Jump to content

Kenny Paxton/Dave P's Impeachment Game Day Thread

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89362

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Hill thinks if it's still going past tomorrow, he's finished

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4185582-well-know-very-quickly-how-texas-ag-ken-paxtons-impeachment-trial-will-end/

Quote

It is a trial that is likely to either be over in less than two days and result in Paxton being reinstated as attorney general or last two to three weeks and result in Paxton being impeached and definitively removed from office.

Quote

A very vocal minority of Republicans has engaged in a well-funded and robust campaign to convince the 18 voting Republican senators that a vote for impeachment will result in reprisals in the 2024 Republican primary (when six are up for re-election) and beyond. In addition, high profile Republicans such as Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have voiced their support for an acquittal.

At the same time, 47 percent of registered Texas voters believe Paxton should be impeached, compared to 18 percent who believe he should not be impeached and 35 percent who are unsure.  That latter proportion is very likely to shrink and split disproportionately in favor of impeachment after two to three weeks of trial proceedings and widespread media coverage of the trial. 

Quote

If the Republican senators do not want to impeach Paxton, they are likely to utilize an escape hatch known as the prior-term (or voter-forgiveness) doctrine to dismiss the charges against Paxton on the first or second day of the trial. Paxton’s legal team has already filed the necessary motions to dismiss.

In a nutshell, the prior-term doctrine says that an elected official cannot be impeached for acts that occurred prior to their most recent election, and all of the 16 articles of impeachment are based on actions which took place prior to Paxton’s re-election as attorney general in November of 2022.  All of the charges against Paxton contained in the 16 articles of impeachment were public (not all of the salacious details, but the basic facts) when Texas voters re-elected Paxton by a 10-point margin over Democrat Rochelle Garza.

Quote

It would make little sense for Senate Republicans to allow two to three weeks of intense media coverage of Paxton’s myriad misdeeds only to acquit him in spite of the mountains of evidence against him. If the Republican senators allow the trial to move forward at all, it is because they have decided that Paxton should be removed.

Their other realistic option, the prior-term dismissal, would obviate the need for Republicans in the legislature to vote directly on the merits of the case and provide them with a convenient rebuttal to future critiques that they exonerated Paxton. It would also reduce the level of media coverage and public awareness of Paxton’s alleged offenses.

Quote

The senators could argue that their hands were tied by the prior-term doctrine, and if is anyone to blame, it is the Texas House for waiting until after the 2022 election to start the impeachment process.

Quote

This is why the outcome of Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial will, in all likelihood, be determined over the course of the next 24 to 48 hours. 

Mark P. Jones is the Joseph D. Jamail Chair in Latin American Studies at Rice University. He is a professor in the Department of Political Science, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy’s Political Science Fellow, and the faculty director of the Master of Global Affairs Program.

 

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

wreckatx

wreckatx 141

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

The Hill thinks if it's still going past tomorrow, he's finished

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4185582-well-know-very-quickly-how-texas-ag-ken-paxtons-impeachment-trial-will-end/

 

Well this has already happened. The senate rejected Paxtons motion to dismiss based on the forgiveness/prior term doctrine today. I believe that vote was 22-8.

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

Sawbonz 27374

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

The Hill thinks if it's still going past tomorrow, he's finished

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4185582-well-know-very-quickly-how-texas-ag-ken-paxtons-impeachment-trial-will-end/

 

What does he mean “2 or 3 weeks?” The rules of the trial stipulate each side gets 24 hours correct? Is it like soccer where you get extra time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53964

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

At the same time, 47 percent of registered Texas voters believe Paxton should be impeached, compared to 18 percent who believe he should not be impeached and 35 percent who are unsure.  That latter proportion is very likely to shrink and split disproportionately in favor of impeachment after two to three weeks of trial proceedings and widespread media coverage of the trial. 

fans GIF

image.png.96d2ac6ac5bd61de777d86e328b09a59.png

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89362

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Here's hoping tomorrow will get into Nate Paul helping Paxton bang his sidepiece, preferably with a camera pointed right at his wife while the prosecution/witnesses discuss it.

I don't know what it is about so many of these Republican women from Melania on down that are okay with their husbands having affairs.  Maybe they are having their own, I don't know. I know if I had an affair and my wife found out, I'd be a eunuch for the rest of my life (which would probably not be very long).

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Here's hoping tomorrow will get into Nate Paul helping Paxton bang his sidepiece, preferably with a camera pointed right at his wife while the prosecution/witnesses discuss it.

I don't know what it is about so many of these Republican women from Melania on down that are okay with their husbands having affairs.  Maybe they are having their own, I don't know. I know if I had an affair and my wife found out, I'd be a eunuch for the rest of my life (which would probably not be very long).

Angela got the priciest countertops. She doesn’t care

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13391

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, wreckatx said:

Well this has already happened. The senate rejected Paxtons motion to dismiss based on the forgiveness/prior term doctrine today. I believe that vote was 22-8.

8 senators wanted to dismiss the case already? Assuming those 8 won’t ever decide to convict in any case, it will only take 2 additional GOP senators out of the 10 remaining to acquit him.

this has already been decided. Paxton walks and resumes his role as AG next week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17503

Posted
Posted
Here's hoping tomorrow will get into Nate Paul helping Paxton bang his sidepiece, preferably with a camera pointed right at his wife while the prosecution/witnesses discuss it.
I don't know what it is about so many of these Republican women from Melania on down that are okay with their husbands having affairs.  Maybe they are having their own, I don't know. I know if I had an affair and my wife found out, I'd be a eunuch for the rest of my life (which would probably not be very long).

Because it’s not a traditional western love marriage. It’s a business arrangement. Get your kicks wherever you want, just don’t bring it back home.

Oops.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52037

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

8 senators wanted to dismiss the case already? Assuming those 8 won’t ever decide to convict in any case, it will only take 2 additional GOP senators out of the 10 remaining to acquit him.

this has already been decided. Paxton walks and resumes his role as AG next week. 

A lot of the votes for the other motions to dismiss were only 6 votes to dismiss. 

But yeah, the math isn't comforting, just like the knowledge that these politicians will shit on the rule of law if there's any chance a vote to convict will jeopardize their senate seat. 

Oh yeah, and fuck any notion of "jury tampering," as I can only imagine the varying methods of political pressure that are being applied to these folks through backchannels for the next week or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
That Guy

That Guy 952

Posted
Posted

I’m not a lawyer so no idea what I’m talking about here. Buzbee constantly objected to exhibits citing attorney client privilege. I believe at one point he stated that it was Paxton’s to waive. I think that the privilege belongs to the attorney general and right now the attorney general is Anglela Colmenero. I wonder if she’ll be asked to waive privilege and then the prosecutors can submit the internal communications which appear to be a large chunk of their evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89362

Posted
  • Author
Posted
47 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

8 senators wanted to dismiss the case already? Assuming those 8 won’t ever decide to convict in any case, it will only take 2 additional GOP senators out of the 10 remaining to acquit him.

this has already been decided. Paxton walks and resumes his role as AG next week. 

10 minutes ago, South Austin said:

A lot of the votes for the other motions to dismiss were only 6 votes to dismiss.  But yeah, the math isn't comforting, just like the knowledge that these politicians will shit on the rule of law if there's any chance a vote to convict will jeopardize their senate seat. 

Oh yeah, and fuck any notion of "jury tampering," as I can only imagine the varying methods of political pressure that are being applied to these folks through backchannels for the next week or so.

Given that Paxton openly made threats as recently as last weekend to try and primary every House Republican that voted against him, there doesn't even have to be backchannel threats - these Senators know he's going to go after them. 

Hell, they know he will go after every Republican Senator that voted against dismissing any of the charges yesterday, so that's already been factored into the equation by the Republican Senators. And he can threaten to primary them, but I have a feeling there is already 1-2 Republicans waiting in the wings that will be run against him in his own primary, with the TRP's backing, so he will probably need to keep his warchest closed.

With that said, only one charge out of 16 is needed to remove him (and there are four other charges hanging over things) and there were plenty of votes with only 6 Senators siding with him.  He's also damaged goods. It's clear that most Republican Senators want his dirty laundry aired to the world and aren't that afraid of Paxton, and he will come out of this joined at the hip with Nate Paul and when the feds are done with Nate Paul, Paxton will have that stench all over him (and he may even be pulled in by the feds). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89362

Posted
  • Author
Posted

On a side note, I have relatives outside of Texas watching this, and I have talked to them about it, and pointed out that this was all driven by Republicans and had nothing to do with Democrats (who didn't have the power to do squat).  One person told me "well, you know that Democrats would never try to remove one of their own over corruption" and I rolled my eyes, for what little good it does through text messages.

Anybody wanting a recap of yesterday:

WFAA has started their coverage:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52037

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, That Guy said:

I’m not a lawyer so no idea what I’m talking about here. Buzbee constantly objected to exhibits citing attorney client privilege. I believe at one point he stated that it was Paxton’s to waive. I think that the privilege belongs to the attorney general and right now the attorney general is Anglela Colmenero. I wonder if she’ll be asked to waive privilege and then the prosecutors can submit the internal communications which appear to be a large chunk of their evidence.

Lawyer here, and I deal with privilege issues as they arise form time to time in a general civil litigation practice. 

I didn't hear all of the discussion between Hardin and Buzbee on these exhibits, but I think the argument against the privilege is that these internal communications between lawyers in the AG's office are not privileged communications between Ken Paxton and another lawyer who is representing Paxton in which they are giving him any kind of legal advice.  Rather, they're simply emails between colleagues at a state agency discussing or questioning someone's conduct or participation in a particular legal proceeding.

Buzbee seems to be arguing that these are communications between lawyers representing the State of Texas regarding pending litigation on behalf of their client, and are therefore privileged. 

Someone who has been following that particular issue can feel free to correct me.  But Patrick requested briefing from both sides when he adjourned the proceedings yesterday, so I expect the legal teams were burning the midnight oil researching this issue, and I'd be interested in reading that briefing. 

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

atomheartbevo 89362

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, South Austin said:

but I think the argument against the privilege is that these internal communications between lawyers in the AG's office are not privileged communications between Ken Paxton and another lawyer who is representing Paxton in which they are giving him any kind of legal advice.  Rather, they're simply emails between colleagues at a state agency discussing or questioning someone's conduct or participation in a particular legal proceeding.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89362

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I do think the prosecution did a good job of showing how much access that Nate Paul had to the AG's office - that had to raise a helluva lot of eyebrows among many people and make them wonder why Paxton was willing to do so much for Nate Paul, and did Paul have something on him or what. No regular citizen in Texas would have that access. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52037

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

I do think the prosecution did a good job of showing how much access that Nate Paul had to the AG's office - that had to raise a helluva lot of eyebrows among many people and make them wonder why Paxton was willing to do so much for Nate Paul, and did Paul have something on him or what. No regular citizen in Texas would have that access. 

Yep, that's when the Jeff Mateer examination finally got rolling, after Hardin had spent a good hour talking about just how much of a right-winger fuckboi his witness is.

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

Biff Tannen 45477

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

On a side note, I have relatives outside of Texas watching this, and I have talked to them about it, and pointed out that this was all driven by Republicans and had nothing to do with Democrats (who didn't have the power to do squat).  One person told me "well, you know that Democrats would never try to remove one of their own over corruption" and I rolled my eyes, for what little good it does through text messages.

These people are broken

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104462

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, South Austin said:

When every 5-minute break that Dan Patrick takes turns into 40 minutes, this is going to take 2-3 weeks.

You and I both know how "trial time" works.  Presuming an 8 hour day, you actually get 5, at most 6, hours of actual trial time in.  The rest is lunch break, and various other breaks.  So, if each side has 24 hours trial time, and they indeed use it all, that drags this to about 2 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8679

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, South Austin said:

And not sure how/if the crime-fraud exception to the privilege comes into play.

Do evidentiary rules translate when you aren’t in a court? I can’t imagine the state laws on the books governing impeachment trials are all that comparable but I guess maybe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52037

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Do evidentiary rules translate when you aren’t in a court? I can’t imagine the state laws on the books governing impeachment trials are all that comparable but I guess maybe 

I have no clue.  Just watching some of the proceedings yesterday, the lawyers are making objections under the rules of evidence for things such as hearsay, relevance, and privilege, so there's some sort of understanding/agreement between the lawyers and the "court" and/or some state rules governing these impeachment proceedings providing that some evidentiary rules apply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
royiv

royiv 9131

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

 

What?  Is he going over the contents of Santiago's locker?

Between Rusty looking like he's lost a step, oompa loompa Buzbee objecting to every question and Dan Patrick having to be advised by someone on every objection, I don't think the prosecution is going to get through more than one witness at this pace. 

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...