Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ImJackieNoff t1_jdszkcp wrote

I'm not presently a NYC resident, but I was when the hush money payment occurred.

I don't have a valid opinion on whether or not Bragg should do this, as he doesn't work for me. If you live in NYC presently, is this endeavor worth the resources that will go into it considering the alternatives - such as prosecuting other crimes, especially violent crime?

−4

Hrekires t1_jdt511z wrote

Is there evidence that Bragg isn't "prosecuting other crimes, especially violent crime" because of this investigation?

5

ImJackieNoff t1_jdtfqje wrote

Um....that's a weird question, and the answer is so obvious that I'm not sure where to start.

If Bragg's office prosecutes Trump, there will be other crimes they can't prosecute. Bragg's office - like every organization on Earth - has a finite set of resources to use.

If he prosecutes Trump, that prosecution will use way up more resources than the average case. Again, because the resources of the New York DAs office is finite, there will be choices that have to be made as to what to let go and not pursue for lack of resources. They make that choice today.

So, yes, if Bragg prosecutes Trump there will be other cases which can't be prosecuted.

Do you not understand that intuitively without that explanation?

−2

Hrekires t1_jdtg6f8 wrote

It looks from my perspective that Bragg has made choices not to prosecute cases long before this Trump case ramped up, so it feels disingenuous to blame this development for something that had been happening already.

6

ImJackieNoff t1_jdtgth0 wrote

Exactly - every prosecutor across the country every day makes those choices. That's why they plea cases down. It takes a lot of effort to go to a jury trial. If the defendant has a competent lawyer, it takes much much more effort. If the defendant will have a team of lawyers to stall at every turn...it takes that much more.

>so it feels disingenuous to blame this development

I'm not being disingenuous at all, nor blaming anything. I'm pointing out that Bragg has limited resources for a "novel legal theory" against a man with an army of lawyers. There is a good chance that if this prosecution goes forward, it could take literal years and could result in an acquittal.

I've not heard a single legal pundit say this a good case. With all that - is the potential juice worth the monumental squeeze?

What else could a team of four or five lawyers pursue over the course of 2-6 years aside from this? That's the tradeoff.

0

Gaytaino OP t1_jdt0ezh wrote

People here seem to think that Mr. Bragg runs the office alone, have you heard of ADA’s. NYC has a budget like any other city and as a tax paying citizen, I want all crime to be prosecuted.

3

ImJackieNoff t1_jdt1iwl wrote

> have you heard of ADA’s.

Of course, and I don't think anyone thinks it's Bragg that's prosecuting every case himself. You're aware that the DAs office has finite resources, and because those resources are finite they can't prosecute all crime. That's why they have to make deals like offering a lesser charge to get some kind of conviction.

If this moves forward it will be a big use of those finite resources. Surely you understand that prosecuting Trump means those resources aren't prosecuting other crimes.

−1

Crustydonout t1_jdttc45 wrote

Not a problem, crime per Capita is still lower in NYC then IN most other places. If a grand jury decides there is enough evidence for an indictment trump has all the benefits a rich person has to defend themselves.

2

cybersharque247 t1_jdt5wlj wrote

Every high crime must be prosecuted zealously and Trump’s crimes ARE high crimes because if unpunished they will consume our souls.

1

ImJackieNoff t1_jdtj1it wrote

There is a very good point to be made that this is so high profile and publicized that not prosecuting it sends a message that some people because of their status are free from consequences.

2