Kenny Paxton/Dave P's Impeachment Game Day Thread

[South Austin 52,037]

He's definitely more composed and well-spoken than Jeff Mateer.  I'm interested to see how he spars with Buzbee.

[Beau Vine 53,964]

WTF was Rusty doing?  Buzbee asked Mateer twice, "You were trying to stage a coup, weren't you?"  

No objection.

Mateer actually responded to Buzbee at one point, "You're asking me to speculate?"

No objection.  

[chainsaw 9,831]

26 minutes ago, South Austin said:

He's definitely more composed and well-spoken than Jeff Mateer.  I'm interested to see how he spars with Buzbee.

If they follow Texas court protocol it would seem Buzbee waived the right to personally cross-examine by allowing some other dude to object

[South Austin 52,037]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

If they follow Texas court protocol it would seem Buzbee waived the right to personally cross-examine by allowing some other dude to object

Eh, I've seen actual judges blow that off.  I doubt Patrick would give two shits about that if Rusty makes an issue.

[chainsaw 9,831]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Eh, I've seen actual judges blow that off.  I doubt Patrick would give two shits about that if Rusty makes an issue.

As they should but I get the impression the defense team intends for this witness to belong to that lawyer.

[TexasEd 8,062]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

As I watch this witness, he’s not what I thought the AG’s top Lieutenant would be like. Not at all.

He's exactly what I thought a top lieutenant to Paxton would look like.

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

When you realize what third-rate low-talent hacks are actually in charge of shit....well, that's an eye-opening day.  I grew up with an idea that the people in charge would be actually intelligent and competent.

ISWYDT

[South Austin 52,037]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

As they should but I get the impression the defense team intends for this witness to belong to that lawyer.

Yeah, Buzbee seems to have let this lawyer take Banger.

[chainsaw 9,831]

1 minute ago, TexasEd said:

He's exactly what I thought a top lieutenant to Paxton would look like.

ISWYDT

Ken didn't

[Updawg 2,260]

I like how dan goes along with whatever rusty says.

[South Austin 52,037]

This guy is a much better witness than Mateer.  Rusty should have opened with a Bangert.

[royiv 9,131]

Just now, South Austin said:

This guy is a much better witness than Mateer.  Rusty should have opened with a Bangert.

Agreed. I’m disappointed that we won’t get to watch him go up against Buzbee. 

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, this is what is bugging the hell out of me - these are basically emails between employees of the State of Texas, not between Paxton and his personal lawyer, and I don't know what kind reputation that Buzbee has, but this non-lawyer is not impressed with him at all - I'm now realizing I should have became a lawyer.

I'm also waiting for Paxton's team to actually prove that the evidence is false.  They keep claiming it, but it's like Trump - where the fuck is the proof that it's false?  And Paxton and his team attacking Dade Phelan, biggest roll-eyes ever.

A fair number of the big PI names are really good in front of a jury, but if you asked them a question of law, it's like wut.  They have associates and partners that keep them in line legally.  Their basic job is mouthpiece and persuader.

ETA:  I should correct this, as it's not exclusive to PI lawyers by any means.  There are a good number in the "defense bar" as well.  And in any kind of litigation you want to pick. Great at telling a story and handling witnesses, but for God's sake don't let them handle a motion or get anywhere near an appeal or answer any legal question posed by the judge.

Edited September 7, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[royiv 9,131]

I’m so glad we have an AG finally standing up to the oppression of businesses in Texas by going after big charity.

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

Highlights, and will Nate Paul be put on the stand?

 

[royiv 9,131]

Bangert was a good witness to end the day on if any of the senators were still listening and/or sober.

[chainsaw 9,831]

21 minutes ago, royiv said:

Bangert was a good witness to end the day on if any of the senators were still listening and/or sober.

Garrett Gilbert was a good quarterback if the opponent were FAU

[Stilicho 1,397]

21 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Garrett Gilbert was a good quarterback if the opponent were FAU

Or Nebraska.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,342]

 

 

[YGIFS 19,449]

Angela,

Why run with endurance to that blessed place, when you can just Uber there under an alias with somebody else paying and fuck the goal in the butthole?  

[royiv 9,131]

3 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

 

One of my favorite features of the GQP is their complete lack of shame in their hypocrisy.

[Brisketexan 104,462]

 
 

Scripture continued: “yea, verily, though I fucketh my mistress using thine Uber alias to travel to the den of diddling, thou art by my side, pathetically, becauseth power is more important to you than betrayal of yon dusty vageen.”

[tx 3 putt 76,158]

46 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

 

and praise Jesus for my side piece 

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

57 minutes ago, royiv said:

One of my favorite features of the GQP is their complete lack of shame in their hypocrisy.

 

[Guest]

Everyone ready for the 9 a.m. 9:45 a.m. start?

One part of me wants Patrick to step aside and put a real judge in place to make this thing more professional. The other part wants to see him get run over and turn it into a three-ring circus.

I don't get the vibe that Hardin realizes the traditional rules don't matter. If he does, then he could absolutely have the upper hand. It's obvious Patrick trusts Hardin and is looking to him for guidance. All he has to do is throw out some Latin legal sounding term in objection while Buzbee is talking and he'll get it stopped.

Buzbee: "You were planning a coup, weren't you?"
Hardin: "Objection your honor: Sous Vide"
Patrick: "Sous Vide?"
Hardin: "Yes, your honor. Sous Vide. The defense is entertaining ideas counter to what's on trial, so that's Sous Vide."
Patrick: "Sustained. Mr. Buzbee, no more Sous Vide." 

[South Austin 52,037]

26 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Buzbee: "You were planning a coup, weren't you?"

Hardin: "Objection your honor: Sous Vide"
Patrick: "Sous Vide?"
Hardin: "Yes, your honor. Sous Vide. The defense is entertaining ideas counter to what's on trial, so that's Sous Vide."
Patrick: "Sustained. Mr. Buzbee, no more Sous Vide." 

[Pescado_Rojo 19,327]

44 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Everyone ready for the 9 a.m. 9:45 a.m. start?

One part of me wants Patrick to step aside and put a real judge in place to make this thing more professional. The other part wants to see him get run over and turn it into a three-ring circus.

I don't get the vibe that Hardin realizes the traditional rules don't matter. If he does, then he could absolutely have the upper hand. It's obvious Patrick trusts Hardin and is looking to him for guidance. All he has to do is throw out some Latin legal sounding term in objection while Buzbee is talking and he'll get it stopped.

Buzbee: "You were planning a coup, weren't you?"
Hardin: "Objection your honor: Sous Vide"
Patrick: "Sous Vide?"
Hardin: "Yes, your honor. Sous Vide. The defense is entertaining ideas counter to what's on trial, so that's Sous Vide."
Patrick: "Sustained. Mr. Buzbee, no more Sous Vide." 

Ah yes..."How Sweet the Wine" 

[Bookman 4,609]

Have they had any moment like "Are we to believe that boiling waters soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than on any place on the face of the earth?"

[South Austin 52,037]

2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Have they had any moment like "Are we to believe that boiling waters soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than on any place on the face of the earth?"

I think the line of testimony about the magic letterhead came pretty close.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

I think the line of testimony about the magic letterhead came pretty close.

No AG name on the letterhead = a whole-hearted coup attempt.

[YGIFS 19,449]

skip to 59:45 mark for a behind the scenes look at this trial:

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

I want to punch people who think this is all the doing of Democrats.

If they believe that, then why are they voting?  Because the implication is that Democrats can't get simple legislation passed, but can make make Paxton's Republican lieutenants blow the whistle and go to the feds, and can makethe House Republicans investigate Paxton and bring up the articles of impeachment, and then make the Senate Republicans vote to continue with the impeachment.  And all of that without the need for a single Democratic vote or Democratic witness.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

A fair number of the big PI names are really good in front of a jury, but if you asked them a question of law, it's like wut.  They have associates and partners that keep them in line legally.  Their basic job is mouthpiece and persuader.

ETA:  I should correct this, as it's not exclusive to PI lawyers by any means.  There are a good number in the "defense bar" as well.  And in any kind of litigation you want to pick. Great at telling a story and handling witnesses, but for God's sake don't let them handle a motion or get anywhere near an appeal or answer any legal question posed by the judge.

For a little insight on this, a colleague and long-ago mentee had worked for Kelly, Hart & Hallman in Fort Worth as a sort of legal assistant/software guru when discovery software and stuff was in its early stages.  He was a particular favorite of Dee Kelly, the senior partner and renowned tral lawyer on the defense end of things.  So, he did a lot of little projects specifically for Mr. Kelly.

Mr, Kelly was rather notoriously out of touch with current laws on anything, and, to be fair, was involved in such a wide variety of case types that it would be difficult to be up to speed on all the areas of law.  But to prepare for a trial, he would get a big suite at the Worthington (downtown FW hotel) or another hotel close to the trial venue during the weeks preceding the trial.  His involvement in the case prior to that time was minimal and superficial, for the most part, window dressing for the client.

Legal assistants would bring him all the major documents and depositions in the case and he would call in junior lawyers and other partners to explain major motions, nuances of the law, and provide him with their best guess at what the jury instructions would say.  And he would "cram" all this information like studying for a test or final in the weeks running up to the trial.  Basically 24/7 cramming for days on end.  And any information that this process didn't "internalize," other lawyers would have to gap fill at the trial.

It is my understanding that that is more typical than not among high-profile tral lawyers.  It's a skill and talent all unto itself, and hard work.  But it's not typical law-dogging.

[chainsaw 9,831]

I just realized all the House Managers exhibits are online

https://senate.texas.gov/coi.php

 

[South Austin 52,037]

@TwiceHorn, that describes Bill Sims, a fantastic lawyer at Vinson & Elkins with whom I worked for four years as a baby attorney.  I was lucky to spend a lot of time with him because (1) he was one of the few biglaw lawyers at the time who still tried cases on a regular basis, and (2) he was one of the few biglaw lawyers who thought it was important to give younger attorneys more meaningful roles in his cases (e.g., I took a fair amount of depositions and got to call a witness here or there at trial). 

He was a genius at voir dire and jurors loved him (a Harvard law grad who still gave off his Mississippi charm).  He would distill a voluminous set of trial exhibits into the 20-25 documents that he thought were crucial to the case.  He was great with cross-examination.  But I don't recall him spending any time drafting (or even reading) motions or briefs on legal issues, and when a particular legal issue arose in the case, he'd immediately call on a member of his trial team to take over, or like Dan Patrick would lean into one of them to be fed what to say to the judge.  A lot of what I'm seeing with Rusty Hardin.

Edited September 7, 2023 by South Austin

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

@TwiceHorn, that describes Bill Sims, a fantastic lawyer at Vinson & Elkins with whom I worked for four years as a baby attorney.  I was lucky to spend a lot of time with him because (1) he was one of the few biglaw lawyers at the time who still tried cases on a regular basis, and (2) he was one of the few biglaw lawyers who thought it was important to give younger attorneys more meaningful roles in his cases (e.g., I took a fair amount of depositions and got to call a witness here or there at trial). 

He was a genius at voir dire and jurors loved him (a Harvard law grad who still gave off his Mississippi charm).  He would distill a voluminous set of trial exhibits into the 20-25 documents that he thought were crucial to the case.  He was great with cross-examination.  But I don't recall him spending any time drafting (or even reading) motions or briefs on legal issues, and when a particular legal issue arose in the case, he'd immediately call on a member of his trial team to take over, or like Dan Patrick would lean into one of them to be fed what to say to the judge.

There aren't too many like this, maybe none, in the IP bar, as far as I know.  Maybe Bill Lee at Wilmer Hale and a few like that.  And some of the general civil lawyers that get involved in trying patent and other IP cases, like McKool or Quinn Emanuel.

I guess because most of us are engineers, we tend to be kind of technicians and to a large extent, the law absolutely requires that.  Most of the big names in IP stay fairly deeply involved from complaint to verdict.

[cactusflinthead 27,593]

12 hours ago, royiv said:

complete lack of shame

It's a superpower. They are incapable of being shamed.

[South Austin 52,037]

25 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I want to punch people who think this is all the doing of Democrats.

If they believe that, then why are they voting?  Because the implication is that Democrats can't get simple legislation passed, but can make make Paxton's Republican lieutenants blow the whistle and go to the feds, and can makethe House Republicans investigate Paxton and bring up the articles of impeachment, and then make the Senate Republicans vote to continue with the impeachment.  And all of that without the need for a single Democratic vote or Democratic witness.

And don't forget that the Democrats are making Dan Patrick go along with Rusty Hardin on all of the objections.

[chainsaw 9,831]

4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

And don't forget that the Democrats are making Dan Patrick go along with Rusty Hardin on all of the objections.

I actually think Dan Patrick was too accommodating to the defense's hearsay objections. If you ask a witness "What did Joe Blow say" Joe Blow's response is rarely being offered to prove anything other than the witness's state of mind.

[Dahobbs 17,420]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For a little insight on this, a colleague and long-ago mentee had worked for Kelly, Hart & Hallman in Fort Worth as a sort of legal assistant/software guru when discovery software and stuff was in its early stages.  He was a particular favorite of Dee Kelly, the senior partner and renowned tral lawyer on the defense end of things.  So, he did a lot of little projects specifically for Mr. Kelly.

Mr, Kelly was rather notoriously out of touch with current laws on anything, and, to be fair, was involved in such a wide variety of case types that it would be difficult to be up to speed on all the areas of law.  But to prepare for a trial, he would get a big suite at the Worthington (downtown FW hotel) or another hotel close to the trial venue during the weeks preceding the trial.  His involvement in the case prior to that time was minimal and superficial, for the most part, window dressing for the client.

Legal assistants would bring him all the major documents and depositions in the case and he would call in junior lawyers and other partners to explain major motions, nuances of the law, and provide him with their best guess at what the jury instructions would say.  And he would "cram" all this information like studying for a test or final in the weeks running up to the trial.  Basically 24/7 cramming for days on end.  And any information that this process didn't "internalize," other lawyers would have to gap fill at the trial.

It is my understanding that that is more typical than not among high-profile tral lawyers.  It's a skill and talent all unto itself, and hard work.  But it's not typical law-dogging.

 

20 minutes ago, South Austin said:

@TwiceHorn, that describes Bill Sims, a fantastic lawyer at Vinson & Elkins with whom I worked for four years as a baby attorney.  I was lucky to spend a lot of time with him because (1) he was one of the few biglaw lawyers at the time who still tried cases on a regular basis, and (2) he was one of the few biglaw lawyers who thought it was important to give younger attorneys more meaningful roles in his cases (e.g., I took a fair amount of depositions and got to call a witness here or there at trial). 

He was a genius at voir dire and jurors loved him (a Harvard law grad who still gave off his Mississippi charm).  He would distill a voluminous set of trial exhibits into the 20-25 documents that he thought were crucial to the case.  He was great with cross-examination.  But I don't recall him spending any time drafting (or even reading) motions or briefs on legal issues, and when a particular legal issue arose in the case, he'd immediately call on a member of his trial team to take over, or like Dan Patrick would lean into one of them to be fed what to say to the judge.  A lot of what I'm seeing with Rusty Hardin.

Yup, plenty of folks like this on both sides of the v. It is impressive, but also exhausting and stressful if you're working with them. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I just realized all the House Managers exhibits are online

https://senate.texas.gov/coi.php

 

Feeling dense, but where? I see all sorts of links, but if I want to see "Exhibit 261" or whatever document they are talking about in the trial, I don't see where to find that.

Nevermind, found it!

Edited September 7, 2023 by FirstTimeCaller

[South Austin 52,037]

1 minute ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Feeling dense, but where? I see all sorts of links, but if I want to see "Exhibit 261" or whatever document they are talking about in the trial, I don't see where to find that.

Under the heading "House Board of Managers," the last three bullet points are links to the exhibits.

[chainsaw 9,831]

3 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Feeling dense, but where? I see all sorts of links, but if I want to see "Exhibit 261" or whatever document they are talking about in the trial, I don't see where to find that.

Nevermind, found it!

Yeah I should specify it's at the bottom of the bullet list of the House Managers filings. Weirdly I don't see any of Paxton's exhibits. Wonder what he's trying to hide

[chainsaw 9,831]

And this filing seems to do a half-decent job walking through the evidence, piecing it together, and telling the story of corruption

https://senate.texas.gov/_assets/coi/docs/House-Managers-Response-to-No-Evidence-MSJ-Part-II-FINAL-20230815.pdf

[South Austin 52,037]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Yeah I should specify it's at the bottom of the bullet list of the House Managers filings. Weirdly I don't see any of Paxton's exhibits. Wonder what he's trying to hide

His only exhibits are the actual countertops and other items he purchased at Home Depot, which can't be physically uploaded.

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

Patrick is up and speaking already, not fucking around with 9am.

 

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

If you want to read batshit comments, WFAA has their comments turned on

 

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

So the lawyers approached Patrick and are talking off-microphone...for what reason?

[Gatorubet 30,064]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Yup, plenty of folks like this on both sides of the v. It is impressive, but also exhausting and stressful if you're working with them. 

I know lots of guys like that, last minute preppers with great skills.  People far more talented than me and my blah trial and voir dire skills, to be sure.  Just an opinion, but if you haven’t tried to figure out the nuances of the elements of the cause of action and the nuances of the defenses available to the defendant - and incorporated that knowledge into your complaint language and initial discovery requests, I do not think you’re doing your client any favors waiting to figure it out.  But if the rest of the team is on it, then a true wizard at jury persuasion brought in before trial is a godsend. 

John O’Quinn conducting voir dire was always worth the watch. 

[chainsaw 9,831]

Ralph Macchio is back for the defense