This is Democracy – Episode 246: Impeachment in Texas

[00:00:00] Intro: This is democracy, a podcast about the people of the United States, a podcast about citizenship, about engaging with politics and the world around you, a podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues and how to have a voice in what happens next

[0:00:00 Jeremi]  Welcome to our new episode of This is Democracy. Today, we are joined with a good friend and leading figure in Texas. Joe Jaworski, Joe is gonna talk to us today about an event, a series of actions that have been followed closely around the country but very poorly understood. These are the events surrounding the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and then the acquittal of Ken Paxton. Both of these sets of events occurred within the last few months. And we now have an attorney general in Texas who was impeached by his own party but has now been acquitted by his own party in two different branches of the Texas government. Joe Jaworski is gonna help us understand what has happened, what this means, not just for Texas, but what this means for the Republican Party and for Democracy in the United States as a whole, Joe, thank you so much for joining us today.

[0:00:59 Joe]  Yes, professor, great to see you and Zachary

[0:01:03 Jeremi]  Joe, as I’m sure many of our listeners know is a third generation Texas trial attorney and the former mayor of Galveston. Texas. He served as a law clerk to the United States Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit and he has spent 32 years in private practice as a trial attorney, a mediator and a legal commentator. His official biography is far too modest. Joe has been a leading Maher, a leading actor in politics in Texas. really over the last three decades, deeply involved in many issues, especially those surrounding the attorney general and state and local politics. And I don’t know anyone who’s better situated to explain the vagaries and oddities of what’s happened than then Joe. So we’re very fortunate to have him with us today. Before we turn to our discussion with Joe Jaworski, we have, of course, Mr Zachary’s scene setting poem. Zachary, what’s the title of your poem today? A

[0:02:01 Zachary]  bad sonnet for a bad man.

[0:02:05 Jeremi]  I knew you were gonna get some some kicks in with your title and then with the rest of it. So I’m excited, Zachary. Let’s hear it.

[0:02:13 Zachary]  It always seems to me to be the case that he who wants to go slow must first make haste for though the changes may seem to ebb and flow, you’ll drown standing still if you cannot row and he who whines and cat calls the Scheer calls for justice, but he cannot entice her for the root of it. All lies with Lady Law who knows what she knows and saw what she saw. He may scream, he may pout. He may even win. But the joy will soon be ripped from his grin. He may strut. He may lie. He may chuckle. But looming still is Fortune’s hard knuckle. So take heart and do not think ill. The ending surely will thrill for the triumph. He takes too soon will someday spell his ruin.

[0:03:06 Jeremi]  There’s so much in that. That’s so Joe. Wasn’t that exciting to hear.

[0:03:11 Joe]  I mean, I, I need that framed on my office wall. It speaks to the state of government in Texas and how we choose our leaders. And I appreciate that. Me too,

[0:03:22 Jeremi]  Zachary. I was moved by the range of emotions you cover in there too. A bit of triumphalism, a bit of bitterness, sarcasm. What is your poem about?

[0:03:33 Zachary]  My poem is about trying to come to terms with the fact that someone who’s so blatantly breaks the law and so blatantly undermines the rule of law in Texas is the chief law enforcement officer in the state of Texas. something that’s very hard to wrap one’s head around. But honestly, if you, if you’re at all familiar with Texas politics makes a lot of sense. So, II, I guess this poem is sort of trying to come to terms with that, but also a recognition that that those who misuse power never, never succeed in the end or or rarely do.

[0:04:08 Jeremi]  Interesting like that optimistic note, Joe, I think this is a perfect place to start, explain to us, especially to our listeners who are not familiar with Texas politics or even those who are like myself and struggle to understand it. How did we come to this point? How do we have Ken Paxton,, a clear lawbreaker as the chief law enforcement officer of the state and, and why was he impeached and then acquitted by the same party?

[0:04:33 Joe]  Well, Jeremy, it, it all starts in 2018 and mind you, he was sworn in as attorney general in 2015 and he started his career in elective Texas office in 2002. So this guy didn’t just come on, seen. but, in 2002, he became a house member in 2012, a member of the Senate 2014, he got elected to Attorney General right away. He became, you know, covered up in scandal. but the thing that led to his impeachment, earlier this year began in 2018. So that’s where I’m gonna start the chronology. You know, the man’s been in office at this 0.16 years one way or the other. And Jeremy in 2018, that’s when Ken Paxton and Nate Paul, his, you know, brother and conspiracy met. And I think it’s interesting, you know, they met because they needed each other. You know, Paxton was in a close Razor shave a lot election in 2018, Justin Nelson was the Democratic nominee and, and Paxton won by three points only. And that was the same year that, you know, Betto gave Ted Cruz a run for his money. So, you know, Trump was president and as usual, the midterm is unkind to the occupant of the White House. So Democrats were ascendant that year. Paxton needed a nice hefty donation. He got a $25,000 contribution from Nate Paul and Nate Paul needed Ken Paxton. This would later come out in the impeachment trial. But at the time Nate Paul saw on the horizon that he was going to be sued by a nonprofit foundation called the Mitty Foundation. and that’s spelled M as in Mary, I tt E for those who want to look it up. Interestingly, the current chairman of the Mitty Foundation is RJ Mitty from Brownsville who played Walt Junior in breaking bad. And it, yeah, isn’t that crazy? And you know, they’re a really nice foundation and they had invested several million with Nate Paul’s Austin based skyscraper empire. The guy owned a bunch of commercial property and he was riding high. Nate Paul was in 2013, 2014, 2015, by 2018, he, he was falling apart and in particular, he did the Midi foundation wrong after they had several mutually beneficent relationships, but not this one. And so the Midi foundation sued him, they agreed to a settlement and then he reneged on the settlement. They were then suing him to enforce the settlement at the time, he made the contribution to Ken Paxton. Well, why is Ken Paxton important here? Because as we all know, the Texas Attorney General oversees litigation regarding charitable trusts and foundations, that’s why that would later come home to roost. in 2019, Paul is in full blown crisis because the FBI raided his home, his office and his warehouse, his storage facilities,, by 2020 there had been a good year and a half of Ken Paxton, aiding Nate Paul in all these unnatural ways and the whistleblowers come onto the scene. These are, eight,, handpicked, rock ribbed conservative, employees that Ken Paxton hired personally who, who had been pleading with their boss, quit obsessing over Nate Paul, you know, quit doing things for him. You’re, you’re not focusing on the, on the state’s best interest. You’re, you’re helping this one man. You’re turning the A GS office into his concierge law firm, stop it. And he would not. And so they had no choice but to follow the oath of office and go straight to the FBI which Jeremy as you know, gives them the status of whistleblower. Right. Right. And, and as you know, that means, under the Texas labor code. You have a 90 day safe harbor where you cannot be fired or demoted or the like, well, that didn’t stop Ken Paxton because you know, he’s a above or beneath the law and he fired or, you know, otherwise constructively terminated them all by 45 days. They filed suit. That lawsuit wended its way to the Supreme Court over about a two-year period in early 2023 he settled it for full value 3.3 million stuck the bill with the Texas House of Representatives who said, what is this? Explain yourself? He would not explain himself. So they investigated him for three months and impeached him like two days before sign he die, which is the end of the 140 day legislative session in 2023 which then activated the need for a Senate impeachment trial. Let me get my breath

[0:09:25 Jeremi]  that there’s a lot that you’re getting at there, Joe. But I think the key point here is that the attorney general of Texas was corruptly collaborating with a developer and then broke the law a second set of times by trying to cover that up. And as always, the cover up is often worse than the crime. Yes.

[0:09:45 Joe]  Oh, yes, sir. That’s why it has, you know, great parallels with Watergate and you know, Sharpstown to use a Texas example from 1971. And so we then come to the September impeachment trial and I will cast some flame here by saying, acquitted. No, I think not. What really happened is he was pardoned because no reasonable person could have listened to that two week trial and found him Lily White or some, you know, esoteric explanation that, well, there might have been something there, but they didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Look, the Republican senators gave him a pass. And so what I’m calling the verdict is the Great Texas Senate Republican pardon of Warren Kenneth Paxton Junior. That’s what it was.

[0:10:38 Jeremi]  And, and why did they do that? Why did they pardon him? When, as you described it, the evidence was so overwhelming. These were fellow republicans who had been the whistleblowers. It was a Republican house that filed and passed the articles of impeachment. Why did the Senate not follow up and remove, remove him from office?

[0:10:57 Joe]  Right. So, the direct answer and by the way, this is all very fresh. I mean, as we’re recording this, it’s, it’s Tuesday, the, the verdict, the pardon came on Saturday and, they had deliberated Friday after the end of closing arguments starting at about noon until 7 p.m. They then came back the next morning and had the verdict, you know, about an hour after coming back. So the reason they, you know, let’s use the right word, acquitted him,, is that, I’m told anecdotally that in deliberations they were one vote short, Jeremy And what I mean by that is they needed 21 yay, affirmative votes to convict him on any one of 16 articles of impeachment. And, and I think that there were two or three that were just dead. Right on. And so you don’t need all 16 and all you need is one. But, you know, I think there were two or three that were just slammed up when politically the Republican senators realized, oh my God, we’re one short and these people are not budging, several of them said, well, I’m not sticking my neck out to make a statement. If, if we can’t knock him out, then count me as a negative. I, I’m not voting for conviction. So, you know, it, it was like a stock run or, you know, a bank run. I mean, like, you know, they were edging up to the lip of getting it done and, and when people realized it wasn’t gonna work, I’d say up to six Republican senators, who, you know, will never admit that they were willing to convict, decided against conviction. That’s why he was acquitted.

[0:12:33 Jeremi]  Right. And just to, just to provide the framework here, there are 31 members of the Texas Senate and so they needed 21 21 affirmative votes to convict.

[0:12:44 Joe]  Correct. Correct. And I’ll do the math with you. There’s 12 Democrats and there’s 19 Republicans. One of those 19 Republicans is Ken Paxton’s wife and I’d like to talk about this little police hybrid recusal that I’m sure Dan Patrick crafted and then compelled everyone to vote for it. So, so before I get there, let me just say that of the 19 republicans only 18 could vote. So since there were 12 Democrats who were steadfast that Ken Paxton, you know, had done these things and they were going to vote to convict him. We needed nine, right to get to 21 and we had eight and then we had two and that’s how it ended. And, you know, again, no one wrote this down. This is all sort of confidential anecdotal. And finally, it’s in writing in the Houston Chronicle, which is online. And obviously the title of the article says it all, which is, I was just reading it inside the deliberations that led to Ken Paxton’s impeachment acquittal. it was published yesterday, the 19th of September,

[0:13:55 Jeremi]  Zachary.

[0:13:56 Zachary]  What do you think that this, this acquittal says about the state of politics in Texas and in particular, the state of the Republican party in Texas.

[0:14:07 Joe]  Yeah, it’s, it’s a, it’s a sad statement. What it says is Democrats. You know, we’re gonna remind you, you don’t have a say in this. We decide who leads this state in the Republican primary in March, which is one of the first primaries. You know, it, it, it’s a super Tuesday primary, but it’s early and, given that it’s so early nationally, the sign up for the primary is November 11th this year, like, you know, in two months to December 11th. And so Zachary, what it says is, we have to win our primaries and the mega fueled base, will, will be unhappy if we,, remove their happy warrior who routinely sues the Biden administration. we don’t want to be affiliated with that even if we are standing on the shoulder of giants who led our state for close to 200 years. None of that history matters. The only thing that matters is the moment and that’s the maga moment. That’s what the message

[0:15:14 Jeremi]  is. And Joe, obviously, there are some Republicans who don’t agree with that who believed that Paxton had crossed a line in his corruption in, in his incompetence. 60 Republicans in the house voted for impeachment. The impeachment inquiry was led by rock ribbed Republicans as you call them, including the grandson of a former governor Coke Stevenson. and in the, in the Senate clearly, even though the vote was lopsided, they were pretty close to conviction. There were, as you said, eight, Republicans who looked like they were ready to, to vote for conviction. Two did in the end. What is the split here? What, what divides these two factions of the Republican party? And how deep is that divide?

[0:16:02 Joe]  It’s interesting to answer that question. By looking at the numbers. you know, Texas has now over 30 million in population, 23 million of which are voting age, population 17 to 18 million of whom are registered and then 10 to 11 will vote in a, November election in the Republican primary, 2 million in the Democratic primary. About a million. And you know, what’s the way I want to answer that question is it, it would all be different if more people voted in the primaries. You know, if the same number of people voted in November took the time to vote in their primary of choice, I think this insanity would not be playing out but because, you know, of gaming the system and, and I don’t mean to sound, you know, like too conspiratorial here, but let’s face it either through sheer boorish advertising in political circles to, you know, limiting the ease of voting by, you know, making it harder to vote by mail or to eliminate certain identification freedoms shall we say? you can’t use a student ID to prove who you are when it comes to voting, but you can use a gun license, you know, things like that are intentional and, and all I’m saying is is that a lot of people are just checking out Jeremy and if, if everybody who voted in November voted in the primary, we wouldn’t be here. So, so the message is the Republicans have an inter nice battle, a civil war that has been ongoing for years, but now it’s in full bloom and you know, it is the hottest part of the civil war and people will finally see, I think in March 2024 that the Maga Wing with Trump on the eve of one of his trials will be in full display.

[0:18:05 Jeremi]  And what is it that attracts people to the Maga Wing? And what is it that attracts people to the, the, what we might say is the non Maga wing of the party? And, and, and is it, is it just a mimic of what we see in the United States or is it something different in particular to Texas?

[0:18:20 Joe]  I, I think it, it’s, it’s very similar to what you see nationally but at, at its core is border politics. and it’s a sense of disgruntlement that, you know, as things get harder for everybody, the price of bread goes up, you know, gas goes up, the investment in public infrastructure is struggling, you know, in Texas, you know, people’s health is more poor or poorer that, you know, it’s blame game politics and, you know, it’s easy for people who are being encouraged by the media they consume to blame, you know, those who have less attempting to cross the border or, you know, trying to do something about their viability, their survivability. And so I think border politics in Texas, if you think it’s bad, like on a national scale, it’s concentrated here in Texas. And so the Republican Party here makes it real clear that, you know, if you want to stick it to Joe Biden and the National Democrats in the White House, you know, come with us.

[0:19:29 Jeremi]  What do you think will happen? Then do you, do you foresee in both Texas and in the country as a whole? You see the mad going growing and getting stronger, Joe?

[0:19:38 Joe]  Well, I, I do and, and yet, you know, I, I query how many people really believe in it. I, I think a lot of people vote Republican pre or naturally. just because, you know, for the last number of years, it’s just been the party that wins, you know, it’s like going into the restaurant and just kind of ordering the same thing, even though there’s a, a lovely menu with lots of options, you know, and we’re all guilty of that. Secondly, if people were aware how policy is made within the Republican leadership of the Texas Republican party and those who are in government, I think they’d be offended because you look no further than how Ken Paxton was defended. It was almost like a scripted talking point. Tim Dunn Ferris Wilks truly like, you know, out of central casting, like in that movie, Trading Places, you know, with like Oak Brothers or something. These guys are just two or three people and they are literally fracking billionaires. And I would just like you to consider, you know, that shaving off, you know, 5 to $10 million a cycle to them is like us going out for a nice dinner or something. I mean, I, you know, I’m, I’m exaggerating a little bit, but trust me, it is a budgeted amount of money that causes them no pain whatsoever that they don’t have to, you know, stop going to the movies on Friday to afford it. You know what I mean? Jeremy. Right. Right. Right. And, and so these guys, you know, treat Texas politics every two years as something to manage. And so they, they, in this case, Ken Paxton, it was kind of a shock, an unexpected expenditure, but they were able to muster the resources, to pay the presiding judge. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, $3 million.03 million dollars. I think less than two months before the first witness was called. And, you know, he, of course, has denied that this has anything to do with the trial. I just accepted it because I have been a favorite of theirs for years. you know, I’ll let the listeners decide whether a presiding judge, you know, six weeks prior to a witness being sworn in under his oath and using the Bible should, you know, accept $3 million. It does that bring a conflict of interest. anyway, these guys, Dun and Wilks and their pack, which is called defend Texas Liberty, paid for billboards TV, ads, Robo calls, telephone calls, texting and made other contributions they gave Ken Paxton, I think, you know, several 100,000 to help defend himself. That’s why he was acquitted. The speech that the defense lawyer gave was all about the Bush era is over. This is all this attack is being directed by Rhinos Republican in name only. don’t let the liberals take your happy warrior Ken Paxton away from you because then who will sue the Biden administration? You know, glo global world order the whole bit Jeremy. And that was apparently effective. And senators coward at the sound of the gong of their master. And I, I am here to tell you that’s your Texas today. Are,

[0:23:00 Zachary]  are you hopeful? Mr Jaworski that, that, that maybe Paxton will meet his comeuppances as I not so subtly hinted at in, in the poem.

[0:23:12 Joe]  Well, it, it’s true, Zachary, he is not Scott Free. I mean, he may be on this thing for now, but he is got at least three elements of exposure that are pretty serious one. He has a criminal trial in Harris County which is Houston, Texas on securities fraud charges. And you know, it’s the big joke because he was indicted in 2015 shortly after being sworn in as attorney general. And everyone knows the story about how it wended its way all through the courts, but here’s the bottom line, all that’s over. It’s now gonna be tried in Harris County. The highest criminal court in Texas has said. So, and there’s no more appeals of any of that. So in 2024 Zachary, he will be tried in front of a Harris County jury of 12, a real jury, by the way. Secondly, we know the FBI has been investigating them because that’s who the whistleblowers went to in October 2020. And now that investigation has matured into a federal grand jury in San Antonio being impaneled and receiving testimony, along the lines of what we heard some of in the impeachment trial. And again, if anyone thinks that this quote impeachment trial was like sort of the same thing as a criminal trial, it was not., and Dan Patrick, put his thumb on the scale and he received $3 million and I’ll leave it to other people to make the connection. But, deciding whether a witness could testify or not, Dan Patrick, deciding whether Ken Paxton could take the stand or not. Ken, Dan Patrick, you know, deciding, how long the trial would be Dan Patrick,, deciding how deliberations would be handled, Dan Patrick. So, he, he was able to exercise great authority

[0:25:06 Jeremi]  that ostensibly would not be the case in a court of law, where there are established procedures which would require, for example, that the defendant, Ken Paxton actually appear in court. Right. He, he strangely didn’t even, didn’t even appear for most of his trial in the Senate.

[0:25:22 Joe]  Correct. That, that’s exactly right, Jeremy. And there is something called the Federal code of criminal procedure or, you know, the Texas Code of criminal procedure. And, you know, it’s been developed over hundreds of years, certainly decades. and you know, it works, people get tried in front of a jury of their peers in all 254 counties and in all the federal courts and divisions every day. and it’s a well worn opportunity to exercise justice, justice was not exercised in the Texas Senate.

[0:25:58 Jeremi]  So, so Joe, watching this as someone who’s deeply embedded in Texas politics, it’s been your life, but also as someone who’s involved in national politics and follows that closely. Are, are, are you optimistic? Do you see this moment in Texas as the maga wing of the Republican party, maybe reaching too far? Or is this the opposite? Is this a sign that,, that wing of the party might be stronger than ever? And what happened here in Texas might be a precursor to what we might see with other trials and other levels of corruption in other parts of the country.

[0:26:34 Joe]  II, I will choose that. It’s, it’s gonna be a happier ending. because I just can’t believe that, you know, what is in the American psyche, you know, whether it’s, you know, you watch, you know, shows that talk about, you know, band of brothers or the gumption that it took to counter the Nazis by invading France, basically from the sea, you know, at great loss of life, you know, that, that American moment, the, the ingenuity that, that, you know, created the end to World War Two thanks to science. you know, the, the, the, the great generation that, that created so many industrial advances and you know, just American innovation, you know, we, we are winners, we are leaders, you know, we understand our faults. But I never for a moment would think that we would fall like Germany did to Hitler’s charms if you want to call them that the story of a fascist takeover of a great culture, you know, that gave us Gerta and Beethoven is, is one for the ages and, you know, I read William Shire’s book Rise And Fall the Third Reich, you know, and I don’t believe that’s gonna happen in America. I think that we’re actually really polite people here by and large and you know, the way the maga movement is going right now is, is right near the end, let’s say of the dinner party where the Boris drunk is screaming and you know, racial epithets. And we’re all just like, oh my God, don’t say anything. You know this now, I think people are done with that. especially the, the youth. They realize that their nat natural inheritance is being squandered and they’re angry about it. And you know, those of us that are in our sixties, like myself have an obligation now to set the field, shall we say for the next generation, like Zachary and, and the millions and millions, tens of millions of, of them, his age. This is not fair. And so I’m not going to sit by idly while the state of Texas which has some of the greatest natural resources and greatest history of, of any state goes down the tube. It’s just not gonna happen. Jeremy

[0:28:48 Jeremi]  Zachary. Do you agree?

[0:28:50 Zachary]  I do agree. I, I think we’re at a moment where, where young people are recognizing that, that the political system, particularly in Texas but, but also nationwide isn’t serving their interests. And we’re also at a point in our country’s history when we’re going to be about as young as we’ve ever been. So I think there’s a lot of hope there for sure. And I think that that if anything, these, these sort of landmark trials, even if they don’t always end up with justice being served, at least lay bare the corruption and the lies of, of so many people that we, that we entrust with, with authority, who, who aren’t really worthy of it.

[0:29:32 Jeremi]  Right. It, it’s so interesting just building on what you said, Zachary and what you said, Joe so, so eloquently, it’s, it’s so interesting to see how even Ken Paxton’s defenders aren’t really defending his behavior. the approach is generally to blame the other side, which is their own party and to make an argument about procedure that somehow he wasn’t treated fairly, but it’s very hard to defend his behavior and, and I think that’s what’s been exposed and, and I think that’s what we’re grappling with. I think it’s the same problem the Republican Party faces nationally, right? as they approach a potential government shutdown because they can’t even agree within the House of Representatives on spending bills. we’re, we’re at one more of these historical moments where dysfunction is, is clearly associated with one party and, and, and not another and, and it’s, it’s, it’s hard to imagine that continuing for very long. That’s the source of your optimism.

[0:30:28 Joe]  Exactly. And, you know, call me a dream or, you know, you can start putting the soundtrack of John Lennon’s imagine, you know, and silently and, you know, quietly in the background, but, you know, I government is good. government is for adults. and, you know, one of the values of being an American is that every generation should have better off than the one that preceded it. And, you know, there’s like sort of a social contract involved in that. So, you know, hey, granddad, don’t squander the goods, please. And what I’m seeing is everything being decided for the moment. It’s all about ratcheting up to get power and to hold on to it and there’s no long term plan. So I think, I think they’ll fail in that regard and I think people will see that

[0:31:13 Jeremi]  Zachary as a closing question to follow Joe’s really optimistic And I think valid insights. Do, do you see young people paying attention is this moment a different moment in the way young people view politics?

[0:31:30 Zachary]  I think. So, I do think there’s a sense among young people that, that our politics is broken. And I think that’s really a sense that that most generations share. And, and I don’t think that’s exclusive to young people, but I do think there’s also a sense that we’re at a unique moment where not only do we need to fix it, but I think there’s a growing understanding that we have the power to fix the system. And obviously, the first step is is to get involved in politics and, and, and to put ourselves in positions where, where we can fix the

[0:32:03 Jeremi]  system, which so wonderfully echoes the inspiration for our podcast over more than 240 episodes. Franklin Roosevelt who said, of course, that every generation writes a new chapter in our democracy and it is possible. And it is historically fitting with past precedent for a case in a trial like Ken Paxton’s, to actually be as much of an opening as it is a closing. an opening for a generation that watches this moment to think about how politics could be different and what’s striking to me and what I think Joe and Zachary have both articulated so well is to say, this is a new moment to say this is a moment when we have to fix things and do things differently is not to say that one has to be a Democrat or Republican. Again, I would remind everyone that it was Republicans that impeached Ken Paxton, not, not Democrats. It is possible to be from either party and to see this as a moment when, when we have to change, when we have to reform and we have to rethink our politics as, as we both articulated so well. Well, let’s let’s hope. our podcast every week is about trying to see how history informs our future and our current challenges and possibilities as a democracy. And perhaps the trial of Ken Paxton was a civics lesson for us all and what’s not working and how things could work differently. Joe, thank you so much for filling in so many of the details which you did succinctly and in a very informed way and for also giving us hope going forward, Joe Thank

[0:33:38 Joe]  you. My pleasure, Jeremy. Thank you for all you’re doing,

[0:33:41 Jeremi]  Zachary. Thank you, of course for your inspiring poem with a little sarcasm also attached to it. and for your thoughtful insights. And thank you most of all to our loyal listeners for joining us for this episode of This is Democracy

Outro: This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts ITS Development Studio and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harris Codini. Stay tuned for a new episode every week. You can find This is Democracy on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher. See you next time.