Sunday, August 06, 2023

Lawyering As Fishmongery

Seriously. And back to Lauro’s final comments to Chuck Todd this morning:
No, it clearly didn't," Binnall replied. "And here's the issue, is that the prosecution in this case badly, badly wants to shut Donald Trump up. And more importantly, they want to make it so the American people cannot see any of the evidence they have in this case, because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that will exonerate Donald Trump. And so that's really what this protective order is." 
The attorney said the motion for a protective order was "shocking." "And this protective order really is aimed at silencing the media or really blindfolding the media from even seeing a lot of the evidence in this case," he claimed. "And Jack Smith doesn't care that at the end of the day, an appellate court overturns this conviction because it's blatantly unconstitutional, because he thinks the process is the punishment."
The protective order is SOP in criminal cases (Trump already agreed to one in Florida). It largely serves to keep evidence from being shared with people who shouldn’t have it. Like witnesses; and reporters. Who only get to see the evidence at trial.

This is bullshit, in other words. And it’ll be fish wrap by the end of the week.
Trump's gonna be glad he was spending other people’s money when his ass is in a jail cell.
at

1 comment:

  1. rustypickup9:36 AM

    Along the lines of Trumps supposed defense, conservatives seem hell bent on speech without consequences. Not free speech, they want to ban all kinds of speech at schools, campuses and more (more below), but having any consequences for racist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic and such speech. Trump in his first run for president tapped into that resentment of people having consequences for that kind of speech. The SCOTUS majority agrees, with 303 Creative letting there be no business consequences for homophoboc and racist and more speech. I suspect we will see further extensions of such rights. A conservative state could pass a "protection of religious freedom" bill, that would ban discrimination against organizations that express their religion. A franchisee of a national chain explicitly bans the LGBTQ+ community from being employees or getting service. The franchisor moves to cancel their franchise, and the franchisee sues saying they are being discriminated against for their religious beliefs. I could readily see the conservative majority siding with the homophobic franchisee.

    In terms of campuses, I have been thinking about the professor at the Texas medical school. My second daughter finished her second year of med school this spring. Medical school is very intense, and the schools work hard to build connections and community among the students, along with faculty, to help them get through it. The first year student that reported on her professor was certainly free to complain, but there are likely to be consequences. What fellow student or faculty wants to work with someone that will report them? Med schools are majority women, and women of this age group are overwhelmingly on the left. The next three years of her education will be a lesson in consequences. Shaming isn't inherently good, think The Scarlett Letter, but it's not inherently bad either, it can be guardrails for our selfish and worst selves.

    ReplyDelete