(09-12-2023 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:09 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:22 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 01:14 AM)banker Wrote:  So it’s cool to go to the FBI and file a complaint because you don’t like your bosses’ non-illegal actions? That’s what I’m getting out of this. A group of people in the office didn’t like the AG using his power in a non-illegal way and thought he should be investigated for doing it even though there is no evidence he benefited from it.

I can here it now, he will be found guilty of difference of opinion.

Yeah, contrary to the opinion of some in here, the rest of us can actually read and comprehend, and sometimes come to different conclusions.

IMO, "testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain. Did I miss something?

In this era of cancel culture, I don't believe a damn thing people say any more.

Too bad the facts of Paxtons actions line up with their testimony.
I guess you missed that issue in the long run.

Considering you are opining from tweet reading or the like, call me unsurprised.

You have no clue what I'm reading or not.

*Whatever* you are reading, it seems horribly short on the issue if your comment of ""testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain"

Considering everyone that has testified has related first hand situations, mutually consistent, and having the support of communications, I would call your comment comically shallow, at best.

And further, first hand testimony is *not* hearsay. Nor is first hand testimony of actual actions 'opinion'. No matter how much you kick and thrash and whine.

And no, testimonial evidence does not *change* at the point "someone digs up actual evidence of wrongdoing and personal gain".

And further, misuse of the power of the office Atty General does *not* require personal gain -- it just requires the wrongful use of the office.

So yeah, whatever you are reading is shallow crap. I suggest you try a bit more before you kneejerk another comment like you do above, or another shallow comment like you led off with.

I didn't say testimonial evidence is hearsay. Any idiot knows better than that. Here is the exact quote:

Quote:IMO, "testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain.

You missed the "IMO." Allow me to translate. I personally discount eyewitness testimony because it is proven over and over to be inaccurate (as I stated before).

And in this era of cancel culture, lots of people will get on a stand and say almost anything that suits their purpose. Especially when they know they can likely get away with it, or do it in great numbers.

You know, like the 51 intel officers who made up sh!t about the Steele dossier in writing.

And regardless of whether Paxton is guilty or innocent as accused, IF all they have is the "testimony" of a bunch of folks with an agenda, not backed up by any documents or previous statements from the accused, or other substantive "evidence," then I PERSONALLY tend to discount it.

I wasn't reading from a law book. I was stating my opinion of the type of evidence presented to date. It is my right to hold whatever opinion I prefer. Try to read more closely next time, instead of just trying to bulldoze everybody who disagrees with you.

I honestly don't think you can conduct a civil debate with anybody who disagrees with you.

You also assume incorrectly that I get my talking points from tweets. No, I get my talking points from 76 years of experience in life, and especially, for the purposes of this forum, from the political events of the past 23 years or so.

I simply use tweets as a quick way to bring up a subject that I feel is worth discussing. Frankly, I don't give a crap if a tweet is 100% accurate, or is posted by someone you look down on.

It's called free speech. If you disagree or think it's FOS, say so. I'm a big boy. Under no circumstances am I going to vet every tweet I decide to post for discussion purposes.

In most cases, it simply is a symptom of something happening in our society which has plenty of other similar circumstances previously documented, thus making the subject legit and worth discussing.

But instead of debating the higher context, some on here just want to nitpick the source, or a few words of it, or whatever, b/c they otherwise don't have a good argument on the prevailing larger topic to support their opinion.

(09-12-2023 04:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:09 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:22 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Yeah, contrary to the opinion of some in here, the rest of us can actually read and comprehend, and sometimes come to different conclusions.

IMO, "testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain. Did I miss something?

In this era of cancel culture, I don't believe a damn thing people say any more.

Too bad the facts of Paxtons actions line up with their testimony.
I guess you missed that issue in the long run.

Considering you are opining from tweet reading or the like, call me unsurprised.

You have no clue what I'm reading or not.

*Whatever* you are reading, it seems horribly short on the issue if your comment of ""testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain"

Considering everyone that has testified has related first hand situations, mutually consistent, and having the support of communications, I would call your comment comically shallow, at best.

And further, first hand testimony is *not* hearsay. Nor is first hand testimony of actual actions 'opinion'. No matter how much you kick and thrash and whine.

And no, testimonial evidence does not *change* at the point "someone digs up actual evidence of wrongdoing and personal gain".

And further, misuse of the power of the office Atty General does *not* require personal gain -- it just requires the wrongful use of the office.

So yeah, whatever you are reading is shallow crap. I suggest you try a bit more before you kneejerk another comment like you do above, or another shallow comment like you led off with.

I didn't say testimonial evidence is hearsay. Any idiot knows better than that. Here is the exact quote:

Quote:IMO, "testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain.

You missed the "IMO." Allow me to translate. I personally discount eyewitness testimony because it is proven over and over to be inaccurate (as I stated before).

And in this era of cancel culture, lots of people will get on a stand and say almost anything that suits their purpose. Especially when they know they can likely get away with it, or do it in great numbers.

You know, like the 51 intel officers who made up sh!t about the Steele dossier in writing.

And regardless of whether Paxton is guilty or innocent as accused, IF all they have is the "testimony" of a bunch of folks with an agenda, not backed up by any documents or previous statements from the accused, or other substantive "evidence," then I PERSONALLY tend to discount it.

I wasn't reading from a law book. I was stating my opinion of the type of evidence presented to date. It is my right to hold whatever opinion I prefer. Try to read more closely next time, instead of just trying to bulldoze everybody who disagrees with you.

I honestly don't think you can conduct a civil debate with anybody who disagrees with you.

You also assume incorrectly that I get my talking points from tweets. No, I get my talking points from 76 years of experience in life, and especially, for the purposes of this forum, from the political events of the past 23 years or so.

I simply use tweets as a quick way to bring up a subject that I feel is worth discussing. Frankly, I don't give a crap if a tweet is 100% accurate, or is posted by someone you look down on.

It's called free speech. If you disagree or think it's FOS, say so. I'm a big boy. Under no circumstances am I going to vet every tweet I decide to post for discussion purposes.

In most cases, it simply is a symptom of something happening in our society which has plenty of other similar circumstances previously documented, thus making the subject legit and worth discussing.

But instead of debating the higher context, some on here just want to nitpick the source, or a few words of it, or whatever, b/c they otherwise don't have a good argument on the prevailing larger topic to support their opinion.

Well, whatever the eff you are reading, it doesnt line up with the issues actually noted in the case.

And, up to you to discount what first hand testimony is. Or discount what a large group of people related as common first hand experiences.

Nice to have such a selective discernment. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence of commonly experienced events. Automatically accept some rando tweet on a subject without question.

Considering that IN YOUR OPINION you discount all testimonial evidence, I guess you automatically reject everything that has happened in the Paxton case, as it is pretty much all testimonial evidence (by multiples of witnesses in the same manner) by everyone. Awesome. I guess nothing in that trial enters your realm of believability. Except the thing you seem to swallow from a single sentence ripped completely from any and all context in a tweet. Pretty awesome there.

(09-12-2023 04:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I honestly don't think you can conduct a civil debate with anybody who disagrees with you.

Drop mic

(09-12-2023 04:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:09 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Too bad the facts of Paxtons actions line up with their testimony.
I guess you missed that issue in the long run.

Considering you are opining from tweet reading or the like, call me unsurprised.

You have no clue what I'm reading or not.

*Whatever* you are reading, it seems horribly short on the issue if your comment of ""testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain"

Considering everyone that has testified has related first hand situations, mutually consistent, and having the support of communications, I would call your comment comically shallow, at best.

And further, first hand testimony is *not* hearsay. Nor is first hand testimony of actual actions 'opinion'. No matter how much you kick and thrash and whine.

And no, testimonial evidence does not *change* at the point "someone digs up actual evidence of wrongdoing and personal gain".

And further, misuse of the power of the office Atty General does *not* require personal gain -- it just requires the wrongful use of the office.

So yeah, whatever you are reading is shallow crap. I suggest you try a bit more before you kneejerk another comment like you do above, or another shallow comment like you led off with.

I didn't say testimonial evidence is hearsay. Any idiot knows better than that. Here is the exact quote:

Quote:IMO, "testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain.

You missed the "IMO." Allow me to translate. I personally discount eyewitness testimony because it is proven over and over to be inaccurate (as I stated before).

And in this era of cancel culture, lots of people will get on a stand and say almost anything that suits their purpose. Especially when they know they can likely get away with it, or do it in great numbers.

You know, like the 51 intel officers who made up sh!t about the Steele dossier in writing.

And regardless of whether Paxton is guilty or innocent as accused, IF all they have is the "testimony" of a bunch of folks with an agenda, not backed up by any documents or previous statements from the accused, or other substantive "evidence," then I PERSONALLY tend to discount it.

I wasn't reading from a law book. I was stating my opinion of the type of evidence presented to date. It is my right to hold whatever opinion I prefer. Try to read more closely next time, instead of just trying to bulldoze everybody who disagrees with you.

I honestly don't think you can conduct a civil debate with anybody who disagrees with you.

You also assume incorrectly that I get my talking points from tweets. No, I get my talking points from 76 years of experience in life, and especially, for the purposes of this forum, from the political events of the past 23 years or so.

I simply use tweets as a quick way to bring up a subject that I feel is worth discussing. Frankly, I don't give a crap if a tweet is 100% accurate, or is posted by someone you look down on.

It's called free speech. If you disagree or think it's FOS, say so. I'm a big boy. Under no circumstances am I going to vet every tweet I decide to post for discussion purposes.

In most cases, it simply is a symptom of something happening in our society which has plenty of other similar circumstances previously documented, thus making the subject legit and worth discussing.

But instead of debating the higher context, some on here just want to nitpick the source, or a few words of it, or whatever, b/c they otherwise don't have a good argument on the prevailing larger topic to support their opinion.

Well, whatever the eff you are reading, it doesnt line up with the issues actually noted in the case.

And, up to you to discount what first hand testimony is. Or discount what a large group of people related as common first hand experiences.

Nice to have such a selective discernment. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence of commonly experienced events. Automatically accept some rando tweet on a subject without question.

Considering that IN YOUR OPINION you discount all testimonial evidence, I guess you automatically reject everything that has happened in the Paxton case, as it is pretty much all testimonial evidence (by multiples of witnesses in the same manner) by everyone. Awesome. I guess nothing in that trial enters your realm of believability. Except the thing you seem to swallow from a single sentence ripped completely from any and all context in a tweet. Pretty awesome there.

Try to back out of the courtroom a minute and understand context.

We're talking specifically about accusations in the political world. Not a murder trial.

I gave specific examples. Both Trump impeachments. The J6 hearings. The statement signed by 51 lying intel officers. Political stuff. Situations where people have an agenda, or want a specific outcome.

More examples. Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing. Kavanaugh's hearing when he was accused of gang rape.

In all those cases, personal testimony wasn't worth a crap. Why? Because the people testifying had a purpose, an outcome they wanted to achieve.

I no longer believe anybody who testifies in a political setting. THAT's what I'm talking about.

I know nothing about Paxton, and I don't care whether he is guilty or innocent. What I'm saying is that in political situations like impeachment hearings, I would never believe direct testimony that isn't backed up by evidence that can't be lied about.

You can ridicule that "simple tweet" all you want. You do you. SOP for you, in fact.

The point is, they brought out a specific instance where one of the accusers had to admit they accused him with no evidence. And still, all I see is more of the same. More guys saying this or that. All of whom have an objective, and it isn't necessarily justice.

Therefore I discount it. If that's not clear, then I give up. Blather on. That's what you always do. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

Paxton's attorney murders witness on the stand

Its 8 minutes, but worth the watch.

(09-14-2023 08:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Paxton's attorney murders witness on the stand

Its 8 minutes, but worth the watch.

I wouldn’t take much from that. Buzbee can do that to credible witnesses.

(09-12-2023 05:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:09 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You have no clue what I'm reading or not.

*Whatever* you are reading, it seems horribly short on the issue if your comment of ""testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain"

Considering everyone that has testified has related first hand situations, mutually consistent, and having the support of communications, I would call your comment comically shallow, at best.

And further, first hand testimony is *not* hearsay. Nor is first hand testimony of actual actions 'opinion'. No matter how much you kick and thrash and whine.

And no, testimonial evidence does not *change* at the point "someone digs up actual evidence of wrongdoing and personal gain".

And further, misuse of the power of the office Atty General does *not* require personal gain -- it just requires the wrongful use of the office.

So yeah, whatever you are reading is shallow crap. I suggest you try a bit more before you kneejerk another comment like you do above, or another shallow comment like you led off with.

I didn't say testimonial evidence is hearsay. Any idiot knows better than that. Here is the exact quote:

Quote:IMO, "testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain.

You missed the "IMO." Allow me to translate. I personally discount eyewitness testimony because it is proven over and over to be inaccurate (as I stated before).

And in this era of cancel culture, lots of people will get on a stand and say almost anything that suits their purpose. Especially when they know they can likely get away with it, or do it in great numbers.

You know, like the 51 intel officers who made up sh!t about the Steele dossier in writing.

And regardless of whether Paxton is guilty or innocent as accused, IF all they have is the "testimony" of a bunch of folks with an agenda, not backed up by any documents or previous statements from the accused, or other substantive "evidence," then I PERSONALLY tend to discount it.

I wasn't reading from a law book. I was stating my opinion of the type of evidence presented to date. It is my right to hold whatever opinion I prefer. Try to read more closely next time, instead of just trying to bulldoze everybody who disagrees with you.

I honestly don't think you can conduct a civil debate with anybody who disagrees with you.

You also assume incorrectly that I get my talking points from tweets. No, I get my talking points from 76 years of experience in life, and especially, for the purposes of this forum, from the political events of the past 23 years or so.

I simply use tweets as a quick way to bring up a subject that I feel is worth discussing. Frankly, I don't give a crap if a tweet is 100% accurate, or is posted by someone you look down on.

It's called free speech. If you disagree or think it's FOS, say so. I'm a big boy. Under no circumstances am I going to vet every tweet I decide to post for discussion purposes.

In most cases, it simply is a symptom of something happening in our society which has plenty of other similar circumstances previously documented, thus making the subject legit and worth discussing.

But instead of debating the higher context, some on here just want to nitpick the source, or a few words of it, or whatever, b/c they otherwise don't have a good argument on the prevailing larger topic to support their opinion.

Well, whatever the eff you are reading, it doesnt line up with the issues actually noted in the case.

And, up to you to discount what first hand testimony is. Or discount what a large group of people related as common first hand experiences.

Nice to have such a selective discernment. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence of commonly experienced events. Automatically accept some rando tweet on a subject without question.

Considering that IN YOUR OPINION you discount all testimonial evidence, I guess you automatically reject everything that has happened in the Paxton case, as it is pretty much all testimonial evidence (by multiples of witnesses in the same manner) by everyone. Awesome. I guess nothing in that trial enters your realm of believability. Except the thing you seem to swallow from a single sentence ripped completely from any and all context in a tweet. Pretty awesome there.

Try to back out of the courtroom a minute and understand context.

We're talking specifically about accusations in the political world. Not a murder trial.

I gave specific examples. Both Trump impeachments. The J6 hearings. The statement signed by 51 lying intel officers. Political stuff. Situations where people have an agenda, or want a specific outcome.

More examples. Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing. Kavanaugh's hearing when he was accused of gang rape.

In all those cases, personal testimony wasn't worth a crap. Why? Because the people testifying had a purpose, an outcome they wanted to achieve.

I no longer believe anybody who testifies in a political setting. THAT's what I'm talking about.

I know nothing about Paxton, and I don't care whether he is guilty or innocent. What I'm saying is that in political situations like impeachment hearings, I would never believe direct testimony that isn't backed up by evidence that can't be lied about.

You can ridicule that "simple tweet" all you want. You do you. SOP for you, in fact.

The point is, they brought out a specific instance where one of the accusers had to admit they accused him with no evidence. And still, all I see is more of the same. More guys saying this or that. All of whom have an objective, and it isn't necessarily justice.

Therefore I discount it. If that's not clear, then I give up. Blather on. That's what you always do. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

This is nothing more than Political Grandstanding. There is no legal outcome so any testifying is just more Soap Opera.

The only REAL question that matters to Paxton is does he have enough Allies to keep his job?

(09-14-2023 11:09 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 05:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 04:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-12-2023 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  *Whatever* you are reading, it seems horribly short on the issue if your comment of ""testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain"

Considering everyone that has testified has related first hand situations, mutually consistent, and having the support of communications, I would call your comment comically shallow, at best.

And further, first hand testimony is *not* hearsay. Nor is first hand testimony of actual actions 'opinion'. No matter how much you kick and thrash and whine.

And no, testimonial evidence does not *change* at the point "someone digs up actual evidence of wrongdoing and personal gain".

And further, misuse of the power of the office Atty General does *not* require personal gain -- it just requires the wrongful use of the office.

So yeah, whatever you are reading is shallow crap. I suggest you try a bit more before you kneejerk another comment like you do above, or another shallow comment like you led off with.

I didn't say testimonial evidence is hearsay. Any idiot knows better than that. Here is the exact quote:

Quote:IMO, "testimonial evidence" is just hearsay or opinion until someone digs up some actual evidence of legal wrongdoing and personal gain.

You missed the "IMO." Allow me to translate. I personally discount eyewitness testimony because it is proven over and over to be inaccurate (as I stated before).

And in this era of cancel culture, lots of people will get on a stand and say almost anything that suits their purpose. Especially when they know they can likely get away with it, or do it in great numbers.

You know, like the 51 intel officers who made up sh!t about the Steele dossier in writing.

And regardless of whether Paxton is guilty or innocent as accused, IF all they have is the "testimony" of a bunch of folks with an agenda, not backed up by any documents or previous statements from the accused, or other substantive "evidence," then I PERSONALLY tend to discount it.

I wasn't reading from a law book. I was stating my opinion of the type of evidence presented to date. It is my right to hold whatever opinion I prefer. Try to read more closely next time, instead of just trying to bulldoze everybody who disagrees with you.

I honestly don't think you can conduct a civil debate with anybody who disagrees with you.

You also assume incorrectly that I get my talking points from tweets. No, I get my talking points from 76 years of experience in life, and especially, for the purposes of this forum, from the political events of the past 23 years or so.

I simply use tweets as a quick way to bring up a subject that I feel is worth discussing. Frankly, I don't give a crap if a tweet is 100% accurate, or is posted by someone you look down on.

It's called free speech. If you disagree or think it's FOS, say so. I'm a big boy. Under no circumstances am I going to vet every tweet I decide to post for discussion purposes.

In most cases, it simply is a symptom of something happening in our society which has plenty of other similar circumstances previously documented, thus making the subject legit and worth discussing.

But instead of debating the higher context, some on here just want to nitpick the source, or a few words of it, or whatever, b/c they otherwise don't have a good argument on the prevailing larger topic to support their opinion.

Well, whatever the eff you are reading, it doesnt line up with the issues actually noted in the case.

And, up to you to discount what first hand testimony is. Or discount what a large group of people related as common first hand experiences.

Nice to have such a selective discernment. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence. Automatically discount first hand testimonial evidence of commonly experienced events. Automatically accept some rando tweet on a subject without question.

Considering that IN YOUR OPINION you discount all testimonial evidence, I guess you automatically reject everything that has happened in the Paxton case, as it is pretty much all testimonial evidence (by multiples of witnesses in the same manner) by everyone. Awesome. I guess nothing in that trial enters your realm of believability. Except the thing you seem to swallow from a single sentence ripped completely from any and all context in a tweet. Pretty awesome there.

Try to back out of the courtroom a minute and understand context.

We're talking specifically about accusations in the political world. Not a murder trial.

I gave specific examples. Both Trump impeachments. The J6 hearings. The statement signed by 51 lying intel officers. Political stuff. Situations where people have an agenda, or want a specific outcome.

More examples. Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing. Kavanaugh's hearing when he was accused of gang rape.

In all those cases, personal testimony wasn't worth a crap. Why? Because the people testifying had a purpose, an outcome they wanted to achieve.

I no longer believe anybody who testifies in a political setting. THAT's what I'm talking about.

I know nothing about Paxton, and I don't care whether he is guilty or innocent. What I'm saying is that in political situations like impeachment hearings, I would never believe direct testimony that isn't backed up by evidence that can't be lied about.

You can ridicule that "simple tweet" all you want. You do you. SOP for you, in fact.

The point is, they brought out a specific instance where one of the accusers had to admit they accused him with no evidence. And still, all I see is more of the same. More guys saying this or that. All of whom have an objective, and it isn't necessarily justice.

Therefore I discount it. If that's not clear, then I give up. Blather on. That's what you always do. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

This is nothing more than Political Grandstanding. There is no legal outcome so any testifying is just more Soap Opera.

The only REAL question that matters to Paxton is does he have enough Allies to keep his job?

Paxton will have the articles relating to bribery shot down.

Prosecution couldnt close the bag on any 'exchange'. A *lot* of 'almost there' (why was Paxton's home renovation contractor checking in with Nate Paul on every step of the renovation), but no real payment put into evidence.

I dont know why Paxton's mistress (who got a job directly with the under Federal investigation developer Nate Paul's company) during the time when Paxton was seriously carrying water for Paul, but she wasnt called as a witness. So that link wasnt put into evidence.

Prosecution f'ed up on their time management.

I think it is a close call on the remaining articles. First, the 10 Democrats will vote lockstep to convict on the remaining articles. The question is whether 11 or 20 Republicans do. I can count 6 that absolutely will vote to acquit. So the count comes down that the prosecution has to carry 11 of 14.

And yet, that isnt the end of the saga. There are 4 articles held in abeyance. They deal with securities felonies issues that Paxton still needs to be tried on in Houston. I think that happens in October. Unless the Lege votes otherwise, Paxton will still be suspended until that one plays out.

I found it hinky that the acting AG allowed 5 top staffers to take leave of absences to defend Paxton. I dont mind the leaves, but they should have been unpaid leaves. Not paid for by the taxpayers. The acting AG simply waived the rules entirely to allow them to represent -- a no no under the ethics issues of the OAG -- but then said 'yeah, take a paid leave and let the taxpayers still pay you for work you do on the Paxton defense.' Really cheesy.

(09-14-2023 08:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Paxton's attorney murders witness on the stand

Its 8 minutes, but worth the watch.

Until there are real consequences for the weaponization of the legal system against political opponents its going to get worse

(09-15-2023 11:13 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 08:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Paxton's attorney murders witness on the stand

Its 8 minutes, but worth the watch.

Until there are real consequences for the weaponization of the legal system against political opponents its going to get worse

Not a weaponization when the AG readily appears to be carrying water for a felon developer and abusing the office in that manner. But you be you. Lolz.

The efforts that Paxton used to cover for Nate Paul go well beyond the pale. I doubt *anyone* in the state would *ever* get that 'lets use the office of the AG to help you'.

But, hey, why let facts affest your butthurt ignorant screech about 'wepaonization'. I wouldnt want anyone, Republican, Democrat, or Martian, to use the office to carry water for any one specific person.

I guess all that you care about is screeching your head off regardless of the underlying issues. Kind of you schtick overall so why am I not surprised.

BINGO!

(09-15-2023 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 11:13 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 08:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Paxton's attorney murders witness on the stand

Its 8 minutes, but worth the watch.

Until there are real consequences for the weaponization of the legal system against political opponents its going to get worse

Not a weaponization when the AG readily appears to be carrying water for a felon developer and abusing the office in that manner. But you be you. Lolz.

The efforts that Paxton used to cover for Nate Paul go well beyond the pale. I doubt *anyone* in the state would *ever* get that 'lets use the office of the AG to help you'.

But, hey, why let facts affest your butthurt ignorant screech about 'wepaonization'. I wouldnt want anyone, Republican, Democrat, or Martian, to use the office to carry water for any one specific person.

I guess all that you care about is screeching your head off regardless of the underlying issues. Kind of you schtick overall so why am I not surprised.

Ok clerk

You are always wrong and never brief. Seek help.

(09-15-2023 11:55 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 11:13 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 08:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Paxton's attorney murders witness on the stand

Its 8 minutes, but worth the watch.

Until there are real consequences for the weaponization of the legal system against political opponents its going to get worse

Not a weaponization when the AG readily appears to be carrying water for a felon developer and abusing the office in that manner. But you be you. Lolz.

The efforts that Paxton used to cover for Nate Paul go well beyond the pale. I doubt *anyone* in the state would *ever* get that 'lets use the office of the AG to help you'.

But, hey, why let facts affest your butthurt ignorant screech about 'wepaonization'. I wouldnt want anyone, Republican, Democrat, or Martian, to use the office to carry water for any one specific person.

I guess all that you care about is screeching your head off regardless of the underlying issues. Kind of you schtick overall so why am I not surprised.

Ok clerk

You are always wrong and never brief. Seek help.

Im not the guy with my panties in a wad when I described how the senate vote on this might come out.

Apparently you are pissed off enough that when I mention Paxton going to trial on securities charges in October, and those issues are still over him in terms of impeachment -- you get so triggered (or is it "tiggered") that you give a snitty fit rep hit because of that horrendous statement.

Good grief.

I suggest *you* seek help, Tigger.

A guy who has such issues to get enraged enough to neg rep over 'the Senate might vote this way, and Paxton still has a mountain of problems (and he does)' is the one that really needs what you call out for above. Jeezuf effin Krist.

Lolz.

But lets hear more of your 'Deep Thoughts' on the Paxton issue --- which, from all I can see is throwing a hissy fit about 'weaponization' and throwing a Tigger hissy fit and tossing out neg rep points on the *horrible* statements on facts, and a prediction on the vote, based on what the trial showed. Double lolz.

Leaning into flaring divisions among Republicans, Buzbee portrayed the impeachment as a plot orchestrated by an old guard of GOP rivals. He singled out George P. Bush, the nephew of former President George W. Bush who challenged Paxton in the 2022 Republican primary, punctuating a blistering closing argument that questioned the integrity of FBI agents and railed against Texas’ most famous political dynasty.

“This is a political trial,” Buzbee said. “I would suggest to you it’s a political witch hunt.”

VINTAGE BUZBEE from the AP

(09-15-2023 12:30 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Leaning into flaring divisions among Republicans, Buzbee portrayed the impeachment as a plot orchestrated by an old guard of GOP rivals. He singled out George P. Bush, the nephew of former President George W. Bush who challenged Paxton in the 2022 Republican primary, punctuating a blistering closing argument that questioned the integrity of FBI agents and railed against Texas’ most famous political dynasty.

“This is a political trial,” Buzbee said. “I would suggest to you it’s a political witch hunt.”

VINTAGE BUZBEE from the AP

Here is Buzbee in trial making that scary music comment:





Kind of laughable.

Apparently in MAGA world, the Republicans are now a group who 'weaponize law enforcement' against..... uh........ Republicans. Ohhh-tay.......

I guess Tigger doesnt quite grasp that subtlety at this point when he rails against 'weaponizing the legal system'. Just as first brush above and beyond zero (and I mean zero) grasp of any facts in this case.

Buzbee is good dude overall. I've known him from even before he clerked in Galveston Federal Court with Judge Kent. Not my style in the slightest, but still a decent guy.

taint accuses others of "screeching".

Ad hom and Lulz.

(09-15-2023 12:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  taint accuses others of "screeching".

Ad hom and Lulz.

I would absolutely say that a plaintive cry of 'weaponizing politics' coupled with a complete lack of facts or issues about the case is very much 'screeching'.

What do you call a kneejerk call of 'weaponizing politics' coupled with a complete lack of facts or issues about the case?

What do you call going on hissy fit and tossing neg rep points for saying 'wow, the vote might go this way' and 'Paxton has a lot more legal troubles in the future'?

Not that I expect much more from you than the typical thin crap you type above, mind you....

LOLZ.

Did your mother have any children she liked?

(09-15-2023 01:16 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Did your mother have any children she liked?

I guess the above is the definition of a Warrior Boy substantive response. Yay.

and

LOLZ.

Have a great day Warrior Boy.

(09-15-2023 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 12:30 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Leaning into flaring divisions among Republicans, Buzbee portrayed the impeachment as a plot orchestrated by an old guard of GOP rivals. He singled out George P. Bush, the nephew of former President George W. Bush who challenged Paxton in the 2022 Republican primary, punctuating a blistering closing argument that questioned the integrity of FBI agents and railed against Texas’ most famous political dynasty.

“This is a political trial,” Buzbee said. “I would suggest to you it’s a political witch hunt.”

VINTAGE BUZBEE from the AP

Here is Buzbee in trial making that scary music comment:





Kind of laughable.

Apparently in MAGA world, the Republicans are now a group who 'weaponize law enforcement' against..... uh........ Republicans. Ohhh-tay.......

I guess Tigger doesnt quite grasp that subtlety at this point when he rails against 'weaponizing the legal system'. Just as first brush above and beyond zero (and I mean zero) grasp of any facts in this case.

Buzbee is good dude overall. I've known him from even before he clerked in Galveston Federal Court with Judge Kent. Not my style in the slightest, but still a decent guy.

Buzbee still has that deep East Texas accent. You can see how he masterfully uses inuendos to lead the witness. He doesn't bother himself with the dirt on Paxton just exposes the other side to be less than righteous.

Not sure why the witness is acting so dumb, Buzbee is clearly showing him dates that just magically line up. I guess playing the stupid card is better than admitting the obvious.

Once again, does Paxton have the votes. Buzbee did his job but that doesn't mean the State Senators have to keep Paxton.