Replies

First, it was Cyrus Vance, Jr in 2017. Not Bragg. Bragg took over the office in 2021 and initially, to many Freeper’s delight, off the table. However, could Trump have stood trial in 2017-2021? A state trial vs federal. But I agree it should have been brought as soon as possible and maybe even a handoff from Vance to Bragg. However Trump was applying the brakes as soon as it was brought back from the dead. And we know he quickly announced his canadacy when the feds were looking serious and has been applying the brakes anyway possible. I’ve always taken the position, whether it’s Trump or Hunter or Joe, quickly have a trial to show your innocence. If this is simple knock it out of the ballpark as Turley, Levin, Dersh and Jarret claim it is why delay it?

First, it was Cyrus Vance, Jr in 2017. Not Bragg.

I know. I didn't name names, I only said "the prior Manhattan DA looked at it and passed."

I’ve always taken the position, whether it’s Trump or Hunter or Joe, quickly have a trial to show your innocence.

That's your prerogative. As a legal strategy, I've always said that a defendant should take full advantage of his rights of due process (if he can afford it), because as we're seeing now in this and in Engeron's case, one cannot take it for granted that the court has the best interests of justice at heart.

Courts have ruled that a jury cannot imply any criminal guilt by a defendant taking advantage of his constitutional rights.

I think it's better to maximize one's chances of letting the adversarial process play out to its fullest than to fast track a trial and risk missing something, or letting the state withhold exculpatory evidence, or even finding new evidence like the email from Archives about the boxes of documents, etc.

If this is simple knock it out of the ballpark as Turley, Levin, Dersh and Jarret claim it is why delay it?

I believe that nothing is ever as simple as it may first appear, especially when the Democrats are involved. That's why Republicans get rolled all the time. They don't have that devious streak in them that causes them to think up the things that Democrats constantly do to them.

I'd put these Trump trials in that bucket. Who would have thought just how far the New York City Democrat Machine would push the city's judicial system to the brink by bringing undefined charges against a former President, not telling him what the specific underlying crime is until after his defense rests, and then the Democrat judge telling the jury they don't have to agree on what underlying crime brings these dead misdemeanors back to life? New York is becoming the laughing stock of jurisprudence just to get Trump.

-PJ