Quote:
|
That's not a fact. It's an opinion that you keep repeating, with basing the facts which led you to it. What facts are those? I would like to know, in part because I can't figure out what you mean by "political."
|
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.
Quote:
|
Great. So we agree that there is a form of prosecutorial abuse which you don't think was involved in Bragg's prosecution of Trump. I'm still trying to figure what you did think was abusive about it.
|
Nobody else would be prosecuted for it.
Quote:
|
No, that's not the same at all. Trump was found guilty on the exact charges for which he was indicted. Not, "he was guilty of something." Rather, he was guilty of the exact thing he was charged with, and he had no defense.
|
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!
Quote:
|
Given that the charges had to do with funneling hush-money payments around a federal election, why is it any surprise that the predicate act would involve federal campaign law?
|
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.
Quote:
|
You seem to think it was unethical for Bragg to advance a legal theory you disagree with, as if there weren't courts involved making legal rulings.
|
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.
Quote:
|
The FEC routinely fails to enforce law, for reasons that are no secret.
|
Did it screw up here? No. And you've got nothing to suggest otherwise.
Quote:
|
Again, one difference here is that I have been told by NY prosecutors that Bragg's legal theory was not creative or unprecedented, and your views are shaped by, well, other stuff.
|
Eli Honig nailed it. Find some way to respond to his critique and maybe you'll have a point.
Quote:
|
Facts, please. What did Bragg say?
|
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."
Threaded Mode