DOJ Accuses Bannon Of Trying To Whip Up Media Circus Over Case

[jonney_5]

DOJ accuses Steve Bannon of being Steve Bannon

[zenicetus]

@txlawyer

Unpopular opinion: Discovery materials should be publicly disclosable except upon court order after a showing of cause specific to particular documents.

Isn’t it sufficient cause that witnesses are named in the documents, together with Bannon’s threat to “go on the offense?” This is the era of doxxing perceived enemies after all.

[steviedee111]

@txlawyer

Unpopular opinion: Discovery materials should be publicly disclosable except upon court order after a showing of cause specific to particular documents.

Soon the residential sidewalks in front of everyone that opposes all things MAGA will be no different than the sidewalks in front of abortion clinics. Whether you’re a schoolboard member or a key player in the trial of someone in Trump’s clutches you’re going to get threatened and harassed. And if the court allows your name to go public, well, sucks to be you.

[lizzymom]

OT but no surprise:

The Publisher of the Steele Dossier, Ben Smith, Reports that the Hunter Biden...

[invisiblehandwave]

Of course that is already how it works. So this opinion is in fact quite popular and pedestrian. Bannon’s game is to claim that it is not being followed.

[txlawyer]

@zenicetus

Isn’t it sufficient cause that witnesses are named in the documents,

No. Witnesses are named in every single trial that happens in any American courtroom. If DOJ wants to keep the identity of a witness secret, it can damn well go to court and prove up some really good need for it.

Besides, who’s the witness? It’s not like Benny Thompson, Adam Schiff, and Liz Cheney are deep undercover agents.

together with Bannon’s threat to “go on the offense?”

BFD. It’s a public trial. Any defendant is entitled to defend themselves publicly.

[rptwiz]

A criminial defendant is already given extraordinary protections, including a judge to oversee the prosecution, defense counsel, and right to review the evidence against them before trial. One right NOT granted is to poison the jury pool with a one-sided public spin on the actual evidence against them since the government (as representatives of the people) are entitled to a fair trial as much as the defendant.

Witnesses against criminal defendants have rights as well, and that includes safety from backlash by the defendant or their supporters (or co-conspirators) until they actually testify in court and justice can be served. One should see this case like a mob trial, except with the stakes a lot higher because these criminals (and Bannon IS a convicted felon) want to take over the entire country and cast it into a lawless mess where they can do whatever they want, and can use the law against their enemies.

[not_so_fluffy]

The whole “rule of law” thing is like biblical (and constitutional) interpretation- cherry-picked to suit the loud, angry, supplimental-testosterone-driven white males in the room. We keep forgetting, they’re the real victims, here.

[karlwlewis]

That’s an unpopular opinion? I thought that was mostly the rule. (I’m willing ro be mistaken.) “Secret evidence” is a prime ingredient for fascism, no?

[txlawyer]

@invisiblehandwave

Of course that is already how it works.

No, courts routinely grant protective orders that allow the parties to self-designate discovery materials as confidential, making them automatically subject to restrictions on disclosure that have no justification in the actual content of the materials themselves. It’s an abusive procedure that undermines the principle that legal disputes are to be conducted in a manner transparent to the public, and it improperly puts the burden on the non-disclosing party to obtain relief from the party making the abusive confidentiality designation.

Also, fuck Skadden Arps, for no reason in particular.

[ClutchCargo]

Would a gag order requiring that human pustule to keep his pie hole shut be out of order? I can see where Bannon and his defense counsel should have access, but not his publicist or uh, operatives.

[txlawyer]

@rptwiz

One right NOT granted is to poison the jury pool with a one-sided public spin on the actual evidence against them since the government (as representatives of the people) are entitled to a fair trial as much as the defendant.

Oh, then possibly maybe the disclosing party could go to the judge and make a particularized showing that specific discovery material warrants an order of protection from public disclosure for some sufficient cause?

[txlawyer]

@ClutchCargo

Would a gag order requiring that human pustule to keep his pie hole shut be out of order?

Vastly out of order. It’s a fucking misdemeanor. You get to bitch about the cops all you want for a goddamn traffic ticket.

[occamscoin]

lift the government’s protective order on the discovery material in his [criminal contempt case and allow the documents to be made public.

Only pussies comply with court orders. Go on, bannon, I double hair of the dog dare you: release the documents.

[txlawyer]

@karlwlewis

That’s an unpopular opinion?

Yeah, because people lose their minds on basic legal precepts when it involves someone who is unpopular. Steve Bannon is a piece of shit, so therefore the First Amendment is illegal.

[occamscoin]

@epicurus

There is no “public interest” in what goes on in a courtroom

There is a strong public interest in noting and removing judges who put their thumb on the scale and render heinous outcomes.

[txlawyer]

@epicurus

I often wish we had a British system of reporting on the courts; not a word until the verdict is reached or the trial is ended.

Secret courts have a poor track record in history.

[justruss]

Very good

[steviedee111]

@txlawyer

Steve Bannon is a piece of shit, so therefore the First Amendment is illegal.

When Bannon’s clique dispatches people to harass and threaten private citizens from the safety of the sidewalk in front of their private residences, then yes, invoking the 1st Amendment as protective of your vile and despicable behavior stretches the meaning of “legal” Constitutional behavior. What people do in the name of free speech is analogous to what they do in invoking the 2nd Amendment. Take the Amendment to its meaning in the extreme, and use it as cover to cause pain and misery in others.

[txlawyer]

@steviedee111

When Bannon’s clique dispatches people to harass and threaten private citizens from the safety of the sidewalk in front of their private residences, then yes, invoking the 1st Amendment as protective of your vile and despicable behavior stretches the meaning of “legal” Constitutional behavior.

Gosh, perhaps the government could be required to go to court and prove something resembling that before being allowed to conduct its prosecutions in secret?