What would otherwise be a garden variety criminal matter, with all of the usual imperfections, inequalities, and claims of innocence, is a matter of significance to PAW presumably because of the defendant’s PU and political pedigree. The article notes support from “[a] bipartisan array” of heavy hitters with considerable influence. He has assembled an impressive lineup.
Many real and perceived injustices occur every day (every hour) in our courts, from the current Supreme Court down through the trial courts. The difference here is an inherent financial and political advantage that enable the defendant to tell his version to your audience. The defendant and his story do not deserve special attention. It was a poor editorial decision, tone deaf as to the many unfair advantages of privilege and access.