Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84359 
Subject: Re: Additional Co-Conspirators
Date: 11/15/23 6:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 6
This lawyer should be removed from this case and IMMEDIATELY disbarred for attempting to taint public perception of the court's integrity and for materially interfering with other potential witnesses in the case. There are likely criminal charges involved here as well but there is no way this lawyer should ever enter a court as a lawyer ever again.

Ummmm....I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that nothing he did was criminal. He probably didn't even violate and civil laws. It's entirely possible that he didn't even violate any bar rules or ethical requirements.

I mean, we know that there wasn't previously a protective order. The judge acknowledged that there wasn't much case law on the degree to which pre-trial discovery could be prohibited from being disseminated in totality. I don't ever go to court, so I don't know what the rules are about disclosing pre-trial discovery are. Googling hasn't been much help....but from what I've been able to piece together, I'm pretty sure that there isn't a general total prohibition on disclosing pre-trial evidence. That's why motions for a protective order exist - if you don't want defense counsel to go blabbing to the press about what's going on in the case, you have to ask the judge to stop them from doing so. It doesn't seem to just happen automatically because prosecutors might prefer it that way.

The prosecutors argued (correctly) that these specific disclosures run the risk of witness intimidation or jeopardizing the fair trial by tainting a jury pool with inadmissible evidence. Those are good arguments....but those are arguments in favor of asking the court to block the disclosure of specific categories of evidence through a protective order. They're not arguments that there already exists a rule, standard, obligation, or law against disclosing pre-trial evidence altogether.

We'll know more in the next couple of days - but reading the exchange between the judge and the lawyer, it would not shock me if the lawyer wasn't even punished by the judge in this case. Let alone having his ticket pulled.

thedailybeast.com - Lawyer admits he leaked videos of maga allies turning on trump
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community