(09-11-2023 10:23 PM)BlueDragon Wrote: (09-11-2023 09:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (09-11-2023 09:19 PM)TripleA Wrote: "Testimonial evidence?" Like he said, she said?
As a lawyer, I'm sure Tanq knows that testimony is the least reliable evidence in any trial.
The issues that they as a group witnessed are all pretty telling. Paxton was seemingly carrying a lot of water for Nate Paul in using the power of the Atty General Office.
I would suggest here for some background:
https://www.texastribune.org/series/ken-...y-general/
As much as I hate to agree with Tanq I believe that Paxton is dirty and needs to go. I am not sure why Buzbee took Paxton on but that guy is the absolute best at creating doubt and placing second and third guessing into your mind. I believe he will walk but that doesn't mean he isn't guilty of using his position of power for personal gain.
I've said this elsewhere -- the testimony seems pretty powerful that Paxton was carrying water for Nate Paul. The amount he intervened to use the power of the Office of the Atty General was a lot -- and he did it multiple times.
The defense has been good at two things. Fantastic in fact. First, there has been no indication of Paxton benefitting from Nate Paul.
The second thing the defense has done has emphasized that *all* the actions Paxton did or promoted were within his legal power ---
a) he *could* direct the Office to intervene in the suits in favor of Nate Paul;
b) he *could* direct the Office to issue an opinion that allowed the release of the affidavits supporting the raids on Paul's house and properties;
c) he *could* ask his deputies to look into investigating the FBI, the Securities Board, the Texas Rangers, the US Attorney office, the US Bankruptcy judge, the clerk of the bankruptcy court, the US Magistrate, and the clerk of the US Magistrate at the request of Paul, and as somehow being in a giant conspiracy against Paul;
d) he *could* order a rush Atty General opinion over a weekend, and *can* order the authors to change their opinion just in time to stop a Paul foreclosure sale;
e) he *can* contract with a private attorney to be a special prosecutor for the c) above when his deputies refuse, and he *can* ask that private special prosecutor to target attorneys representing attorneys of Paul opponents.
There isnt any question that the Texas Attorney General *can* do those things as being the office holder -- the more important question the defense *doesnt* address is how proper it is for the Texas Attorney General to do all of the above to help one specific person. Im still perplexed *why* Paxton carried that water -- that hasnt been developed very well. If at all.
Blue, the reason Buzbee is doing this is for notoriety. This is the biggest trial in Texas in 40 years. I've known Buzbee for close to 30 years. He does anything and *everything* to gain attention. But that is what makes him one of the royalty of Texas litigation.
Hardin and de Guerin v Buzbee and Cogdell is truly an epic showdown.
