Cmon, you are 100% saying we shouldn't. don't deny it.

The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.

I deny it. I said it was crazy to me, and I said it was wild. There are lots of things that are baffling to me, or inscrutable to me, that I don’t think should be prohibited.

But, like, no one has answered the question I asked. How did you become confident that the allegations are baseless without seeing the allegations? That’s crazy to me.

You’re welcome to do it. It’s a free country, after all. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s rational in some way I don’t understand, or just baseless and overstated speculation.

It seems inherently irrational to me to state the strength of the allegations before we’ve seen the allegations (either meritorious or without merit), but I’ve been wrong before.

So far no one has stepped up and offered an answer to that question though.

> The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.

“Is it a mistake” is an entirely different question from “are the charges meritorious”?

Personally, I think they should be the same question, but lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law.

So, for me “is it a mistake” is a question that we can only start to address once the indictment is unsealed (and fully resolve once evidence by both sides is presented).

It's not the fact its baseless, its the context around it. That's what's crazy. Your irrationality comes from the fact, you are trying to ignore the context around it.

Braggs is case is being criticized heavily from the LEFT and the RIGHT. It is unprecedented and to most of the world similar with banana republics and like reeks of a setup.

You got the New York Post, the New York Times, The Rolling Stone, ABC, Fortune, Slate, The Hill, NBC, National Review, Daily Beast, Politico and more saying this is a bad idea. Don't you wonder why people more familiar with politics who are democrats AND republicans than you think that is ?

So you make America look horrible in the face of - your allies in the elite political circles - your allies internationally - your core base

All the while selling Trump on his ultimate brand as the "Rebel", of which he sells T-shirts off.

You cannot ignore the context around all of this, which weakens America significantly in already trying time as countries around the world are dropping the reserve currency USD and also belief in American Ideals.

Well, I’m not going to apologize for my belief that the rule of law should be based on the facts, the evidence, and the law and not politics.

Your appeal to the authorities of political figures falls on deaf ears for me. I do not give a single flying shit about the political calculus. That’s what makes it a banana republic decision. Nothing about the decision to charge or not charge should be based on politics. So, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Republicans, and fuck Politico. I don’t give a shit about any of their opinions.

Frankly, the appeal to people who know more “about politics” on this topic is anathema to me.

Show me the charges, show me the evidence, and show me the law. Everything else is for the birds.

What I understand from your take is that Trump shouldn't be indicted because that's a bad view for America.

Like... What? Rule of law is completely not considered, at all, Trump should be above the law because he's just too big of a popular figure. That's simply absurd to read.

> lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law.

You seem to be using "special treatment" differently between your sentences. Almost all crimes that get committed do not result in any indictments. Committing to indict if a law was broken is extremely unusual. Observing that a law was broken and then not indicting is the second-most-common case, behind only to failing to observe that a law was broken and then not indicting. Why is the normal case "special treatment" while the very rare case isn't?

By special treatment I'm referring to:

- lots of people want to see Trump indicted come hell or high water. That's special treatment.

- lots of people think Trump shouldn't be indicted, even if he committed a crime, because he's a former President. That's special treatment.

- lots of people think Trump shouldn't be indicted, because it would inflame his base. That's special treatment.

Throw all of that out. Let's deal with the facts and the law.

If the prosecutor thinks they have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, then he should be charged.

If the prosecutor doesn't have the facts, or evidence, or law to support a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, then he shouldn't be charged.

Throw all the politics and "special reasoning" around Trump out. Charge based on the facts, evidence, and law. A declination even if the prosecutor thinks Trump is guilty, but they don't have the evidence to convince a jury isn't special treatment. That's—as you note—a routine declination. But a declination because you're afraid of the political ramifications of an indictment is wrong. Similarly, charging a weak case because you're afraid of the political ramifications of a declination is wrong.

> Throw all the politics and "special reasoning" around Trump out. Charge based on the facts, evidence, and law.

That is not done in other cases. Why is it not "special treatment" to do it to Trump?

> A declination even if the prosecutor thinks Trump is guilty, but they don't have the evidence to convince a jury isn't special treatment. That's—as you note—a routine declination.

That's not what I'm noting. Failing to prosecute is the ordinary case for almost all crimes. It is absolutely routine for nonviolent crimes. So we have a prosecutor that thinks that Donald Trump really is guilty of whatever the charge is, and it's easy to prove it in court.

And the same prosecutor also knows that everyone in the government within three levels of the president really is guilty of very similar crimes, and those would all also be easy to prove in court.

Then he charges Trump and moves on with his life. That's not special treatment?

> That's not special treatment?

I think your hypothetical would be partially special treatment, but I don't think your hypothetical is accurate.

The one way in which it _wouldn't_ be special treatment, is I generally think it's most appropriate to charge top-down. That is, let's say at a company you know three people were all involved in the commission of a crime (maybe embezzlement, that's a popular white collar crime): The CEO, a mid-level manager, and a low-level employee. Assuming all three cases are the same difficulty to charge, and each person has approximately equal responsibility for the criminal acts, but you only have the resources to charge a single case, then I'd think the CEO would be the most appropriate person to charge.

But, assuming the prosecutor _had_ the resources to charge everyone, and only chose to single out one person, then I'd agree that is inappropriate special treatment.

> And the same prosecutor also knows that everyone in the government within three levels of the president really is guilty of very similar crimes, and those would all also be easy to prove in court.

I just...don't think this part is true. Especially the part around "would all also be easy to prove in court." I don't think it's particularly likely that the prosecutor thinks that. Especially given that this is a NY state prosecution, so most people within three levels of the President probably wouldn't have a nexus to NY or be subject to NY state laws.

So, I mostly concede that your hypothetical would be special treatment, but your hypothetical doesn't strike me as particularly likely (note, that it's not impossible, and if you convinced me it was accurate, I'd say we should bring the other charges).