Sheila has covered the Trump assassination attempt, so I’ll just say for now — pending new information — that I don’t think this will be the last attempt before November.

What I am here to talk about is charges against Alec Baldwin being dismissed with prejudice.

Some people see this as the exoneration of Baldwin.

We told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and explained to all comers, in excruciating detail, how Baldwin was not legally responsible to any whit for the shooting on the set of Rust, explaining the safety rules and the chain of culpability using metric fucktons of pixels and internet bandwidth.

Sorry, Aesop; that isn’t what happened. Charges were dismissed for a deliberate Brady violation by prosecution: hiding evidence which defense seemed to believe to be exonerating. Defense had moved for this dismissal, and I find that odd.

Up to now, all the publicly available evidence and forensic reports indicated to me that Baldwin was guilty. Now, suddenly, new evidence appears. Two years after the shooting, a third party turned over some ammunition that he thought might be associated with the case. Without a trial with testimony, I don’t see how it is relevant. It might be, but I don’t know. The case against Baldwin was based on his own — multiple — safety violations; not on where the live ammunition came from. It wouldn’t matter where the live round came from if only Baldwin had followed just one of the four rules.

At opening statements Wednesday, prosecutors alleged Baldwin violated the “cardinal rules of firearm safety” by pointing the prop gun at Hutchins and pulling the trigger.

Assuming it is relevant, I would have thought defense would want to continue the trial and get the actual exonerating testimony on record, along with a formal acquittal. That would clear Baldwin’s name.

Instead, the defense effectively suppressed all the evidence — not just the new ammo evidence but everything else prosecution was prepared to present — themselves, at least so far as the public is concerned. No trial, no evidence presented. If defense actually thought the evidence was overwhelmingly exonerating, why move for dismissal for a Brady violation (something you might do before the trial starts) instead of moving for a directed verdict of acquittal (the normal thing, once a trial in in progress)?

Now Baldwin is going to have to live with having killed a woman, and having everyone look at him and think, You never were acquitted; you forced an end to the trial on a technicality. Why?

For that alone, I imagine a lot of actors and crew will be hesitant to work with Baldwin anywhere in the same county.

[best infommercial voice] But wait! There’s more! Baldwin’s defense:

“This was an unspeakable tragedy, but Alec Baldwin committed no crime. He was an actor, acting, playing the role of Harlan Rust,” attorney Alex Spiro said. “These ‘cardinal rules’ are not cardinal rules on a movie set.”

Would you want to be anywhere near the guy who thinks safety rules don’t apply on set? Not even the film industry’s own safety standards.

I also wouldn’t want to pay the insurance premiums for any film that includes Baldwin. Assuming any film with Baldwin can even get insurance coverage now.