You can see what the El Paso Times wrote HERE.
Not a single thing about this article screams "news". However, it does show that Susie Byrd can pick up the phone and have the El Paso Times trash someone any time she feels. Nobody really reads the paper or cares much for what they say, but the principle of the matter bugs me.
If everyone is so up in arms about "transparency" in District 2, how come nobody questions how Susie Byrd can be a registered city lobbyist, political consultant and elected school board member??? You're talk about a conflict of interest with lots of questions about ethics here. The idea that candidates are paying cash money to another elected official for lobbying and campaigning is just odd to me. No story about that at the Times.. Susie told Bob Moore to ignore her situation.
If anything, Tolbert's been so transparent that there's not much folks don't know about him. He's owned up to all the accusations and gave you his side of the story. His opponent is just there on vacation from Boston and that's all you know. I do think it's funny that Annello claims she wants to pave the streets in the district. Doesn't she know that got Larry Romero executed by political firing squad?
I think the thing you need to notice about the article is the changing "facts" about the alleged investigation by the Texas Rangers. Apparently the El Paso Times has backed off the email they got from a local DPS officer stating a investigation was underway... an investigation to what or into whom was never made clear. The El Paso Times and others invented details that included names of people being investigated... and you're not supposed to invent that kind of stuff.
The new quote on the investigation goes:
"A spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office said on Tuesday that the Rangers investigation is ongoing and will be presented to the DA when complete."
Wait... now the DA's office speaks for the Texas Rangers? The spokeswoman doesn't have a name? What happened to the local DPS officer that speaks directly for the Texas Rangers? Something is not right.
The interesting part here is that I've had reps for those "under investigation" load me up with a ton of emails claiming they've never heard from anyone other than the city's ethic panel on the matter. Their attorneys have reached out and found that no Texas Ranger is assigned to the case. Just this morning (really early, by the way) a leaker from the DA's office told me the quote is complete bullshit and there's not even an attorney at the DA assigned to check in with the Texas Rangers on the case. They also told me that city attorney has inquired as to what was going on given that some council members are leaving, but would likely qualify for some kind of city representation and protocols would have to be put in place. The city attorney was told nothing was happening now or would be in the future. (Not sure if that's the exact story as I have received to similar, but not identical claims about what the city attorney is doing here.)
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it... Or better yet, if there's an investigation that has no investigators doing any investigating, is it an investigation?
Sounds like a smear campaign. Sounds like the paper and local bloggers have slandered folks. I mean, you've accused them of a crime, but you have no facts to back up your claim. That's literally what slander is. It's one thing to write "I think" and "I hear" and it's another to claim "I know." Looks like I have scared the paper into not making such slanderous claims... even though they really wanted to kick Jim one more time before the election.
We'll see if it works.