Jump to content

Kenny Paxton/Dave P's Impeachment Game Day Thread


atomheartbevo

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

So is Maxwell.

Also, facts not in evidence was the proper objection and should have been sustained. Cogdell is testifying rather than asking questions. 

If this was a real court, maybe that might matter. None of this makes a shit.

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

1 minute ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

This lawyer asks a long-winded question and then rephrases the question in a convoluted way. By the end of it, I can't figure out what the hell he is asking.

Time honored defense tactic. Confuse everyone and everything, including the jury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maxwell needs to start saying "I don't know" and "I can't recall" if that's really the case.  He doesn't need to say anything else and it will get Cogdell to move on or look even more dumb.  

 

Edited.... There you go, Ranger.

Edited by A-Tex Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense attorney on KHOU stream keeps saying the evidentiary standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't a criminal trial. It's not even really a civil trial.

At least now he's saying that he doesn't think what goes on up there matters because these aren't jurors, they're senators.

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

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

To be fair, you'd think the associate AG would be able to handle his own on a witness stand.

Ummmm....when you realize that the various high-ranking assistant AGs were NOT hired for their extensive lawyering chops, but rather for whether they were psychopathic ideologues, then you'll understand why maybe some of these fanatical true believers don't also happen to be good attorneys.  "Being good at law stuff" was not a requirement when they were hired.

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

So many of the highlights that I’ve seen this week are Paxton’s attorneys asking witnesses why they didn’t give Paxton a heads up that they thought he was doing something wrong. They reply they did. But why does that matter? If he is breaking the law there isn’t some defense that he wasn’t warned by his employees.

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

5 hours ago, elfenix said:

Defense attorney on KHOU stream keeps saying the evidentiary standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't a criminal trial. It's not even really a civil trial.

At least now he's saying that he doesn't think what goes on up there matters because these aren't jurors, they're senators.

Actually, I believe the Senate rules call for that standard of proof.  But because there is no provision for JNOV/JMOL or appeal, wgaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/paid-paxton-influencers-impeachment/

Quote

Do you support Ken Paxton, the embattled and impeached Texas attorney general? Would you champion him online for, say, $50? That’s not just a theoretical question. Before the start of his impeachment trial this week, pro-Paxton political forces were paying for influencers to post on social media in support of the state’s top legal authority, who faces sixteen counts ranging from dereliction of official duty to bribery and conspiracy.

How do I know this? Because I signed up to be a social media influencer, and to my great surprise, I earned $50 for each of two posts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, texasdago said:

Cain's internship is going to look great on his resume when he tries to get a job.  Good for the little fella.

He's on the Board of Managers. According to this link, https://senate.texas.gov/coi.php

Quote

The House Board of Managers are Representatives Murr, chair; A. Johnson, vice chair; Geren; Moody; Canales; Leach; Longoria; Meyer; Cain; Vasut; Spiller; and Gamez.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am eyerolling about all the procedural stuff here and how Patrick seems to just be calling objection/sustained on who is most adamant or if he's done too many of one in a row, he goes the other way.   I presume this is all just to keep things within some semblance of guardrails.

That said, if convicted, what would stop Paxton from going to a friendly judge and trying to enjoin the conviction over "procedural failures".  I presume there is no standing for something like that given there isn't an appeal process on conviction of impeachment charges in the state constitution.  

I'm just struggling with this procedural clown show that Patrick is running and its purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A-Tex Devil said:

That said, if convicted, what would stop Paxton from going to a friendly judge and trying to enjoin the conviction over "procedural failures".  I presume there is no standing for something like that given there isn't an appeal process on conviction of impeachment charges in the state constitution.  

Functionally zero chance.  The impeachment process is entirely a feature of the legislative branch per the constitution.  There is no rational way for a court to step in and interfere.

But, we live in MAGA land, so note that I said "functionally zero," not "zero."  Because there may well be a MAGA judge out there who will just make shit up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

I am eyerolling about all the procedural stuff here and how Patrick seems to just be calling objection/sustained on who is most adamant or if he's done too many of one in a row, he goes the other way.   I presume this is all just to keep things within some semblance of guardrails.

That said, if convicted, what would stop Paxton from going to a friendly judge and trying to enjoin the conviction over "procedural failures".  I presume there is no standing for something like that given there isn't an appeal process on conviction of impeachment charges in the state constitution.  

I'm just struggling with this procedural clown show that Patrick is running and its purpose.

Objection: Hogwash.

"Sustained"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Horn80 said:

Day 4 and I’ve heard enough.  Paxton needs to go and hope that will be the outcome.

Not watching much today, but have they tied onto the reason that Paxton was doing these things for Paul? I think they've made it clear that Paxton was going out of his way to help Paul. But... why? Some countertops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Not watching much today, but have they tied onto the reason that Paxton was doing these things for Paul? I think they've made it clear that Paxton was going out of his way to help Paul. But... why? Some countertops?

I've been wondering this too. Maybe it won't come out in this proceeding but in another one at a later time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Not watching much today, but have they tied onto the reason that Paxton was doing these things for Paul? I think they've made it clear that Paxton was going out of his way to help Paul. But... why? Some countertops?

Pussy is undefeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am eyerolling about all the procedural stuff here and how Patrick seems to just be calling objection/sustained on who is most adamant or if he's done too many of one in a row, he goes the other way.   I presume this is all just to keep things within some semblance of guardrails.
That said, if convicted, what would stop Paxton from going to a friendly judge and trying to enjoin the conviction over "procedural failures".  I presume there is no standing for something like that given there isn't an appeal process on conviction of impeachment charges in the state constitution.  
I'm just struggling with this procedural clown show that Patrick is running and its purpose.

Sounds like he’s moderating a talk show
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...