Wednesday, May 24, 2023

🤔 🫤

So, does Garland respond “No,” or “Hell No!”

Garland says he does his talking in court. So far his talking has engendered two grand juries (that I know of) and turning almost a half-dozen (admittedly best guess) lawyers into witnesses against their client. And now Garland is supposed to just say “Never mind”?

Are these guys the Keystone Kops of lawyers?

And before you say: “Talking to the prosecutor before indictment is not unusual;” that’s not what this is:
Trump’s lawyers have no intention of talking to Garland about ending this investigation without an indictment. This is to give Trump something else to squawk about before a third judge enters a protective order against him. This is, at best, another crude fundraising attempt. Which doesn’t reflect well on Trump’s lawyers.
Jim Trusty used to work at DOJ. He knows how to write such a letter. He did not. But ABC nevertheless claimed that he and John Rowley did.
Well, somebody put Trusty’s name on it, annd conformed it to his signature. Every lawyer knows you don’t want your name on something you don’t want to claim authorship of. If Trusty knows better than this, now’s the time to speak up.

This is all more proof Trump is not “Teflon Don,” because he’s never faced criminal investigation before. He’s on his way to mounting as effective a defense as he did against Jean Carroll’s charges.


(I just noticed this letter doesn’t cite a case, or any reference to the particular investigation, or a grand jury proceeding, basically any court proceedings at all. Which is exceedingly odd on its own, because the subject line of the letter is just “President Donald J. Trump.” Except he’s not President anymore; using the title there is inappropriate. This probably was drafted by Trump and signed by his laws. Which makes it doubly pathetic.)

No comments:

Post a Comment