Monday, August 07, 2023

Oh, It's So Much Better Than That

I followed the document link to the filing. Remember the "cup o' Joe" Biden ad? The image from it shows up in the pleading with this introduction:

President Biden has likewise capitalized on the indictment, posting a thinly veiled reference to his administration’s prosecution of President Trump just hours before arraignment:

They're trying to argue Trump is a politician and he has a First Amendment right to campaign and if you can't stop Biden, you can't stifle Trump.

Yeah.  I have a Master's in English and a law degree AND a divinity degree, so I'm pretty well trained at sussing out meanings from images and texts, and I don't know what the hell they are doing there except Trump posted a "tweet" and Biden posted a "tweet" so:  NOT FAIR!  NOT FAIR!!!!!  IF HE CAN TWEET, I CAN TWEET!!  Even though the issue of preventing Trump from saying one word in public about this case is not even at issue here.

It's not much better than that, really.  Personally I think they put it in so Trump would have a picture to look at.  And no, I'm not kidding.

There's also this weak shit, after citing various news reports about Biden and "shaded references" to Trump:

Moreover, the Biden Justice Department waited over two-and-a-half years to seek this indictment, during an election cycle in which President Trump is the leading candidate. 

I mean, really: this is pathetic.  When you're legal pleading rests on references to MSNBC and Business Insider (and that quoted sentence should have a reference to it.  That's a requirement in legal pleadings the same way I'd require it for a freshman research paper.  Where the hell does that number come from?  Inauguration Day?) and a tweet selling a coffee mug, you really don't have a legal leg to stand on. Hand to God, they don't get to case law and something resembling a legal argument until page 5 of this brief.

This is an interesting statement, in light of the "tweet" (I won't call them what Trump does, because they aren't) Smith put in his brief:

Nor does this District regularly prevent the disclosure of non-sensitive documents, as the government suggests. Motion at 3. Just the opposite, the Court recognizes that a protective order should be limited to documents implicating the “safety of witnesses and others, a particular danger of perjury or witness intimidation, and the protection of information vital to national security.” 

At that point the argument turns from some broad First Amendment mumbo-jumbo (as I say, it takes five pages to get to the law, after parading news stories about public officials and politicians, none of whom happen to be criminal defendants.  Change the facts, change the outcome....), to the particulars of the proposed Protective Order in question.  Into those weeds I will not tread, because that's what judges and lawyers who get paid to argue cases, are for.  "CNN’s Katelyn Polantz said that Trump's response isn't that different from what prosecutors sought," but I don't think either side would agree with that summation.  The redline exhibit attached to their brief with Defendant's proposed changes to the government's proposed order, substantially changes the language of large parts of the order, either by replacement or removal.

But as I say, that's what we pay judges for.

emptywheel provides some further choice observations on the news reports we're going to get about this:

As well as some notes on the "free speech" argument of the first four pages: I'd also say the government and Trump are very far apart on some things: Oh, to be a fly on that wall....
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. ntodd5:08 PM

    This is gonna be like Legal Hanukkah, with new presents every day. I like that he starts claiming it's a trial about 1A rights. I'm fairly certain Judge Chutkan has read the actual indictment...

    ReplyDelete
  2. ntodd6:30 PM

    Not entirely OT, but I've got a question maybe you can answer, acknowledging your crim law experience is limited (if that's the right word?) and the answer(s) might inherently be too much in the weeds.

    What rules govern what a judge can/must allow as evidence for a defense?

    I've seen a lot of Trumpers crow about "now he can subpoena people and prove 2020 fraud" so he was "justified" (not a legal term AFAIK) in his little schemes. My trial experience is what I've seen on TV, but it doesn't sound proper as a layman, although I don't even know where to start with all the criminal procedure rules and whatnot.

    No answer required, of course. Just throwing it out there (maybe some interesting blog fodder?). :-)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)