https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/04/politics/...index.html

Should be an interesting trial.

Do the R's here think that this is a witch hunt or is this a legitimate process?

(09-05-2023 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/04/politics/...index.html

Should be an interesting trial.

Do the R's here think that this is a witch hunt or is this a legitimate process?

House overwhelmingly it seems impeached him... hard to argue a 'witch hunt'... 21/30 in the Senate is a pretty tall bar though... I guess it depends on the 'strength' of the evidence and/or the stories being spun.

If he's acquitted, I expect dems to cry foul... regardless of the strength of the evidence and the high burden... If he's convicted, Nobody should be crying foul... Reps in the house convicted him (that's not the word I don't think, but you follow) and a majority in the Senate would have had to as well. That's a whole lot of 'RINO's' and it would certainly cause one to question whether the party has moved, or the people in the party... much like progressives on the left.

(09-05-2023 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/04/politics/...index.html

Should be an interesting trial.

Do the R's here think that this is a witch hunt or is this a legitimate process?

House overwhelmingly it seems impeached him... hard to argue a 'witch hunt'... 21/30 in the Senate is a pretty tall bar though... I guess it depends on the 'strength' of the evidence and/or the stories being spun.

If he's acquitted, I expect dems to cry foul... regardless of the strength of the evidence and the high burden... If he's convicted, Nobody should be crying foul... Reps in the house convicted him (that's not the word I don't think, but you follow) and a majority in the Senate would have had to as well. That's a whole lot of 'RINO's' and it would certainly cause one to question whether the party has moved, or the people in the party... much like progressives on the left.

Agree but I'm quite certain that Texas MAGA's will be crying foul in this scenario.

(09-05-2023 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/04/politics/...index.html

Should be an interesting trial.

Do the R's here think that this is a witch hunt or is this a legitimate process?

House overwhelmingly it seems impeached him... hard to argue a 'witch hunt'... 21/30 in the Senate is a pretty tall bar though... I guess it depends on the 'strength' of the evidence and/or the stories being spun.

If he's acquitted, I expect dems to cry foul... regardless of the strength of the evidence and the high burden... If he's convicted, Nobody should be crying foul... Reps in the house convicted him (that's not the word I don't think, but you follow) and a majority in the Senate would have had to as well. That's a whole lot of 'RINO's' and it would certainly cause one to question whether the party has moved, or the people in the party... much like progressives on the left.

Agree but I'm quite certain that Texas MAGA's will be crying foul in this scenario.

Sure... just like the dems if he is not.....

Lots of people just have the idea that anything the other side does is 'criminal'. I was simply speaking for 'my' side (since you asked from a partisan perspective) and it is my position as one of the Reps on here that if he goes down, that it is because he is guilty of something meaningful.... and if he is acquitted, it is because they can't 'prove' it. I intentionally put that in quotes.

(09-05-2023 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/04/politics/...index.html

Should be an interesting trial.

Do the R's here think that this is a witch hunt or is this a legitimate process?

House overwhelmingly it seems impeached him... hard to argue a 'witch hunt'... 21/30 in the Senate is a pretty tall bar though... I guess it depends on the 'strength' of the evidence and/or the stories being spun.

If he's acquitted, I expect dems to cry foul... regardless of the strength of the evidence and the high burden... If he's convicted, Nobody should be crying foul... Reps in the house convicted him (that's not the word I don't think, but you follow) and a majority in the Senate would have had to as well. That's a whole lot of 'RINO's' and it would certainly cause one to question whether the party has moved, or the people in the party... much like progressives on the left.

Agree but I'm quite certain that Texas MAGA's will be crying foul in this scenario.

Serious showdown of Texas legal here.

Rusty Hardin and Dick De Guerin on one side -- vs Tony Buzbee on the other.

Kind of like the ultimate showdown of John Wayne and Charles Bronson in a 60's or 70's Western.

I went to law school with Buzbee, was in a section of Mock Trial class with him.

By the way the best coverage is through the Texas Tribune -- in fact they are streaming the trial live along with real time updates for their readers.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/05/...e-updates/

Paxton lost the vote this morning of the 'dont move forward' 24-6, and lost the 'keep all the evidence out' vote in a similar manner.

(09-05-2023 11:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/04/politics/...index.html

Should be an interesting trial.

Do the R's here think that this is a witch hunt or is this a legitimate process?

House overwhelmingly it seems impeached him... hard to argue a 'witch hunt'... 21/30 in the Senate is a pretty tall bar though... I guess it depends on the 'strength' of the evidence and/or the stories being spun.

If he's acquitted, I expect dems to cry foul... regardless of the strength of the evidence and the high burden... If he's convicted, Nobody should be crying foul... Reps in the house convicted him (that's not the word I don't think, but you follow) and a majority in the Senate would have had to as well. That's a whole lot of 'RINO's' and it would certainly cause one to question whether the party has moved, or the people in the party... much like progressives on the left.

Agree but I'm quite certain that Texas MAGA's will be crying foul in this scenario.

Serious showdown of Texas legal here.

Rusty Hardin and Dick De Guerin on one side -- vs Tony Buzbee on the other.

Kind of like the ultimate showdown of John Wayne and Charles Bronson in a 60's or 70's Western.

I went to law school with Buzbee, was in a section of Mock Trial class with him.

By the way the best coverage is through the Texas Tribune -- in fact they are streaming the trial live along with real time updates for their readers.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/05/...e-updates/

Paxton lost the vote this morning of the 'dont move forward' 24-6, and lost the 'keep all the evidence out' vote in a similar manner.

Buzbee going full Orange Man RN.

Damn... Buzbee is good.

(09-05-2023 01:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Damn... Buzbee is good.

Yeah.... read up on his issues in the Galveston Federal court when all his cases were removed by the district from Judge Kent's courtroom. Only time that has happened in the Federal judiciary.

Yeah, Buzbee is *really* good. Won National Moot Court my last year in law school.

In our Moot Court class everyone had to pair off off every week against two other people in the class.

He smoked the hell out of everyone in that class. Only two people 'won' an intraclass 'dispute' with him in the entire semester. My record against him in that class was 1-19.

But, the issue with his cases in Judge Kent's court put a smudge on his record for a bit.

iirc he represented Rick Perry when Perry was charged for official misconduct when Perry defunded the Travis County DA when she was picked up on a slam dunk DUI and was not charged.

Hardin and DeGuerin are no slouches either. I seem to recall that both represented the Koresh survivors really well.... pretty much clean sweeped the Federal charges there.

This is a *monumental* clash of lawyers here.

This is not a leading question as I really have no idea as to the answer. But does Dan Patrick have the knowledge base to oversee this trial? As I am watching there are many objections from both sides in terms of hearsay, etc. There are also questions about pre-admitted evidence, and what might be protected or not protected. Is Patrick a person who can intelligently provide judgment on these issues? He’s not an attorney?

Tanq?

(09-05-2023 07:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  This is not a leading question as I really have no idea as to the answer. But does Dan Patrick have the knowledge base to oversee this trial? As I am watching there are many objections from both sides in terms of hearsay, etc. There are also questions about pre-admitted evidence, and what might be protected or not protected. Is Patrick a person who can intelligently provide judgment on these issues? He’s not an attorney?

Tanq?

He is not an attorney. If you notice when there is an objection, there is a move by one of the people sitting behind Patrick for a quick confab. Followed by Patrick's ruling.

My guess is the two behind Patrick are decent trial attorneys who are spoon feeding Patrick the ruling.

Some good background info:

https://www.statesman.com/storytelling/g...nate-paul/

I think some of the earlier stuff may have come out of the, "Show me the man and I'll find you a crime," school of law enforcement, but the longer this story gets, the worse it becomes.

Republicans have been on notice that Paxton was flawed for some time, and they can't come up with anybody better? Stupid, stupid party.

I've gotten fixated on this.

This is some of the best trial work I have seen in years. From both sides.

The defense team has only one attorney that comes across as anywhere near likable --- and that dude went off the rails at the chief of the AG Investigative Unit, a retired 40 year Texas Ranger in the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame.

Still awesome trial work by both sides. Lucky for the defense this isnt a real jury, since they come across as sheer attacking asshats.

The prosecution has made a great case that Paxton was absolutely holding water for the now felon serving time developer. But they havent closed the loop on any transfer of 'stuff' to Paxton.

Im stuck in the spot that Paxton seemingly clearly abused the office, yet seemingly didnt take payment or enrich himself in the process.

(09-11-2023 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I've gotten fixated on this.

This is some of the best trial work I have seen in years. From both sides.

The defense team has only one attorney that comes across as anywhere near likable --- and that dude went off the rails at the chief of the AG Investigative Unit, a retired 40 year Texas Ranger in the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame.

Still awesome trial work by both sides. Lucky for the defense this isnt a real jury, since they come across as sheer attacking asshats.

The prosecution has made a great case that Paxton was absolutely holding water for the now felon serving time developer. But they havent closed the loop on any transfer of 'stuff' to Paxton.

Im stuck in the spot that Paxton seemingly clearly abused the office, yet seemingly didnt take payment or enrich himself in the process.

I have been pretty fixated on this, too. Watching most of it, catching up on YouTube in the car and when walking the dogs. Today’s witness seems quite credible. I haven’t got to the part where the defense cross-examines him yet.

(09-11-2023 06:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I've gotten fixated on this.

This is some of the best trial work I have seen in years. From both sides.

The defense team has only one attorney that comes across as anywhere near likable --- and that dude went off the rails at the chief of the AG Investigative Unit, a retired 40 year Texas Ranger in the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame.

Still awesome trial work by both sides. Lucky for the defense this isnt a real jury, since they come across as sheer attacking asshats.

The prosecution has made a great case that Paxton was absolutely holding water for the now felon serving time developer. But they havent closed the loop on any transfer of 'stuff' to Paxton.

Im stuck in the spot that Paxton seemingly clearly abused the office, yet seemingly didnt take payment or enrich himself in the process.

I have been pretty fixated on this, too. Watching most of it, catching up on YouTube in the car and when walking the dogs. Today’s witness seems quite credible. I haven’t got to the part where the defense cross-examines him yet.

The lawyer that direct examined Cox was awesome. He put Buzzbee into his place in a major, firm, yet nice manner. Really masterful.

Im still stuck on *why* Paxton went out of his way to carry the developer's water. The defense has made a great effort at saying that everything Paxton did was legal, and within his authority.

But the real question is not if the actions are 'legal', but whether his legal actions are actually *proper*, given how much Paxton had his hand on the scale when it came to *everything* associated with Nate Paul.

I mean, good grief, Paxton went out of his way to rush through an AG advisory opinion that would help Paul, went out of his way to instigate an investigation into the FBI, US Atty, Securities Board, Bankruptcy Judge, US Magistrate, and Texas Rangers on his behalf. And when that failed, 'appointed' an outside attorney to act on the AG behalf and throw out subpoenas. And on top of it forced the AG office, against the will of all the top deputies, to intervene in a lawsuit against Paul.

Did it in a manner that caused 7 of his top deputies to approach the FBI.

Looks like there is a real danger of both sides running out of allotted time just in the prosecution's case in chief.

(09-11-2023 06:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im still stuck on *why* Paxton went out of his way to carry the developer's water. The defense has made a great effort at saying that everything Paxton did was legal, and within his authority.

But the real question is not if the actions are 'legal', but whether his legal actions are actually *proper*, given how much Paxton had his hand on the scale when it came to *everything* associated with Nate Paul.

I mean, good grief, Paxton went out of his way to rush through an AG advisory opinion that would help Paul, went out of his way to instigate an investigation into the FBI, US Atty, Securities Board, Bankruptcy Judge, US Magistrate, and Texas Rangers on his behalf. And when that failed, 'appointed' an outside attorney to act on the AG behalf and throw out subpoenas. And on top of it forced the AG office, against the will of all the top deputies, to intervene in a lawsuit against Paul.

Did it in a manner that caused 7 of his top deputies to approach the FBI.

It's hard to fathom that Paxton could choose a path that seems to a non-attorney so blatantly improper. It was pretty telling today when the witness said that he was worried that Paxton was getting blackmailed.

Hardin seemed a bit out-of-sorts at the start. More bumbling and not quite on-the-ball with long, awkward pauses as he was trying to sort out evidence. Now he seems more on top of things. I enjoy listening to him speak. He's got a very pleasant demeanor which I'm sure has played well with juries for decades.

Why did Buzbee choose to be so damn orange for this trial???

(09-11-2023 07:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 06:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im still stuck on *why* Paxton went out of his way to carry the developer's water. The defense has made a great effort at saying that everything Paxton did was legal, and within his authority.

But the real question is not if the actions are 'legal', but whether his legal actions are actually *proper*, given how much Paxton had his hand on the scale when it came to *everything* associated with Nate Paul.

I mean, good grief, Paxton went out of his way to rush through an AG advisory opinion that would help Paul, went out of his way to instigate an investigation into the FBI, US Atty, Securities Board, Bankruptcy Judge, US Magistrate, and Texas Rangers on his behalf. And when that failed, 'appointed' an outside attorney to act on the AG behalf and throw out subpoenas. And on top of it forced the AG office, against the will of all the top deputies, to intervene in a lawsuit against Paul.

Did it in a manner that caused 7 of his top deputies to approach the FBI.

It's hard to fathom that Paxton could choose a path that seems to a non-attorney so blatantly improper. It was pretty telling today when the witness said that he was worried that Paxton was getting blackmailed.

Hardin seemed a bit out-of-sorts at the start. More bumbling and not quite on-the-ball with long, awkward pauses as he was trying to sort out evidence. Now he seems more on top of things. I enjoy listening to him speak. He's got a very pleasant demeanor which I'm sure has played well with juries for decades.

Why did Buzbee choose to be so damn orange for this trial???

He is complaining abut his orange coverage. He claims the newspapers are doctoring the photos.

Try the Houston Chronicle. I'd link but its behind a paywall.

But both my feeds show him into the Oompa Loompa realm.

Being the non-flashy sedate type, I learned the dangers of 'tan in a bottle' well before law school. Being the non-flashy sedate type, I learned not to repeat that mistake at the same time.

Im happy being my very non-tan self -- but I have to admit Im getting a world class 'farmer cowboy hat back of the neck, framed by t-shirt, arm tan stops an in inch above the elbow' tan, with a helping dose of Teva sandle tan pattern to confuse people.

That man is very orange.