This is an odd strawman to introduce here. Where are you going with this? That all criminals have unlimited rights to speech, not matter the purpose or outcome of that speech?
Yeah, this. Not everyone can afford lawyers to deal with all the cockamemie crapola that folks like Bannon and Trump drop any time their put in legal jeopardy… by their own behavior and malfeasance. It should not be expected that all citizens need a lawyer simply to testify against organized criminals and other nutsos that are blatantly breaking whatever law they feel like.
2 Likes
It’s still a bit gaudy. It seems like it’s been designed to possibly appeal to East Asian tastes. And, yep, pretty easy to look more tasteful than the Twitlerites for sure.
I like living in your head, rent free. 
We’re all worried about something or other here. I hope.
No third-party witness should ever respond to any kind of discovery or other legal process without first obtaining the assistance of competent counsel.
You know what that’s called? It’s called a felony. And you know what can be done about it? Go to fucking court and prove it. The mere possibility that a defendant might suborn perjury or intimidate witnesses or whatever in no way justifies a blanket ban on public disclosure of discovery products.
To the point that people lose their goddamn minds when the criminal defendant is somebody they hate. The First Amendment protects Steve Bannon’s speech just as much as anybody else’s.
Get a goddamn lawyer. Don’t be an idiot. There are substantial downsides if you fuck things up because you’re doing it on your own. Even if you’re testifying for the prosecution in a criminal trial, the mere fact that you have engaged counsel will make your life much more pleasant because every lawyer on the case will have to go through your lawyer instead of pestering you in person. And frankly, if you’re testifying in a criminal case, there’s a pretty decent chance you’ve got criminal exposure too.
Don’t be an idiot. Lawyer up.
2 Likes
Not. Every. One. Can. Afford. A. Lawyer. Why do you not get this?
You can’t afford NOT to lawyer up. You can place financial limits on what your lawyer can do. I assure you, you can find a lawyer in your price range for some basic legal advice even if you’re a homeless panhandler. 30 minutes with a Legal Aid lawyer will work fucking wonders. You don’t have to pay some asshole $1000 an hour to hold your hand through every moment of the process.
Get a damn lawyer.
3 Likes
Sigh.I give up. You do not want to admit that some people cannot afford lawyers to go down to the courthouse every time they’re being harassed by a defendant in a case. Lawyers are not an infinite resource for most of us. What is supposed to be a bulwark against abusive defendants is the judges and prosecutors and LEOs when it comes to protecting witnesses against intimidation and subornation. It’s great that >you< personally can afford to be lawyered up at all times—the rest of us cannot.
2 Likes
No, because that is entirely ignorant and wrong.
In 20 gauge, a slug or smaller buckshot like #2 or #4 might be a better choice, but 00 definitely works.
The State is correct on this one because the discovery process is pretty broad and a lot of stuff that may come in is irrelevant and prejudicial to either side. There is a lot of chaff and through motion practice before trial all that information gets winnowed down to what is relevant. It appears to me that Bannon wants to 1) throw a bunch of BS into the court record to prejudice the case and affect the potential jury pool and 2) tamper with witnesses.
2 Likes
Appears to be half as many Xmas trees in the hallway, not that anybody should have more than one Christmas tree. Baby Jeebus didn’t get born in every damn window of your house,
1 Like
One more reason they’ve been a great disappointment. Can’t they get anything right?
2 Likes
I’m sure the NYT is on it.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I did not propose making the facts of the trial public after the verdict has been entered.
Again, I was only proposing a gag order during trial. Afterwards, it’s fair game for the media.
I’d go the opposite. All hearings should be fully public and streamed live.
What would people be saying and thinking about the rittenhouse farce if cameras hadn’t been allowed, and all we got was a dry synopsis at the end, no chance for everyone to see the judge putting his thumb on the scale through the whole process.
2 Likes
You make an interesting point. And a lot of the judge’s shenanigans were covered during the trial. Unfortunately, he does not appear to have violated any rules, so he’s off the hook. I’m just remembering what a circus the OJ Simpson trial was.
2 Likes