The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - August 25, 2023
Episode Date: August 25, 2023Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free Texas flag hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/ The Texan’s Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas p...olitics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion. Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email editor@thetexan.news — they just might be answered on a future podcast. This week on The Texan’s Weekly Roundup, the team discusses: Ken Paxton reportedly on the Texas House impeachment team’s witness listGov. Greg Abbott speaks on southern border with four other governorsA former judge declines to help Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick preside over Paxton trialAustin’s chief of police announces retirementTickets required for members of the public to sit in on Paxton’s impeachment trialPlanned Parenthood faces Medicaid fraud lawsuit that could cost $1.8 billionConroe ISD voters see $2 billion bond on their November ballotAppellate court revives Texas Bar disciplinary action against first assistant attorney generalInstagram account puts up billboard in Austin to protest the state’s “drag ban”Texas Young Republicans disassociates from the state GOP over comments from Chairman Matt RinaldiMan sued over comment criticizing a teacher advising students to call pedophiles “minor-attracted persons”And more.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Happy Friday, folks. Senior Editor Mackenzie DeLulo here, and welcome back to the Texans Weekly Roundup podcast.
Ken Paxton reportedly being on the Texas House impeachment team's witness list in his upcoming trial.
Governor Greg Abbott speaking on the southern border with governors of four other states.
A former appeals court judge declining an offer to help Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick preside over the Paxton impeachment trial.
Austin's chief of police announcing his retirement just two years after he entered the role.
Tickets being required for members of the public to sit in on Paxton's impeachment trial.
Planned Parenthood facing a Medicaid fraud lawsuit that could cost the organization $1.8 billion.
Conroe ISD voters facing a $2 billion bond for schools, renovations,
and tech on their November ballot. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reviving a Texas bar disciplinary action against the first assistant attorney general. The Republicans' drag parody
Instagram account putting up a billboard in Austin to protest the state's drag ban.
The Texas Young Republicans disassociating from the state's drag ban. The Texas Young
Republicans disassociating from the state GOP over comments from Chairman Matt Rinaldi. A man sued
over his Facebook comment criticizing a teacher advising students to call pedophiles minor
attracted persons. The South Texas Cleburne County attorney leaving the Democrats to join the GOP, and the Texas A&M System announcing
its new $200 million Space Institute. As always, if you have questions for our team, DM us
on Twitter or email us at editor at the texan.news. We'd love to answer your questions on a future
podcast. Thanks for listening and enjoy this episode.
Howdy folks, Mackenzie here with Brad, Cameron, Rob, and Hayden. I press record so all the
gentlemen in this room have to behave themselves now. That is completely my goal here is just
to make everyone behave themselves. They're feeling a little frisky. They're feeling their
oats today.
All I said was a very commonly believed conspiracy theory slogan. That's it.
That's all he said. Very commonly believed.
Yes.
Very commonly.
One which we will not broach on this podcast.
How are you guys doing today?
Hayden, how are you?
That is a loaded question.
Your eyes look a little teary.
Is it from all the laughter?
Or are you crying for Brad's soul?
Wow.
Probably necessary.
Yeah, a little bit.
You did say before the podcast that Brad and I are brothers now, so that's interesting.
That's a new development.
You guys bicker or just know each other like brothers sometimes.
How do you feel being related to me, Brad?
It's kind of a shock, isn't it?
I call the top bunk.
There's going to be so much room for activities shock isn't it i call the top bunk there's gonna be there's gonna
be so much room for activities hayden would give brad the top bunk too i would i don't i don't want
to be on the top bunk fine because i had a top bunk bed only when i was little and been there
done that my dad built a railing so that i wouldn't roll over and fall off of it which was a
real possibility because at times i would wake up right next to the railing so if the railing so that I wouldn't roll over and fall off of it, which was a real possibility
because at times I would wake up right next to the railing. So if the railing hadn't been there,
I would have fallen a hundred feet to the floor. It's how it feels.
Well, when you're seven and you're in the top bunk, it feels like a hundred feet.
Proportionally, it probably is. I also had a bunk bed, but my family eventually got rid of
that bunk bed after I once leaned over and hit my head on the ceiling fan.
I actually got slapped by the ceiling fan.
So I still have a scar right here on my floor.
No way.
I see it.
That's crazy.
I feel like the top bunk, I was a top bunk kid too.
And you'd have to slide under the ceiling fan to get out and go down the ladder.
That's at least how our bedroom was built.
Took a lot of skill and definitely a whacked by a ceiling fan a time or two, but I don't have a scar to show for it.
So Rob, you're killing it. Okay, folks, before we jump into the news today, I do want to plug
a new podcast that we are launching here at the Texan. As you guys know, we've spoken at
length about the impeachment trial, the Paxton impeachment trial that will be happening
in the Senate in a few weeks here, or two weeks, actually, September 5th.
11 days.
We will be launching a daily podcast entitled Inside the Impeachment, the Paxton trial,
and we'll be launching it in the days leading up to the trial as well. So we will have three
preliminary episodes leading up to September 5th. Hayden and I will be chatting through all the details. The first episode will be the
whistleblower allegations detailing all the spicy, insane details of the whistleblower allegations
that started this whole thing. We'll also have another episode on the legal battles over those
whistleblower lawsuits in the settlement. And then finally, the impeachment and political response will be our third preliminary episode before we start
recording daily on September 5th. Brad Johnson and Matt Stringer will be joining me every day,
and Hayden will join when he's available, as well as other members of the team, since
Hayden will be in the Senate following the trial firsthand. So just be on the lookout for that.
Inside the impeachment, the Paxton trial launching on Monday.
So keep an eye out for that.
Hayden, I'm excited.
We're going to record our first episode this afternoon.
We are.
No pressure on us.
We're going to unpack when this all began.
This is like the closest to the true crime podcast that we've talked about before that
we'll ever get to launch.
We've always wanted to do a
true crime podcast it's very true also we started watching the pharmacist that you mentioned the
other day that documentary will freak you right out i will say i did tune it out halfway through
and just start doing things around the house but it was pretty wild it's one of those documentaries
too that you have to watch all four episodes in one sitting,
or at least I did not necessarily in one sitting,
but at least in a couple of days,
because each episode ends with a huge cliffhanger,
huge revelation.
It's very true.
But folks,
we really just want to make sure you're aware that also this podcast will be in
the feed where you currently are enjoying our content.
So there'll be a lot more content in the feed.
Bear with us throughout the entirety of the trial.
We'll just be publishing a lot and detailing everything that's going on each day.
It will kind of serve as a debrief of each day's happenings, what happens on the Senate
floor, the witnesses at hand, any of the spicy political responses.
All of it will be debriefing as a team.
Occasionally, we'll have guests on as well to break down some of the legal intricacies. So make sure to join
us. It's going to be awesome. Hayden, we're going to start with you talking about the news here.
And specifically, of course, Paxton's write up. A confidential document was leaked to the media
this week that gave us a preview of the impeachment trial. What was in the document?
Due to the gag order, a lot of the details of
this upcoming impeachment proceeding have been shrouded in mystery because none of the parties
are allowed to speak about it. But occasionally documents and other quotes get leaked to the media
and the Dallas Morning News was able to acquire a copy of the witness lists for each side. These
are not necessarily guarantees of who will show
up, but these are the names that were put out there. Ken Paxton is on the House impeachment
side's witness list. And he, of course, has said he does not want to testify at this impeachment
trial. But the House managers presenting this impeachment case in the Senate say that he is bound to do this and that because it is not necessarily a criminal proceeding, he doesn't have the right to just not show up.
Although the Senate rules contemplate the possibility that he will not be there because it says if he does not personally appear and plead not guilty, that the trial will proceed as though he entered
a plea of not guilty on each of the articles of impeachment. Ken Paxton's testimony would be
a huge deal if he were to speak about these charges, although he would likely invoke the
Fifth Amendment because, bear in mind, he is facing criminal allegations. But
the impeachment team witnesses, according to the
Dallas paper, include Nate Paul, that is the real estate developer that he is accused of,
from whom he is accused of accepting bribes, Collin County District Attorney Greg Cox,
a friend of Paxton's, and former Travis County DA Margaret Moore. And without unpacking all of it,
Moore is involved in this because her office was
asked by the AOG to investigate allegations by Nate Paul. Possible witnesses for the defense
could be Senator Brian Hughes, former land commissioner George P. Bush, former Texas
Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman, the Texans for Lawsuit Reform Organization, and its founder,
Dick Weakley. Also, the Dallas paper
mentioned that the whistleblowers, as they are referred to by Paxton's accusers, are on the
lists for both sides. So that's a preview of who could be waiting to testify here in less than two
weeks. Important also to note that Bush and Guzman are, of course,
former primary opponents to the attorney general as well. How has Ken Paxton's team preempted attempts to call him to testify? Paxton's lawyers have argued in court documents that this is a
criminal proceeding and he is therefore entitled to all of the rights that a criminal defendant
would have. However, this is taking place in the
legislature, and it is not a criminal trial in the sense that the Senate cannot impose any criminal
sanctions. It is not able to sentence him to imprisonment or impose any type of fine. The only
authority the Senate has over Paxton is to remove him from office by sustaining the articles of
impeachment and then voting separately to permanently bar him from ever holding office again. However, Paxton's attorneys, as I mentioned,
say that this is a criminal proceeding and he cannot be compelled to testify.
Busby, Tony Busby, one of Paxton's lawyers, said that he would not dignify the proceeding
by showing up to testify. And that's something that he said earlier this month.
I should also mention that another witness that has been floated as a possible witness,
and I believe is on the impeachment team's list of witnesses, is Laura Olson,
the woman with whom Paxton is accused of having an affair. And the reason that she is her testimony would be relevant is the bribes that Nate Paul allegedly offered to Paxton included an employment offer for Laura Olson as part of covering up this affair.
So her testimony would be relevant.
And she is reportedly on the witness list for the impeachment side.
Crazy stuff, Hayden. Thank you so much. Rob, you are covering Matt's stories for him today on the podcast. Let's jump into this. Governor Abbott met with four other state governors this
week on Texas's southern border. Who were those governors?
So those governors were South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen,
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, and Iowa Governor
Kim Reynolds, all of whom are Republicans like Abbott. All of them have contributed resources
from their states to Operation Lone Star, and that includes National Guard troops and state
law enforcement. So what do they have to talk about at the border? So Abbott said that the
Biden administration is mishandling the border, including he commented that one infant died actually drowning in the Rio Grande before
the buoy barrier system was put in place. This buoy barrier system has been a source of recent
political controversy after a body was found in the barrier system. Some people believe that they
had drowned because of it. Others said that the body, I believe, had actually washed there from upstream. But Abbott was saying that this dead infant did not
garner any attention from the administration before the barrier system was put in place.
The other governors also blamed Biden, saying that Mexican cartels are taking advantage of
the situation to conduct drug smuggling and human smuggling through the border,
with a few claiming that drug crimes are rising in their states due to the border crisis.
Stitt of Oklahoma said that the new Biden administration policies allowing anyone who makes it across the river to be processed
and released by federal immigration authorities were what prompted Abbott's response in deploying the buoy barrier system.
Absolutely. Definitely go read Matt Stringer's cover to the Texan. And Rob, thanks for covering for him today. Hey, I can do it,
but I can't do it justice. Your favorite line. Hayden, coming back to you, Lieutenant Governor
Dan Patrick appointed a former appeals court justice to assist during the impeachment trial,
but he declined the position. Why did he decline?
Former Justice Mark Brown said that he could not serve as Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's right-hand man during the impeachment trial.
But let's go back to when Patrick initially appointed him.
He said, Patrick said, quote, I was looking for a candidate with real-life courtroom experience as a lawyer and a judge who would serve as counsel and work side by side with me through this process.
End quote.
Patrick said that in a news release announcing the appointment of former Justice Brown to this position.
However, only a day later, Justice Brown authored a public letter to Paxton,
to Patrick, excuse me, saying that he could not accept the appointment.
He had made it through the vetting process for
this appointment, but then remembered that he and his wife had made a $250 political contribution
in November 2021 to former Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman. If you'll remember, Guzman was the
one of Paxton's primary opponents during the 2022 Republican primary. She did not make it to
the runoff, and the runoff was between George P. Bush and Paxton. But that small political
contribution, and honestly, in the world of campaign donations, $250 is nothing. But
Justice Brown believed it could impair the perception of this proceeding as a fair and impartial proceeding.
Justice Brown said, quote, I have full confidence in my ability to fairly offer legal advice in this matter.
However, the proceedings commencing on September 5th, 2023, are far too important to the state of Texas for there to be any distractions involving allegations of favoritism or personal bias on my part.
End quote.
So what are some of the Senate rules that serve as the backdrop of this?
The Senate rules here that are relevant empower Patrick to appoint someone to advise him during
this trial. And it's exactly someone like Brown. Brown was a state district judge,
and he served as a justice on the 14th Court of Appeals. The rules stipulate that the person
cannot be in an imminent campaign cycle. The rules state, quote, the president of the Senate
or a member of the Senate designated by the president serves as the presiding officer of
the court. In addition, the president of the Senate may appoint a jurist who shall not run
for election in the 2024 election cycle to serve as the presiding officer of the court may appoint a jurist who shall not run for election in the 2024 election cycle
to serve as the presiding officer of the court, end quote. Patrick is invoking his constitutional
authority under the rules to make this appointment when he did. However, Justice Brown has declined
the appointment. So next step would be for Patrick to choose someone else or we'll see what happens.
Yeah. And he doesn't have too much time to get that vetting process done and choose another person.
So we'll see who he or what happens.
It'll be fascinating.
Hayden, thank you.
Brad, coming to you after a brief two years in the position, Austin's police chief will soon be departing.
Man, I hope I can get the words out.
Give us those details.
It is a tongue twister as it were. APD chief
Joseph Chacon announced this week that he will be stepping down from his post retiring from the
department after two years in the position in 25 years at APD. He said quote working at APD has
been the privilege of my life. Being the chief of police is something that I never thought would
have been possible and it has been the pinnacle of my career. Chacon took over for former chief Brian Manley after he retired in 2021
following a crazy string of events in the fallout from the 2020 protests turned riots.
Chacon's retirement will be effective in the first week of September. APD chief of staff, Robin Henderson, will serve as interim chief,
and its city manager, Jose Garza, will start looking for the next,
they'll do probably a national search, kind of how they did last time
when they eventually selected Chacon, even though that was an in-house hire.
But they are
going to probably start that soon. And based on the last one, took about six months. Give us the
broader context of this resignation. So APD is amidst a staffing crisis and along with the impasse
over a new labor contract. We covered that a lot earlier this year when it was really at its height, but the city and the Austin Police Union did not agree on a new contract.
The old city manager announced an agreement with the union for a four-year contract. The city,
Mayor Kirk Watson, kind of reneged on that and offered a one-year extension the union
did not agree to that now employment by of the city's officers is under state code chapter 143
i think it is and so there's that going on while there's a staffing hemorrhage going on.
As of March, the department had lost 89 officers this year to early retirement or other departures,
otherwise leaving for another department.
That was down 300 officers from its 2019 level.
I don't have the exact numbers now, but it has only increased.
So as far as departures, they have supplemented it with new cadet classes, but those are green recruits.
That's not experienced officers that they're losing.
So it's causing an issue, and there's a lot of the 911 response times are very high.
The ability to respond to emergency situations is limited. It's kind of a
mess. And there really appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Whoever takes this new job
is going to have quite a problem on their hands. Yeah, absolutely. And I do want to correct myself
earlier. I said resignation instead of retirement. So to be clear, he's retiring. He's not resigning.
Hayden, coming back to you, the Texas Senate recently announced some ground rules for public
attendance at the impeachment trial. Give us an outline of those rules.
The Texas Senate announced a few ground rules for the impeachment trial and the public attendance.
Tickets will be required to get into the Senate gallery. I will say up front that these rules do not mention any cost for these tickets, but there will be tickets for the morning session and the afternoon session on each day.
Tickets will begin distribution at 7.30 a.m. each day and then will end, according to these rules, when the tickets are depleted.
It's on a first-come, first-served basis. Tickets will
become available for the afternoon session 45 minutes before the Senate gallery doors open.
And according to this distribution, gallery doors will open at eight o'clock each morning.
And as we mentioned before, the Senate trial is supposed to begin at 9 a.m. on that first day,
but trials are wildly unpredictable. We don't know
what kind of sidebar conferences they'll want to have. We don't know if there will be delays.
But this is the basic framework that is being put out there for attendance by the public.
And if you are at the impeachment trial and you have your ticket, make sure and hold on to it
because they will require it to re-enter. So if you have to leave to use the restroom or if you have to leave for
a snack or something, they'll want you to have that ticket before you go back in. And then there
will obviously be basic decorum required in the chamber. These rules specifically say that cell
phones and related electronic devices have to be off or on vibrate, no cameras, no games, no outbursts. And the rules also say there can be no talking,
clapping or demonstrations. So basically, the Senate is saying if you want to attend,
you need to get a ticket and then sit quietly throughout the proceedings. And those are the rules according to the Texas
Senate. And this is new guidance that we received this week. What did the original Senate rules
say about public attendance? Well, the original Senate rules were not too specific. They generally
require that it is to be a public proceeding and the bailiff, as he is called, is to maximize the amount of
people who are able to attend. And the bailiff, of course, is going to be the sergeant at arms,
but we're using all of this courtroom terminology because for these purposes,
the Senate is sitting as a court of impeachment, but this is not a court at law. This is a novel situation,
and in the modern era, we have not had an impeachment like this, and many people have
an interest in the outcome of this proceeding. So the rules contemplate a lot of people showing up
to attend, and this process seems to indicate that the Senate is hoping for an orderly and peaceful attendance by the public
and a fair way to make sure as many people are able to go to this trial as possible.
And we're even a little bit curious about, okay, what are the press rules going to be? Like,
we just, there are so many things we don't know about the day-to-day proceedings once this trial
actually gets off the ground. So I don't know. We'll keep an eye out for what will actually
be the case and what photos can be taken and whether Hayden can have his laptop in the gallery.
He might have a little Etch-A-Sketch or something, which is, I think, Matt Stringer's preference.
He loves an Etch-A-Sketch. Okay. Thank you, Hayden, for your coverage. Cameron, we're coming to you
next. A Medicaid lawsuit could have a lasting impact on Planned Parenthood. Give us the details. Yeah, so the OAG,
the Office of the Attorney General, has filed a lawsuit accusing Planned Parenthood of defrauding
over $10 million in Medicaid funds. And with fines and penalties that could stack up in the lawsuit
based on the ruling, it could cost Planned Parenthood up to $1.8 billion.
And as I was looking through this, there was a comment I thought was very interesting,
and it was actually from Vox.com, and they said,
it's more than enough to bankrupt Planned Parenthood.
And this was heard on August 15th, and the case was actually heard in the U.S. District Court of Judge Matthew Kazermark.
Hopefully I'm pronouncing that correctly, Kazmerik.
You're pretty darn close. You're closer than I would have been.
Well, he has an interesting track record of being very pro-life in many of his rulings. And so he hasn't
yet made a ruling on this, but we'll be following it. One other interesting thing that I thought
I could bring up was some of the things that have been said from the OAG's office and Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood said
it's meritless, it's politically motivated. They said unequivocally that this lawsuit has no basis
in fact, that it's an abuse of power. But the OAG, who is arguing that in 2016, once Planned
Parenthood was moved off of the Texas Medicaid program, they continued
to collect Medicaid funds. So they're arguing that Planned Parenthood committed violations of the
Federal False Claims Act. Planned Parenthood has stated that there's a subjective belief,
nor did they have an objective reason to believe they would be required to repay
amounts they received in this period of 2016 to where we are now. So this is very interesting
in terms of the sheer amount of money that this could cost Planned Parenthood and the fact that there's no ruling yet and the after effects could
have a nationwide effect on this Planned Parenthood organization. Yeah, absolutely. Cameron, thank you
so much for your coverage. Bradley, Conroe ISD is asking voters to approve a $2 billion bond
package this November. Give us the breakdown. The package includes four items. They are
Proposition A, $1.82 billion for eight schools and renovations at multiple others. Proposition B,
$40 million for technology devices. Proposition C, $112.8 million for 16 elementary gyms and physical education classrooms.
And then Prop D, $22.9 million for an outdoor pool next to the district's current natatorium.
That's what voters will see on their ballots.
I was texting.
I could tell.
Yeah, okay.
I tried to string it out for you so you had time to finish and then you continued texting.
I didn't.
Brad, I'm just going to ask you a question now.
Oh, sure.
I have a burning question for you.
How will this affect tax bills?
I'm glad you asked.
Thank you, Bradley.
I just came to mind.
I was not expecting that.
Yeah.
So if the whole Conroe ISD bond package passes and then voters approve the statewide $13 billion tax relief propositions from the legislature, the average homeowner in Montgomery County in the district whose property is valued at roughly $386,000 would see their property tax bill drop by $438.
So that includes the increase from the bond and the decrease from
the tax relief bill. Should the local propositions all fail, thus triggering the voter approval rate,
that decrease for the average homeowner would be $875 on the school portion of their tax bill.
Had the no new revenue rate been adopted,
that decrease would be $750.
For some reason,
and I haven't been able to figure out exactly why,
various weird factors,
but in here,
the voter approval rate is less than the no new revenue rate,
which doesn't make much sense
because the no new revenue rate, by and large, is supposed to be the lower of the two.
But for some weird reason here, that's the case.
Most people don't care about that at all, but for the tax nerds, that is something very odd and interesting that I came across during this.
So without the legislature's reform, the average taxpayer would see a roughly $600 increase in their bill due to the bond package.
So that is what effectively this bond would bring about.
It's because of the tax relief from the legislature that people are going to see a significant decrease.
So the delta between the tax rate with the bond
and the voter approval rate comes out to $540.
It's a lot of numbers.
For an average homeowner.
For an average homeowner in Montgomery County
and Conroe ISD.
So messages, if you pass this,
the decrease from the property tax relief
will be less than what it otherwise would.
But the school district feels it's necessary to build new schools and adjust for population growth mainly
got it well i do want to say you called yourself a tax nerd earlier you referenced i think it was
chapter 143 of uh code when you were talking about the apD story. I just want to say that you did reference like a section of code on the podcast.
A specific chapter.
I did.
Yeah.
So I just think I almost let it go.
All the cops know that section of code.
So it's not just me.
OK.
Well, that makes me feel a little bit better.
So if there are any police listening to this, they will know what I'm talking about.
OK.
Well, maybe I shouldn't make so much fun of you.
You know, that might be recommended, yes.
Okay.
Rob, we're coming to you.
This lawsuit against first assistant attorney general Brent Webster was dismissed last year.
Why is it being revived?
Give us the details of Matt's story.
Well, I'm very glad you asked.
Williamson County District Judge John Youngblood found that the suit violated the separation of powers doctrine and other provisions in the U.S. Constitution, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned that and returned the suit back to district court.
It will stay there in Williamson County unless Webster appeals to the Texas Supreme Court.
So where did this lawsuit originate? Well, in 2020, Webster filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court contesting the 2020
election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, saying that the court should
prevent those states from certifying the election because of what he claimed were recent unconstitutional
changes to those states' election procedures. The State Bar of Texas's Commission for Lawyer
Discipline, which, you know, sort of oversees lawyers as they practice,
filed a petition against Webster saying he made untrue claims about the voting procedures.
They were seeking at least a reprimand and possibly at most to revoke his license to practice law.
During the 88th regular legislative session, Senator Brian Hughes filed Senate Bill 559 to prevent the Texas bar from, quote,
discriminating against attorneys based on those attorneys' viewpoints and expressions.
But that bill failed to pass the Texas House. So the lawsuit, it seems, is going to end up
right back in Williamson County, and we'll see where it goes from there. I know Matt was very
excited about this story. Yeah, absolutely. We'll definitely keep an eye on it. It's more just
AG adjacent news.
Pretty wild. Thank you for your coverage. You guys
are really hammering these stories home today
and we're making very quick headway
through the docket.
So this is me stalling.
This is a very professional operation. Also, I do
want to say that my text earlier was
a professional text.
I was just trying to get some scuttlebutt on something.
Mac, Taylor Swift references are not professional texts.
I'm just kidding.
I have no idea what she was texting about.
I was trying to get more... I'm sorry, it was Taylor Swift something.
It was not.
I'm trying to get scuttlebutt on the Texas YRs,as gop uh divide why are you mac just made wings like she was about to fly
somewhere i had to think i had to think about what i was saying that's not enough scuttlebutt
okay i'll come back to it i'll try and get it later cameron yes we're coming to you okay okay
an instagram account that posts ai generated imagesated images of Republicans in drag, this is real,
is now planning on purchasing a billboard in Texas.
Tell us what is happening here.
Yeah, so I came across this story this week.
I thought it was hilarious.
And it's this account on Instagram called Rue Publicans, named after RuPaul's Drag Race. And what they do, like you
said, they make AI-generated images of Republican lawmakers, celebrities in drag, you know,
hyper-feminized makeup and dresses and heels, all this. And they've garnered over $15,000 in donations on GoFundMe for this billboard.
They're going to put it up in Austin, and they're saying it's in protest to the SB12 law,
which is set to go into effect on September 1st.
And SB12 will ban sexually oriented performances in front of children.
And what they said is that the law will fuel violence against the drag community.
Going through the account, though, it's interesting because they have images of Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz. The funniest one was probably Mike Pence,
because they have him in these dresses, but they don't put any makeup on him in the images.
On Mike Pence?
On Mike Pence. So it's just him with his very stoic stern face
but in a giant poofy pink dress so it's actually doesn't quite match no um like i said they're
gonna put it up um before sb12 is gonna go into effect so they said they're going to put up on August 28th and the billboard from what they
posted is the billboard is going to read, mind your wigs, not our gigs, Greg. So obviously a shot
at Greg Abbott, uh, with that slogan, but you know, this is just one of those funny stories you come across.
And one other thing I wanted to touch on about this is, you know, there's actually a lawsuit going on with SB 12, the ACLU of Texas, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of plaintiffs that allege SB 12
is unconstitutional and violates the First and the Fourteenth Amendment. And so there is a legal
case going on right now. There's attempts for public pressure from some of these activist groups and Instagram accounts. So
SB12 is far from being done, being talked about. So we'll, you know, if this billboard does go up,
I'm going to go check it out. I'll see. And maybe I'll post a photo on Twitter.
No, you totally should. Totally, totally should. Thank you, Cameron. Brad, we're coming to you. Over the weekend, an auxiliary group of the Texas GOP voted to disassociate from the state
party. I teased this a little bit earlier, accidentally. What happened? Thanks for stealing
my thunder on that. Yeah. At the National Organization's conference in Dallas, the Texas
Young Republican Federation passed a resolution overwhelmingly to rescind its partner member status with the Republican Party of Texas.
In its resolution, it cited various grievances specifically against Texas GOP Chair Matt Rinaldi.
A statement from the org read,
The Federation's relationship with the RPT was strained after RPT Chairman Matt Rinaldi initiated a smear campaign against Hayden Padgett,
the former Texas Young Republican chairman and the Texas Young Republican Federation's endorsed candidate
for the chair of the National Federation.
These actions, combined with his choice to endorse a candidate with beliefs
contrary to the principles of the Texas Republican Party,
has cast a shadow over the RPT.
At issue is Rinaldi's
endorsement of Jesse Blakely, one of the two candidates for the YRNF chairmanship. She is from
Virginia. The other candidate, as mentioned, was Hayden Padgett. He was endorsed by the Texas
Federation. He's a Texan from Collin County was he finished third in the hd70 primary in 2022
paget ended up winning the contest by a large margin but that is the reason for this decision
so then what did rinaldi say of this news rinaldi said quote the whereas clauses are hilarious my
some involvement in this race was to sign a letter and to record a 30 second video for my preferred candidate.
During the one event I attended by invite for 45 minutes, no texts, no communications, no negative messages about any candidate.
I've seriously never seen such an unhinged temper tantrum from a winning team.
He then posted a picture of the letter he wrote
that just went out asking delegates to support Blakely.
Now, responding to that, to a previous comment,
a similar comment made by Rinaldi,
Derek Wilson, a Fort Worth activist
and the newly elected chair of the Texas YRs,
posted a screenshot of a text message sent by Rinaldi
that read, quote, send me like two or three things that are the best dirt you have on Hayden Padgett.
Like the Black Lives Matter video, I have a lot of angry young Republicans today.
You can read more details, and I post, I link to the video, a question there um and i run through the well the kind of background feud that this is
not necessarily caused solely by but definitely part of um but you know as with any political
party there's going to be rifts caused by differences of opinion on things this just
happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back on this one aspect.
You know, this text and the endorsement were the onus for the Texas YR's decision to leave
its affiliation with the Texas GOP, but it is certainly causing quite a stir within the
Republican Party circles. Now with the state chairman at odds
with a large segment of its young activists yeah big time now i'm texting hayden
yeah i'm texting you a statement came out from tlr which you may have gotten but i just texted you
um okay and see that was confusing because
one of the characters in the story we just discussed yes also is named hayden that's right
i was a bit confused yeah i didn't mean to confuse you entirely but i just mess i'm easily confused
mac that's okay you should know this after almost four years of working with me that my brain is
very small it's literally the most ridiculous thing I've ever
heard. Okay. Cameron coming to you next. Um, very crazy story. A video came out last year that
showed a teacher making some very questionable comments here in Texas. Tell us about some of
the fallout and give us a rundown of what happened. Yeah. So like you said, the video
came out in September, 2022 and the teacher, um teacher from Franklin High School in El Paso,
the teacher was caught on video saying not to judge people just because they want to have sex with five-year-olds.
So not great.
They also said to label those pedophiles as MAPs, minor attractive persons.
So this video began circulating online.
The school board launched an investigation.
The teacher ended up being fired.
And there was a lot of independent reporting going on about the event, and it was being posted online, which,
of course, garnered notable feedback, lots of outrage from people. You know, I had a chance
to go back through and look through a lot of the comments, and many people were echoing the same
things discussed and what was being said, and understandably so. Well, one person in that
comment section is now being sued for those comments. And what is interesting is that the
comment that this man is being sued over wasn't on the actual video. It was actually on reporting that was
being done about a few different issues, the video just being one portion of that reporting.
And so the teacher is actually the one suing for defamation, saying that the comment caused emotional distress. And so the lawsuit,
well, the letter notifying this man of the lawsuit actually said there's going to be
numerous individuals that are going to be sent these defamation lawsuits. So this is just one so far that we know about.
I will continue monitoring the situation and seeing how things work out in the end.
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Cameron. Rob, coming to you, another South Texas official
has switched parties from the Democrats to the Republicans. Who is this and why did they switch?
So, Claybird County Attorney Kira Talib Sanchez, first elected in 2014,
announced at an event held by the Hispanic Republicans of Texas that she would be changing parties to the GOP.
Claybird County in South Texas is 74% Latino and tends to lean Democratic,
though it did support Donald Trump in 2020 by 50.3%.
So a very slim majority there, but a majority. Sanchez said that she thinks that the Democratic
Party has shifted too far to the political left and that it is no longer aligned with her values.
She said that the Republicans are more aligned with her values of securing the border and keeping citizens safe.
And she said that she feels many Hispanic Americans are Republican and don't even know it.
That was her phrase from when she went, I believe that was when she went on Fox to talk about this switch.
Sanchez joined two other Texas, two other South Texas officials in recently switching parties, including state representatives Ryan Guillen and J.M. Lozano.
Lozano's house district includes Claybrook County.
There you go. Thank you, Rob.
Cameron, back to you for the last story.
There's been a lot happening with space news recently.
Tell us about this new institute in Texas being started.
Yeah, I didn't know how to really word the intro question there,
but you handled it good. Texas A&M has approved a $200 million investment into creating the Texas
A&M Space Institute, and it will be established at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Reading through all the information on the story,
they're saying the Institute is going to aid in the Artemis missions,
which is going to be NASA's next attempt to put people on the moon.
And, yeah, there is a lot of space news going on
because just recently India landed a probe onto the moon, and Russia made a similar attempt, but unfortunately, their mission failed and it exploded.
It did reach the moon.
It reached the moon, but it blew up.
So, you know, I've been reporting on the Texas Space Commission before.
This was going to allocate funds, taxpayer funds, to helping develop the space industry here in Texas.
And this is sort of the culmination of that.
And Texas A&M, their campus already has four astronauts on their faculty.
They've been working on over 300 different space
projects. So this is just another step for Texas leading the way in aerodynamics and space travel.
One small step for man.
One giant leap for Texas A&M.
Wow, that was really well done. Dang. Exactly. Cameron, thank you.
Well played.
That was very well played. Let's move on to our tweetery section here. I think a lot of what we're going to be talking about here is the debate of Republican presidential nominees that happened this last know, would you, I can't remember if it was, would you support Trump even if he was convicted or would you pardon him?
I can't remember which was which.
But Vivek Ramaswamy's hand shot up like a rocket when they said, you know, basically this question, would you support Trump?
And the other candidates sort of looked around, saw him, and everybody slowly started raising their hands afterwards, I thought, and some
guy just showed up.
He tweeted a video of DeSantis looking over at Ramaswamy and then raising his hand and
said, this is physically painful to watch.
It was very entertaining.
Wow.
Wait, so what was, but there was a requirement to participate in the debate that the candidates
pledged to support the Republican nominee.
Isn't that correct?
Is that the exact, or explain support the Republican nominee. Isn't that correct? Is that the exact?
Yeah, there was something about a certain amount of donations,
certain amount of support, a number of polls.
And then they had to sign on to say they would support the eventual candidate.
But there's nothing binding them to that.
You know, they can sign it and they get on stage
and we saw you know they can waffle yeah and there's one wasn't there one candidate who did
not raise his hand asa hutchinson yep there you go former arkansas governor right yeah
yeah i think you're right fascinating um hay, just things to talk about with the debate. I'm shocked.
In 2015, when Donald Trump was first running for president, Megyn Kelly, then a Fox News anchor, asked Trump the famous war on women question that would kick off a year long. I don't want to say feud because it was mainly Trump going after Kelly and his supporters going after her because that was a question that was very pretty. It was pretty aggressive to ask a presidential candidate in a Fox News debate without Megyn Kelly or Trump on the stage, especially when he's a
candidate for president. But Megyn Kelly tweeted, with no clear winner, the winner was Trump.
Nothing happened to change the dynamic of this race tonight. And throughout last night's debate,
all I could think about while I was watching it is it's so weird that Trump is not on the stage.
And he skipped debates before. I think he skipped one
during the 2015 cycle. Maybe he skipped more than that. But it's so interesting to see after
everything that happened between Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump, for her to come out after this
debate that he wasn't a part of and say that he won the debate, even though he wasn't there.
Because Tucker Carlson has had his own falling out with Fox News.
Megyn Kelly left Fox News for NBC, and that show did not work out for her.
And now she does independently a podcast.
But I think her point is well taken, that the one candidate that is the most viable in this race was not even there.
I said the other day, is this really a presidential debate?
If the frontrunner, and it's not even close, by far he's the frontrunner in this race.
If he's not even on the stage to answer questions, it almost seemed like a race for a second or almost a moot court competition up there, because if the likelihood of any of those men being president is less than Trump being or the likelihood of them being the nominee is so much less than Trump being the nominee at this point, especially with all these criminal indictments and Trump's mugshot about to be plastered all over the news. So I thought Megyn Kelly's point was well taken. Any of those men or woman for president,
Nikki Haley was on that stage. I said men or women. You said men. I think I said men or women.
Rob always does this. He just, this is just Rob's MO, which is good.
He's an editor.
He is here.
His goal is to catch mistakes.
Did I say men?
I thought I said people or candidates.
I believe you said men.
That's what I heard.
Now, I could be wrong, but I believe you said men.
The fact that I felt myself holding on to that comment means I probably did say men.
I apologize.
You could just say folks.
You know, that would be a pejorative.
No offense to Nikki Haley.
I'm sure she takes none.
I'm sure she takes no offense to that.
And she had a great debate performance as well.
She had some zingers.
All of the candidates had their clips,
but Haley had some pretty good debate prep.
Who would you guys say won the debate
cameron has a good take on this well i think the the cultural split in the party right now was
crystallized in an exchange between pence and ramaswamy when ramaswamy said we're in a cold
cultural war and pence saw things completely opposite of that, being that the government needs to be the expression of the people.
But that's why I sort of lean on the side of the Vec.
He had some big moments last night, it seems.
Trying to reestablish a new American identity. And because it seems as though
even in the Republican Party,
there is this split going on.
Someone needs to lead the way through
instead of going back to something.
At least that's the way I see it.
That's why I think Vivek came out on top.
Well, this is interesting.
I'm looking at like this breakdown
of speaking time for each candidate.
Mike Pence had the most, 12 minutes, 26 seconds.
About a minute less was Vivek, then Chris Christie.
Chris Christie and Vivek were one second off. They've got the same amount of speaking time.
Mike Pence interrupted a lot. He cut into other people's time a lot.
He came out strong.
He did. He wasn't afraid to speak over the moderators, which I think we learned in 2015 that following the ground rules
for the debate is not necessarily a winning strategy because obviously Trump did not care
at all about interrupting or going over time and he was the nominee. I went back and watched some
clips from the 2012 debate because I was thinking to myself, has it always been this shouty with this
participatory of an audience with boos and cheers and hooting and hollering and all that? And no,
there was applause. You know, people did occasionally talk over each other, but
I feel like there's been a new, try to think of the right word for it. It's very passionate. It's
very excitable. It's very sort of you know audience engagement is in
a different spot the eye catches when it goes on it's like dun dun dun dun dun you know it's very
just passionate yeah a little bit different again though just having having a fox news debate
without ted cruz or trump on the stage felt bizarre i didn't feel like i was watching a
fox news republican presidential debate oh that's so interesting I didn't feel like I was watching a Fox News Republican presidential debate.
Oh, that's so interesting.
It didn't feel if the vibes were off.
The vibes were off.
That's so funny.
And I'm not pulling for those two candidates and saying that I want them to be president.
I'm just saying-
It's just been the hallmark of the last few cycles.
They have been at the center of the GOP national stage for so long that it's weird to see them
set this one out.
Interesting, too, that nobody's mentioned DeSantis so far. I think that says a lot about the debate
last night. He really wasn't that present, to be honest. You know, he sort of hung back a little.
I mean, Ramaswamy definitely took the brunt of people's attacks, which is interesting because
he's, what, third, you know, and it seems, a lot of the people who've been there for a lot
longer were attacking Ramaswamy a lot, but you know, DeSantis kind of, I don't really think
anybody at any point was really attacking or criticizing him for anything. Which says a lot
about how they perceive who the front runner is too. Yeah. You know, and I will say DeSantis
seemed a little uncomfortable and stiff on the stage. He, he did not, um, he, he did not seem like he was
in, in the zone, so to speak. And that was surprising for me because he's usually good with
commanding the stage and, and rallying up an audience. But last night he, he just seemed a
bit off of his rhythm. Actually reminds me of one great quote from Daniel, actually from last night,
where he said, you know, everyone on Twitter says, man, that candidate I like is really sharp tonight.
So true.
Roger, you want to take aways?
Rob just stole my thunder.
I was going to say that.
Although I'll add one more thing.
The flip side of that is the candidate I hate performed the worst.
Yeah.
So I saw a lot of that on Twitter last night.
So really, I don't know what to think because that's where i get all my thoughts oh yeah yeah so cameron says you're not
you're not gonna say who you thought won the debate doug bergham i wanted you on record that
you thought doug bergham won asa hudgenson did have the least amount of speaking time. And second to him was Doug Burgum. Yeah.
These debates, they help fundraising and maybe a slight bump in the polls immediately after
and then it all disappears.
And then we repeat it again for the next debate.
I think you're right.
Absolutely.
This is not going to change a lot of people's minds
on who they're going to support.
But I think the one question that really did split people on the stage and did give listeners and watchers information was the Ukraine funding question.
Because foreign policy seemed to be a big, which I mean, it has been so far.
I think it's the differentiating factor for a lot of people who maybe have similar Republican beliefs, but that seemed to be a big part of contention.
I think, again, Ramaswamy is showing where the current thought is with the younger Republicans
is when that question came up about would you continue funding, his hand went straight up in the air.
Everyone, you know, DeSantis, his hand eventually went up, but everyone else on the stage said they would continue sending aid to Ukraine.
And so I think that really was the big split that gave information to the watchers. It is interesting to me that somebody who has been running for president for months at this point would hesitate when asked a question like that,
like a policy question when they're on a debate stage, not saying that the pressure wouldn't get
to me if I was up there. Lord knows it would. And Lord knows I'm super glad I'm not there. So I can't
like say that I would do anything differently. But it is surprising that these candidates who
have been groomed for this, who've been preparing, who have been on the campaign trail for months
and asked all these policy questions would hesitate when on stage with
other members of their party vying for the same nomination. Pretty interesting.
Also, I will say, if you had pointed a gun at me yesterday morning and said,
tell me who the governor of North Dakota was, I would have said, just shoot me.
So I do think these debates can do a little bit for name ID. And to Brad's point, they can help with fundraising because people with money to give to political candidates can look at this and go, oh, he was a U.S. attorney. Maybe he does know what he's doing. Or he had this experience I didn't know about, so I'll drop a grand on his candidacy. And so name ID and fundraising are huge with these debates.
And at this stage in the game, I think people are, that is more relevant than policy nuances.
And notably to Will Hurd, the Texan in the race that a lot of folks may be familiar with,
former congressman, did not meet the threshold for making it to the debate stage and was not on stage.
I was disappointed that we didn't really get a huge
fight over the ufo question oh dude that was so funny when when martin when she asked him that
question and christy christy was like oh come on man i get the ufo question that's amazing
yeah i only admittedly only seen clips so i'm learning a lot from y'all. Christy seemed to get a lot of the sort of funniest moments
between the UFO question
calling Vivek
saying that he sounds like chat GPT
Okay that was fun
That was a good line
Christy sort of I don't know
a lot of the sort of I guess funniest
moments seem to revolve around him
Yeah that makes sense
Bart what was your tweetery it was
debate related indeed it was so um as i was sitting there preparing for the um the debate start i just
switched over from the little league world series because that seemed to me more important to watch but alas i have a job that i kind of
need to do so flipped over and immediately i see an ad about the paxton impeachment
and on fox right before the presidential date yep um if you i tweeted it out so if you actually
want to watch the ad it's 30 seconds long and you can see it there. But at the end it urges viewers to call their state senators.
And I'm not in Charles Schwartner's district, but I guess the media market, the Austin media market, was aimed at him for this.
And it urged them to call and suggest he vote not to convict Paxton.
So the pro-Paxton ad.
Pro-Paxton ad, yes.
The PAC, the paid-for-by, is this thing called San Jacinto 2023,
which is not registered with TEC or the FEC, for that matter.
No, it's not a requirement depending on other circumstances like how they're
formed and whether they're doing issue advocacy.
Now, obviously, that's – or like campaign work.
That can fall into a really gray area.
So it's really case-by-case on whether this has to be registered or not.
But it turns out that San Jacinto 2023 is a registered corporation,
registered in Midlothian, Virginia, at, and I looked this up, I went to the Google Street View and found that it's at the law offices
of Philip L. McDaniel in Midlothian, Virginia.
I don't know how he found this, but Patrick Svitek at the Tribune found that the media buyer for this
ad was the same media buyer as Paxton's political consulting firm. I think that's Axiom Strategies. So clearly there's a connection there.
Somebody asked me if it violates the gag order.
I highly doubt it unless you can prove a real solid connection to Paxton himself or his political campaign.
But the gag order does not apply to nameless PACs or faceless PACs generally.
Yeah, that's First Amendment people.
You can't gag an outside party from talking about the impeachment.
Right, and after Citizens United, the Supreme Court case,
corporations are allowed to make political statements,
and that's what this is.
So odds are we won't find exactly. corporations are allowed to make political statements and that's what this is so uh
odds are we won't find exactly we won't see any financials who paid for it all that uh probably
but uh interesting that it's now not only was is it being aired on tv but it was ahead of the gop
debate somebody knew who a prime time audience yeah what I'll say too it shows a lot about how
the Paxton camp is thinking about which has been you know before the gag order very apparent from
his team of lawyers like Hayden's talked about where they're qualifying it as a criminal proceeding
and saying that the attorney general will not show up to testify. And there have been, you know, multiple different political analysts or pundits out there saying, yes, call your senators,
like making it, you know, that kind of proceeding or the perception is that it's that kind of proceeding where you could call up your senator
and influence them one way or another to vote on the behalf of their constituents.
You can do that in a criminal case.
You couldn't call up the jurors or the judge and say you need to. Maybe it was a political proceeding.
In fact, if you did, that would be grounds for mistrial if the jurors felt that they
were being targeted.
And then the messaging from the Senate, although they are the ones saying that this is a political
proceeding, that this is not a criminal court or a civil court,
there's no law that's being enforced here, it's a court of impeachment,
they're the ones also saying, okay, we're going to review the evidence,
focus on what's said in front of us,
make votes according to whatever's presented in the chamber.
It's just very interesting to see how it's characterized by the parties involved and they kind of they use the criminal case comparison when it suits them both sides do this and they
use the political trial comparison when it suits them yep so it's just kind of you know back and
forth back and forth yeah like i think that the grand jury analogy where the house is the grand
jury and the senate's the realtor that analogy has been so overused at this point because at a certain point it just doesn't apply anymore.
And even if that is somewhat what happened in the house with the impeachment, this process is so
much different than a criminal proceeding that there is a limit to how applicable all of that
terminology is. Well, and applicable all of that terminology is.
Well, and to assume, too, that just because senators have been very quiet about either by
gag order or before the gag order was instituted about the proceedings doesn't mean that they
aren't influenced or being bombarded with emails or phone calls or anything along those lines.
Like their Senate offices are still open and their constituents are still able to call
or email or contact their offices
in any way, shape or form,
which is just not available
when it is actually a criminal proceeding.
So that's part of the deal as well.
All of this is very complicated.
Yeah, exactly.
Okay, well, folks, thank you for listening.
Gentlemen, anything to add as I wrap us up here?
Make sure to watch our podcast or not watch our podcast. Listen to our podcast.
Lord knows you don't want to see our voices on Spotify. Our little mugs every single day.
There is one public service announcement to make for everybody, which is that the Chick-fil-A
peach milkshake is leaving this Saturday, August 26th. So remember, if you haven't gotten your
peach milkshake yet, you need to get it.
And we are not paid by Chick-fil-A.
Another one.
This is not an ad.
It is a strong recommendation.
But we are not paid for this advertisement.
The Texas Little League team is in the Final Four.
Whoa.
Let's go.
Needland, I think.
I think that's Needland or Nederland.
Cameron, did you do Little League?
Yeah. You would have had to, right?
Yeah.
There are a lot of baseball leagues,
but not everyone does Little League.
You know what I mean?
It wasn't the Little League
brand. We had a
brand on the West Coast called Cal Ripken
League. Got it.
They will play in the... They set it up. They have two sides on the West Coast called Cal Ripken League. Got it. Yeah. Got it. Well, they will play in the – they set it up.
They have two sides of the bracket.
The international team's on one side.
The U.S. team's on the other.
So they're in the U.S. side championship game,
and they will play Saturday at 3.30 Eastern.
Against who?
Don't know yet because tonight –
What if it was California?
That would be funny.
Tonight the team from the Northwest will play the team from the West. Not yet, because tonight... What if it was California? That'd be funny.
Tonight, the team from the Northwest will play the team from the West.
I think that's a California team.
Northwest.
Is it Washington?
And the winner will advance.
Okay.
There you go.
Some very important announcements.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Folks, we appreciate you listening to us
each and every week,
and we will catch you on next week's episode.
Thank you to everyone for listening.
If you enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
And if you want more of our stories, subscribe to The Texan at thetexan.news.
Follow us on social media for the latest in Texas politics and send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting an email to editor at thetexan.news.
We are funded entirely by readers and listeners like you.
So thank you again for your support.
Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup.
God bless you and God bless Texas.