My point in writing these ditties, in addition to shameless self-promotion, is to try to demonstrate how various issues in the news would play out in the world of lawyers.
Author: Craig Platt
Last week the airwaves were a-twitter with talk of a dramatic Memo prepared by Representative Nunes, which would destroy the Mueller investigation.
Then, when it was finally released on Friday, the pundits appeared to be confused. They seemed confused by their own political views as much as anything.
As always, I’ll take a different approach to analyzing “The Memo” business: The “lawyer approach”.
Simply put, there’s such a huge number of new legal topics to pick from these days that it has become impossible to keep up. An embarrassment of riches.
It used to be that interesting legal issues, worthy of comment, came up in the news every week or so. IF we were lucky. Frequently they involved famous sports figures or celebrities behaving badly in unexpected ways.
Now? Celebs barely get the time of day. There is just so much insanity coming out of D.C. in the past year that that the misbehaving superstars get left in the dust.
I grew up fantasizing about killing Nazis. In fact I did that almost every day. We called it “Playing Army”, with real WWII guns and…
It’s been nearly impossible to write blogs over the past year or two. There has been such an embarrassment of riches in terms of legal subject matter in the news. And since January, as we all know if we have working brains, it has been coming so fast and furiously that by the time I have written something it is already old news, replaced by whatever strange goings-on have occurred in the past hour or two.
Used to be that a good legal issue worthy of writing about came up about once a week if you were lucky. Sometimes you would get two or three in one week and have trouble picking out one to focus on. Now they come up two or three times a day.
The “Beauty Queen” Murder Case: I hate it when they call it that.
It really has absolutely nothing to do with the case. But it sure sells “widgets”. It just goes to show you how hard it can be to get a fair trial when the media, especially the silly social media, decides they are experts on something they know nothing about. They are so good at doing that, after all.
Structure and rules, fairly applied, hold our society together. They save us from chaos and injustice.
You can have structure and rules, but without fairness it doesn’t work. Just think Nazi Germany. You can have fairness, but without structure it fails. Woodstock may have been a few days of communal fun, but after a week or two the lack of organization (people crashing without paying, no food, etc.) it would have been an unbearable mess.
Don’t worry. This won’t be another rambler. I realize that last post was a bit tangential. There was a reason for taking that approach; it was an experiment in trying to get people to read it.
As Donald Trump knows well, sometimes making yourself a target of criticism is the best way to get them to pay attention to what you have to say.
And what I had to say last time is, to me at least, critically important. It has to do with understanding, and thus following, established procedures for doing things the right way when it came to bombing Syria.
All-righty then, another legal issue for us in this political nightmare we live in; one I feel that I can comment on in my goal to show how legal analysis comes up every day in regular life, even something as irregular as politics.
At least it’s not controversial or anything.