The Salcedo Storm Podcast
The Salcedo Storm Podcast
S5, Ep. 85: Those Who Perpetrated The Paxton Impeachment Hoax Should Pay A Heavy Price
Loading
/

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:

Debbie Georgatos is a candidate for RNC Committeewoman for Texas. She is the host of, America Can We Talk, and author of the book Ladies, Can We Talk?

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The reaction to the Paxton impeachment has been well, I’m glad to see the reaction we’re getting but it’s I think if I was going to summarize the people of Texas who have been watching this so-called impeachment trial. 

I think the word that best describes the entire proceeding and how we got here as discussed. People are disgusted by what you don’t have to do if you are unpopular with the left. If you’re unpopular with surrender, do nothing. Republicans, then man what they can do to you, without any evidence without any semblance of fairness or due process. What you can do is, is frightening. 

Here’s Matt Rinaldi the conservative chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, here he is on Twitter. So this case is really shaping up to be about Paxton being willing to break established norms to investigate and out of control FBI, and his employees thinking he was, quote, insane for a state to challenge Federal officers and speculating as to their ulterior motives. Now, of course, you all know folks. 

Mr. Renaldi is correct, that this FBI is completely out of control in, for example, going after President Trump and completely ignoring the the in your face crimes of the Biden regime and the Biden family. You know that the FBI is out of control for their intentional and wrongful and patently false attacks on Catholics, calling us white supremacists and all this nonsense. Renauld. He continued, I spoke too soon. 

Not only did Penlee think it was insane to challenge the FBI. His entire testimony is based on the premise that it’s quote insane to think that the FBI would abuse its power by altering a search warrant, which it appears they did. So there’s Rinaldi reacting to the latest in yesterday’s testimony in Ken Paxton is falsely predicated impeachment trial. But there was other reaction coming across other medium from some of the testimony yesterday, this mark Penley character, he’s the second co-conspirator that we’ve heard from, who basically said, Yeah, we took a bunch of suspicions to the FBI with no evidence. 

“On August 13 of 2020. You had absolutely no evidence, physical documentary, eyewitness or circumstantial that Ken Paxton was being bribed by anyone. Did you disagree with your statement? I had circumstantial evidence. Oh, you had circumstantial evidence? Well, at some point on August 13, did you go to your boss Ken Paxton and say, Attorney General, I’m concerned. I have circumstantial evidence that you’ve taken a bribe. Did you do that? Not on the 13th of August. I did do that because you knew you would get fired, right? I said possible bribery. I didn’t have evidence to confront him with.”

Okay, wait a minute. I said possible bribery. I didn’t have evidence. But wait a minute. Didn’t he just get through saying he had circumstantial evidence? Not at that time. Oh, but you just told the ladies and show the jury you had circumstantial evidence. So did you confront him with the circumstantial evidence? 

No, no? No. What Why? Why would I want to give Ken Paxton an opportunity to defend himself, or to know this attack was coming? See this was all launched secretly in the dead of night? With no evidence, circumstantial evidence? Well, what was that circumstantial evidence? Oh, I didn’t have any evidence. Well, which is it? So this idea, as I mentioned, this guy, Penley was the second co-conspirator. Glenn Beck took issue with something we brought up on yesterday’s podcast on the show behind the show, with the first coconspirator to basically say, Yeah, we went to the FBI with nothing. 

And everybody goes, Wait a minute, why would you go and try to take out a guy with no evidence, unless the entire mo your entire motivation was just to take out that guy Paxton is impeachment got underway this week. 

“And for the first time, we finally have heard the arguments from his side. All of this began when whistleblowers went to the FBI. Now why didn’t the FBI indict? If this is so serious and impeachable, especially for an enemy? I want you to listen to an exchange between one of Pakistan’s lawyers and one of the impeachment witnesses. Listen, when he asked this question again. We get this straight. You went to the FBI and reported him for potential crimes without any evidence. Do I have that correct? We went to the FBI and reported please answer my question. Yes. Our belief the criminal activity had occurred. That was not my question. There was no excuse to answer the question. Yes or no. And I asked it again. Mr. Vassar, please. I want to get this straight. You went to the FBI on September 30 With your compatriots, and reported the elected Attorney General of this state for a crime without any evidence? Yes. That’s right. We took no evidence. Wow. No evidence, no evidence. They didn’t know. You could say the FBI. Well, they’re the ones who have to gather the evidence. But the FBI has had it for three years. They did nothing with it. So what evidence do you have behind the hearsay but you’re now trying him on. You still have no evidence. No one has evidence. They impeached an elected Attorney General under criminal accusations without any evidence of a crime. This is much bigger than Texas.”

Yeah, there goes the Blaze logo flying on the Blaze where the Chris Saucedo show got its start. So I’m very happy and happy to see my former boss getting involved. Of course, the Blaze is based in Texas. So they have more than a vested interest in what goes on here. And I think his point Glenn, Beck’s point on this is very prescient, the idea that, hey, just because we hate a guy, just because the Democrats and the Republicans hate a guy, because this Republican happens to be a conservative and believes the rule of law should apply to everybody. And then Democrats shouldn’t be immune from pushback when they violate the law. When they violate our rights, just because of that doesn’t mean you get to get rid of him. 

Just because he disrupts your harmony with the Republican’s ass-kissing in the Democrats’ totalitarian rule. Does it mean you get to take him out, at least under the American system that we have the idea that you can you can criminally you can impeach a guy on criminal charges that you have no evidence of? It’s insane. And I know I brought this up yesterday, but it bears repeating. That’s what’s leading guys like bud Kennedy, the editorial writer up there the Star-Telegram and Fort Worth, Texas, who is arguably not a Ken Paxton fan doesn’t like conservatives very much. 

So he says, you know, we’ll just want to remind everybody to impeach somebody, you really don’t need a crime. Oh, so that’s just the excuse that you have no evidence of. They just want to get rid of Ken Paxton. For all the reasons I mentioned. I want to continue this conversation with my guests coming up next, you know, not only what this all means for the Attorney General Ken Paxton, but what it means for those when we all know now we’re all going to find out that a bunch of small left-wing nut jobs whether they call themselves Republic Again, so they call themselves Democrats launching impeachment with no criminal evidence whatsoever. What will happen to them? 

I think that the justice served up to them by we, the people of Texas ought to be swift, and very, very heavy. They ought to pay a heavy price for what they’ve done. We expand on this conversation coming up next on the Salcedo Storm podcast. 

Let me bring in somebody who has been watching this somebody with a legal background and somebody who’s been on the program before. Debbie George gatos is a candidate for RNC committee woman for Texas. She’s the host of America. Can we talk and author of the book? Ladies, can we talk? Debbie, welcome back. 

Good morning, Chris. Thank you for having me. 

Pleasures, all mine are you wrote an article about this? And the six takeaways from the passionate impeachment? In my mind, I’m looking at it. And I go, you know, what, number three? was the big reason for me and the impeachment violated the law. I mean, that’s I think that’s where we got to begin. Yes. 

Absolutely. The state law in Texas, it says officials could not be impeached for conduct that occurred prior to the last election. It’s not just a nitpicking regulatory kind of issue. It really embodies the idea that the people of Texas have the right to choose their officials. And once they’ve made their decision that it should not be interfered with by elected officials. That’s the entire purpose of the law. 

Yeah, Texas code section 665 dot 081. No, look, I’ve got to say that. It seems to me that those and I think the first week of testimony bears this out, those who were doing the bidding of the Democrats, I’m talking about the Republican leadership in the in the Texas House and 60 Republicans who were joining with their socialist friends, to get rid of Ken Paxton that the law didn’t seem to matter. Evidence doesn’t seem to matter. Proof of a crime doesn’t seem to matter. They just hate Ken Paxton, is that fair? 

Yes, I would say overall, yes. I think Ken Paxton, really in the way he carries out his role as Attorney General. He does the bidding of the people of Texas. He fought he stands up for things he says he believed in. He pursued litigation against the Biden administration. He act consistent with what he said he would do during his campaign. And this really shines a light on the sun and the Texas legislature who don’t want to have to go along and really carried a conservative agenda forward. He makes them look bad. 

True. And you know, it he doesn’t share John Cornyn ‘s hatred of his own voters. They don’t share Dade Phelan, hatred of his own voters. Matt Rinaldi, who was the chairman, their conservative chairman of the Republican Party of Texas has said this more eloquently than I am, but he has said that it is the damnedest thing. The Texas GOP leadership hates their own voters. They despise them because their voters get in the way of them may containing their power, which and the way they do that is to kiss the collective buttcheeks. of the Democrats Fair?

That is that only fair I’ve not heard that particular quote. And that’s exactly right. And this is really a microcosm of the larger issue going on in America, which is a patriot movement, trying to restore the notion of the consent of the governed, that we that people really are just sovereign, we elect officials that we expect them to follow through, and what they said they would do. Too often what happens, people get elected, they get into positions of power and state or federal government, and they seem to jump on board with the unit party kind of agenda that does not any longer listen to and doesn’t follow what the voters want them to do. And this patriot movement is this why this has strong defensive Ken Paxton? Because he’s not one of the unit party cabal type. He’s one who says, I will fight for the things I said, No, the voters of Texas one. 

Yeah, I want to ask you about your race too. But I want I’m gonna get some of the things covered here with Debbie George shadow. She’s a candidate for RNC committeewoman, for Texas. She is the host of America. Can we talk her book is Ladies, can we talk. The other one of the other points you brought up was the process the legislature used to file this impeachment was itself unlawful. And you in your article you wrote you didn’t get into all the details. Some of these things I do know, looking at past impeachments, about how the issues were debated for a long time in public. Everything the house so-called leaders did was in secret. And and I think this is key. The people who were get they gather testimony from were not put under oath. And that’s huge, isn’t it? 

It is huge. I’m a lawyer by background and I do understand the difference. What happens when people are put under oath, they actually understand I may face a criminal charge of perjury. So be really careful what I say very different when you’re not put under penalty of perjury. So the the whole process used was really letting allegations against Ken Paxton be piled on and embellish with no consequences people if they are exaggerating, or indeed entirely mistaking what occurred. And the idea that this Texas house would allow that to be the process to bring about the impeachment of someone that they view as an outsider because he doesn’t play the establishment game. It really belies their agenda, their mission, which was to take someone out who makes them look bad. 

Yeah, I want to play something. This is Ryan Vassar. He’s one of the individuals one of the CO conspirators we’re calling him who, who changes his story on Ken Paxton, now that he’s under oath, have a listen to this guy. ‘That opinion was not a legal opinion under subchapter C chapter 402 of the Government Code, was it? Yes, it was a legal opinion under subchapter. 402 It was. Yes, sir. That’s not what you told the House Board of Managers. What did you tell them? I don’t recall. We’ll get to that later. But that’s not what you told them. Is it? I don’t recall, I may have misstated. You may have misstated.” 

Yeah. See, I don’t recall I may have misstated, you know, as with your background, and as a lawyer, Debbie, then when you got people on the stand, oh, all of a sudden, I can’t recall all of a sudden, oh, you know, I may have misstated. That is exactly what you’re talking about the consequence of being under oath. Yes. 

Absolutely. Right. Yes. And the consequence now that this is very public, many of the public trial in the state senate, many of these people who were really happy to make a very dramatic departure and go to the FBI, with what they’ve now acknowledged, was not really evidence was kind of like, you know, my feelings get hurt or upset about the way things are occurring or he isn’t doing he can pack isn’t doing what we tell them to do. Very, very differently. People now are facing the public and facing the consequence of penalty of perjury. Yeah, their tune changes. There’s a lot about the testimony, you can watch the testimony. There’s a lot of that that makes you realize these people are operating in what they thought was going to be kind of vacuum without review of their what they were doing and it’s a very different picture with in front of the public. Right and what’s what’s really a different picture is when that when they’re under oath. I’m going to go back to Ryan Vassar here who probably put down that what is indicated in most Texas, this was all a scam. This got a lot of coverage last week, where they they admitted and this goes exactly to your point, Debbie, that the Co-conspirators the folks who who hated Ken Paxton wanted to see him gone. They went to the FBI, with no evidence have listened

“we get this straight, you went to the FBI and reported him for potential crimes without any evidence. Do you have that? Correct? We went to the FBI and reported please answer my question. Yes, our belief the criminal activity had occurred. That was not my question was No. Answer the question yes or no? Did I ask it again? Mr. Vassar, please. I want to get this straight. You went to the FBI on September 30, with your compatriots, and reported the elected Attorney General of this state, for a crime without any evidence? Yes. That’s right.” That’s right. So Debbie, I am seem to recall a tweet that I called out from bud Kennedy, who 

Basically said after all, of all of these revelations, blood Kennedy, of the star, telegrams is out there saying, Well, you know, you don’t need evidence of a crime or a crime for impeachment. So, but Kennedy saying the quiet part out loud, we just hate Ken Paxton and want him gone. 

Absolutely, they want him gone for a little fact is come out also is that these people, these whistleblowers, discovered during cross-examination by Mr. Little, I believe cross examination, Ryan Vassar, or the idea that these whistleblowers have not had to pay for their own representation. Their attorney has been in HyperCard, awesome attorney, who is linked to George P. Bush, who was the primary opponent for 10 taxes, or even paying their own legal fees paid for by an opponent of Ken in the primary. 

Wow, it is huge. And then don’t get me started on the Ranger Maxwell, the Ranger got up and which I’ll probably after, after I get done with you here, Debbie, I will play that for the audience. Maxwell gets up there. And not only does he he admit, he has to read back his statement, which he then says, Oh, now that I’m under oath, I have to tell you, I didn’t have direct knowledge of any of that stuff. Five or six people told me and then when he was cross examined, we’ll just name one of those five or six people. He couldn’t do it. So many of us are calling out the integrity of Mr. Maxwell that nobody told him that it just a story he made up to and used his own credibility, to aid the house managers in launching this attack on Ken Paxton. And not only could he not name the individual, or individuals who told him this stuff. He also Debbie didn’t. And maybe you can tell me as a lawyer, when you represent something and you state it as if you had first-hand knowledge. And it’s factual, which is exactly what Mr. Maxwell did. As a member of the Texas Rangers. He didn’t say it was hearsay, when he was giving testimony to the house managers. That’s a that’s a problem, isn’t it? 

Oh, it is a problem and protections, I just encourage people to stand back and look at this situation. Ken Paxton was elected repeatedly by the Texas voters for over 20 years, he had just been reelected again in 2022. And all of this information that we’re all talking about now, and posting examining was information that public had available to them prior to the last election. And it’s not just a state statute that says it shouldn’t be doing it is of a higher principle is preeminent principle of self-governance, which means who gets to elect your leaders and not have people trying to fight your choice, because they decided they know more than the voters about the person that you chose to the Attorney General. They’re trying to replace their sporting the world of voters trying to replace their judgment, they the elected officials with that of the voters. And that’s the most egregious piece of all this, in my view. 

We are of course, marking the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Everybody has a story about where they were what they were doing. What are your reflections about this day and and maybe you can share what was was going on in your life. On September the 11th 2001. 

Actually, my husband and his business partner, were driving from our house out to DFW airport to get on a plane to fly to New York when I was I dropped the kids at school, listening to the radio and realized what had happened and called them and said I don’t think you should go I didn’t realize of course at that point. They’re gonna ground in all air flight in America but it was really I mean that because they were supposed to have gone to New York the day before. And a variety of reasons did not go. So there was really obviously grateful they weren’t there. And very, it’s you know, it’s a very jolting thing and you know, that expression people use when you realize when you saw the second Towerfall fall, something was wrong. And that was that very ominous feeling very early on. Something this is real. This is not a pilot who had a heart attack we are under attack. It was, you know, emotional and gut wrenching and, and the only wonderful thing briefly that emerged was America kind of unified briefly around, we protect our homeland, we, you know, we’re going to fight back against people who would harm us. But it was a very, very emotional day for everyone. 

Sure. And frankly, it was short-lived. The Unity was short lived courtesy of the Democrats. So Debbie, I want to talk to you about this run you have for committeewoman, for Texas, I don’t think a lot of folks understand the hierarchy, the RNC for for a committee position. So tell me what that entails. The RNC, which is Republican National Committee, is made up for our purposes of a committee man and a committee woman from every state. So every state sends a man and a woman and they that group together makes up the Republican National Committee. I am running for Republican National Committee. Well, they’re from Texas, the election occurs next year in May. But the RNC and this is a crucial point of my running, they can be kind of a rubber stamping of whatever they’re told to rubber stamp. They can be a docile body that does not really stand up. But I think at this time in American history, given all that the Biden administration is doing, very destructive of America, of our freedoms, the loss of border control, I think the RNC should be a far more bold voice, speaking up about America, acknowledging what the Democrat Party is doing to America and standing up for the people for the broad mass of the Republican voting base that wants the government to listen to the people. So I’m running to be a voice for Texas voters, Texas Republican voters who want to have their voices heard in Washington. 

Well, that’s That’s admirable. Now, the current RNC, the RNC? Chairwoman is Rhonda McDaniel, who saw fit to give the first debate on the Republican side to Fox, which I think makes sense Fox News is the is the largest presence out there aware of, shall we say, right leaning media, or at least doesn’t treat Republicans and conservatives like pariahs. At least they didn’t used to. And but then then the RNC turned around instead of giving the second debate to Newsmax, which is the second most-watched channel like that. They want to give it to to Fox Business, which had a lot of people like me being from Newsmax scratching our heads. You think that kind of that kind of deference to a Never Trump Organization, which Fox News is, is quite dangerous and something you might want to change? 

Absolutely. So we really fit with you and your listeners. I’m running actually, Rhonda McDaniel is a chair of the entire RNC. And he’s was recently reelected to that position earlier this year. I would be one of the 100 people, the Texas committee woman, but I would speak up on issues like that I could not agree with you more. I’d say something else. There is a very evidence. broad base of Republican voters around this country, we’re trying to say we want you to at least support Donald Trump to not give to not concede your capitulate to the Never Trump movement with Republican Party, the voters like Trump. I’m not saying they have to just try to designate Trump as a candidate and ignore everybody else. But they have to acknowledge that’s what the voters want is what they’ve been standing for. And so giving any oxygen to an anti Trump news outlet or or movement is really failures represent the Republican voters in America. 

Amen to that Debbie George Gatto, she is a candidate for RNC committeewoman for Texas. She is the host of America. Can we talk and the author of the book ladies, can we talk? Debbie great catching up with you? Chris, thank you for having me. That puts a wrap on this edition of The Salcedo storm podcast do me a favor, visit a couple of websites, Texas scorecard.com That’s where you’ll find the latest on the Paxton impeachment trial. And also big news in Texas. also head over to Chris saucedo.com. That’s where you find me all of my contact information across all the social media platforms that are relevant anyway. And also you can find me on Newsmax TV, and in the mornings on talk radio on AM 700k SCV, the voice of Texas until we visit again my friends remember this a society’s worth is not measured by how much power is stolen by an out of control government. It is rather measured by how much power is reserved for you and me. We the People stay safe out there my friends. Transcribed by https://otter.ai



THE LATEST

What Has Dade Phelan Been Up To In Government?

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast: Robert Montoya, investigative Journalist for the Texas Scorecard. Also, Quinn Sullivan is a student at Tarleton State University. he works to expose corruption within our local […]