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

SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10425

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Captainant said:

buzbee is just getting every objection sustained by paxton. He's straight up not allowing these state employees to give their point of view. Busted ass fucking proceedings. 

Borderline misogynist with how much he's interrupting the defense's action. It's like a fucking daytime news segment when it's just one person yelling over another. Buzbee is just burning the clock and preventing anything of substance from happening. And of course paxton is all too happy to let buzbee object while glancing up from his cell phone. Fuckin shameful display

Yes. It has been exceptionally bad today. Buzbee has wasted a TON of the prosecutions time making silly objections and shockingly getting a ton of them sustained. There were several times witnesses haven't even been able to testify to simple things occurring in their daily activities that are highly relevant. If they weren't so damaging, Buzbee wouldn't be going so hard to keep them out. Pretty much every witness so far is in Paxton's corner on a personal level, they're just being compelled to testify and aren't willing to lie under oath. I mean, shit, the guy today admitted that Paxton is basically a father to him, and that's the guy who Buzbee railroaded with objections the most.

There's damn good reason for the rules of evidence in trials. But this isn't a real trial, and those justifications largely don't exist here. The time limits are a real problem in that regard. If this were a criminal trial, the defense and prosecution would generally have the right to call all these separate people to testify (which would take away the hearsay issue), but that's not permissible here. Because of that, the general rules on hearsay should've been broadened significantly. Honestly, most of these people already sort of know each other. If not directly, then they know someone who does. They can assess credibility a lot better than normal jurors hearing testimony from perfect strangers. They also understand the inner-workings of most of these offices, so they should be given broader leeway in that regard as well. 

In the end, this trial is for the public (and to provide cover for a few senators). Every senator knew how they were going to vote, whether that be: 1) guilty, no matter what, 2) not guilty, no matter what, or 3) let's see if the public comes out strong in Paxton's favor, and if not, then it's safe for me to vote guilty.

Buzbee is doing a good job keeping out a lot of really bad looking stuff, but the prosecution has been able to get in a lot in spite of that. With the empty grandstands, the lack of protests, and the lack of support from many other high ranking Republican officials, I think any Senator that went in under the 3rd option should be feeling confident that they won't get meaningful backlash from their constituents. Honestly, they can probably spin it as an advantage, both locally and nationally, claiming that they're now the party of accountability and rule of law. "Hey, forget everything we've done as a party up to this point, we just impeached a highly popular Republican in deep red Texas. We do what's right, regardless of political affiliation!" They're gonna say that either way, just based on the fact they voted to impeach him, but a conviction makes it a much stronger argument since they've spent these past few days/weeks/years arguing that the impeachment is just another liberal witch hunt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6948

Posted
Posted

Admittedly, I don’t know enough about lawyering to distinguish the really good ones from the bad ones. But, if these guys represent the very best in Texas, I’m underwhelmed. That some can’t  craft questions well enough to survive constant objections is surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2462

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Admittedly, I don’t know enough about lawyering to distinguish the really good ones from the bad ones. But, if these guys represent the very best in Texas, I’m underwhelmed. That some can’t  craft questions well enough to survive constant objections is surprising.

It's a little unfair because Buzbee is objecting to shit he'd never object to in a normal trial because he knows the judge has no idea what he is doing.  They should never have allowed objections.   

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6948

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

It's a little unfair because Buzbee is objecting to shit he'd never object to in a normal trial because he knows the judge has no idea what he is doing.  They should never have allowed objections.   

Gotcha. That makes sense. I still believe there must be bunches of lawyers who are as good or better than those we’ve been exposed to in this case.

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cap33

Cap33 392

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Why "subject to recall"? I realize he can call him in his case, but didn't he just waive cross?"

Buzbee was rubbing Rusty's mistake in his face. If he really wanted to question Brickman (and I don't really think he does; Brickman is solid and pulls no punches), then he'd want to take him on cross and be a dick with a bunch of leading questions and "objection, non responsive as to everything after yes/no." Yes, he could do the same by asking to treat him as a hostile witness, but it's extra effort, and Patrick may not go along.

And I agree they should have limited hearsay objections significantly. This has been ridiculous.

 

2 hours ago, VinyVango said:

Explosive diarrhea is one possibility.

I thought for sure she was throwing up in the bathroom.

Edited by Cap33
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Cap33 said:

Buzbee was rubbing Rusty's mistake in his face. If he really wanted to question Brickman (and I don't really think he does; Brickman is solid and pulls no punches), then he'd want to take him on cross and be a dick with a bunch of leading questions and "objection, non responsive as to everything after yes/no." Yes, he could do the same by asking to treat him as a hostile witness, but it's extra effort, and Patrick may not go along.

And I agree they should have limited hearsay objections significantly. This has been ridiculous.

 

I thought for sure she was throwing up in the bathroom.

She only does that after she has sex with Ken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54390

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Cap33 said:

Buzbee was rubbing Rusty's mistake in his face. If he really wanted to question Brickman (and I don't really think he does; Brickman is solid and pulls no punches), then he'd want to take him on cross and be a dick with a bunch of leading questions and "objection, non responsive as to everything after yes/no." Yes, he could do the same by asking to treat him as a hostile witness, but it's extra effort, and Patrick may not go along.

I suspect that if Patrick read this paragraph, he wouldn't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

How much time did he leave on the clock

Apparently not very much, based on the twitters and what was said yesterday about this being over by tomorrow night or Friday afternoon, as the defense will probably run the clock out with as few delays as possible.

Which is a huge problem - I'm more pissed that there wasn't much time on the clock, because that means Rusty wasted a lot of time on nothing.

I know, as brisket has said, and even I've said as have others, this was all decided well before now, but the fact that that we are at this point means there is a chance - otherwise all 16 charges would have been tossed a week ago.  The prosecution has shown that Nate Paul had way too much access to the AG's office, and tried to wield the AG's office against his enemies/FBI/federal judges/etc.

Still, I feel like they should have picked somebody else.  A friend told me that Rusty was picked specifically because people like Paxton and Buzbee couldn't intimidate him and couldn't get revenge against a younger lawyer, and if that's the case, it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think he gets nailed on at least one charge (which wouldn't be hard).

The alternative is that he remains in office and goes after all of the House and Senate Republicans who voted in favor of the impeachment/trial, and I think there are enough Republicans in the Senate that will vote him out simply because of self-preservation.  When he comes for the Republican Senators (for their original vote last week on not tossing out the 16 charges) they don't want him doing so as the Attorney General of the State of Texas, but as disgraced former attorney general with no power. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican Representatives in the House had surveyed their Senate colleagues to get a feel for a vote back in the spring when all of this was being put together.

And that's another thing that's being overlooked - Buzbee and one of the other guys have said multiple times that "the will of the people" meant that people could have voted Paxton out but they were fine with his behavior. I think it's overlooked, because it's Texas, and if the Republican nominee for Attorney General was Saddam Uday Hussein, as long as that (R) is next to his name, he's winning (for now). 

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

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted
44 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A friend told me that Rusty was picked specifically because people like Paxton and Buzbee couldn't intimidate him but couldn't could get revenge against a younger lawyer, and if that's the case, it makes sense.

To clarify a typo, I mean that Paxton/Buzbee/etc. were not going to intimidate Rusty (there's nothing Paxton can threaten Rusty with), but if it were a younger team, Paxton could/would be threatening them with never working in Texas again kind of bullshit, similar to how he threatened all of the House Republicans a week and a half ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wreckatx

wreckatx 141

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, hornian said:

Apparently there was some "conference" with the lawyers, and after that conference Patrick came out and said she is "present but unavailable to testify."

 

13 hours ago, C-Man said:

Did "D.P." 's side piece testify yet?

Paxton’s mistress filed a motion to quash her subpoena and said she was going to plead the fifth and not provide any substantive testimony. Patrick dismissed her and refused to tell the senators that she was taking the fifth. The “compromise” was that he would say she was “deemed unavailable.” There is an exception to the hearsay rule that calls a witness who refuses to testify “unavailable.”

This is what $3million gets you.

Edited by wreckatx
  • Like 5
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3783

Posted
Posted (edited)

The bottom line is this whole trial is nothing more than an exercise to provide cover to avoid doing the right and moral thing. Which sadly applies to nearly every aspect of the Republican party these days. Or more  accurately to provide an opportunity to condemn Paxton as an immoral scumbag that abused the power of his office in a criminal manner! But I want to see him get the opportunity to do the same thing again!

The single biggest problem with the Republican party nationally, locally and at the state level, is that Republican voters no longer have any standard of accountability for their elected representatives.  The tribal logic that the most corrupt republican in better than any church going, honest democrat, is the current mindset.  Thus there is virtually no punishment mechanism for pushing bad republican representatives out of office. Combine that with gerrymandered safe districts?

And that is how you end up with the House of Representatives able to be controlled by the children's caucus...

Edited by horn4life
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52580

Posted
Posted

Just a little nugget of information -- Dan Patrick rejected the notion raised by defense counsel that he could grant a directed verdict. 

For the small minority on this message board who don't have a real or pretend law degree, a motion for directed verdict is an argument to a judge that the evidence introduced at trial is legally insufficient to support a criminal charge, so the case shouldn't even go to the jury and the judge should render a judgment of acquittal for the defendant.  (They're also used in civil cases, and we managed to get one in a federal court trial years ago.)  Judges usually don't like to grant directed verdicts, because they'd rather the jury make a hard decision rather than the judge, and typically a reversal of a jury verdict on appeal is more challenging than reversal of a directed verdict.

Here, I'm sure the defense wanted to present a motion for directed verdict, among other reasons, as a means to apply political pressure on Dan Patrick.  And I'm sure Patrick wanted no part of a directed verdict so the senators would take any political heat or retribution.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19452

Posted
Posted

Good explanation.  Patrick, as in the bag for the psychotic wing of Paxton's party as he is, still has an election cycle or two left in him.  If things don't go as planned, better to spread the blame out among 20 of 'em than just 1. 

And no judge wants to be the center of attention for a directed verdict brought to appeal.  Of course in this case, should Paxton "lose" and be removed from office, it's not like he goes to the 5th circuit to try again.  It's much more grave.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wreckatx

wreckatx 141

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Just a little nugget of information -- Dan Patrick rejected the notion raised by defense counsel that he could grant a directed verdict. 

For the small minority on this message board who don't have a real or pretend law degree, a motion for directed verdict is an argument to a judge that the evidence introduced at trial is legally insufficient to support a criminal charge, so the case shouldn't even go to the jury and the judge should render a judgment of acquittal for the defendant.  (They're also used in civil cases, and we managed to get one in a federal court trial years ago.)  Judges usually don't like to grant directed verdicts, because they'd rather the jury make a hard decision rather than the judge, and typically a reversal of a jury verdict on appeal is more challenging than reversal of a directed verdict.

Here, I'm sure the defense wanted to present a motion for directed verdict, among other reasons, as a means to apply political pressure on Dan Patrick.  And I'm sure Patrick wanted no part of a directed verdict so the senators would take any political heat or retribution.

It’s also being reported that “at least a supermajority of senators” were opposed to the defense motion for directed verdict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, horn4life said:

The bottom line is this whole trial is nothing more than an exercise to provide cover to avoid doing the right and moral thing. Which sadly applies to nearly every aspect of the Republican party these days. Or more  accurately to provide an opportunity to condemn Paxton as an immoral scumbag that abused the power of his office in a criminal manner! But I want to see him get the opportunity to do the same thing again!

52 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

To horn4life’s post, that is exactly why the entirety of the prosecution’s case needs to be put in writing, conviction or no, even if it ends up in Texas Monthly or Texas Tribune instead of a more “balanced” publication.  

Here's the thing: Paxton may have made his biggest mistake a couple of weeks ago, when he publicly vowed to campaign against every one of the 60 Republicans who voted for his impeachment in the House, and presumably, he will campaign against every Republican in the Senate last week who didn't vote to toss out the charges against him.  And we know he's petty enough and angry enough to do it.

If they leave him in office, he's going to use his office and his campaign war chest to wage a civil war against a shitload of Republicans in the Texas legislature heading into a Presidential election. He's going to force all of those Republican legislators to spend large amounts of money in their primaries against other Republicans at a time when Democrats have been making gains in Texas and when one county has the ability to flip 40 electoral votes to the Dems.

Republicans have relied on the Democrats being too dysfunctional to mount an effective offense against the TRP, but here's Ken Paxton vowing to show the Dems what dysfunctional truly looks like, and basically helping them by trying to boot out Republican incumbents.

Can he kick out the 60-70 Republicans that he's angry at?  No, but he can cause them and the Texas Republican Party to waste a large amount of money on Republican-vs-Republican elections in a Presidential election year, and he can try and taint them such that MAGA won't vote for them in the general, and nobody but him will benefit from that

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted
36 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Of course in this case, should Paxton "lose" and be removed from office, it's not like he goes to the 5th circuit to try again.  It's much more grave.   

If he's removed from office, presumably they will vote to ban him from future office, and that's it for him - all of his power is gone in a heartbeat.  That gets rid of a long-term liability (there's always the chance that the securities fraud sinks him in the long run) and it prevents a Republican civil war - if he's out of office and banned from running, he can't raise any more money, so he'll probably try to preserve his existing war chest to help somebody out nationally who can help him (Trump?) as opposed to going on a revenge streak.

I still go back to Abbott being MIA on this (while picking a temporary AG that can easily win against George P Bush or any other establishment Republican), Paxton not having any large number of supporters protesting outside or stirring up shit in the balcony, and none of the BMDs and power brokers seem particularly interested in defending Paxton publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19452

Posted
Posted

Good points, all.  

To reiterate two truths beyond politics, just factual observations from somebody paid to see the worst in people:

1.  Paxton is vindictively petty.  And if he stays in office, he won't have much gravitas or loyalty...so knee-capping those who voted against him is a completely logical endgame towards which he can funnel his time, talent, and energies.  

2.  The RPT and RNC's subaccount for Texas, collectively aren't anywhere near what they used to be financially.  Just numbers talking here.  Lotsa theories about to whom that money is being directed towards instead, mainly at the Federal level.  But the shit's gonna trickle down.  You got a few dozen State Reps, State Senators, et. al. on the ropes with Paxton having a substantial lifeline from RPT truncated or cut-off altogether.......that's gonna throw some shit into disarray.  

Been a lotta fucking around.  Sooner or later, somebody's gonna have to find out.  And in my experience, it's usually the folks with the least amount of cash.

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

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted

WFAA analysts made a good point - Rusty had planned to rest his case after that questioning yesterday when he said he rested his case, and the mistake is that he forgot to let Buzbee do his cross-examination.  He was pretty much out of time anyways, but some had the impression that Rusty still had witnesses to call - he didn't, not after the mistress made it clear she was going to take the 5th:

2 hours ago, wreckatx said:

Paxton’s mistress filed a motion to quash her subpoena and said she was going to plead the fifth and not provide any substantive testimony. Patrick dismissed her and refused to tell the senators that she was taking the fifth. The “compromise” was that he would say she was “deemed unavailable.” There is an exception to the hearsay rule that calls a witness who refuses to testify “unavailable.”

This is what $3million gets you.

I saw a few of the analysts saying that Rusty and Co. knew she'd probably take the 5th, but wanted to at least remind the Senators one last time about the mistress stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

1.  Paxton is vindictively petty.  And if he stays in office, he won't have much gravitas or loyalty...so knee-capping those who voted against him is a completely logical endgame towards which he can funnel his time, talent, and energies.  

I don't know what his aspirations are beyond the AG's office, but his only chance at the national level is a cabinet appointment, and even then only somebody like Trump would do that (probably at the expense of funneling his own campaign funds into Trump's organizations).  Arguably he's been tainted at both the national level and the state level, so yeah, he'll go on a revenge streak if they let him stay in office.

And we haven't even seen Nate Paul's full federal problems play out, which will taint Paxton even further.

4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

2.  The RPT and RNC's subaccount for Texas, collectively aren't anywhere near what they used to be financially.  Just numbers talking here.  Lotsa theories about to whom that money is being directed towards instead, mainly at the Federal level.  But the shit's gonna trickle down.  You got a few dozen State Reps, State Senators, et. al. on the ropes with Paxton having a substantial lifeline from RPT truncated or cut-off altogether.......that's gonna throw some shit into disarray.  

Yeah, I've wondered about this as well, whether it's the West Texas billionaires able to throw a wrench in the works or what.  Either way, there's not as much money, and nobody wants it wasted defending against Paxton trying to primary other Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52580

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't know what his aspirations are beyond the AG's office, but his only chance at the national level is a cabinet appointment, and even then only somebody like Trump would do that

Trump has made fun of people with disabilities, so that rules out a Paxton appointment.

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

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Defense is trying to get a document released publicly that Nate Paul wanted (personally identifying information, information on FBI operations and agents, etc.), but the prosecution appears to have gotten Patrick to stop it being admissible/publicly released without being redacted.

Prosecution said even if Paxton gave it to Nate Paul, that doesn't mean it should be released publicly.

WFAA analysts making fun of Patrick not knowing how hearsay works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19452

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Trump has made fun of people with disabilities, so that rules out a Paxton appointment.

True, but they both share a penchant for grabbing women by the pussy.  I mean, in Paxton's defense, he meant to just grab 'em by the ass but like my friend Sol Rosenberg, he can't see so good.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89783

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I really like how this is a vast conspiracy against Nate Paul, and Kenny Paxton was the only thing standing between Nate Paul and the nasty people of the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I'm sure DPS just loves being dragged through the mud by the legal team of the Attorney General of Texas.

Edited by atomheartbevo
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...