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

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105135

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

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.

This is a very good, and realpolitik observation.

Paxton is on trial for his political life.  He has said that if he survives the trial, he will seek vengeance on.....everyone.  If you are....anyone.....that creates a very, very strong incentive to END Paxton's political life.

"If you acquit me and I'm allowed to walk the streets a free man, I'm going to kill you."  "Well, okay then....I'm damned well gonna make sure you never walk the streets a free man again."

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

chainsaw 9867

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This is a very good, and realpolitik observation.

Paxton is on trial for his political life.  He has said that if he survives the trial, he will seek vengeance on.....everyone.  If you are....anyone.....that creates a very, very strong incentive to END Paxton's political life.

"If you acquit me and I'm allowed to walk the streets a free man, I'm going to kill you."  "Well, okay then....I'm damned well gonna make sure you never walk the streets a free man again."

Come at the King, best not miss.

Not that he's really the King, but if you are going to make the consequences of a miss high, all you're doing is ensuring they do everything possible not to miss.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27225

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I wonder if Danny G is sustaining all of these objections so when Paxton gets curbstomped by the senate vote he'll have nothing about which to complain as to the proceedings.

Why would that matter? This isn't a real trial. It's simply a show for the senators who will then cast votes to convict or not at the end. It's not criminal or civil court so WGAF what is or is not allowed by Patrick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Why would that matter? This isn't a real trial. It's simply a show for the senators who will then cast votes to convict or not at the end. It's not criminal or civil court so WGAF what is or is not allowed by Patrick?

My point was to speculate whether Patrick may be trying to appear to be deferential to Paxton for appearances (hence re-election chances) if the ultimate outcome is in the bag against him.

Albino did not appear credible.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27225

Posted
Posted
Just now, DDD Dad said:

My point was to speculate whether Patrick may be trying to appear to be deferential to Paxton for appearances (hence re-election chances) if the ultimate outcome is in the bag against him.

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarification. But to paraphrase Bob Uecker from Major League: "Nobody's watching anyways."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

So De La Garza -- the OAG HR guy -- was on the stand on cross. Went like this...

"Mr. De La Garza, are you familiar with the whistleblower act?"

"Yes"

"Then you know it says anyone fired within 90 days of being a whistleblower is given the presumption of being retaliated against?"

"Yes."

Lawyer then asks about all the whistleblowers fired within 90 days of reporting Paxton to FBI and the HR guy confirms the dates.

"Mr. De La Garza, are you familiar with the saying 'there are no coincidences in Austin'?" "No more questions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

So De La Garza -- the OAG HR guy -- was on the stand on cross. Went like this...

"Mr. De La Garza, are you familiar with the whistleblower act?"

"Yes"

"Then you know it says anyone fired within 90 days of being a whistleblower is given the presumption of being retaliated against?"

"Yes."

Lawyer then asks about all the whistleblowers fired within 90 days of reporting Paxton to FBI and the HR guy confirms the dates.

"Mr. De La Garza, are you familiar with the saying 'there are no coincidences in Austin'?" "No more questions."

Was he asked if he was aware that Ken Paxton agreed that the whistleblowers were owed $3.3m for Paxton's and presumably his actions as the HR lead? Speaking of which, that's quite the achievement as an HR rep to not mitigate the problems in firing people. Well done Mr. De La Garza in protecting the Texas taxpayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105135

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

So Paxton supporters want to hold a rally now, as the trial is wrapping up, when they could have been packing the balcony and protesting outside the chambers/Capitol....dozens of them.

 

Yes!  It's the Bush family...they did this!  And also the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes and the secret ingredient he puts in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly! 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105135

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

This is actually a pretty good observation, yes Surly lawyers??

 

 

That observation isn't wrong.  If I was representing Paxton, where my duty was to pursue and preserve his interests, in order of importance....yeah, "don't say shit that will send you to pound-me-in-the-ass prison" would be chief among my goals for him.  It was kind of the baseline strategy here - a "first do no harm" kind of thing.

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

chainsaw 9867

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

That observation isn't wrong.  If I was representing Paxton, where my duty was to pursue and preserve his interests, in order of importance....yeah, "don't say shit that will send you to pound-me-in-the-ass prison" would be chief among my goals for him.  It was kind of the baseline strategy here - a "first do no harm" kind of thing.

I think Paxton's team promised way more than what we got. The "we've got nothing to hide" remark at the beginning can't really be squared with all the obstruction and Paxton not only refusing to testify but refusing to even be present. Pay attention to their actions, not their words. That would be my theme.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cap33

Cap33 384

Posted
Posted

I rewatched De La Garza's cross, and when the defense was asking him about the time line, he didn't want to concede the date the whistleblowers went to the FBI because he didn't have personal knowledge of it. The lawyer was incredulous and asked him something like "you don't know? You're the head of HR, aren't you?" He answered "now, yes."

If it were a regular trial, I have no doubt Dutko would've picked up on it, but he was thrashing the guy and on the clock.

And as someone mentioned up thread, these senators are reading all of this anyway.

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

Dahobbs 17534

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Cap33 said:

I rewatched De La Garza's cross, and when the defense was asking him about the time line, he didn't want to concede the date the whistleblowers went to the FBI because he didn't have personal knowledge of it. The lawyer was incredulous and asked him something like "you don't know? You're the head of HR, aren't you?" He answered "now, yes."

If it were a regular trial, I have no doubt Dutko would've picked up on it, but he was thrashing the guy and on the clock.

And as someone mentioned up thread, these senators are reading all of this anyway.

He was getting good stuff that he knew he had him on. During a deposition he would have definitely explored that. I'm not sure, even without a clock, that he pushes on it at trial. If he doesn't know the answer, it could all end up being nothing and diluting the cross. 

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...