Alicia's disheartened to hear about Rainey's imprisonment, and promises to circle back once she's had her meeting with Dylan "Bitcoins" Stack about some class action thing he's cooking up -- but not until they've discussed the actual point of this week's episode.
Stack: "Everything okay?"
Alicia: "A client is... Idealistic."
Stack: "Is that a bad thing?"
Alicia: "No! Just it complicates things. Reality isn't idealistic, and when the two of them run into each other, only one of those tends to gets hurt."
Stack: "Maybe it'll be reality this time."
Alicia: "Based on everything that has ever happened that I personally know of, I'm thinking no."
Stack wants to put up a class action suit about prosecutorial overcharging, in the wake of Aaron Swartz's suicide. They hound you and they hound you, for lobbyist-type reasons, and it results in real death. A good cause; a cause that looks reality-versus-idealism in the face: "I'll run it by my partners, but they're not always into causes for causes' sake..."
Stack produces large rubber-banded amounts of cash, right there at the table -- my friend Karen was like "Not even our drug dealer client acts this much like a drug dealer!" -- and Alicia's horrified, covering it up with her napkin, but the point is valid: Causes aren't just for cause's sake, when you have Dylan Stack amounts of cash, which is the other side of the Swartz coin: It was supposed to be about competing ideologies, but the bad guys behind SOPA and PIPA had the money to make it about more than that.
In the next dining room over, Alicia spots the fourth years, still under ringmaster Cary's control, still having their secret angry meetings, and wonders how she's supposed to play that one. There are a lot of things happening today!
Will explains that the anger that fueled the tweet was new: Rainey found out about Princeton that morning, and it brought the whole thing back out, and she flipped. The defense points out that, thanks to the plea, Bratcher's not actually a rapist, and that this Princeton defense of Rainey's actions is another example of bringing things into the case that are not actually in evidence.
Judge: "If the defendant had written a tweet insisting that Rainey was lying, I would be equally angry, and he'd be behind bars. This gag order is, and was, content-neutral."