Hrekires t1_jdt511z wrote on March 26, 2023 at 11:59 PM

Reply to comment by ImJackieNoff in DA Alvin Bragg’s staffer hangs up on ‘bulls–t’ congressional phone call by Gaytaino

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

ImJackieNoff t1_jdtfqje wrote on March 27, 2023 at 1:26 AM

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?

Hrekires t1_jdtg6f8 wrote on March 27, 2023 at 1:29 AM

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.

ImJackieNoff t1_jdtgth0 wrote on March 27, 2023 at 1:35 AM

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.