“Bragg, a Democrat, earned his A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, clerked for Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the Southern District of New York, and was a Visiting Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. Alvin is a f…
“Bragg, a Democrat, earned his A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, clerked for Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the Southern District of New York, and was a Visiting Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. Alvin is a former member of the Board of Directors of the New York Urban League and a Sunday School teacher at his church…. In 2017, Eric Schneiderman, then serving as attorney general, appointed Bragg Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. Bragg ran the criminal justice and social justice divisions, overseeing lawsuits brought by the state against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company, and the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 United States Census. He left the position in December 2018 and became a professor at the New York Law School, where he was co-director of the Racial Justice Project. Bragg is a member of the board of directors for the Legal Aid Society. He has represented the families of Ramarley Graham and Eric Garner in civil litigation against New York City.”
Does he sound like a Trumpite? Can we not resort to ridiculous conjecture?
I know nothing about Bragg, and have been dragged backward into defending hypotheses about the man. No.
My objection is to using dismissive words, like "ridiculous" or "makes no sense" when they are not merited.
A "ridiculous" argument is something like, "To save the village, we had to destroy the village," or "Putin's war on Ukraine flows from Putin's deep empathy for the people of Ukraine." THAT makes no sense.
What you are saying here is, "I know things that you apparently do not, and your theory does not fit the facts as I know them." That is VERY different from "ridiculous."
We are living in a time when the former President of the United States was (and still is) a compulsive, manipulative liar, a narcissist who does nothing -- NOTHING -- without expectation of personal gain, who has plausibly committed seditious conspiracy against the government of the US; where at least half of the Senate is in complete thrall to this man; where somewhere between 20% and 50% of the population is in thrall to this man; where corruption is so endemic to our politics, with gerrymandering and redistricting and voter suppression and propaganda, that we cannot fully trust the outcome of our elections.
We are living in a time where John Eastman, an attorney and legal professor with many of the same qualifications you post above, offered up a bogus legal theory to the President to feed said President's paranoia and narcissism, resulting in an attempted coup on the government. That "honorable man" may now be liable for charges of seditious conspiracy.
Sad as it is to say, NO hypothesis that impugns the integrity of any public figure is "ridiculous." It may be "improbable based on the evidence."
It sounds like Bragg has a pretty good pedigree. Thank you for that information. There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.
“There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.” Then you haven’t been reading very closely. Bragg didn’t stop the process. He told the 2 lead attorneys that he was not ready to issue an indictment now because they did not have enough evidence. Many here (including me) have cited news stories explaining what this evidence would be in more detail. The 2 lead attorneys resigned, which may end up stopping the process.
So why did the two leads resign? One, sure: maybe he didn't like the new boss's aftershave. But both?
Clearly they had SOME kind of beef with Bragg, that they didn't have with Vance.
Pretty big beef. They both walked out. Like something big changed. Otherwise, It just don't add up.
Any idea what that might have been? (patting pockets)
Specifically, why did they wait for Vance to leave, if they thought they were not moving forward? They could have bailed under Vance. If they were just pushing a pencil waiting for Vance to leave, then Bragg's statement that they needed "more evidence" would have let them off the hook; no need to resign. If they were both earnestly pursuing a rainbow unicorn under Vance, how is it that Vance and two top attorneys failed to notice that unicorns don't exist until Bragg showed up and told them?
It points to a pretty clear "difference of legal opinion" about what was "enough" at the very least, not just between Bragg and the two leads, but between Bragg and Vance.
Yeah, sure. The new boss wouldn’t support an indictment. After 5 years of their work. The old boss wouldn’t either, after 4 1/2 years of work. If they had a case after 3 years, or after 4 years, Vance could have indicted Trump. He didn’t, which says a lot. Instead he punted it to the new guy. The 2 attorneys quit because they had 5 years invested in the case and it’s hard to admit they fell short. That doesn’t mean the new guy was wrong that their case wasn’t strong enough. What is it about this that you don’t get? Those 2 attorneys worked 5 years to nail Trump. They didn’t pull it off, because it’s impossible to get hard evidence on a shyster like Trump. Doesn’t the fact that they were still trying after 5 years indicate that? How many more years did they need?
Maybe there are some things I don't understand about how the DOJ works, as distinct from ordinary corporate environments. I've worked for years on tech projects, and had them outright canceled over a weekend: the company didn't want to pour any more money into it. Often, it's accompanied by layoffs. If you are retained, and you're unhappy with the inevitable reorg, you start interviewing (quietly) elsewhere, and when you get an offer you like, THEN you let your boss know, "So sorry, but there's an opportunity I can't pass up. It's been a pleasure." Even if the job was really a death march through hell that ended in stupidity and catastrophe, you smile and move on with protestations of good will.
The usual reason a group quits on the spot after a reorg is a bitter argument with the new boss, or with the new corporate direction, or both.
A Trumpite? Do you know anything about the man?
“Bragg, a Democrat, earned his A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, clerked for Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the Southern District of New York, and was a Visiting Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. Alvin is a former member of the Board of Directors of the New York Urban League and a Sunday School teacher at his church…. In 2017, Eric Schneiderman, then serving as attorney general, appointed Bragg Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. Bragg ran the criminal justice and social justice divisions, overseeing lawsuits brought by the state against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company, and the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 United States Census. He left the position in December 2018 and became a professor at the New York Law School, where he was co-director of the Racial Justice Project. Bragg is a member of the board of directors for the Legal Aid Society. He has represented the families of Ramarley Graham and Eric Garner in civil litigation against New York City.”
Does he sound like a Trumpite? Can we not resort to ridiculous conjecture?
Sigh.
I know nothing about Bragg, and have been dragged backward into defending hypotheses about the man. No.
My objection is to using dismissive words, like "ridiculous" or "makes no sense" when they are not merited.
A "ridiculous" argument is something like, "To save the village, we had to destroy the village," or "Putin's war on Ukraine flows from Putin's deep empathy for the people of Ukraine." THAT makes no sense.
What you are saying here is, "I know things that you apparently do not, and your theory does not fit the facts as I know them." That is VERY different from "ridiculous."
We are living in a time when the former President of the United States was (and still is) a compulsive, manipulative liar, a narcissist who does nothing -- NOTHING -- without expectation of personal gain, who has plausibly committed seditious conspiracy against the government of the US; where at least half of the Senate is in complete thrall to this man; where somewhere between 20% and 50% of the population is in thrall to this man; where corruption is so endemic to our politics, with gerrymandering and redistricting and voter suppression and propaganda, that we cannot fully trust the outcome of our elections.
We are living in a time where John Eastman, an attorney and legal professor with many of the same qualifications you post above, offered up a bogus legal theory to the President to feed said President's paranoia and narcissism, resulting in an attempted coup on the government. That "honorable man" may now be liable for charges of seditious conspiracy.
Sad as it is to say, NO hypothesis that impugns the integrity of any public figure is "ridiculous." It may be "improbable based on the evidence."
It sounds like Bragg has a pretty good pedigree. Thank you for that information. There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.
So well said, Joseph!
“There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.” Then you haven’t been reading very closely. Bragg didn’t stop the process. He told the 2 lead attorneys that he was not ready to issue an indictment now because they did not have enough evidence. Many here (including me) have cited news stories explaining what this evidence would be in more detail. The 2 lead attorneys resigned, which may end up stopping the process.
Good Lord, I feel like Columbo. (patting pockets)
So why did the two leads resign? One, sure: maybe he didn't like the new boss's aftershave. But both?
Clearly they had SOME kind of beef with Bragg, that they didn't have with Vance.
Pretty big beef. They both walked out. Like something big changed. Otherwise, It just don't add up.
Any idea what that might have been? (patting pockets)
Specifically, why did they wait for Vance to leave, if they thought they were not moving forward? They could have bailed under Vance. If they were just pushing a pencil waiting for Vance to leave, then Bragg's statement that they needed "more evidence" would have let them off the hook; no need to resign. If they were both earnestly pursuing a rainbow unicorn under Vance, how is it that Vance and two top attorneys failed to notice that unicorns don't exist until Bragg showed up and told them?
It points to a pretty clear "difference of legal opinion" about what was "enough" at the very least, not just between Bragg and the two leads, but between Bragg and Vance.
Or that something else changed.
Preet Bharara said back in July of 2021 that there probably wasn’t a case against Trump, when Cyrus Vance indicted Trump’s accountant but not Trump himself. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/562537-why-trump-probably-wont-be-indicted
Bharara repeated on 3/1 that it’s likely there’s not a strong enough case in his podcast. https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Stay-Tuned-with-Preet-p1018528/?topicId=170223885
“There’s no slam-dunk case without a cooperating witness”, Preet Bharara.
Yeah, sure. The new boss wouldn’t support an indictment. After 5 years of their work. The old boss wouldn’t either, after 4 1/2 years of work. If they had a case after 3 years, or after 4 years, Vance could have indicted Trump. He didn’t, which says a lot. Instead he punted it to the new guy. The 2 attorneys quit because they had 5 years invested in the case and it’s hard to admit they fell short. That doesn’t mean the new guy was wrong that their case wasn’t strong enough. What is it about this that you don’t get? Those 2 attorneys worked 5 years to nail Trump. They didn’t pull it off, because it’s impossible to get hard evidence on a shyster like Trump. Doesn’t the fact that they were still trying after 5 years indicate that? How many more years did they need?
Maybe there are some things I don't understand about how the DOJ works, as distinct from ordinary corporate environments. I've worked for years on tech projects, and had them outright canceled over a weekend: the company didn't want to pour any more money into it. Often, it's accompanied by layoffs. If you are retained, and you're unhappy with the inevitable reorg, you start interviewing (quietly) elsewhere, and when you get an offer you like, THEN you let your boss know, "So sorry, but there's an opportunity I can't pass up. It's been a pleasure." Even if the job was really a death march through hell that ended in stupidity and catastrophe, you smile and move on with protestations of good will.
The usual reason a group quits on the spot after a reorg is a bitter argument with the new boss, or with the new corporate direction, or both.
Thank you for that clarification! :-)
Joseph. I upgraded to BEST POST OF THE DAY.
:-)
I've heard "Trumpite" used to refer to the Trump cultists.