Bryan Slaton's Airbnb Meeting

Last Tuesday, Representative Ann Johnson presented a compelling argument for the expulsion of Bryan Slaton. Shortly after the General Investigation Committee presented damning evidence, Slaton was unanimously expelled.

Significant points made in Representative Johnson's closing statement

@5:29 "He fears no one, and has no worries that he's going to lose his job."

@6:10 "Imagine that, three young adults who are trying their best to persuade Bryan Slaton from committing what can at best be described as sexual stupidity, and at worst sexual violence."

@6:30 "What happens next by all accounts is uncontroverted: they have sex. There weren't just two people who knew; the 19-year-old teenager told someone and he told someone... when he realized he was about to get caught, he came up with a plan and tried to cover it up."

"To this day, the 19-year-old teenager is unwilling to speak about what might hurt him most. Let us be clear. We do not fault this teenage staffer. Ultimately, she does not deny what has been said before, nor does she deny what the others say they saw, they heard, and what she told them."

@9:15 "We have concerns no one will speak freely. At one point, she says that he is flirting with her and he is kissing her in the office -- our little extension offices, as many of six people in and out of there. Don't you wonder what the others in the office saw?"

@9:30 "This committee was created by you for us to ask those very questions in this very situation, with a legitimate complaint filed under penalty of perjury. And in this case, we had three."

@9:40 "We all, like you, noticed Brian Slaton's body language. At first he wasn't here. Then he was here and sullen. All of a sudden, he seemed to return an air of confidence and a skip in his step. Was it because he got to her?"

@10:15 "We are equally disturbed by his entire office refusing to cooperate in violation of our rules with this investigation. Did he get excited when someone said, 'oh, don't worry, we won't let them talk'? We don't know."

@10:30 "What we do know is that every other staffer, every other witness, every other representative, was able to coordinate with the investigator, find time to sit down, find an opportunity to get to the discrete location, which was confidentially being done with a video running gave a full statement with lawyers present for those [sic] who wanted them. Everybody except for the people associated with Brian Slaton".

The committee's report cites 8 individuals who spoke to investigators. Last Tuesday's revelations confirm that the efforts to intimidate a witness were not only planned and executed but also successful in the case of the 19-year-old teenager.

Simple arithmetic suggests that either 3 or 4 witnesses voluntarily spoke to investigators while having legal representation during their conversation, without requiring a subpoena.

Given these facts, Representative Johnson raises a pertinent question: why wouldn't Bryan Slaton's staff do the right thing and come forward? Were they aware of the alleged plan hatched at an Austin Airbnb between April 3 and April 5 to conceal Mr. Slaton's behavior?

Remember the Airbnb meeting?

The meeting took place at an Airbnb rented by a Texas Scorecard employee, where Representative Slaton admitted to everything that had been rumored about him.

After the release of the exposé last Tuesday, sources with knowledge of the matter came forward with stunning information. According to these sources, it turns out that the Airbnb in question was Cary Cheshire's, a former Texas Scorecard and current Pale Horse Strategies employee who was named President of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (TFR) in 2021. Interestingly, Matt Rinaldi and Jonathan Stickland served as members of TFR's board of directors. In fact, the three joined leadership at the exact same time.

What's more, it appears Cheshire's brother served as a legislative aide to Bryan Slaton during the ongoing legislative session. In other words, Cheshire's brother is among the five staff members who are clients of Tony McDonald accused of obstructing the investigation into Bryan Slaton.

This new information strongly suggests that Representative Johnson's questions can be answered in the affirmative: "Yes, they got to her," and "Yes, someone assured Slaton his employees wouldn't talk."

REWIND

You may recall back in 2020, McDonald and Cheshire were captured on a recording making derogatory comments about Texas Governor Greg Abbott. They used offensive language and made inappropriate jokes about his disability, specifically targeting his use of a wheelchair.

The comments came on an unedited version of the group's podcast, Texas Scorecard Radio, featuring Empower Texans' vice president, Cary Cheshire, and general counsel, Tony McDonald.
Source: The Texas Tribune

Tony Mac pushes back

On May 6th, Tony McDonald, a lawyer, vehemently denied the accuracy of the report regarding his five clients obstructing the investigation. He promised to address this issue on Monday. However, during the presentation of the committee's findings last Tuesday, it seemed that McDonald's concerns were not substantial enough to require correction.

McDonald received criticism on Twitter for his comments:

Applying common sense

Putting aside the procedural semantics raised by McDonald, let's use common sense to determine whether his clients should have participated in the investigation:

One of McDonald's clients is supposedly the brother of the person with the Airbnb where Bryan Slaton confessed to his allies and advisors.

McDonald must have been aware of this fact. With this knowledge in mind, why didn't he advise his clients to align themselves with the "right side of history" and cooperate with the investigation?

While some may argue that employees might incriminate themselves, it's reasonable to assume that hesitation stems from this concern. However, the committee has already addressed this issue, stating:

"Under Sections 301.025(b)-(c), Government Code, if a witness claims that his "testimony ... may incriminate him" and the committee compels him to testify anyway, the witness is entitled to complete immunity from indictment or prosecution "for any transaction, matter, or thing about which the person truthfully testified."

Did McDonald fail to recommend to his clients they should take advantage of obtaining immunity?

McDonald has not yet disclosed any memos or communications exchanged between his law firm, the Committee members, or the investigator to substantiate his allegations.

Following the disclosure that the State of Texas had terminated the employment of the five male employees, McDonald stated that he was not informed of their dismissal as their legal representative.

Could the five male employees have pulled a "Cassidy Hutchinson", and retained competent counsel?

@11:48 "He's not going to play the reformed man who's atoning for his sins. He's all of a sudden remembered that he has that young family back at home. He doesn't even acknowledge the teenage staffer exists. Now that the report has been released and it has become public, she is of no benefit to him. She goes from special to discarded."

Representative Johnson makes another enlightening point.

Luke Macias tweeted that sin (singular) "should drive us all to repentance."

However, the Committee's report presents evidence that Slaton committed numerous sins. This raises the question of which specific sin Macias is referring to.

Are the other transgressions not considered sins?

Texas Scorecard used scare quotes on Predatory Behavior

What Are Scare Quotes?

From Proofed.com:

Usually, quote marks indicate that you’re using someone else’s words. In fiction, they’re also used for spoken dialogue.But neither of these are what people mean by “scare quotes.” Instead, these quote marks show we’re using a word in a non-literal sense.

This includes:
- Showing that a term is non-standard, colloquial, or slang.
- Indicating that you are using a term ironically.
- Expressing disapproval over how a word has been used.

For example, if we disagreed with someone’s advice, we might write:
Many “experts” offer bad advice on punctuation.

Texas Scorecard consistently used the term "alleged" in their article when referring to the accusations against Bryan Slaton. However, they themselves acknowledged that Slaton did not challenge or express remorse for any of the allegations during the investigation.

It's worth noting that both the Committee's report and Texas Scorecard's article made no mention of Slaton invoking his constitutional right to remain silent. In fact, the report explicitly states that Slaton actively engaged with the committee and did not contest any of the alleged accusations. Therefore, the information presented in the report is factual and supported.

Why would Texas Scorecard deliberately mislead their readers by suggesting that proven facts are mere innuendo?

Last Tuesday, Scorecard Confessions exposed the retaliatory plot of Slaton and Texas Scorecard allies to seek revenge for Slaton's removal from the Texas House.

Here's the template:

Step 1: Unearth evidence to substantiate other alleged affairs, with most talk suggesting that these affairs involve two members.

Step 2: Disclose the information to media outlets that are supportive of the cause, allowing them to expose the misconduct.

Step 3: Demand an investigation and/or expulsion of those members, by conflating their actions with Representative Slaton having sex with a teenager.

Step 4: In the event that the House fails to expel Slaton, falsely accuse the Speaker of hypocrisy. Assert that Slaton was only expelled because he was one of the few "true conservatives" in the legislature.

Poof! In an instant, Slaton transforms into a martyr.

Slaton and Texas Scorecard allies gear up the whataboutism

Following Slaton's expulsion, True Texas Project wasted no time and immediately launched an attack on Representatives Lacey Hull and Cole Hefner via Twitter, using the same whataboutism tactics uncovered by Scorecard Confessions.

Julie McCarty, the CEO of True Texas Project, added her voice to the discussion with emphasis.

When criticized for using whataboutism to avoid holding Slaton accountable, which goes against True Texas Project's values, they responded with even more whataboutism.

Jonathan Stickland feigned outrage House members appeared to be drinking; still silent about Slaton getting a teenager drunk to have sex with her.

Stickland consistently uses manipulative tactics, taken from the playbook devised at the Airbnb meeting, to falsely equate the voluntary consumption of alcohol by adults with Slaton's act of getting a teenager drunk to engage in sexual activity.

This transparent ploy not only downplays Slaton's deeply troubling behavior, but also undermines the seriousness of the situation.

By employing such manipulative tactics, Stickland not only ignores the severity of Slaton's reprehensible actions, but also perpetuates a dangerous narrative that undermines the importance of holding individuals accountable for their despicable behavior.

These manipulative maneuvers reveal Stickland's lack of integrity and a disrespectful attitude towards the victims profoundly affected by Slaton's unforgivable actions.

Will their plan to turn Slaton into a martyr allow him to run again in the next election?

Tony McDonald seems to suggest that it's possible.

In a conversation with Austin attorney Adam Loewy, McDonald hinted that despite being expelled during the current session, Slaton could still run in 2024.

McDonald is confident that this will be the case for the next general election.

RPT Chairman Matt Rinaldi, SREC member Naomi Narviaz and others, persist in their efforts to sow discord and disunity.

Reacting to the Scorecard Confessions article, Chair Rinaldi, who is both an attorney and a member of the RPT SREC group threads, asserted that "anonymous fan fiction" failed to meet the standards of "journalistic integrity."

To put it simply, Rinaldi is being intellectually dishonest, and he knows it. As an attorney and a member of the RPT SREC group threads, Mr. Rinaldi has direct knowledge that the discussions obtained by Scorecard Confessions are genuine and unedited. He also knows that Defend Texas Liberty PAC made a contribution on April 4th, within 48 hours of a meeting with both Slaton and Texas Scorecard allies to conspire to save the now-disgraced representative from being held accountable or taking responsibility for his conduct.

Furthermore, Mr. Rinaldi is aware that he served on the board of directors for Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. He knows that the brother of a former staffer of Bryan Slaton was the President of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and that this individual hosted the Airbnb where a strategic meeting was held to plan how to save Bryan Slaton. Additionally, Mr. Rinaldi knows he served on the Texans for Fiscal Responsibility's board of directors with Jonathan Stickland, who employs the brother of a legislative aide that worked for Bryan Slaton in the Capital.

How is the SREC handing the Scorecard Confessions revelations?

As expected.

SREC members who have faced severe backlash, with their motives being questioned by The Texas Voice last Wednesday for not signing onto the majority-approved letter, are now directing their anger towards the majority for releasing it without Republican Party of Texas approval. These individuals, as evidenced by Scorecard Confessions, strongly opposed RPT's criticism of Bryan Slaton. Rather than reflecting on why doing what is right is deemed wrong and acting against one's moral compass is considered patriotic, they persist in refusing introspection.

Naomi Narviaz is disturbingly focused on accusing multiple individuals of leaking conversations where she callously blamed sexual assault victims for their own assaults. Rather than owning up to her offensive insinuations, she deceitfully claims her comments were misunderstood or taken out of context.

Narviaz's unfounded and reckless accusations against innocent individuals as sources of Scorecard Confessions are truly shocking. Instead of acknowledging SREC members' inclination to exercise unlicensed authority, command, and secrecy, they should pause and reflect on their own actions.

It's evident that they can't resist bragging and divulging confidential information to flaunt their pseudo-influence to anyone who will listen, but they fail to realize that their words may not be well-received. In fact, some may find their behavior repugnant and unbecoming of elected officials like those in the SREC.

Narviaz, like McDonald and Rinaldi, adamantly refuses to substantiate her accusations with evidence.

A note from the editors

As Texans, we value transparency, integrity, and authentic representation. However, certain individuals and groups have fallen short of these ideals, including Texas Scorecard, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Jonathan Stickland, Cary Cheshire, and members of the Republican Party of Texas State Executive Committee, led by Chairman Matt Rinaldi. Their recent actions have raised concerns about their integrity and commitment to our values.

These individuals reportedly sought to suppress witness testimonies and have employed irrational moral equivalencies to diminish the severity of Bryan Slaton's conduct. Such actions hinder transparency, deny us the opportunity to know the truth, and betray our trust.

True Texans understand the importance of principled leadership and honest discourse. We deserve advocates who uphold these principles with unwavering conviction, rather than resorting to deceitful tactics.

It is our responsibility to reject fraudulent actors who manipulate and misrepresent our values. We must demand better representation from those who claim to speak for us. We deserve leaders who embody integrity, transparency, and a genuine commitment to the principles we hold dear.

By uniting our voices and holding these bad actors accountable, we can usher in a new era of genuine representation. Let us demand authentic leaders who champion our values, engage in honest dialogue, and work tirelessly to advance our shared vision for Texas.

We must reject divisive actions and demand better. We deserve advocates who prioritize integrity, transparency, and the values that have guided us for generations. By demanding genuine representation, we can ensure a brighter and more principled future for Texas.