|
NOT HOW THEY TEACH IT IN LAW SCHOOL:
From The New Republic:
Wow, the second-to-last graf of this New York Times piece on the apparently forged CBS/National Guard documents is truly bizarre:
Asked what role Mr. [Bill] Burkett [a suspected source for the CBS story] had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, [Burkett's lawyer] Mr. [David] Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973--which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done"--then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"
Do lawyers for innocent people normally lay out hypotheticals in which their client commits the offense they're accused of, only to dismiss the offense as inconsequential? Your honor, let's suppose, hypothetically, that my client, or anyone else, had sold crack to elementary school children--which my client absolutely has not done--then what difference would it make? For that matter, do lawyers for guilty people do this? Whose side is this guy on?
-Rudey
|
Threaded Mode