The Texas Scorecard Two-Step: Hypocrisy and Hubris
As the call for Texas Speaker Dade Phelan's resignation reverberates through the political landscape, the conflicting reasons put forth by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton cast a shadow of doubt over the true motivations behind this demand. Is it a matter of Phelan's alleged intoxication or his perceived failure to uphold conservative priorities? Or could it be a calculated strategy to divert attention from Paxton's own legal predicaments, personal behavior, and the impending vote for his impeachment?
The lack of a coherent and consistent message from Paxton raises valid concerns regarding his true intentions. It is not uncommon for politicians to employ diversionary tactics, exploiting the sentiments of their supporters while undermining their capacity for critical thinking. By presenting inconsistent arguments, Paxton attempts to obfuscate the discussion and sow confusion among his followers, making it challenging to discern the underlying truth.
In this intricate landscape, it is essential for us to remain vigilant and scrutinize the underlying motives behind the actions and statements of the axis of allies. In the case of Paxton's call for Phelan's resignation, the presence of inconsistencies and diversionary tactics suggests that the true objective may extend beyond the stated reasons. As engaged citizens, it is our duty to demand transparency, hold our leaders accountable, and ensure that the core issues at hand receive the attention they rightfully deserve.
What are the Articles of Impeachment against Ken Paxton?
The resolution consists of 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton.
The articles cover various allegations of misconduct and violations of official duties, including:
- Failure to act as a public protector of charitable organizations.
- Misuse of official power to issue written legal opinions.
- Misuse of official power to administer the public information law.
- Misuse of official information for personal benefit.
- Violation of laws governing the appointment of prosecuting attorneys pro tem.
- Unlawful termination of whistleblowers and adverse personnel actions.
- Misuse of public resources for a sham investigation and false report.
- Concealment of wrongful acts through a settlement agreement.
- Engagement in bribery by benefiting from employment and renovations provided by Nate Paul.
- Abuse of judicial process to obstruct justice and delay trials.
- Making false statements in official records and personal financial statements.
- Conspiring to commit acts described in the articles.
- Misappropriation of public resources.
- Dereliction of duty and unfitness for office.
- Abuse of public trust by subverting the lawful operation of government.
The House of Representatives requests that Paxton be called upon to answer the articles of impeachment in the Texas Senate, with examinations, trials, and judgments conducted according to the law and justice.
Debunking Paxton's statement in the wake of GI voting for his impeachment
In his statement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton attempts to invoke the legitimacy of his re-election and paint himself as a defender of Texas voters' will.
— Texas Attorney General (@TXAG) May 25, 2023
However, it is crucial to debunk this argument and highlight the paramount importance of the rule of law when allegations of criminal activity are at stake.
Here's why voters re-electing Paxton should not overshadow the need for a thorough investigation into his alleged wrongdoing:
First and foremost, the will of the people should never be used as a shield to protect individuals involved in potential criminal activities. Elections serve as a crucial democratic process to choose leaders based on the information available at the time. However, if subsequent evidence emerges that raises serious questions about the integrity and conduct of an elected official, it is essential to prioritize a fair and impartial investigation to maintain the public's trust in the rule of law.
Paxton's assertion that the House General Investigating Committee's report is based on hearsay and gossip is a misleading attempt to undermine the validity of the investigation. Such claims ignore the committee's thorough examination of the allegations and evidence to reach their conclusions. It is vital to respect the investigative process and allow it to unfold without prematurely dismissing the findings or discrediting the efforts of those involved.
Furthermore, the notion that seeking accountability and truth equates to sabotaging legal challenges against the Biden administration's policies is a misleading narrative. Upholding the rule of law and conducting investigations into potential misconduct do not hinder Texas's ability to challenge policies; rather, they reinforce the state's commitment to transparency, justice, and accountability. Combating extremism or defending the state's interests should never justify turning a blind eye to allegations of criminal activity.
The claim that the investigation seeks to overthrow the will of the people and disenfranchise voters is an exaggeration designed to manipulate public sentiment. The goal of an investigation is not to disregard the outcomes of an election, but to ensure that those elected to public office uphold the highest standards of integrity and legality. Respecting the will of the people also means ensuring that their trust is not misplaced in officials facing serious allegations.
Sticking to the playbook
Throughout this session and others, we have observed a familiar sequence of behavior exhibited by figures such as Michael Quinn Sullivan, Jonathan Stickland, and their axis of allies when it comes to safeguarding Bryan Slaton. Whenever Slaton faced examination or repercussions for his actions, these individuals swiftly came to his aid, employing strategies designed to redirect focus and undermine the credibility of those responsible for holding him answerable.
Their approach involved launching relentless assaults against anyone who dared to question or critique Slaton, resorting to personal denigration, unfounded allegations, and the dissemination of misinformation. Their objective was to construct a narrative that portrayed Slaton as a victim of political persecution rather than someone who should be held liable for his deeds.
In their quest to shield both Slaton and now AG Paxton, they have resorted to character assassination, employing derogatory aliases such as "Drunk Dade" to discredit and undercut individuals like Speaker Dade Phelan. This maneuver was intended to divert attention and besmirch the reputation of those involved in the investigation or those who sought to uphold ethical governance.
By cultivating a toxic and divisive atmosphere, these individuals aimed to protect both men from facing the consequences of their actions and manipulate public perception. Their actions demonstrated a disregard for transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the political process.
These instances bear testament to the consistent pattern we observe with these individuals. Whenever someone within their sphere encounters scrutiny or consequences, they unite in their efforts to shield them from accountability, employing tactics aimed at diverting attention and undermining the credibility of those seeking the truth.
Representatives Matt Schaefer and Tony Tinderholt Preview Their Impeachment Strategy
As we described in our most recent article:
These organizations have perfected the art of financial manipulation, funneling substantial amounts of money into various entities to bolster their extortion campaigns. Through strategic contributions, they effectively infiltrate the political landscape, using their financial leverage to exert influence and push their agenda.
The exertion of influence concerning the impeachment of Ken Paxton will proceed along similar lines. Tony Tinderholt, Steve Toth, and Matt Schaefer are legislators known to be entwined with The Enterprise who intend to leverage their positions in an effort to protect Ken Paxton.
During their parliamentary inquiries, it appears that the questioning aimed to elicit a response from Phelan suggesting that there would be no opportunity for Paxton to present rebuttals. However, it's important to note that the trial itself takes place in the Senate, and the House proceedings are just the initial step, similar to a grand jury.
If Phelan had provided a more detailed response, it could have been misconstrued as organizing the impeachment. Phelan needs to assert the separation of powers between his role as Speaker and the responsibilities of the General Investigations Committee.
Below is a breakdown of the total amounts donated to each by the primary financiers associated with The Enterprise:
| Donor | Tinderholt Total | Schaefer Total | Toth Total | Total Per Donor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAN & STACI WILKS | $0.00 | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| DICK SAULSBURY | $5,000.00 | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $20,000.00 |
| EMPOWER TEXANS PAC | $214,675.39 | $196,176.00 | $50,313.30 | $461,164.69 |
| FARRIS & JO ANN WILKS | $0.00 | $17,500.00 | $10,000.00 | $27,500.00 |
| FARRIS WILKS | $18,750.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $18,750.00 |
| JAMES LEININGER | $0.00 | $0.00 | $11,000.00 | $11,000.00 |
| KATHALEEN WALL | $0.00 | $0.00 | $10,808.40 | $10,808.40 |
| KYLE STALLINGS | $12,500.00 | $4,500.00 | $18,500.00 | $35,500.00 |
| PHILLIP HUFFINES | $6,000.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $6,000.00 |
| TIMOTHY DUNN | $407,000.00 | $7,000.00 | $0.00 | $414,000.00 |
| WINDI GRIMES | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Total Candidates | $668,925.39 | $245,176.00 | $100,621.70 | $1,015,723.09 |
The Stark Contrast Between Public Posturing and Private Misconduct
What's truly perplexing is the glaring contradiction between the public facade upheld by Texas Scorecard and their allies and their reprehensible private conduct. They vociferously champion the "sanctity of marriage," loudly proclaim their unwavering stance as "pro-life" advocates, and vehemently denounce the exploitation of children and teenagers in public. Yet, behind closed doors, they are actively concealing Bryan Slaton's involvement with a teenage staffer who accompanied him to purchase Plan B, while staunchly defending Ken Paxton, a confessed adulterer.
Paxton, Slaton, and their axis of allies have consistently exhibited a concerning pattern of either intimidating or retaliating against whistleblowers who bravely expose their misconduct. Moreover, allegations suggest that they have actively sought to enlist their network, either directly or through intermediaries and allies, to obstruct or impede investigations into the behavior of their associates.
The sheer hypocrisy exhibited is nothing short of astonishing. These organizations and their figureheads consistently cloak themselves in a facade of righteousness, loudly condemning corruption and immoral conduct within Austin and Texas politics. Yet, when confronted with the task of holding their favored officials accountable, whom they have expended enormous resources and endless hours defending on social media and other platforms, they spare no effort to shield and salvage individuals like Ken Paxton.
One cannot help but wonder why they fiercely fight to protect Paxton at all costs. Could it be that the Attorney General, generously funded through campaign contributions, possesses knowledge of federal investigations into The Enterprise and its affiliates, mirroring the case of real-estate developer Nate Paul? Is it possible that Texas' supposed "top cop" is, in reality, the epitome of corruption, tipping off his financial benefactors before federal authorities can close in?
These questions linger unanswered, yet the truth is glaring. The Enterprise consistently demonstrates disregard for the law, ethical principles, and moral decency, without a trace of remorse. Their brazen audacity suggests an unwavering confidence that they will forever evade accountability for their deplorable actions.