The Paxton trial: quick thoughts (updated)

The Trib has the overview story; Lite Gov Goeb released the formal rules yesterday evening. Let's dive in.

Quick notes:

• Warren K. Paxton must attend in person.
• Angela Paxton cannot participate in any closed sessions or "deliberations." Yes, that means she can't vote. (See below for more.)
  
• Witness lists must be finalized and submitted by Aug. 22.

Approval was by 25-3 margin. She was one of the opposed; tin foil hat Bob Hall the second, surely for tin foil hat reasons; Democrat Sarah Eckhardt the third for unknown reasons. Rice poly-sci cheese Mark P. Jones, for the Trib, ranks her as the most liberal member of the Senate. Maybe she felt the rule that a simple majority could vote to dismiss any House charge before deliberations and charges votes was too favorable to Kenny Boy. But, with the gag order as part of the rules, as of now through the end of trial, she probably feels she can't discuss. (Update: The Trib notes that, in the Senate Journal, she said that "The Rules are unprecedented in their presumption for opacity and closed deliberations." Per that link, is there an argument that the select committee violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, not just Senate rules?)

Sounds good in general. Angela is cock-blocked without the Senate having to consider an expulsion vote or something. (But, if she didn't draw the short straw on Senate redistricting, maybe that happens down the road.)

Trial starts Sept. 5, not "by Aug. 28." Blame all of Strangeabbott's special sessions or something. But no one-year delay like Kenny's legal beagle Tony Buzbee wanted.

Four of the House's 20 articles of impeachment have been set aside but could be considered in the future. Two are directly related to his securities fraud case and two indirectly related. The Senate select committee may have decided to set them aside now that Houston has been finally nailed down as the venue for his state criminal trial on those issues.

Rules of trial conduct:

• All deliberations closed;
• Vote happens on each count without debate;
• No cellphones (we'll see if somebody tries to sneak a burner in);
• Normal cross-examination;
• Prosecution gets right to open and close final arguments;
  
• Trial itself, less any closed deliberations, is open to the public.

Getcha popcorn!

As for how long you'll need that popcorn? Given that it's Buzbee vs Dick DeGuerin and Rusty Hardin, there's going to be legal wrangling. It will take all of the Sept. 5-8 workweek, minimum. The rules allow for pre-trial motions to be offered, and voted on. That alone could take a whole day. Such motions must be submitted by Aug. 5 and responses by Aug. 13.

That said, here's some time rules:

• Opening statements, 60 minutes a side — for prosecutors, it's the House managers, not the lawyers;
• Presentation of evidence, 24 hours a side;
• Rebuttals, 60 minutes a side;
• Final arguments, 15 minutes a side.

So, yeah, Sept. 5-8 for actual trial presentation, if Sept. 5 is a day of pre-trial wrangling, is about right.

So, votes starting Monday Sept. 11? No earlier? Or would they start over the weekend if the trial is done by end of day Friday?

Now, does Angela count as "present," quorum-wise, meaning 21 of 30 votes plus her non-voting attendance are needed for two-thirds, or is it 20 of 30 voting? Trib wasn't clear, but official rules talking about suspension of rules on a vote of "two thirds of the members present and eligible to serve as jurors" indicate that it's 30 and 20 as the numbers. The last rule, though in legalese, seems to underline that: her vote does seem to be allowed for matters besides the impeachment articles itself, as in changes of rules, suspension of rules, etc.

Scratch the above. Another story, from the Statesman, said that her being counted as "present" means it's 31, and thus 21 votes, not 20, are needed. 

We can surely count Hall as a no. Can Warren K get nine other Senators? Not sure about Middleton, whom I don't know very well, but Hughes, certainly. Hancock? Quite possibly. Ditto on my own nutter Senatecritter, Springer. Not sure about Creighton, but Bettencourt, Cockwhore and King are all possibles. So, that's six more semi-likely No votes. To be a bit conservative, we'll count five of them actually going No. Will throw in one more for the combo of Creighton and Middleton. Two more out of the fivesome of Parker, Sparks, Schwertner, Campbell, Perry looks possible. That would still leave Warren one vote short. (Note: See also this post from the top of the month about why the House GOP moved on Paxton as a little more backgrounder.) 

Update: Mimi Swarz cites an anonymous "Capitol gadfly" who disagrees with me and thinks Warren K. won't have a big problem rounding up 10 Senators. She agrees, saying big money donors like Christofascist Tim Dunn will squeeze out any Senate Rethuglican integrity. It didn't do so in the state House, where more than two-thirds, nearly three-quarters of Republicans voted to impeach, but we shall see. (Swarz notes that Charlie Geren said some House Legiscritters were being threatened with retaliation even right after the vote.) Swarz goes on to note that contra Dunn and the Wilks brothers, other state powerhouses like Texans for Lawsuit Reform don't like Warren K.

Oh, and Reddit's r/politics removed my post even though in the past 24 hours they've allowed more than half a dozen different posts about Alito and the Pro Publica story. That comes after taking down my post about Daniel Ellsberg's death because the nutty moderators couldn't understand about how the Espionage Act being threatened to be weaponized against him has only increased in the past decade.