Jump to content

Kenny Paxton/Dave P's Impeachment Game Day Thread

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 47809

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They don't want to.  Because if they make progress, then comes the reckoning, one way or the other.  And nobody wants that.

Here's what GOLL and I think the play is:

1) the Dan Patrick senate puts on the trial, and let it go for a few days, with it hard to read how it's going to go.

2) the Phelan GOP house starts to get antsy about whether they're going to get a conviction or not.  If they don't, then there's an irreconcilable divide between the Senate and house.  Shit will get really bad if that happens.

3) after letting the Phelan GOP house sweat it out for a while, Patrick approaches them with a deal: I'll get you the votes on conviction.....IF you get in line when Abbott calls the next special session, and y'all support his school choice plan. 

4) the house takes that deal.

5) Patrick tells Paxton's team that a deal has been struck.  He's got the votes to convict (and he names names, so Paxton can confirm).  Now is the time to resign, one last chance.

6) no idea of Paxton resigns or not.  If he doesn't, Patrick follows through, and the Senate convicts.

ALTERNATIVE path:

At step 4) the house rejects the deal, and Patrick tanks the prosecution, and assures that Paxton continues in office.

Why wouldn't the House just accept the deal, and then when the special session hits, tell Patrick to pound sand and the rural reps say they have to vote to protection their constituents?

  • Drool 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

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104226

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Why wouldn't the House just accept the deal, and then when the special session hits, tell Patrick to pound sand and the rural reps say they have to vote to protection their constituents?

Well....if you think that the Senate-House relationship would be fooked beyond all recognition by an acquittal vote at this trial....that would be child's play compared to how fooked it would be if the House backed out of a deal after the Senate held up its end of the bargain.  Which is why the House really wouldn't want to do that -- better to just not take the deal and take your chances with a Senate vote on impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 51976

Posted
Posted
Just now, Beau Vine said:

WTF is Hardin doing?

Seems like he going to be establishing a theme that all of these folks testifying against Paxton are red-blooded religious-right gosh-darn true Republicans, and not some RINO Deep State plants.  I'm not saying that's effective, but seems like where's he's going with asking for the resume of this witness and others at the AG's office. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

WTF is Hardin doing? 

Is this witness going to provide any actual evidence or not?

He keeps saying he "wants to do this quickly" which means he's not.

 

Just laying out the groundwork for who everyone is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53845

Posted
Posted
Just now, South Austin said:

Seems like he going to be establishing a theme that all of these folks testifying against Paxton are red-blooded religious-right gosh-darn true Republicans, and not some RINO Deep State plants.  I'm not saying that's effective, but seems like where's he's going with asking for the resume of this witness and others at the AG's office. 

Seems like there's a much more parsimonious way to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104226

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Seems like there's a much more parsimonious way to do that.

8d9c8fde-25eb-418e-930e-24168b210fe8_tex

 

Also, Rusty may want to set a clear theme with the first witness -- thoroughly debunk the Paxton defense of "these are all deep-state libtards out to get me."  And from then on, just refer to it in shorthand for future witnesses.

It was always a stupid and counterfactual pitch by Paxton's team, but dude....shamelessly lying is kinda their thing.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104226

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

it's pretty nauseating to hear it laid out how deeply extremist all this state leadership is, and how they are so ensconced in that bubble as to not know any different

 

Just now, South Austin said:

And completely unsurprising.

These.

Understand that among state leadership, they can all honestly say "look, I'm just as much of a christofascist piece of shit as Paxton....maybe more so....I just don't lie, cheat, and crime as much as he does.  That's just bad for the brand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 51976

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understand that among state leadership, they can all honestly say "look, I'm just as much of a christofascist piece of shit as Paxton....maybe more so....I just don't lie, cheat, and crime as much as he does.  That's just bad for the brand."

Yep.  He was dropping names like Don Willett and Brantly Starr like he's in such good company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53845

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just now, South Austin said:

As a trial lawyer you usually want to start out with an attention-grabber, so I'm expecting the mistresses and burner phones very soon.

Spending time explaining how DocuSign works doesn't do it for you?

Edited by Beau Vine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I think I've watched too many courtroom dramas. I can't get over how loose this guy seems. Isn't rule one just answer the question and don't offer up more detail than needed? Every question he answers the question and then adds something more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89304

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well....if you think that the Senate-House relationship would be fooked beyond all recognition by an acquittal vote at this trial....that would be child's play compared to how fooked it would be if the House backed out of a deal after the Senate held up its end of the bargain.  Which is why the House really wouldn't want to do that -- better to just not take the deal and take your chances with a Senate vote on impeachment.

The House can bring additional charges.  Paxton has openly stated he's declared war on the House Republicans no matter what, and if the rural House Republicans cave on vouchers, their voters will be pissed and go after them alongside Paxton.

Regardless of the outcome, Paxton will be damaged with everything that comes out, and I really doubt that Patrick wants Paxton and Paxton's baggage hanging around, especially if Paxton thinks about running for the Lt. Gov's seat.

A large group of Texas Republican lawmakers clearly want Paxton gone, and I don't think Patrick stands in the way of that.  Abbott definitely won't.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2442

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I think I've watched too many courtroom dramas. I can't get over how loose this guy seems. Isn't rule one just answer the question and don't offer up more detail than needed? Every question he answers the question and then adds something more.

Lawyers are horrible witnesses. It is known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Just now, A-Tex Devil said:

Wait, so Dan Patrick is making privilege and hearsay determinations?

Yes. Seems weird, especially given that he said at the beginning he isn't a lawyer or a judge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13388

Posted
Posted

Sorry if already asked but do the Senators have any guidance or requirements on finding Paxton guilty? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt like with a criminal case, which would allow some senators to hide behind that? Or is even at the other extreme that they can decide their own personal definition level of guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Sorry if already asked but do the Senators have any guidance or requirements on finding Paxton guilty? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt like with a criminal case, which would allow some senators to hide behind that? Or is even at the other extreme that they can decide their own personal definition level of guilty?

I'm not sure, but they've referenced criminal court several times and "beyond a reasonable doubt." Honestly, it's been 100 years since they've done anything like this... and from a complete layman, it seems to show. 

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...