RADIOSeptember 13, 2023

Did RINO Texas politicians ACTUALLY impeach an elected Attorney General with ZERO evidence?

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.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

SHOCKING: Glenn Beck Interviews 'Detransitioner' Deceived by Doctors

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

Deep State NGO CAUGHT trying to restart opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.