6 ms·

He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchan

He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.

leereeves 2y ago
Far less than the penalties he would have suffered had he been charged and (inevitably) convicted. The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.
- frumper 2y ago
  Every deal is more lenient than maximum or even typical penalties. Why else would people take them if not?
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Why offer a deal at all? The usual reason is to save money, but that wasn't a concern in that huge everlasting investigation of Clinton.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      It was 2001, Clinton was leaving office, Bush was entering. They didn't need a prosecution of a former president on their hands. They had just assumed the White House after losing the popular vote, people were bitter about the whole 2000 election to begin with. There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished. I mean, it took years to badger the DOJ into prosecuting Trump for waging an insurrection when he was on his way out. Honestly Trump would have gotten the same treatment as Clinton if he hadn't gone apeshit at the end. He wouldn't have a Federal indictment or a Georgia indictment. The other Florida indictment wouldn't have happened if he would have just returned everything he had taken instead of lying about it for a year and trying to hide it. The two NY cases would have resulted in a fine and community service if he had just kept his mouth shut and shown a little contrition.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        > There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished. Yeah, just like now, the goal is to damage Trump politically. That's exactly what people mean when they say the prosecution is politically motivated.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        No, in this case the crime was known about since 2018, and it was prosecuted because it was a serious crime. Someone went to jail for it already and they were prosecuted by the Trump administration. Hard to call this political when this case was first prosecuted by a Republican AG. In the case of Clinton the entire “crime” was that he lied in the process of a political investigation into him which, ultimately we know today, had absolutely no legitimate basis whatsoever, as they ultimately found no crime aside from the one they induced. Today Republicans call this a “process crime” and they view it as foul play, presumably because they run that playbook themselves and know how dirty it is. Today his conduct is a matter of course for Republicans — AG Jeff Sessions lied before Congress and wasn’t prosecuted. So really kvetching about Clinton at this point is ancient history and water under the bridge. Again I ask you, point to something concrete which shows Bragg is a political operative instead of an independent DA. I’ll wait.
        leereeves 2y ago
        > Again I ask you, point to something concrete which shows Bragg is a political operative instead of an independent DA. I’ll wait. By his own admission, Bragg sued over 100 times to block Trump's policies. That's over 100 times he acted like a political operative instead of an independent (in the political sense) DA. How much more proof do you need?
        ModernMech 2y ago
        That's not an "admission" that's a statement of fact which is his record. But let me get this straight. Those 100+ cases were brought while Bragg was working as Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. I'm not exactly sure what the Chief Deputy AG role is, but clearly he wasn't a director. Either way, how does working as and fulfilling the role of Deputy AG for the state of NY make him a political operative? It's not a political role in the least. Those 100+ cases were DACA and immigration cases, so they were for NY citizens and constitutions, not political investigations into Trump. Frankly, I think you have a definition of "political operative" so broad that it includes every Democrat. That's not the standard we run things on. Democrats only investigating Democrats and Republicans only investigating Republicans is not how you arrive at accountability. What proof I'm looking for is Bragg campaigning on the idea that he would "go after" Trump, as people keep saying. Him stating a fact of his past that he did these prosecutions in his role as Deputy AG is not that. Despite you trying to paint him as biased, he had actually said many times he will follow the facts and won't prejudge the case. Also, crucially (and I don't know why this is continually glossed over) he did not even bring the case to begin with -- it was brought by Cy Vance. Bragg actually received great flak from Democrats for not acting with more alacrity, which is what you would have expected if he were out to "get" Trump. By the time Bragg was elected the case was already before a grad jury. So this whole demonization of Bragg misses the mark entirely.

leereeves 2y ago

Far less than the penalties he would have suffered had he been charged and (inevitably) convicted. The question wasn't what the deal was, but why the prosecutor would offer such a sweet deal.

frumper 2y ago
Every deal is more lenient than maximum or even typical penalties. Why else would people take them if not?
- leereeves 2y ago
  Why offer a deal at all? The usual reason is to save money, but that wasn't a concern in that huge everlasting investigation of Clinton.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    It was 2001, Clinton was leaving office, Bush was entering. They didn't need a prosecution of a former president on their hands. They had just assumed the White House after losing the popular vote, people were bitter about the whole 2000 election to begin with. There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished. I mean, it took years to badger the DOJ into prosecuting Trump for waging an insurrection when he was on his way out. Honestly Trump would have gotten the same treatment as Clinton if he hadn't gone apeshit at the end. He wouldn't have a Federal indictment or a Georgia indictment. The other Florida indictment wouldn't have happened if he would have just returned everything he had taken instead of lying about it for a year and trying to hide it. The two NY cases would have resulted in a fine and community service if he had just kept his mouth shut and shown a little contrition.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      > There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished. Yeah, just like now, the goal is to damage Trump politically. That's exactly what people mean when they say the prosecution is politically motivated.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        No, in this case the crime was known about since 2018, and it was prosecuted because it was a serious crime. Someone went to jail for it already and they were prosecuted by the Trump administration. Hard to call this political when this case was first prosecuted by a Republican AG. In the case of Clinton the entire “crime” was that he lied in the process of a political investigation into him which, ultimately we know today, had absolutely no legitimate basis whatsoever, as they ultimately found no crime aside from the one they induced. Today Republicans call this a “process crime” and they view it as foul play, presumably because they run that playbook themselves and know how dirty it is. Today his conduct is a matter of course for Republicans — AG Jeff Sessions lied before Congress and wasn’t prosecuted. So really kvetching about Clinton at this point is ancient history and water under the bridge. Again I ask you, point to something concrete which shows Bragg is a political operative instead of an independent DA. I’ll wait.
        leereeves 2y ago
        > Again I ask you, point to something concrete which shows Bragg is a political operative instead of an independent DA. I’ll wait. By his own admission, Bragg sued over 100 times to block Trump's policies. That's over 100 times he acted like a political operative instead of an independent (in the political sense) DA. How much more proof do you need?
        ModernMech 2y ago
        That's not an "admission" that's a statement of fact which is his record. But let me get this straight. Those 100+ cases were brought while Bragg was working as Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. I'm not exactly sure what the Chief Deputy AG role is, but clearly he wasn't a director. Either way, how does working as and fulfilling the role of Deputy AG for the state of NY make him a political operative? It's not a political role in the least. Those 100+ cases were DACA and immigration cases, so they were for NY citizens and constitutions, not political investigations into Trump. Frankly, I think you have a definition of "political operative" so broad that it includes every Democrat. That's not the standard we run things on. Democrats only investigating Democrats and Republicans only investigating Republicans is not how you arrive at accountability. What proof I'm looking for is Bragg campaigning on the idea that he would "go after" Trump, as people keep saying. Him stating a fact of his past that he did these prosecutions in his role as Deputy AG is not that. Despite you trying to paint him as biased, he had actually said many times he will follow the facts and won't prejudge the case. Also, crucially (and I don't know why this is continually glossed over) he did not even bring the case to begin with -- it was brought by Cy Vance. Bragg actually received great flak from Democrats for not acting with more alacrity, which is what you would have expected if he were out to "get" Trump. By the time Bragg was elected the case was already before a grad jury. So this whole demonization of Bragg misses the mark entirely.