Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(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.
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.
You still haven't explained why this was prosecutorial abuse or overreach. What's the Pennsylvania law that says so?
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.
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?")
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.
If that's the best you got, that's the best you got. At least you tried.
Of course, that's not what Bragg did, because Trump actually did something that was a felony under New York law.
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.
|
I’ll address the rest elsewhere, but I must correct the suggestion I am fine with the prosecution of Hunter Biden.
That case is exactly the same as Trump’s. He’d never have been prosecuted for either of the crimes (tax or gun) but for his last name. The prosecution was despicable on the part of the prosecutors and those in the Biden administration who allowed it for political cover.
I fully expect Joe to pardon him, as he should. And hopefully apologize to him for bowing to opportunistic Republicans who convinced him and his handlers they had to serve Hunter to the wolves to support the argument the Trump cases weren’t political.
Now tell me (as one who’s defended criminal tax and gun cases, albeit long ago) why the Hunter case is justifiable.
ETA: I suspect you’re conflating my position that the laptop was real (it is) and the media’s and internet platforms’ squashing it (with the help of corrupt intelligence officers organized to write a letter by Blinken) indefensible with a belief Hunter’s tax and gun cases were valid.
