Quote:
|
You're using a lot of words to avoid answering a pretty simple question.
|
No, I'm using a reasonable number to defy your reframing of the issue.
Quote:
|
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Bragg's prosecution of Trump was "political", whatever you mean by that, it's also clear now that Trump did the things that he was accused of, failed to convince the courts that they weren't a crime, and was convicted by a jury.
|
We have all committed numerous crimes in our lives. Humans cannot help but do this, as criminal codes are voluminous and filled with words, and words can be stretched to make all sorts of things into crimes. However, prosecutors do not attempt to prosecute all crimes, particularly novel ones more than 7 years old.
These misdemeanors would not (could not) have been brought except as turned into felonies through what even most anti-Trumpers admit was a stretching of the law.
It is not a defense to prosecutorial abuse/overreach to say, "But I got a conviction!" No shit you got a conviction. Selective prosecution was not allowed as a defense. If it were, Bragg would not have gotten past a motion to dismiss.
Quote:
|
You have conceded that all of the latter was fair.
|
Fairly administered. Merchand and the jury were left with a technically colorable claim that should not have been brought and would not have been brought but for Bragg's political opportunism and lack of ethics, and corruption, and they heard the evidence as limited as it was. Merchand and the jury were the instruments abused in the process as much as Trump was a wrongly abused political target in the process.
Quote:
|
So this is *not* a case where Bragg wasted public resources chasing something that wasn't a crime.
|
Sure he did. How many other cases were his office's resources diverted from to press this naked political hitjob which will provide no benefit to the citizens of NY. How many tax dollars were wasted to tag a 78 year old man with a felony for bookkeeping irregularities while violent crimes in the city went unpunished and unaddressed. Bragg stole that money from the city.
Quote:
|
He spent public resources prosecuting, successfully, something that *was* a crime. What is the Pennsylvania ethics rule that says that a prosecutor should not prosecute an actual crime, one on which he can legitimately convict, because something was "political"? (I'm asking about Pennsylvania rules because I assume you're most familiar with them, but any state will do.)
|
I already told you. The model ethics rules of not only PA but every state that adopts them include a provision against engaging in criminal acts or official corruption. Bragg engaged in time theft for his own benefit. He also violated his oath to fairly administer his office by treating Trump differently than others.
That one can convict - and my statement that Merchand and the jury were fair in administering the trial under the rules and statutes before them is not a concession that it was legitimate (a legitimate trial would have allowed a selective prosecution defense) - does not mean one should prosecute.
A DA can find any political opponent he wants to convict and charge him with some crime if that DA chooses to look hard enough. But DAs (other than Bragg) don't do that. Why? Because it's wrong. It's unethical. It's sleazy. And while the model ethics rules do address such corrupt acts (and the criminal code might as well), no sane person needs to refer to any of those rules to understand that Bragg engaged in a banana republic prosecution.
And your Trump hatred is causing you to defend it. Which is... weird.
