Something is very wrong in Texas, Glenn says, and if it's happening there, what could happen in YOUR state? The Texas state legislature is holding an impeachment trial for Attorney General Ken Paxton. But is this a legitimate trial or a RINO Republican hit-job? Texas Scorecard Managing Editor Brandon Waltens has been keeping an eye on the trial and he joins Glenn to explain how shockingly LITTLE evidence - if any - Paxton's accusers have brought.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I'm going to talk you to a little bit about what's happening in Texas. But I'm talking you to about this, because if it's happening in Texas, God only knows what's happening in your state.

I wanted to bring somebody on, who really watches this for a living. His name is Brandon Waltons. He does the Texas scorecard. And every day, he does, you know, headlines. Of what's about to go. And he watches us every weekday at 5:00. YouTube X, and podcast platforms. There is an impeachment going on of probably the strongest attorney general in the nation.

The one here in Texas Ken Paxton.

He's been on this show several times. I know Ken.

But I don't have a horse in this race. If he's guilty of a crime, he should be punished.

But it is really beginning to look, and I stayed off this story, until the testimony was out.

And I have to tell you, something is very wrong in Texas.

And Texans better pay attention to this. Brandon, welcome.

BRANDON: Thank you so much for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: So overall, can you quickly just say, you know, what this is supposedly about? And then let's talk about the actual witnesses?

BRANDON: Yeah. So how did we get here?

Essentially, three years ago, we had this group of employees at the office of attorney general, who accused Ken Paxton of wrongdoing, of abusing his office to help a friend, essentially. And they went to the FBI. They recorded him.

And that sort of set into motion, what we now have three years later. This impeachment process, which many of those impeachment charges are based off of.

Back in May, over Memorial Day weekend. Well, a lot of people were maybe grilling out or at the lake, whatever.

The House met on a Saturday.

They voted to impeach Ken Paxton. Based on testimony that wasn't sworn testimony. Ken Paxton wasn't made aware of their investigation, until it came out. Forty-eight hours before the vote.

And the House members themselves weren't able to actually look at their testimonies. They had to rely on the word of the House investigators.

GLENN: And, Ken, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't allowed to respond in his own defense.

BRANDON: Right. Right. And so you had a lot of these sorts of things, that people will look at this, like, this is odd.

Well, just like DC, you know, the House does the impeachment, goes over to the Senate to determine whether or not they would convict, which would actually remove him from office. So for the last few months, there has been a lot of talk, from those pushing the impeachment. Who are saying, wait until you see this testimony.

Wait until you see the evidence. You will be blown away by what we have.

And yet, this trial happened last week.

And so far. And we're more than halfway through this.

The testimony has really, really been weak.

GLENN: I would say, a little beyond weak.

There's no evidence of a crime. I mean, this is -- let me just read something. This was the third whistle-blower.

The concern began, when Paxton advocated for the AG's office to open investigation, into Nate Paul.

That see his friend and donor. Alleged mistreatment by the FBI. And Texas DPS. During a raid.

Paul's contention was that the Fed did him dirty by illegally altering his search warrants, after the fact to expand their scope, just to get him.

His technical experts theorized that there was altered meta data in the digital versions, that proved the documents had been changed.

Maxwell quickly developed the opinion, that the whistle-blower, the opinion that Nate Paul was a criminal, that we should not be associated with. Accordingly, he had dragged his feet.

And ultimately refused to open a formal investigation, into the alleged FBI and TBS misconduct. Paxton, convinced of the idea, that the FBI was untrustworthy. Well, that's farfetched.

He eventually hired outside counsel, to help explore and adjudicate Paul's claims, an act that would eventually become a primary catalyst for the whistle-blower complaints.

Now, did anything come of that outside investigation?

BRANDON: No. And the thing is, when you see these people testify, I mean, numerous of these former employees of the office of the attorney general has talked about how insane, literally that's what one of these people said. It would be insane to investigate the FBI.

Essentially, they trust them whole-heartedly. That there would been nothing. I mean, literally, one of them was asked, is there anything that maybe happened over the last two, three, four years, that might change your trust in the FBI?

They said no. Of course, that's in odds with Texas voters. I mean, Republican primary voters.

We have a poll after the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Shows that 73 percent of Texas primary voters have a negative opinion of the FBI.

GLENN: What a shock.

So I'm reading this. And my first thought was. And I dismissed it out of hand.

And I don't even know why it came at me.

But I'm reading all of the testimony. And I'm thinking to myself, this is George Bush. This is -- this is the George Bush wing of the party, that is -- that trusts the FBI. Is denying that there's a problem in America.

The problem is the Republican voters. All of that crap.

And then I continue to read on. And it looks like the whistle-blowers do have a relationship with George P. Bush. Is there anything to this, that this is a Bush ambush?

BRANDON: You know, there's been a couple moments during the testimony of the past week, where the Bush family has been invoked. And it looks like perhaps they were somehow involved in this.

One of those things, that when the whistle-blowers went to the FBI and reported Paxton.

And, by the way, without even asking him or talking to him beforehand, and then they also said they had no evidence when they went.

But when they were preparing to go to the FBI, on that same day, George P. Bush was reactivating his law license.

He would eventually challenge Ken Paxton and the Republican primary last year.

GLENN: Lose.

BRANDON: Lost in the runoff.

And then you also have the case, where Johnnie Sutton, who was a Bush lawyer. Somebody who was a US attorney under Bush, and very close to the Bush family.

He's been representing some of these whistle-blowers for the last three years, and hasn't sent them a bill. Hasn't been paid, essentially they're representing them pro bono.

So that's just another piece of the puzzle, people are looking at and saying, hmm, it looks like someone else. Some outside force is involved here.

GLENN: I -- honestly, the people who brought this impeachment the way they brought it. Should be impeached themselves.

I don't -- you know, the one thing I do hear about Paxton, is he's just a freight train.

And he's not good at playing the game. And making friends and influencing people, whatever. Well, neither is John Adams. And I'm not comparing him to John Adams.

I'm just saying, temperament-wise, John Adams is not a popular guy. But you do not bend the rules to get rid of somebody, if he is -- if he is a criminal. If he did something criminal, then I am for his impeachment.

But if this is just because he has made the right friends.

Or a Bush wants him out.

Or whatever it is. The people involved in this, because it's been so shady, the way they did this.

I think they should be impeached.

BRANDON: Certainly, there's been a lot of anger. Especially among Republican voters.

You know, it's one thing where we see what's happening with the president. Where we see Democrats going after. Using the justice system.

It's another one, here in Texas. And you have Democrats. And establishment Republicans, going along with it.

GLENN: It's really bad. Really, really bad.

Anything to the thought that this happened the week that Paxton said, you know, hey.

Why -- why is our speaker of the House giving, you know, chairmanship to the Democrats?

We don't need friends like this.

And then it was later that week, that the impeachment thing happened.

Was there any connection?

BRANDON: Well, I think absolutely, there has been a divide.

Dave, the establishment guy, that runs the House, who puts Democrats in power.

He has been at odds, with not only Ken Paxton, but the conservative grassroots, who have repeatedly elected Paxton.

So certainly, there's no coincidence there.
There's certainly been a lot of bad blood between the establishment and Ken Paxton.

It just shows why they worked so hard, to try to essentially overturn the election and get him out of office.

GLENN: And quickly, what do your sources tell you, how will this fare? How will this turn out?

BRANDON: Yeah. So they need two-thirds, to permanently remove him from office.

That vote is supposed to take place, maybe Friday and Saturday, and later this week. You know, it's a little tough. You have to do aftermath. The senators are under gag orders.

I would say, especially after people testifying that they essentially had no evidence, which is what we repeatedly saw this week.

I hear a lot of the senators are getting very, very frustrated that House members put them in this situation that they have to sit through this.

And I think that ultimately, that will be something that they will be considering there, when they make those decisions.

GLENN: But you will get all the Democrats. So how many Republicans do you need?

BRANDON: I think you need ten. Ten, if I recall.

GLENN: Ten weasels.

All right. I hope not.

Thank you so much for reporting on this.

And bringing us the story. I appreciate it.

BRANDON: Absolutely.

GLENN: You bet. Brandon Waltons. He's Texas scorecard. You can find Texas scorecard. Wherever you get to your podcast. And YouTube and X every day at 5 o'clock.

STU: And just one quick thing. In case you missed the show yesterday.

It sort of rolls off the tongue. To say, oh. This was brought without any evidence.

Those remember the words of the people, who brought the accusations.

GLENN: Yeah. We have no evidence.

STU: They were asked specifically, do you have any evidence, when you were brought this case? And the guy said no.

GLENN: The most credible said, no. It's just my feeling.

STU: Right. We thought we had some legal activities we brought to their attention.

Did you have any evidence? No.