Quote:
|
Not sure what you mean by "political." A DA's job is to prosecute people who commit crimes. Trump did things that were a crime under New York laws, and he was prosecuted. (You just said the trial itself was fair.) That refutes that claim that he was only prosecuted because of who he was. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
|
Incorrect. The DA's job is to exercise discretion and not spend taxpayer money on cases for political gain. The money wasted on the Trump case could have been used in countless other prosecutions of serious criminal acts.
Bragg at the same time he chose to go after Trump was also refraining from prosecuting a number of other crimes, as have many prosecutors in large cities since the pandemic. Look it up.
Bragg abused his discretion for political gain against Trump solely based on who Trump was. It's so obvious that to have to write this seems absurd.
Quote:
|
I'm not impressed by Andrew Cuomo's view on anything much, and am disappointed in you for thinking I might be. Why don't you tell me what Jon Herdman says about the Canadian women's team's use of drones?
|
I don't reply to ad hominems. Now offer your retort to Eli Honig's article.
Quote:
|
Everyone -- everyone -- understands that Trump wants to be above the law. The red/blue divide in this country is whether he should be. So when you tell me the "consensus" is what Republicans think, it makes me think you should get out more. Seriously, no one thinks Trump hasn't been criming. But about half the country, a little less actually, but two-thirds of the Supreme Court, think he should get away with it.
|
That's too dumb and wildly untrue for reply.
Quote:
|
I personally take a different view of what Cannon was up to. I think she was ducking holding any kind of trial until after the election.
|
I can see that. I hadn't considered that. Still, however, doing that is unethical. She has a duty to do her job, not issue bad rulings that make a mess of other ongoing cases and possibly set problematic precedent to make her job easier.
Quote:
|
Serious question -- given that Bragg got the conviction, what is the ethical problem with his decision to charge? If he were a Pennsylvania lawyer, what Pennsylvania ethical rule says he shouldn't have brought the charges?
|
I would say what he did was criminal. He engaged in time theft for political gain, wasting thousands of hours and millions of dollars in state money (wages, experts, investigators, etc.) to engage in a political prosecution to aid his party and himself. He who engages in corruption is in violation of every atty ethics code. Just ask Rudy Giuliani. That Bragg was able to get an indictment and conviction is not exculpatory. The entire exercise was a waste of resources and works against the interest of NY State in maintaining the integrity of its prosecutors and judiciary. By doing what he did, Bragg has made NY appear a state where the prosecutor's office is politicized. By forcing it in front of Merchand, Bragg compelled the Court to endure a process that damages its perceived public integrity.
Bragg is no better in this regard than the fellow who pushed the Duke lacrosse case and lost his license as a result, or Giuliani. The only difference between he and Rudy is that Bragg could get away with what he got away with because the NY law was so poorly written he could offer a theory to the jury based on a predicate act he wasn't even required to divulge!
You might say that's just shrewd exploitation of the law. I think that is a fair defense of Bragg. I might make it as his ethics counsel myself. But I'm not sure it wins anything in the court of public opinion, which now perceives NY to have a crooked prosecutor and biased bench.
