Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Trump is unpopular in NY. Bragg wanted office in NY. He said what the crowd wanted to hear.
Also, once in office, like any other ambitious DA, Bragg decided to run with a case which Vance had slow-played to the point where it was past all credibly applied statutes of limitation.
Nobody else would be prosecuted for it.
The law in the case was a joke. It was a poorly written statute that allowed Bragg to turn a misdemeanor into a felony and thereby extend the SOL using a Rube Goldberg theory involving a predicate federal violation (the feds never prosecuted or even fined Trump for, BTW) which was not even articulated until after the trial had already started!
Because the feds passed on it, indicating the credible prosecutors who wisely declined to engage in abusive and unethical practices didn't see any reason to bring it. And they, unlike a tinpot state DA, know better what ought to be done, rather than what one might "get away with" by perversion of the intent of a law in a ludicrously biased forum.
Every litigator has won lots of money bringing claims for which people were not entitled to recovery if equity and actual fairness were the measures by which cases were judged. But "the law allows it so..." we're "ethically" protected.
"Ethics" as applied to lawyers is an absurdist derangement of the term.
Did it screw up here? No. And you've got nothing to suggest otherwise.
Eli Honig nailed it. Find some way to respond to his critique and maybe you'll have a point.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2...y-alvin-bragg/
It's cleverly worded to allow for the argument that he's being fair while clearly stating, "I'm going after Trump":
"I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times... So I know that work."
"I’m the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump. I was the chief deputy in the attorney general’s office. We sued the Trump administration over 100 times, for the Muslim travel ban, for family separation at the border, for shenanigans with the census. So, I know how to litigate with him. I also led the team that did the Trump Foundation case. So, I’m ready to go wherever the facts take me, and to inherit that case. And I think it’d be hard to argue with the fact that that’d be the most important, most high-profile case, and I’ve seen him up front and seen the lawlessness that he could do." |
Watching you make all of these different arguments is a little like reading a losing appellate brief throw spaghetti against the wall in the hope that something will stick.
There are obvious reasons why Trump didn't face federal prosecution for the conduct that got him convicted in NY (although note that a Trump-led DOJ put Michael Cohen in prison for his participation in the same scheme, and Cohen was working for Trump, which completely undercuts everything you are saying).
On the merits, or lack thereof, of the state-law theory, I'm going to have to ask you explain to me what you think Honig's best points are, because I can't read that article behind the paywall.
As to what Bragg said, he actually said something pretty appropriate -- that he was qualified and would go wherever the facts take him. You are reading between the lines, which is to say that you are pretending he said something he didn't.
