Jump to content

Kenny Paxton/Dave P's Impeachment Game Day Thread

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

washparkhorn
washparkhorn

At Home Depot, you can do it and we can help

DDD Dad
DDD Dad

This guy drops more names of people he knows and likes than @YGIFS

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

That's not true.  There was definitely a vote.  It was $3 million to zero.  The vote took place in Dan Patrick's bank account.  It was not interfered with by any italian satellites or china with bambo

Posted Images

C-Man

C-Man 27,227

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Significant overruling of hearsay objection to Nate Paul statements made at meeting between Banger, Paxton and Paul.  Yeah, Patrick is just going to let in whatever Hardin wants in for the most part.

donald-glover-good.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,666

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Significant overruling of hearsay objection to Nate Paul statements made at meeting between Banger, Paxton and Paul.  Yeah, Patrick is just going to let in whatever Hardin wants in for the most part.

Is it Patrick being out of his depth, or is it Patrick signaling that he's against Paxton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,139

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Significant overruling of hearsay objection to Nate Paul statements made at meeting between Banger, Paxton and Paul.  Yeah, Patrick is just going to let in whatever Hardin wants in for the most part.

As you and I know, and as I recall once informing a young lawyer who was appalled by the court overruling numerous objections and letting everything in, "the rules are whatever the guy in the black robe up front says they are," for the most part.  Lot of discretion in what to let in/exclude, and on the actual law side, VERY few cases are reversed based on evidentiary rulings one way or the other.

And this isn't even a legal case.  It's a political one.  They can and should consider whatever they want to consider.  The idea that there are rules here is just an illusion...as much of an illusion as the idea that the evidence presented at this actual "trial" will sway a single vote in either direction.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,666

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Damn, he just overruled Ralph before Hardin could even get out an argument.

And Paxton's people weren't able to object to Bangert's comments that Nate Paul was sucking up more time/resources of the AG's office than he ever should have.

And Paxton's people are trying to object to questions before Hardin even finishes asking the question, LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 9,868

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As you and I know, and as I recall once informing a young lawyer who was appalled by the court overruling numerous objections and letting everything in, "the rules are whatever the guy in the black robe up front says they are," for the most part.  Lot of discretion in what to let in/exclude, and on the actual law side, VERY few cases are reversed based on evidentiary rulings one way or the other.

And this isn't even a legal case.  It's a political one.  They can and should consider whatever they want to consider.  The idea that there are rules here is just an illusion...as much of an illusion as the idea that the evidence presented at this actual "trial" will sway a single vote in either direction.

whoseline.PNG

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And Paxton's people weren't able to object to Bangert's comments that Nate Paul was sucking up more time/resources of the AG's office than he ever should have.

And Paxton's people are trying to object to questions before Hardin even finishes asking the question, LOL.

That's weird I thought he had nothing he wanted to hide

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52,503

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As you and I know, and as I recall once informing a young lawyer who was appalled by the court overruling numerous objections and letting everything in, "the rules are whatever the guy in the black robe up front says they are," for the most part.  Lot of discretion in what to let in/exclude, and on the actual law side, VERY few cases are reversed based on evidentiary rulings one way or the other.

And this isn't even a legal case.  It's a political one.  They can and should consider whatever they want to consider.  The idea that there are rules here is just an illusion...as much of an illusion as the idea that the evidence presented at this actual "trial" will sway a single vote in either direction.

Oh I get all that.  But Patrick so far seems to be clearly giving Hardin the nod this morning, save for a "nonresponsive" crumb he's throwing to the kid.  It's interesting to watch in the context of speculation that most of the R's, including Patrick, want Paxton gone.

Edited by South Austin
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,666

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

2. Methinks the young atty having attitude is not a good look. 

I think Patrick is starting to get pissed at him, and I don't think the young guy is reading the room very well.  And the young guy is drawing attention to stuff that he probably shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think Patrick is starting to get pissed at him, and I don't think the young guy is reading the room very well.  And the young guy is drawing attention to stuff that he probably shouldn't.

Objection, hearsay.

3 minutes ago, HalfSack Horn said:

Who is this Paxton lawyer(Ralph).  Need him on speed dial if I need a lawyer who has attitude and objects a lot.  

Objection, hearsay.

1 minute ago, tx ind said:

Will aggy disown him due to the orange?

Objection, hearsay.

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Paxton’s attorneys are nesting dolls, and they are even arranged from smallest to biggest.

Objection, hearsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,667

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hahahah who is this ralph douchebag? He's cracking me up with his fuck fuck games

liar-liar-jim-carrey.gif

It's like he's using the trumpian rhetoric strategy of interrupting and effectively jamming your opponent, rather than taking their argument on head-on. He's just trying the same (failing) objection every time and failing lmao

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

So you lawyers, can y'all fill me in on how a large team of lawyers works?

Now that it's mentioned, I see Buzbee back there. There was also the other lawyer who gave the opening statement. Buzbee seems like the big name and lead of the team. But he's just back there hanging out? And I haven't heard a word from Dick DeGuerin from the prosecution.

Is this normal? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30,238

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

So you lawyers, can y'all fill me in on how a large team of lawyers works?

Now that it's mentioned, I see Buzbee back there. There was also the other lawyer who gave the opening statement. Buzbee seems like the big name and lead of the team. But he's just back there hanging out? And I haven't heard a word from Dick DeGuerin from the prosecution.

Is this normal? 

 

Nothing about this is “normal”

Just enjoy the popcorn. 

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

Captainant 27,667

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wow so crazy small world - my wife had a class with "Ralph" in law school and saw him around on the other moot court team! He's only 4 years out of law school and defending an impeachment, no wonder he's so on edge lol

I found a WFAA link that named him as Anthony Osso

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,534

Posted
Posted
Just now, Beau Vine said:

I don't have the slightest clue what this guy's trying to accomplish on cross.

1. The attorney general didn't require disclosure of records to Nate Paul's lawyers, but also maybe the records were also provided later on and this witness doesn't know anything about it. 

2. ????

3. Profit

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 9,868

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I don't have the slightest clue what this guy's trying to accomplish on cross.

Their theme is that this is all just a big misunderstanding and "no quid pro quo" because Home Depot and shitty tile kitchentops.

To accomplish that they keep harping on this "you just assumed" X or Y. Which I don't think is landing, really. Because the decisions these choirboys made were plainly reasonable under the circumstances. No matter how they try to spin it, Nate Paul was getting special treatment for reasons that made zero sense to anyone paying attention.

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

Guest

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I don't have the slightest clue what this guy's trying to accomplish on cross.

Makes two of us. Just a lot of rapid fire questions that sound accusatory, but don't really get anywhere.

The prosecution seems to make a lot of slow-fire questions that don't really get anywhere. 

Seems like having some sort of overriding narrative for either side -- and then tying everything back to that -- would be pretty helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,139

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I don't see this witness trying anything underhanded unless his goal is to control what women do with their own bodies or establish evangelical Christianity as the official, mandatory religion of the nation.

Now y'all get it.

We're down to rooting for the GOOD Christofascists.  FML.

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...