Nothing Really “New” — Just Well-Said… More Investors On Stand Today…

I’ve been following Wonkette since at least 2002. She is snarky — and almost uniformly spot on, in her manifold writings on political matters. The Wonkster’s morning take, just like the link PathoPhilia provided us in comments last evening (but NSFW), is worth reading — for huge grins.

This morning, she quotes one bit of the transcript, a part that I haven’t seen set forth in as much detail, elsewhere in the MSM — but other than that, regular readers here will garner no new factual information. It is just good fun. [She also nicely echoes, and amplifies, the FTD dressing down of the now dormant “BLMbro” handle — both of you are clearly right about it. Ugly.]

Enjoy — as we await some real time tweeting from the pool reporters, inside the ceremonial courtroom.

Mr. Brafman’s cross-examination of Mr. Blanton (an investor) ought to continue this morning.

Condor’s Take: There may be several longish side-bars, since Mr. Brafman will have to pre-clear the emails he wants to use for impeachment with Judge Matsumoto. All of this because Mr. Brafman did not pre-clear them at the motion in liminae (pre-trial) stage. So trial narrative flow is likely to be interrupted sporadically today.

For his part, Mr. Brafman says he has to hear the witness live to decide how best to impeach him or her — but this is also a way to make the government’s case seem… disjointed, with all the side bars about emails — between Martin Shkreli and Mr. Blanton (or any other government witness/investor). [But it seems Mr. Brafman is intent on also using it to create side-shows — like asking whether this witness felt homosexuality was an abomination against God and the Bible, at the end of the day yesterday. But that issue has zero relevance to anything at all in this criminal case, for securities and wire fraud.

That is — Mr. Brafman must first convince the able judge that the witness is lying (about something germane to this case), then and only then may he introduce at least one or two emails — to confront the witness with his words. But there is no allegation that anyone thinks Mr. Shkreli is gay, so questions about the investor’s views on the matter are… patently irrelevant. And likely to appeal to juror biases.]

Staying away from irrelevant pandering, then, it is an at least marginally-lawful way for the defense to mess with the AUSAs’ “flow” and “mo jo“. . .

Now you know. [Hey — that rhymes! H/T to Pathophilia!]

नमस्ते