DrKnievel

They were very beatable tonight. 2 plays made their game: 1) touchdown at the end of the first half and 2) not putting manning in on 1st and goal at the one

They played way better than I thought they would, so I tip my hat to them.

Sark lost that game. Bring in manning on first and 1, and it probably is an overtime game.

quote:

---

He said what he thinks is evidence. “I think it’s impossible to have renovations done without paying for them upfront. Ergo, Paxton committed a crime.” That’s his (almost) entire argument.

---

Ha - my entire argument? Why don’t you tell me what you think my argument is

Cheers brother! :cheers:

It’s difficult to debate someone when you bring relevant information to the table, and they don’t address any of it and just continually say, the prosecution has to prove its case. You never engaged in any debate of the details. All of my responses specifically addressed what you wrote, while you never addressed anything I wrote specifically.

I’m not mad - just sharing my thoughts. Doesn’t mean they are right, but I’ll tell you what I think.

And where do I bet on the pigeon?

quote:

---

Of course it was. That was central to Paxton’s defense. But I guess you and I watched different trials.

Look, I thank you for the reasoned debate, but if you believe the prosecution brought a strong case, strong enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, consider yourself on the side of the aisle that is going to ignite a war for the fight of the soul in this country in the coming years.

---

So let me get this right - you believe Paxton was introducing supposition, hearsay, gossip, or innuendo?

You didn’t watch the trial then. The defense was objecting to everything. At one point, the prosecutor asked the witness about a conversation between the two of them (Attorney and witness) and buzbee objected with hearsay. Half of the defense was objecting to waste time (it was within their right as those were the rules)

I personally believe you misconstrued what was taking place (please correct me if I’m wrong). Most of the objections were a tactic you saw to disrupt the other side. Both sides did it, but I would say, the defense was consistently doing this throughout while the prosecution mostly did it when rusty wasn’t leading.

Having said that, there were times when it was correctly used (to prevent those things from coming in), and other times just to mess with the other side. My point is that each objection was contextual: some were valid, but a lot were disruptive. They were not all the same.

Once again, you bring your opinion, but you back it up with absolutely nothing.

I’m on the side of the law. And if you think it is ok for Paxton to farm out the powers of the Texas government to an individual under indictment, so he can fight the people accusing him of breaking the law by allowing him to subpoena not only his accusers, DPS, FBI, judges, but also civil litigants he was engaged with in court (that had nothing to do with the subpoena). i’m not sure what to tell you.

Please explain why you believe this is legal.

quote:

---

To reply to your TL;DR post earlier...see the reply by TheBigMuffaletta. Sums my position up. If Ken Paxton is doing illegal shite, fine. INVESTIGATE, INDICT, MAKE YOUR CASE. THE RIGHT WAY. Did you happen to miss how the House rammed the indictment through in hours instead of the usual weeks? See Rep Smithee's speech. He berates his colleagues for the manner in which they pushed it through. Have you heard of any of the Senators complaining they were promised mountains of information and felt mislead after the case was presented?

---

So essentially, you and bigmuff bring nothing to the table other than the words I chose to use? I at least told you what I saw and heard from the trial. You don’t have to agree with it but tell me where my observations were incorrect or conclusions I drew were wrong. Neither of you have.

What is the right way? The impeachment basically made its own rules. Was that the right way? Because we only got 24 hours of testimony on each side.

You seemed to omit rules of the case above. You and I both wanted a full and complete case, but Patrick gave us was 24 hours of testimony on both sides. So it’s unrealistic to have a complete case. In addition, the rules were some weird hybrid of criminal and civil. That is why the mistress never took the stand because she was going to take the 5th on every question (which is her constitutional right) which resulted in present but won’t testify.

That other garbage you just posted is political speech - all sides did it and will continue to do it.

quote:

---

I have ZERO problem indicting and convicting ANYONE breaking the law.

---

Well - we agree here. If you do the crime, do the time. I don’t care which party you belong to or what your family name is.

quote:

---

But it must be done with evidence and not supposition, hearsay, gossip, or innuendo.

---

Everything that was presented in the case was subject to objections from either side, so supposition, hearsay, gossip, or innuendo was not a factor. The words I used that y’all didn’t like were my words assessing what I had seen from the evidence presented. It was a complex trial and it jumped around a lot. There were instances I had to review prior days testimonies to tie all the data together.

quote:

---

How many times were prosecution witnesses asked if they had direct conversations about alleged crimes? Did you see the testimony of the Texas Ranger? He was asked WHO told him about crimes, he replied "7 or 8 people", but couldn't name a single one.

---

I’ll let you in on a little secret. The lawyers (for the most part) know how individuals will testify, so when they knew somebody didn’t have direct evidence, they asked that question. It could have been determined beforehand or during their testimony. And just because a witness doesn’t have direct evidence doesn’t mean their testimony is not valid. Was it effective? It appears to have worked on you.

And you picked up on something I did as well. You think it was ironic that 7 or 8 was used. There were 7 whistleblowers (because Maxwell was out of town)

Maybe an actual lawyer can weigh in with a response on this. The one thing that made me uncomfortable about the whistleblowers was that each were asked if they had a lawyer. I believe 3 testified Sutton and Maxwell had a different one (don’t recall the name). Anyway, they were all asked about their attorneys, and each virtually said the same thing: I haven’t paid anything, and we will work out the fees later ( or something to that effect). While I don’t know his rate, it sounded expensive and he has been their lawyer for years. I haven’t experienced this before, so they’re maybe a legal reason for doing that. But depending on which side you are on, it could mean soros is funding their attorney or it could be completely on the up and up. I don’t know the answer to this one, but I did find it odd.

It did appear to have a benefit in this sense that they could come together as a group, have their attorney make a statement based on what the group said, and then everyone could say I heard that without having to assign an individual. The only reason I would think that was relevant would be if something illegal occurred, it would be difficult to prosecute not knowing who said what. This very well could be normal practice but it did seem a little odd to me.

Now, I’m going to open another can of worms. I thought Maxwell was a good witness. He plays the good old boy, but he is sharp. There was some gamesmanship with the house and Maxwell. It sounded like he didn’t want to be under oath because he wanted to bring up some things he didn’t have evidence of at the time. Illegal - no, but I could see how people might view that as bending the rules to their advantage. I watched the videos of his two meetings. He let them tell their story and he listened. He went from empathetic to direct real quick. This isn’t a direct quote, but Maxwell said something to the effect if you have an issue with a federal sealed subpoena, the proper jurisdiction is the Investigator General (IG) in the DOJ. He then looked at wynne and said, but you already knew that. He was onto them pretty early in that meeting in terms of the ask didn’t align to the evidence (my opinion) Their complaints were essentially the sealed subpoena was altered (based on meta data changing), he couldn’t call his lawyer with his phone and had to use a deputies (not sure if it was a deputy but somebody serving the subpoena), the dates had some issues as well. Maxwell basically explained to them that everything was normal with the one exception being around looking into the meta data.

I think most people are irritated with Maxwell’s comments after his “maybe”comment. While I think he was being honest (because he was under oath), it also seemed unnecessary to include the “because it throws you off”. Technically, he was right, but it was unnecessary to answer that. I personally found it weird how much respect Cogdell was showing him for most of the testimony. He didn’t show the same respect after that, but he didn’t seem to make any headway either.

Finally, I don’t know who else picked up on this, but the words the prosecution was using were conspiracy (which my understanding could be a RICO case). Those are complex cases in the criminal court system which can take months. Trying to do a RICO case in 24 hours is difficult to do.

So where does that leaves us? Paxton was acquitted of impeachment, but his problems aren’t over. All of this evidence can now be used in subsequent trials. Specifically, the whistleblower trial. And if the Feds elect to continue pursuing this, this evidence can now be used there as well.

Maybe we aren’t on the same page here. I’ve done lots of single and multi family projects. Anything of significance (>$50k), I’ve always had to do that.

I’m not saying your experiences can’t be different, but everyone went down like that. Don’t know if that changed the context for y’all or not, but that’s been my experience

Please explain to us how the democrats got Paxton impeached and there was no evidence in a trial where both sides presented evidence, Einstein

The legal opinion that Paxton offered at midnight on a Saturday that prevented foreclosure sales outside.

I’ll try to be briefer.

In the trial (and you can watch it for yourself), they had a draft copy that referenced some federal opinion or law(can’t remember). They sent it to Paxton on a Friday night. I believe it was bangert. Anyway, Paxton told them it was the wrong answer. In order to creatively get to the answer he wanted, they removed the reference to this other law. If you watch the final cross by the defense, they were trying to get him to say it was an opinion. He refused and said that was the law. The defense never brought anyone else up to my recollection to refute that.

There was other witnesses that I think touched on it. The problem (as they stated it) was that Texas was trying to do everything in their power to open things back up, so this opinion was counter to it. Another witness (think the last one) said that Paxton had held an outdoor campaign event a month earlier, so this was counter to everything Texas was trying to do to open things back up

Watch it for yourself, and see what your takeaway was. That was mine

Sorry - the opening back up was in reference to Covid (which I didn’t include)

quote:

---

His legal analysis is also not correct. I practice labor and employment defense (representing management) and we frequently settle cases where the company fired the employee for legitimate reasons.

---

Simple question - why?

I said there could be other reasons so I’m not sure how that is a lie

How about my analysis? I have never claimed to be a lawyer. Just an objective viewer