On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:

Mitch Little helps individuals and business organizations in state and federal courts in Texas and beyond, with an emphasis on cases involving securities fraud. Mr. Little has represented clients in disputes across a wide array of other industries, including real estate, construction, retail, manufacturing, and technology. He is most recently known for representing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

It’s open warfare in the Texas Legislature folks, you’ve got Governor Greg Abbott, calling a special session to address the border to address medical mandates and to address parental school choice. All the polls show the majority of Texans want parental school choice. But there is a significant number of Republicans who are telling their constituents to basically go screw off. 

I hate to paint it so bluntly, but that’s exactly what 24 Republicans who have joined all socialists have done, the people of Texas want parental school choice, they want to be able to hold the school districts accountable. And they don’t want to sit in this crooked system that they’ve all created to make sure the money keeps flowing into their damn coffers. And our kids don’t get educated. They want it to end. 

But the individuals who we were stupid enough to elect. And by the way, folks, if they don’t deliver, if their votes don’t deliver parental school choice, you will know who to vote out. They don’t belong in the legislature. They don’t belong in any positions of power and authority. They are pro government and sacrificing the well being of your children and our people and they don’t deserve to go back. Plain and simple. So that’s that’s one indicator one voting guide that you can use. 

And I hope you do. The other voting guide that we’ve been talking about. It could be the single issues that didn’t get passed by these left wing nut jobs, who call themselves Republicans but deliver for Democrats. Or it could be you know, the passion impeachment or it could be the Dirty Dozen the baker’s dozen, articulated by the Texas scorecard. But what you need to know is that their motivation, their motivation. 

I think I brought this up on a podcast here recently, back in the day, back in the day, when Charlie Garin was a much younger man, he led a John McCain type effort against conservatives. And he put together something that called the gang of 11. And when the gang of 11 supplanted the last real Republican Speaker, the Texas House of Representatives had, from that point on, there has been the effort to create a cabal of Republicans in name only these people who get elected as Republicans because they spin a good line of BS, but they don’t believe anything about conservatism limited government and constitutional priorities. 

They only believe in power. So they join Democrats to pick the speaker, the rest of the mostly Republican slash conservative GOP caucus either has to fall in line or see none of their bills get passed. But here’s the thing, this last legislative session, none of their bills got passed. If you were a conservative, none of your stuff got passed. It was a purely pro Democrat, legislative session pro socialism Democrat session. 

So for all of you Republicans out there who are thinking about well, I gotta continue to vote for the speaker to continue the illusion that he has Republican support or she has Republican support. The screw that you’re you’re not, they’ve already stabbed you in the back they’re gonna stab you In the back again, because that’s what left wingers do. It’s what radicals do give me a prime example. 

Joe Biden, in the socialist Democrats are always trying to buy off. People who hate us, right? They send money over to China, they send money over to Iran, they send money over to to Russia. And what are those enemies of America? Always do? They use the money to go buy the proverbial dagger to jam in our back. And that’s exactly what these people who call themselves led by Dade Phelan. Let what these people who call themselves Republicans, that’s their MO, they’re just Democrats, folks who happen to call themselves Republicans so they can maintain power maintain the illusion. 

So this is what I think that you really have to pay attention to as we’re going into the primary season. Did your so called Republican vote with you and conservatism limited constitutional government? Or did they vote for socialists, communists, Marxists and their agenda? There’s another aspect of this I think you want to consider as well, the Paxton impeachment, the Paxton impeachment, was the embodiment of Democrat corruption, facilitated and undertaken by Republicans, bushes, the Phelans of the world. And these pro Democrat Republicans doing a solid for their Democrat friends to get rid of the most effective and conservative Attorney General in the United States, pushing back on the Biden regime to do what to protect the people of Texas. 

Dade Phelan doesn’t want to protect our people. He wants to exploit our people in the finest tradition of Democrats. I’m going to talk to one of the attorneys who defended Ken Paxton, not only about the trial, but also about the laws that somebody inside of the house managers sphere Dade feeling sphere, somebody broke Texas law, and they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law that comes your way next on the Salcedo storm podcast. 

Mitch Liddell counsels individuals and business organizations in state and federal courts in Texas and beyond. With an emphasis on cases involving securities fraud Mr. Liddell has represented clients and disputes across a wide array of other industries including real estate construction, retail manufacturing and technology, most recently known for representing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Mr. Little Welcome to the Salcedo storm podcast. 

Thank you so much. I’m so glad to be here and to talk with you and all of your listeners. 

Sir. It is my pleasure to welcome you and let me just ask you because there was a new law that was implemented and I I talked to the Attorney General about this earlier in the earlier in the week. And this new law says Hey, you can’t Dox people. You can’t Doc’s people by putting their address and their phone number out. You’re not allowed to do that because you want to protect people from the crazies out there who would show up in particular police nickel figures to, you know, do all manner of bad things to them, like we saw with the Supreme Court Justice is being threatened by with an assassination because of the the turning of overturning of Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade and the damage decision. So can you tell us what the loss says and why people are not allowed to docks in Texas? 

Yeah. So what you’re saying is we’re not allowed to do that anymore. We’re not allowed to just hand out people’s addresses and phone numbers and emails so that other people can harass them. That’s not allowed.

Apparently, by by law. Yeah. 47.082, I believe is the is the code. And it actually took effect in September. 

Yeah. I mean, Chris, the Texas State Legislature passed this bill. The Senate passed this bill, the governor signed it, put it into law. And the purpose the express purpose of it was to ensure the safety of Well, anyone, it could be you it could be me, but certainly the Attorney General, and when the House Board of Managers decided to publish additional information, the reason for which they stated was well, we didn’t have time to get all this in at trial. Lie Number One. The information that they published on the House website, clearly had the home address of the Attorney General and his wife, the state senator Angela Paxton, there could have been no reason to publish that information except to cause them potential. artic disarray and possibly even harm. They’re, they’re just oblivious, they’re oblivious to the effects of their actions. This information was redacted at trial, because Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick understood the impact of it. Their lawyers seem to understand the impact of it at trial. But you know, here we were two weeks after the trial, and let’s just put that information out for everyone to see. 

Well, well, well, well, that’s a that’s a key point. Because I brought this up with the Attorney General. I said, Well, how do we know that that this information didn’t come from the senators because they were seeing all the all these documents that the House managers published? So you’re you’re stating for the record that the the the address and phone number of, of Ken Paxton and his wife, Angela, Paxton, were redacted. So that means somebody had to go in and put it back in? 

It was redacted by the agreement of the parties. And so there were certain documents that were not placed into evidence, I can only assume that the reasons were the house Board of Managers and their lawyers didn’t think it was important enough to offer into evidence in either an unredacted or redacted way. But then the information appears on the house’s website two weeks after the fact. I mean, Chris, everyone understood the impact of this information enough to to know to redact it at trial. I mean, they didn’t even think the senator should see it, that the general public in the gallery should see it. But apparently, somebody decided, Well, anybody in Texas ought to be able to see it, regardless of their feelings about the Paxtons. It’s ridiculous. 

It’s ridiculous. And it’s incredibly dangerous. So I know the Attorney General has filed a criminal complaint. And maybe you can tell the folks out there who are not familiar with these kinds of things. Is it possible to establish chain of custody of this information to trace back all of those people with fingerprints who were responsible for Daxing in violation of Texas law? Daxing, the Paxton’s? 

No question. I mean, the metadata behind the documents that were actually uploaded, ought to be able to indicate that my understanding is that there is a staffer of Dade Phelan, who is attached to the med data of those documents. I had someone forward the information to me, I have, I did not personally do the research myself. But I have seen a document that purports to bear the metadata of someone who works in Dade Phelan’s office. And if some attentive district attorney or investigator wanted to find out I’m sure they could locate that information. 

I see. And what will the criminal complaint Forgive me I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on television. So the fact the Attorney General has taken the steps of filing a criminal complaint, does that automatically preserve records and so that an investigation will happen? No, it will not. I think it ultimately it. It comes down to the law official law law enforcement officials in those various counties to decide whether to investigate it and refer it to the local District Attorney for prosecution. And guess what, in some of those counties, they aren’t the biggest fans of Ken Paxton and they they may just round file that type of criminal complaint. You have to understand that when someone makes a criminal complaint, they are relying on the elected officials inside that county. That’s your county, that’s my county, and they’re paid investigators to determine if they are interested enough to do something about it. And As you know, when the Attorney General takes steps as a citizen to do those things like you or I might he gets treated a little bit differently. I don’t know if you’ve noticed that. 

Yes, I have noticed that and it’s it’s a bit of a travesty. So at this point, we have to rely on left wing. Perhaps Soros influenced attorneys to fight to do the right thing to actually follow the law. And so it doesn’t look like that. That’s not likely to happen because again, Soros influenced people. Mitch Liddell is our guest right now, folks, he he recently represented Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, let me ask you about the trial, because I’m very interested. And, and unpacking this because he even though a lot of a lot of Paxton haters are claiming there are mountains of mountains amounts of mountains of evidence, what I saw as the individuals who were presenting so called evidence, when they were asked to corroborate once they were, under oath, corroborate what they had told house managers to get the impeachment put across. Once they were asked under oath to corroborate everything, they all change their stories. And is that true? Or am I overgeneralizing? 

Here’s what, I think I would I would say it this way, Chris, the stories that the so called whistleblowers took to the FBI, were not founded in anything that could have been substantiated by documentary evidence. And so when they go to the FBI, all they’re telling us a story. They’re not bringing documents, they’re not bringing physical evidence with them. They’re not bringing bringing data or computer files, they’re telling a story. And so that story, which was endlessly amplified by the media in Texas, the media throughout the United States, really, the story became the impeachment. It’s literally the verbal information relayed to the FBI became the basis for the impeachment, rather than any type of documentary evidence that might substantiate it. So when you go and you have a trial, that’s just not enough. And the idea, I think, on the part of the house Board of Managers was, well, we’ve got some really salacious stories and ideas about what happened from the so called whistleblowers, and we’ll just build the plane as it flies, we’ll go out and we need to impeach him first, and then figure out what the case is about later, which is borne out in the timeline. Ultimately, the house was still issuing subpoenas after the vote was taken. So they even didn’t believe that their investigation was complete at that point in time. It wasn’t, they didn’t actually know what happened. They took the story and ran with it. 

So yes, they took a story and ran with it. And that brings me to the next question, which is, you know, kind of a common sense one. I would not be comfortable in any capacity as a civilian, as somebody was in government saying impeaching anybody without evidence. I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable in impeaching anybody, anybody based on on information that was presented by people who were not put under oath, because those people could have lied because they had no threat of perjury, but still 60 so called Republicans voted in the affirmative for this impeachment. What is your what is your sense? Were they duped or were they corrupt? Or were they just kind of stupid? 

Great question. I think it’s important for us to really draw a distinction about what the word corrupt means. First of all, they were not duped. Let’s just take that option off the table so that that leaves us, were they corrupt? Or were they stupid? I think most of them are generally bright people. I know many of the representatives who voted to impeach and I wouldn’t say that they were stupid. Let’s just take a more expansive reading of what the word corrupt means. When those people were elected to come down to Austin, and give their vote to a matter. Generally, we are electing them to go and vote, their belief their conscience based upon reality based upon truth, what they know what they understand. Yeah. And I will tell you that will have their vote and the will of their voters too. Yeah, sure. But the place where this went sideways, was when Dade Phelan took the Dyess for the vote and said show the speaker voting aye. And once that happened, the representatives who are in the Republican caucus had a choice to make. Do I vote based upon the information that’s before me the proof literally of the impeachment of which there was none? Or do I take whatever steps are necessary to preserve my influence in the building with the Speaker, my own personal power, my own personal brand, and agenda to do other things in the future that I might like to do. And it’s my belief that that Chris is a form of corruption. It’s not the same as someone paying you $50 to go and vote on a bill one way or the other. It’s just a variation on the same theme. I voted for a reason other than the reason that the voters elected me to vote. 

Exactly. Exactly. And And again, what I’m glad you clarified, because some people are out there trying to say, well, you know, it seems because they sat there and watch the same trial, and I was struck by these people who sat there. And, and the Paxton defense team of which you were one, they did a magnificent job of saying, Well, wait a minute, this is what you’re testifying under oath right now. But that’s not what you said to the house managers to secure the impeachment. You said something different to the house managers secure the impeachment. So all the people that were doing these backroom investigations, all these people that were hiring Obama lawyers, and and not putting anybody under oath and gathering so called evidence, there was never under oath, never, never for the public to see. They just got dropped in the lap of these representatives. And they said, here’s the avalanche vote on it in 48 hours. And to me, that’s a that’s a red flag. No, you don’t tell me to vote on impeaching a guy that got 4.2 million votes, based on a whole bunch of hearsay that wasn’t under oath. Why other than their future influence and trying to kiss the rear end of their speakers so that their future bills may have a chance a snowball’s chance in hell of getting passed. Why do you think what would what would motivate I know what motivate a Democrat what would motivate a Republican to do that? 

I think ignorance of the law at one so for those of you who don’t, or who may have watched the impeachment trial with great interest but have not looked up the Government Code section dealing with impeachment. A house general investigating committee is not allowed by law to waive the obligation to put witnesses under oath. They’re not there expressly by statute, prevented from waiving the obligation to put witnesses under oath. John Smithee, in his very bold and courageous speech on the House floor, pointed this out for everybody. So I don’t think people can claim ignorance at the time they took the vote. They may have been ignorant of it two days earlier when they heard about the impeachment for the first time, but by the time they’re voting, everyone knows what the rules are. And they disregarded them. I think I think that these people who saw a political future for themselves thought that Ken Paxton was going to resign as a result of this wouldn’t put his family through, you know, a costly, difficult trial, and everyone would go, Oh, how sad. What a sad chapter in Texas history. Anyway, moving on to our next attorney general who should be me by the way, or my friend or my political ally. It just didn’t quite work out that way. Did it? Chris. 

It didn’t. It didn’t and much, much to the credit of the attorney general who said he was gonna have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of that office for nefarious purposes. The voters put him in there because he’s effective. And he knew that Mitch Liddell is our guest right now, folks, he is an attorney represented a Ken Paxton in the impeachment trial. I have my own favorite part. I’m curious as to what yours is. And maybe favorite isn’t the word of of the witnesses that changed their stories once they were under oath, and subject to perjury if if they lied. My favorite wasn’t what everybody else’s was, which was the admission that they went to the FBI from Vassar wasn’t it was Vassar said, Yeah, we went to the FBI with no evidence of a crisis. Mine was this so called Texas Ranger. Maxwell was his name. And a man and a man who seemed to me to be on the witness stand. being intentionally a weasel knowing knowing that he was caught knowing that he said, he basically lied to the house managers because he wasn’t under oath to give them what they needed and wanted. But when he was under oath, he decided to play cute by half, and he came off looking like a horse’s ass, didn’t he? 

Yeah, so I thought that was one of the more masterful cross examinations I personally have seen in a courtroom by Dan cogdell just the purpose of His cross examination was to build David Maxwell up into the, into the law enforcement legend that he was, and then illustrate how little effort David Maxwell gave to conducting any investigation of the FBI. And I will tell you for a fact, there is no way Dan cogdell knew the level of games beforehand that David Maxwell was going to play on the stand. And when David Maxwell started playing games, you know, pretending not to be able to hear a Dan or being intentionally evasive and thought he was being funny and cute, that that did not come off the way that they wanted it to, from the perspective of the prosecution. I think, you know, it’s interesting that we can to hear people’s reaction to David Maxwell, if you live in the left wing reality tunnel, they thought that went great. What a credible law enforcement officer. And I’m just going, I was in the courtroom, too. I mean, how can you have listened to that and thought, Yeah, this guy was trying to do justice and fairness. 

No, he wasn’t. He was trying to railroad. He was trying to frame He disgraced the badge. He disgraced Texas and in my view, and and David Maxwell, this, that it was like some sort of delightful game that he enjoyed destroying the lives of the Paxtons with something he knew was was a lie that he told the House managers and then had to change his story. And then this, this alleged, the exchange of information in the dark of night, that he didn’t tell the house managers, but then had then had to come back and say, Well, I heard it for five or six people. And then this Sterling law enforcement officer, which it who is so credible, he couldn’t remember any of the names of the alleged five to six people who told him this fanciful tale. So I guess that that leads me to my final question, knowing the legal experts, Mr. Little that you did, were any of them taken aback by the level of depravity that they witnessed that the length of these, in my opinion, this is just my opinion, these bushes, these Bush sites, would go to serve Democrats to undermine conservatives undermine the rule of law, the length they would go to, to get their way politically to, were any of them shocked by what they uncovered. 

Were any of the lawyers on our legal team shocked? Yes, yes. So let me just answer that very clearly. No, we were not shocked. I just want to take you back to May. I mean, leading up to Memorial Day weekend. You I mean, I literally learned about the impeachment at the same time everybody else in the world did that they’re having a public hearing. And it’s gonna last a few hours. And I know nothing about it. Chris Hilton with the Attorney General’s Office is running down there with a pile of information. Let me speak let me speak. They don’t let him speak. And I’m thinking this, even if this comes to the floor for a vote, my representative is not going to vote for it. The Collin County Representatives are not going to vote for it. And I’m thinking this is not going to happen. And when I was at my son’s baseball game, when the vote was going on, and I, I saw the vote count, I just went there goes my summer, and but what realize, but what I realized was they will stop at nothing. There is there is no amount of due process, they will not destroy. There’s nothing they won’t lie about. There’s no one they won’t hire. I was sitting in the Senate chamber across from an ocean of lawyers. Most of the house Board of Managers are lawyers. There were at least 20 hired guns over there that you and I paid for. That you and I paid for. That would say anything, do anything, do whatever they have to do to get rid of the Attorney General. That was the whole milieu for the entire summer. We will hide whatever we have to hide. We will cajole whoever we have to control we will say whatever we have to say to accomplish this goal. They just the problem was they ran into a buzzsaw. They ran into a buzzsaw of their own creation. They rested this entire case on the uncorroborated testimony of career career bureaucrats basically. 

Well, well. You know what, they also ran into a buzzsaw of we the people because I think for the first time on for the first time, I think since President Trump’s what’s what’s been happening to him. A lot of folks have been have been aware of this. And the minute that type of attack came to Texas spearheaded by individuals who claim to be Republicans If people understood and knew the buzzsaw they ran into was we the people, and I don’t think and I still don’t think they’re ready for the buzzsaw that’s going to continue to cut these pro Democrat Republicans, these pro socialist pro Marxist Republicans, what’s coming their way electorally, in the primaries? Mitch little thank you very much man for your efforts and your legal expertise right here on the Salcedo storm podcast. 

It’s my pleasure. Thanks for inviting me and God bless you. God bless your listeners too. 

That’s gonna do it for this edition of The Salcedo storm podcast. Do me and yourself a favor visit a couple of websites once you Texas scorecard.com That’s number one. And then the second website is Chris salcedo.com. Head to those two sides if you want to figure out what’s happening in Texas, and what it all means until we visit again my friends remember this a society’s worth isn’t measured by how much power is stolen by government. It is measured by how much power is reserved for you and me. In short, we the people who stay safe out there my friends. 

Transcribed by https://otter.ai