Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So all of the people I know of who’ve been threatened with indictment if they didn’t pay the tax evaded plus stiff penalties (and yes - that’s exactly the quid pro quo offered by the govt… usually they give you 60-90 days to pony up the money) should’ve been prosecuted?
And I guess those prosecutors who offered those deals acted unethically?
You’ve a strange level of comfort with the capriciousness of the system.
|
So, two things, which you keep running together.
First, if someone does crimes, they did crimes, and they should get the consequences. That includes Trump and Biden. Trump committed felonies and he was convicted. The fact that he has a political following doesn't change that.
(If something isn't a crime, and prosecutors entrap someone or suborn perjury, etc., that's different. If Trump should have been able to present a defense and wasn't permitted to, or if the prosecution relied on a novel legal theory that went too far, an appellate court can fix that. That's not prosecutorial conduct, just how the law works. People who don't pay their taxes aren't usually threatened with criminal prosecution but with civil enforcement. That's fine, unless there is something bad faith or abusive about the threats, but you seem to think the threat of prosecution itself is abusive when applied to non-violent crimes.)
Second, every day, prosecutors have to decide which cases to pursue. As you know, I did this for several years. You seem to think with the right kind of defendant -- wealthy, accused of non-violent crime -- that these decisions are presumptively suspect, that the financial crimes unit should go and prosecute violent crimes instead. I tend to think that these decisions are highly fact-intensive and very difficult to second guess unless you are in the room. I also tend to think the prosecutors don't like to waste their time, and don't want to work on cases they won't win, which acts as a check on bringing bad cases. This also may be a bad thing in some instances where prosecutors arguably should be more aggressive to serve the public good, like rape cases and antitrust mergers.
If you want to have a conversation about how prosecutorial discretion is exercised, great. But that discussion does not change the fact that Trump did crimes and was convicted of those crimes in a scrutinized and fair process in which he really failed to offer any kind of meaningful defense. That result, IMO, vindicates the DA from the silly attacks that you are making, because the proof was in the pudding.
