Just to echo Omar_Little’s impressions…
One of the first questions they asked the witness was, “Are you a RINO?” And this was asked by the friendly attorney to the witness. Serious stuff here in Texas.
What’s the point of asking that? I don’t think anyone claims the mantle of RINO for themselves.
I didn’t see the exchange, but presumably the attorneys for the House wanted to allow their witness (Paxton’s former deputy) to preempt the line of attack that he’s a damn dirty “RINO” who wanted to undermine conservative crusader Paxton. The question gives him the opportunity to repudiate that characterization and lay out his conservative bona fides.
As it is, Buzbee accused him of staging a coup within the Attorney General’s office.
That seems pretty on point. I just thought it was all so silly, but as a Texan, I understand what they have to do. I saw it on a NYT live “update” thing. It made it into the NYT article:
The first witness for the prosecution, Jeff Mateer, was one of the whistle-blowers whose accusations landed Mr. Paxton in political peril. Mr. Mateer, who served for a time as a first assistant attorney general under Mr. Paxton, presented his conservative legal credentials and those of the others who spoke about their bosses’ actions.
“Are you a RINO?” Mr. Mateer was asked by Mr. Hardin.
He said no, emphatically. He described himself as an evangelical Christian. “I was nominated by President Trump to be a federal judge,” Mr. Mateer said, though he was not confirmed.
To be clear, this question was asked yesterday to the witness. So if you were watching today, you wouldn’t have seen it.
Mateer withdrew his name from consideration as a federal judge because the media dug up a quote of him from several years ago comparing transgendered children to the “spawn of satan”. If that doesn’t qualify you as ultra right wing conservatism, I don’t know what will.
It’s a useful reminder that there are no heroes in this saga. Ken Paxton is an enormous piece of shit, who for years was assisted, aided and abetted by other pieces of shit, and these pieces of shit only turned on the enormous piece of shit when they calculated he was no longer a net positive for their careers or political fortunes.
IOW normal Texas Republican politics.
I don’t think it ever occured to him that hed have to defend this shit or get called on it in any way. The things he did were just perks of the office. There was never much of an attempt to build in any sort of plausible deniability. So now they got nothing.
Per Texas Tribune Twitter:
Ken Paxton’s attorney Tony Buzbee began Thursday with a peculiar accusation: That the media has been doctoring photos to make him appear more “tan.”
Ken’s lover will be unavailable to testify in his impeachment case. By some coincidence, it was announced that she wouldn’t do so after the impeachment managers said they would call her as a witness. There was also a lot of talk about countertops. And people say politics is boring!
Bit of a bungled day by the House managers. They tried to call the mistress early in the day but had not provided the required 24 hours notice. Apparently she intended to plead the Fifth, which is interesting — she’s been accused of no crime that I’m aware of.
The prosecution has rested. However, they also used up much more of their time than the defense, leaving them with only 2.5 hours to question witnesses versus Paxton’s lawyers 8.5 hours.
One of the purposes of the 5th amendment protections is to keep you from saying things that might get you accused of a crime.
“Sure, I’ll testify, I’m not being accused of anything.”
…gives testimony…
“Oops, now I’m a defendant.”
When one side mysteriously drops the ball, sometimes it’s simple error. Other times it’s disguised foul play.
I can’t speak for impeachment proceedings, but that would not be unusual for a civil trial. Putting on your case takes more time than cross examining defense witnesses.
Not quite. You have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify about things that might reasonably be used to convict (not accuse) you of a crime. But you can’t refuse to testify just because it would be embarrassing, or it would hurt your personal or professional relationships.
All Linda Olson’s been accused of is having an affair and getting a job from one of Paxton’s donors. Maybe there’s some incriminating conduct in there, but that’s no basis for a blanket refusal to answer any questions.
I agree with that.
The defense rested this afternoon. Closing arguments at 9:00 CST tomorrow, then Senators will deliberate in private before publicly casting votes on each article. If any article is sustained by the required 2/3 of Senators, Paxton is removed from office. There would then be a separate vote on whether to bar him from future office.
Forget the popcorn, I’m breaking out the Shiner and Frito pie for this one.
I haven’t paid any attention to the media on this circus. What is your take on the trial? Did the prosecution do enough to convict?
What @Railer13 said. Not a ton of reporting on it here. Do you have a sense of the temp for guilty/remove? How is the in state media presenting it?
I suppose I should just go look at the Texas Tribune website…