- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
Under carefully-considered circumstances with rock-solid intel, doxxing can be praxis.
If that's actually the guy the kid has defending him he's fucked. That lawyer has a pretty well earned reputation of being a hack. Respectable Lawyer had a great thread explaining why the Covington kid case against WaPo was almost certainly settled for relatively next to nothing.
Edit: Adding the twitter thread link. https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1287597289255710720?s=20
https://mobile.twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1287597289255710720
He wouldn’t have chosen to represent him if he didn’t see a winning case
You have to think more like a grifter, or at least like an attorney operating under ethical restrictions on advertisements.
Obviously taking the case and winning would be ideal, but think in terms of someone who wants to tap in to that lucrative book deal/crank TV contributor/congressional candidate/right-wing speaking circuit ecosystem. The most important thing is getting your name out there, and the case against this kid is solid enough that no one is really going to blame you if you lose. Hell, if you lose, that's just more evidence that Cultural Marxism or whatever has taken over the country. And the "just get your name out there" logic also applies if all you want to do is raise your profile as a defense attorney (who needs to attract clients somehow but can't advertise however he wants).
There's also a decent chance this lawyer is just some retirement-age chud who isn't trying to get anything more out of this than just defending conduct he thinks is good.
EDIT: It's also unlikely that an attorney who just signed on today has had a chance to review all the facts, or that all the facts have even been collected.
EDIT 2: After looking at the tweets, there's a lot of "offered to represent" language and not a lot that suggests he's actually representing anyone yet. A big +1 to the "grifter trying to get attention" column.
Apparently, “This is a clear and cut case of self-defense.”
I mean of course he's going to say that. Doesn't mean it's true.
I had no idea that lawyers could be brazen partisan hacks
Oh, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Look there is a very very good chance that this kid will probably do a lite sentence, but he's probably not going to walk. The legal system is controlled by the Bourgeoisie just as much as the legislature or executive. The question is, does the ruling class really want to grant a license to kill to a bunch of Qanon nutjobs? I'm sure some do, but mostly they don't. They don't like BLM and they want the "radical leftist rioters" to be dealt with but they don't want Randy the Boat Mechanic to be out in the streets blasting people with his AR-15. They know that if this kid gets off scott free there will be armies of chuds in the streets dumping mags into anyone who so much as bucks at them, and that it's liable to escalate to a near civil war once the protestors start shooting back. The ruling class doesn't want a fucking civil war. The DA knows this and the judge knows this, and they have to keep the Bourgeoisie happy.
If I had to guess, they will give him a sentence harsh enough to deter most chuds but lite enough that people don't think he's being crucified. Pulling numbers out of my ass I'm thinking 10-15 years no parole.
I'm not optimistic, I'm just looking at the legal system for what it is: a tool of the Bourgeoisie to keep the proles in line. Our interests basically never align with the Bourgeoisie but they kind of do in this case. If anything, I think most people are being irrational on here thinking that "hellworld" is real and that reality is out to get us. In a case like Zimmerman's, there wasn't a real threat of popular uprising due to his acquittal, but circumstances have changed since then. They know if he's let off things will only get way way worse, and they're already hurting from the massive economic depression we are in. He's not going to get locked up because they care about the protestors or even because the "rule of law". Only because they don't want a civil war.
People get convicted of murder without video evidence all the time, and there are tons of potential witnesses here.
Graduated from representing a dipshit racist to representing a fascist murderer pretty quicjly
