Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
|
(1) Not a novel crime, but a crime that is routinely prosecuted in New York.
(2) The long delay was sought by Trump, in part because he was POTUS for much of that time.
(3) Agree that prosecutors do not try to prosecute all crimes, but what you're missing is that most prosecutors prosecute crimes on which they can convict, and not when they can't. The conviction -- and Trump's utter lack of a defense -- shows the prosection was a reasonable of state resources.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The NYC prosecutor I know says you don't know what you're talking about.
If you're right, that's why we have appellate courts.
Quote:
|
It is not a defense to prosecutorial abuse/overreach to say, "But I got a conviction!" No shit you got a conviction.
|
You still haven't explained why this was prosecutorial abuse or overreach. What's the Pennsylvania law that says so?
Quote:
|
Selective prosecution was not allowed as a defense. If it were, Bragg would not have gotten past a motion to dismiss.
|
These two sentences were written by someone who went to law school?
If the trial judge made mistakes of law about the defenses that Trump was entitled to present, that's what appellate courts are for. It doesn't mean the DA was unethical.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Exactly. You agree there was nothing unfair about the trial process, you just think, for reasons you are unable to articulate, that the claims should not have been brought at all. Presented with the evidence that Trump committed a felony, he should have let him walk. ("Orange privilege?")
Quote:
|
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.
|
White-collar crimes are crimes too, and there is a clear benefit to the citizens of New York when felons are convicted. It punishes the felons, and it deters other people from committing felonies.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If that's the best you got, that's the best you got. At least you tried.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Of course, that's not what Bragg did, because Trump actually did something that was a felony under New York law.
Quote:
|
And your Trump hatred is causing you to defend it. Which is... weird.
|
I think it's remarkable that Trump can break that law so often and that so many people, like you, will line up to make excuses for him. Narcissists like Trump are not the problem -- it's his supporters and enablers.
What is weird, except that it's not, is the total dissonance between everything you say about Trump and everything you have ever posted here about Hunter Biden. I have been pretty consistent in my views about those prosecutions, and you ... have not.
