Monday, August 07, 2023

Aspirational? Or Criminal?

History rhyming: Shakespeare has been banned and bowdlerized throughout history. That doesn’t excuse this, just puts it in context. That does feel good, though. But this is America: we always teeter between Idiocracy and the “Best and the Brightest.” Not if the judge doesn’t allow it (and I doubt the judge will, since it isn’t a First Amendment case). Tl;dr: the defendant would disseminate information if it is not protected by the court, and that’s shown by the five appearances defense counsel made on Sunday, which are each summarized in the reply brief before getting to the legal arguments. Because, the argument goes, defendant wants to try this case in public. Which is precisely what protection orders (and the local rules) are supposed to prevent. In fact, the backbone of the reply is that what defendant wants violates the local rules. Which is a pretty strong argument against what Trump wants. The lawyer’s statement also appears in the reply brief. I’m starting to think Trump’s lawyers really aren’t very good. As a defense, it’s a good one. 😹 Haters gonna hate.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)