Prosecutors made the unusual decision this week to remain almost entirely mum about the order in which they planned to call their first witnesses in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York.
Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor working on behalf of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, said Friday evening he would let Trump’s attorneys know the name of their first witness on Sunday night, the day before opening arguments in the case are set to begin, according to a report from the courtroom. Trump’s defense team had asked for the names of the first three witnesses that prosecutors would call.
…
“Mr. Trump has been tweeting about the witnesses," Steinglass told Judge Juan Merchan. "We’re not telling them who the witnesses are.”
Blanche then asked Merchan if he could have the information if he promised Trump would not post on social media about the witnesses, to which Merchan replied that he did not believe Blanche could make such a vow.
There’s this but also they have to give him every possible consideration because any possibility where they end up having any kind of misstep gives him the opportunity for either a mistrial or to have the whole damn thing thrown out on appeal so they have to make sure they get their ducks in a row perfectly before doing absolutely anything. Otherwise you’re going to have that little dehydrated mango get off and be out and running around on atechnicalityy.
No they don’t. They pretend that they do but they actually don’t.
You don’t get a mistrial for your actions having the consequences prescribed by the law.
I know it feels like that because everyone has adopted the media’s deference to lunatics and crooks, but you cannot get a mistrial without an extremely serious breech of rules.
It’s an excuse for treating him with kid gloves, not a valid reason for doing so.
They really don’t, no. This isn’t Congress where you just make up the rules yourself as you go along. This is a court of law where what you can and cannot do is clearly defined. That can not only bind you from misconduct but also protect you from negative consequences of following the rules.
That’s not how “getting off on a technicality” works. For that to happy, someone has to make a mistake that is against the rule. Holding him accountable for his words and actions according to the letter of the law can’t set him free.
I’m frankly sick and tired of everyone using that completely invalid excuse every time he shits on the whole concept of law and a just society without incurring any consequences.
ENOUGH!
Unless you have a really good lawyer. But none of them will work for him at this point.