Alec Baldwin’s recent contrived and staged interview with George Stephanopoulos was designed to give the incarnation of Jack Ryan and Jack Donaghey a decent public relations turnaround. It didn’t succeed, as his poor me act fooled nobody. But worse for Baldwin, the interview may have negative legal implications.
FNC: “Legal experts believe Alec Baldwin should have given his televised interview a second thought before speaking out.
On Thursday night, the actor gave his first sit-down since the Oct. 21 shooting on the set of the Western film ‘Rust.’ The 63-year-old told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he did not pull the trigger on a prop gun he was holding on a New Mexico film set when it went off, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Authorities have said Baldwin was told the gun was safe to handle but continue to investigate how a live round ended up in the weapon.”
The Alec Baldwin shooting and subsequent interview is one the of the most sickening modern examples of how Hollywood protects predators.
Full-scale attempt by the media to try to rewrite the tragedy to convince the masses that Alec is the true victim.
How positively despicable?
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) December 3, 2021
“Alec Baldwin is clearly devastated by the tragic accidental killing of Ms. Hutchins,” attorney Rachel Fiset said. “He likely feels compelled to speak publicly as a result, and he is sympathetic at times as it relates to the trauma he is experiencing. He is trying to direct the narrative in a way that shifts blame for this tragedy away from him. [However], it is never a good idea to speak publicly during an active investigation and this case is no different.
“Any statements made on television during an investigation could result in unintended admissions that could be used against him later at trial or could prejudice the prosecutor against him,” Fiset pointed out. “If statements relating to facts turn out to be disproved, it will hurt his credibility with law enforcement or at trial. His admissions that someone is to be blamed – but not him – could also potentially be used against him later in either a civil or criminal case if it is determined that he had some responsibility for set safety as a major producer of the film.”
“It is understandable why Alec Baldwin desires to explain to the press his perception of the events and attempt to control the narrative surrounding the tragic death of Halyna Hutchins,” attorney Molly Mauck opined. “There is, however, risk to speaking before all the facts are known, or the investigations are complete. Any statements Mr. Baldwin makes may later be used against him in any potential civil or criminal case stemming from this incident. Similarly, any variations in his accounts of the incident could be later characterized as material inconsistencies and used to attack his credibility at trial.
“Baldwin says he didn’t pull the trigger, but that doesn’t absolve him from civil and potential criminal liability,” she explained. “Baldwin’s finger should have been nowhere near the hammer or the trigger, even if we are to believe the gun misfired. Nor should Baldwin ever point a firearm at another human being, even if cinematographer Halyna Hutchins told him to and he believed it wasn’t loaded or had blanks.”
“From a legal perspective, Baldwin’s interview was a mistake,” attorney Neama Rahmani said. “His statements can and will be used against him in the civil lawsuits and any potential criminal prosecution. And Baldwin’s attorneys can’t use the interview to help him because his answers are hearsay. At best, the interview was a calculated public relations move that may backfire.”