Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Thanks for starting a thread to break out “a thing is happening today” from one of the years long million post mega threads that I can’t possibly keep up with.

from Wake Forest -

Ⓜ️🍑

Edited by Celery Man
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why do all the R criminals in this simulation look like Batman villains?

lack of rizz leads to chronic incelship and republicanism

  • Haha 3
Posted
24 minutes ago, tx ind said:

image.gif.26497599189e21597d49de2746c7e8d6.gif

When I read that quote form his wife over the weekend, "Ken continues to fight for us as a couple", this is exactly what I thought of (pos rep).  Ken Paxton, Nate Paul, and God knows who else show up in ubers at this chick's apartment in South Austin.  And his wife considers that, what?  One of the battles in the great war he is waging to save their state and marriage?  Yeah, these are totally normal people we're dealing with here, Texas.  

I like to picture today, the two Texas residents of Mexican heritage, who represent a cartel's business interests in our state being seated in the Senate gallery.  And Ken looks over his shoulder like Frank Pantangeli does at the Senate hearing in "The Godfather" when his brother is seated.  And the gravity of the situation finally hits him.  And he takes the honorable way out.

Posted
1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Thanks for starting a thread to break out “a thing is happening today” from one of the years long million post mega threads that I can’t possibly keep up with.

Oh, once it gets going, this thread will get a million posts - they've structured the trial to move fast, with the time limits that they've come up with.

I don't know if the purpose of imposing the time limits is because they know there's going to be a lot of people watching this and and they want to get it over quickly, or if they've already made up their minds, or both or what.  Or maybe because it's not a traditional criminal or civil case, and is instead an up-or-down thing on each charge on removing him from office (and/or barring him from future office). Maybe some of the hundreds, nay thousands of attorneys on Surly can comment on the time limits they've imposed.

Posted
31 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

When I read that quote form his wife over the weekend, "Ken continues to fight for us as a couple", this is exactly what I thought of (pos rep).  Ken Paxton, Nate Paul, and God knows who else show up in ubers at this chick's apartment in South Austin.  And his wife considers that, what?  One of the battles in the great war he is waging to save their state and marriage?  Yeah, these are totally normal people we're dealing with here, Texas.  

Imagine if you were not a part of his immediate family, yet you hopped on a bus with dozens of people to drive over 3 hours to Austin for the trial to support him.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Imagine if you were not a part of his immediate family, yet you hopped on a bus with dozens of people to drive over 3 hours to Austin for the trial to support him.

 

1c95e0cf-7fcf-4f62-b52d-e53daa178256_tex

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted

Austin-American Statesman seems to have kicked off the live coverage and you can even see Paxton talking to his attorneys.  What is it with attorneys/lawmakers who can't grow a fucking decent beard if their lives depended on it.

 

Posted

$50 round-trip for 30 people?  That's gonna barely cover gas for the round-trip, let alone the driver and you know...the bus rental.  Somebody else is footing the bill for most of this.  I bet I know who.

Also, some of those women looked of working age.  Can you imagine calling into your boss today to tell him that, "Well yes, I had yesterday off for Labor Day.  But I need today off, too.  What?  No, I'm not sick.  I have to ride a bus from Target to the Capitol to protect Ken Paxton from the Democrats.  What?  Yes, I'm serious.  You can't infringe my First Amendment rights!  What?  Well they should be covered by HR.  Look, I'm gonna call Karen and have her explain this to you.  I'll see you tomorrow, boss."  

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Ok, so how many votes are needed for impeachment given the Angela Paxton stuff?

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Ok, so how many votes are needed for impeachment given the Angela Paxton stuff?

21

Side note: WFAA's coverage has allowed chat on YouTube and holy shit MAGA and Qanon are out and active.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Posted
17 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't know if the purpose of imposing the time limits is because they know there's going to be a lot of people watching this and and they want to get it over quickly, or if they've already made up their minds, or both or what.  Or maybe because it's not a traditional criminal or civil case, and is instead an up-or-down thing on each charge on removing him from office (and/or barring him from future office). Maybe some of the hundreds, nay thousands of attorneys on Surly can comment on the time limits they've imposed.

As a civil trial lawyer I'm used to many state and federal judges imposing pretty strict time limits for trial, and even though the lawyers usually ask for more time than the judge allots, the lawyers are usually able to make do with the time they're given.

All that said, 24 hours per side seems awfully tight for a case of this magnitude and the number of charges.  But I trust that Rusty Hardin's team has had plenty of time to plan his case within that time limitation and is going to be fine.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

21

Side note: WFAA's coverage has allowed chat on YouTube and holy shit MAGA and Qanon are out and active.

I'm guessing they have no clue that the Rs are the ones going against him?

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm guessing they have no clue that the Rs are the ones going against him?

They would say those Rs are RINOS. 

Always good to educate anyone that its Rs that have always gone after Paxton. The people that he's accused to defrauding were republicans. I'm talking about the situation that led to the criminal trial has been delayed forever.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Posted

Is it possible that Paxton's defense will agree to certain facts to avoid them from being spoken about in this trial? I assume that he's accepting of the facts being in the supportive documentation but he doesn't want them presented during the trial.

Posted

When he called Senator Springer up to be sworn in, for a moment I though "Jerry Springer" and that would have been perfect, but Jerry is not from Texas.  And he's dead.

And Paxton vowing this weekend to "clean house" and take out the Republican members of the House was a pretty bold move. They have plenty of time to bring additional charges.

Posted

Are they supposed to repeat "I solemnly swear or affirm" or are they supposed to select which (swear/affirm) they want to say? 

Posted
5 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Are they supposed to repeat "I solemnly swear or affirm" or are they supposed to select which (swear/affirm) they want to say? 

Patrick is making them say both.  Confusing, since you'd think it was one or the other, but he keeps making them say both.

Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Patrick is making them say both.  Confusing, since you'd think it was one or the other, but he keeps making them say both.

I'm guessing he pulled some oath from Google and doesn't realize it supposed to be either/or.

Posted

It's like a tragic version of Animal House, "I...state your name."  Only Dan Patrick is Greg Marmalard and we're all screwed.

  • Haha 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Esque said:

For the life of me I do not understand the cohort that is defending him and trying to turn this into a R v D issue.

They know their constituents are morons

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

A little lost doing other things -- is this a vote to summarily dismiss the charges?



×
×
  • Create New...