that authorities diligently scrutinize when unearthing criminal enterprises.

The Scorecard Syndicate

In the convoluted web of the impeachment trial against Attorney General Ken Paxton, disturbing patterns and compromised actors have emerged, bearing an eerie resemblance to investigations involving organized crime. The presence of jurors with undeniable conflicts of interest, a judge intertwined with influential backers of The Enterprise, and a defendant accused of tampering with juries and receiving substantial financial support all point to a deeply troubling situation. These elements reflect the very markers that authorities diligently investigate when uncovering criminal enterprises.

As Scorecard Confessions has diligently reported on these developments, shedding light on the implications and tactics employed by various actors, the need for a comprehensive understanding of the situation becomes increasingly evident. The Senate, entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring a fair and impartial trial, must address the serious concerns raised about the integrity of the proceedings. The stakes are high, and the outcome of this trial will have far-reaching implications for the Texas political landscape. It is crucial that transparency, fairness, and justice prevail to restore public trust and uphold the principles of democracy.