this is an excellent outline of questions to be asked about this case, and the link to turley's analysis is helpful. i have two critical remarks:
1. you asked if this is 'selective prosecution.' selective prosecution is not unlawful, and is not considered unfair. it is, in essence, what prosecutors do. prosecutors decide what kinds of cri…
this is an excellent outline of questions to be asked about this case, and the link to turley's analysis is helpful. i have two critical remarks:
1. you asked if this is 'selective prosecution.' selective prosecution is not unlawful, and is not considered unfair. it is, in essence, what prosecutors do. prosecutors decide what kinds of crimes to prosecute and not prosecute, and where they find crimes, who to prosecute and not prosecute. no law requires prosecutors to prosecute all crimes they detect, or even all crimes they believe they can get a conviction on. likewise, no law requires prosecutors to treat all suspects or defendants equally. they can legitimately discriminate among defendants for many reasons, including a history of offenses, perceived badness, and public perceptions and the effect on crime of prosecuting one defendant rather than another
one thing that prosecutors cannot do is discriminate on the basis of malice. generally this means a case was brought i) without probable cause, ii) motivated by hatred or dislike of the defendant unrelated to the alleged crimes, and iii) the case is resolved in the defendant's favor, including the result of any appeals
as to the first element, there never seemed to be any legal basis for these charges, which you and turley have already covered. in essence, these were made-up crimes invented for the sole purpose of influencing the next presidential election. as to the second element, as you pointed out, prosecutors ran their election campaigns on a get-trump agenda. the idea was if you elect me i will do stuff to trump that will make it hard for him to get reelected. that would seem to be malice. and if it's unlawful, it would also be a violation of NY election law 17-152, and possibly, federal election law. as to the third element, it'll be a while before we know the ultimate disposition of this case
2. you asked repeatedly if the process was fair to an american citizen. all persons tried in american courts are guaranteed due process, and you cant maliciously prosecute an illegal alien any more than you can maliciously prosecute an american citizen, because it's not right, and america stands for what's right. all over the world, people are looking at this trial and verdict and saying, see? when politics are in play, whoever's in can weaponize america's courts against whomever's out just like any banana republic. some better questions would be, is it fair? is this how america's courts operate? is this how any court should operate?
RBX: Thank you for an attorney's perspective. Yes, it seems that a case could be made that the Prosecutor was violating the NY law that he was accusing Trump of doing.
this is an excellent outline of questions to be asked about this case, and the link to turley's analysis is helpful. i have two critical remarks:
1. you asked if this is 'selective prosecution.' selective prosecution is not unlawful, and is not considered unfair. it is, in essence, what prosecutors do. prosecutors decide what kinds of crimes to prosecute and not prosecute, and where they find crimes, who to prosecute and not prosecute. no law requires prosecutors to prosecute all crimes they detect, or even all crimes they believe they can get a conviction on. likewise, no law requires prosecutors to treat all suspects or defendants equally. they can legitimately discriminate among defendants for many reasons, including a history of offenses, perceived badness, and public perceptions and the effect on crime of prosecuting one defendant rather than another
one thing that prosecutors cannot do is discriminate on the basis of malice. generally this means a case was brought i) without probable cause, ii) motivated by hatred or dislike of the defendant unrelated to the alleged crimes, and iii) the case is resolved in the defendant's favor, including the result of any appeals
as to the first element, there never seemed to be any legal basis for these charges, which you and turley have already covered. in essence, these were made-up crimes invented for the sole purpose of influencing the next presidential election. as to the second element, as you pointed out, prosecutors ran their election campaigns on a get-trump agenda. the idea was if you elect me i will do stuff to trump that will make it hard for him to get reelected. that would seem to be malice. and if it's unlawful, it would also be a violation of NY election law 17-152, and possibly, federal election law. as to the third element, it'll be a while before we know the ultimate disposition of this case
2. you asked repeatedly if the process was fair to an american citizen. all persons tried in american courts are guaranteed due process, and you cant maliciously prosecute an illegal alien any more than you can maliciously prosecute an american citizen, because it's not right, and america stands for what's right. all over the world, people are looking at this trial and verdict and saying, see? when politics are in play, whoever's in can weaponize america's courts against whomever's out just like any banana republic. some better questions would be, is it fair? is this how america's courts operate? is this how any court should operate?
DEEP (usurper) STATE stooge tools.
RBX: Thank you for an attorney's perspective. Yes, it seems that a case could be made that the Prosecutor was violating the NY law that he was accusing Trump of doing.