Jump to content

Ken Paxton is dirty? NO FUCKING WAY!

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

YGIFS

YGIFS 19458

Posted
Posted

Dude, that was like 7 sentences.  If you can'r read that much, you need a reverse-editor.  Wait, is that a thing?  

Fun fact-Paxton was politely asked not to show up to the DeSantis fundraiser in Austin next week.  Obviously, he's team Trump, but he loves showing up at those things for the booze and grab-assing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chewbacca
Chewbacca

Here's a hint - if you vote for someone, you support them.  Whether it's Paxton, Abbott, Trump, Cruz, your vote says you support their actions.

SydneyCarton
SydneyCarton

Ah, yes. The “I don’t like this guy, but voting for a a literal criminal into a position of power is better than voting for someone who fights for civil liberties. Because fuck democrats and people wh

BevoAbyss
BevoAbyss

Lulz. With all due respect, what this really means in 2023 GQP Texas is: "I lean hard fascist, but I've never been a fan of fascist Paxton. Of course, I am a fan of many other fascists and voted

Posted Images

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90660

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, mchookem said:

is that the aggy? lol

Yep, and he was a Democrat for years (longer than he was a Republican).  I think it's the same guy that a Harris County DA helped out (after he had donated to his campaign a few years earlier).

I look forward to Paxton's reps trying to explain away all 20 of the articles, as varied as some of them are.  I look forward to his reps claiming he wasn't having an affair, and then voila, here comes the alleged mistress to take the stand, etc.

I've seen several commentators who seem completely ignorant of the fact that Paxton already got pushback from prominent Texas Republicans who were friends with the whistleblowers. The whistleblowers weren't some college interns who stumbled across Paxton doing something wrong like they were Scooby and Shaggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chopper

Chopper 17432

Posted
Posted

So 6 TAG employees including the Solicitor General are taking leaves of absence to help defend Paxton in the Senate. You'd think the SG would have more important interests to take care of.

Apparently the prosecution will be led by Dick DeGuerin (JD UT 1965) and Rusty Hardin (SMU). It's interesting to think of DeGuerin serving as prosecutor. That has to be a first, and I suppose for Rusty Hardin too. Dick sometimes teaches a crim law course at UT Law. I took it and it was one of the most enjoyable law school courses I experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 53230

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2023 at 3:23 PM, Chuckie Finster said:

Uh, I get that he has basically an unparalleled resume, but he had very clearly lost a step when I heard him defending Deshaun Watson.

Maybe he has. I had dinner with him shortly after he won the Roger Clemons trial. He talked a lot about the trial and still seemed like one sharp motherfucker, but that was years ago. He’s got a talented bunch of lawyers at his firm, though, who no doubt will be helping him put together this trial.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2023 at 6:16 PM, chainsaw said:

There's plenty of "clean" ways to make money if you're a public servant with a lot of friends in the country club crowd. Especially if you're conservative. I'm not aware of any "Jimmy Carter sell the peanut farm"-type requirements for Texas AG. There's nothing illegal about making smart investments, so if I'm his wife I would definitely push back on the idea that "gobs of cash" without more is smoking gun evidence of criminality.

everyone's been aware of his affair for forever now, and also she later drove the truck to help him evade being served in a lawsuit. She's a piece of shit enabler, so zero benefit of the doubt from me.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10298

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

everyone's been aware of his affair for forever now, and also she later drove the truck to help him evade being served in a lawsuit. She's a piece of shit enabler, so zero benefit of the doubt from me.

Oh I don't give her the benefit of the doubt, but in a "court" of "law" she would get one and I hope the evidence is stronger than "she had to know"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106937

Posted
Posted
Oh I don't give her the benefit of the doubt, but in a "court" of "law" she would get one and I hope the evidence is stronger than "she had to know"

The Senate isn’t a court of law (Trump impeachment trials showed you that, by analogy at least). She should be pilloried there as well.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32084

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2023 at 9:10 PM, scottsins said:


Doesn’t matter at all. Skill set is very similar, and I say that as someone who has done both jobs. Hardin handled some of the stuff against Ken Starr.

Yeah, the name of the game here is storytelling and persuasion.  They should all be pretty good at that, even at their fairly advanced ages.  Where that gets problematic among trial lawyers is when documentary evidence starts "fencing in" the story you want to tell.  Because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of documentary evidence here and even less of the exculpatory variety, and, the rules of evidence won't be strictly applied, they should be in hog heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32084

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

everyone's been aware of his affair for forever now, and also she later drove the truck to help him evade being served in a lawsuit. She's a piece of shit enabler, so zero benefit of the doubt from me.

I might guess that she's sufficiently enamored of the power that she doesn't care about that whole sanctity of marriage thing.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10298

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


The Senate isn’t a court of law (Trump impeachment trials showed you that, by analogy at least). She should be pilloried there as well.

She should, but remember where we are and who we're dealing with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandywine

Brandywine 1330

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2023 at 2:53 PM, The Dog said:

 

Paxton spent all his time doing the GOP’s dirty work and trying to get Trump back in the White House illegally that he never did what the taxpayers were actually paying him for. So, of course he doesn’t deserve to be paid. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55869

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2023 at 5:26 PM, Brisketexan said:

Finally.....the smart move in these cases is to count the votes in the Senate well before any trial gets started.  If the votes to convict are already there, then a smart person resigns before you get all of your dirty laundry aired in full view of the public.

Problem: Paxton is not a smart person.

I don't see that as a problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21477

Posted
Posted
Just now, JesusSweatDuck said:

angry eric cartman GIF by South Park

Take your low proof swill and GTFO.  You want to work miracles, have the full lineup of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection on my front porch tomorrow morning.  I’ll convert if you can make that happen.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10298

Posted
Posted

https://www.ketk.com/news/local-news/i-was-surprised-it-took-so-long-louie-gohmert-weighs-in-on-ken-paxton-impeachment/amp/

Quote

Gohmert said sometimes House members believe they deserve more reasoning than given, but the true trial and legal process will unfold in the State Senate.

“On the issue of ‘is he getting due process?’ Well, we may not like it, but in a grand jury type equivalent, what the House of Representatives is, there was nothing illegal or immoral or unethical,” said Gohmert.

When the trial begins in the senate Gohmert believes two people should not be able to vote.

“Angela Paxton should be recused, she should not have a vote because she clearly has a conflict of interest,” said Gohmert.

He also said the chair of a Senate committee listed in impeachment article two should also recuse themselves.

dnmtn4ksijwyep0xmljk.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49510

Posted
Posted

Or if they vote without a trial?

On 6/3/2023 at 8:30 AM, Hornius Emeritus said:

Deguerin and Hardin vs. Buzbee on the floor of the Texas Senate in a winner-take-all battle royale? Is there any doubt that God loves us and wants us to be happy?

Donald Trump was president of the United States and might be again. I have some doubts. 

On 6/3/2023 at 11:58 AM, TheStoicPaisano said:

Bring weaponry

 

IMG_0813.jpeg

Dude could probably sell that to Russia right now for a huge profit. Probably get sanctioned though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106937

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The rumor I'm hearing is that there will be no trial. Very disappointing if true. 

 

Our pal Mackowiak said otherwise.  And when it comes into being plugged in to what the slimeballs are actually thinking, he's got a pretty good track record.

13 minutes ago, wreckatx said:

The only way this is true is if Paxton is resigning.

Correct.

And he's too arrogant to resign, I think.  But who knows -- when enough people in positions of power sit down with you and say "look....this here is a giant runny shit sandwich, and I guarantee you that we're going to make you eat every goddamned bite," you may come to Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90660

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And he's too arrogant to resign, I think.  But who knows -- when enough people in positions of power sit down with you and say "look....this here is a giant runny shit sandwich, and I guarantee you that we're going to make you eat every goddamned bite," you may come to Jesus.

I feel like it's not possible, but maybe they've cut a deal where he skates and only faces the federal stuff, and/or they don't refer the charges for criminal prosecution or whatever. I don't know, y'all are the lawyers.

And there's still the stuff the prosecutors are saying will blow our minds, that we haven't heard about yet.

23 minutes ago, Updawg said:

Or hear one and vote to acquit

That's not happening - Paxton is not in the Cool Kids Club, but the whistleblowers he fired are in the Cool Kids Club and friends with Patrick, Abbott, Cornyn, etc. and Paxton trying to fuck with them and their careers put him on the wrong side of Patrick, etc.

And he pissed off the legislature by automatically assuming they'd cover for him and rubber-stamp his $3.3 million settlement. You do your crimes, you keep them to yourself, but you try to rope in the lege without talking to them...FAFO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10298

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And there's still the stuff the prosecutors are saying will blow our minds, that we haven't heard about yet.

The only reason I have faith in this is because it's not just libs promising it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26866

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

what

that's the rumor

1 hour ago, wreckatx said:

The only way this is true is if Paxton is resigning.

I heard that too. 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Our pal Mackowiak said otherwise.  And when it comes into being plugged in to what the slimeballs are actually thinking, he's got a pretty good track record.

Correct.

And he's too arrogant to resign, I think.  But who knows -- when enough people in positions of power sit down with you and say "look....this here is a giant runny shit sandwich, and I guarantee you that we're going to make you eat every goddamned bite," you may come to Jesus.

agree with all that, and the bolded part is what I hear, and frankly it sounds like wishful thinking because to me it sounds like it relies on Paxton having the capacity to feel shame among other things and doing some mixture of what is smart and/or honorable. But I'm told that's not the case. 


but either way, these two things are both true:
1) Paxton in office is a huge liability for his partners in government in ways that have nothing to do with winning elections 
2) Convicting Paxton creates huge political headaches for Abbott and Dan Patrick, not to mentions the Senators themselves.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90660

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

2) Convicting Paxton creates huge political headaches for Abbott and Dan Patrick, not to mentions the Senators themselves.

If they do nothing about him, he'll feel emboldened to do even more shit that none of them want to defend.  He got too big for his britches and assumed the lege would pony up $3.3 million, no questions asked, even as it would shield/benefit him.

And there's still the settlement matter - if the lege doesn't provide the funding, isn't there some kind of court process that will drag much of this out into the light of day?

As Murr said, Paxton brought this shitshow into the legislature with the $3.3 million thing. They were happy to ignore it until he tried to put them on the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55869

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If they do nothing about him, he'll feel emboldened to do even more shit that none of them want to defend.  He got too big for his britches and assumed the lege would pony up $3.3 million, no questions asked, even as it would shield/benefit him.

And there's still the settlement matter - if the lege doesn't provide the funding, isn't there some kind of court process that will drag much of this out into the light of day?

As Murr said, Paxton brought this shitshow into the legislature with the $3.3 million thing. They were happy to ignore it until he tried to put them on the hook.

I still have trouble buying that the legislature is blowing all this shit up over $3M.  That's a fucking rounding error in this state.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19590

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I still have trouble buying that the legislature is blowing all this shit up over $3M.  That's a fucking rounding error in this state.  

Yea, I still think they're trying to get out front of something really ugly. Laundering campaign money for personal use for most of the Republicans in Texas or something like that. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...