re: Ken Paxton Seems Like a Decent Guy

quote:

---

And his acquittal for political reasons, not lack of evidence,

---

I saw it. You are lying.

The prosecution was political. There was no evidence.

quote:

---

Dems have very little, if anything, to do with this

---

quote:

---

For anybody that has done home improvement, you know you have to pay for materials in advance.

---

No. In fact, you should never do this, unless you want to get ripped off. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. No amount of word salad will fix it.

quote:

---

Always remember his own lieutenants, true believers all, turned him in and the republican controlled legislature impeached him.

---

You just admitted to not knowing a damned thing about "his own lieutenants", "true believers all", or the "republican controlled legislature".

Always remember that.

Ve good and true point of view for r he more part.

Slight twist on Trump In my humble yet experienced Point of View.

Difference is TRUMP can make it
For himself and help the people at the same time

quote:

---

with implants & illegals.

---

MAGA!

quote:

---

interviewed by the shill, Carlson,

---

Tell me your standard for a "good" journalist. Give me a few examples.

Tucker Carlson is a staunchly conservative journalist that takes some odd positions but many good ones. But it's not like he's the conservative side of a balanced system. You have 90% of journalists in the far left stirring up race and class fights all day long, then perhaps 5% each to neutral and conservative.

Anybody who seriously complains about Tucker is blind to the real problem.

quote:

---

The fascist always shows out in "liberals"

---

I vote red but those two are scum and only in office because of the out of touch 60 plus yr old crowd.

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.