undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsncallaway3y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

thaumasiotes3y ago

> 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?

ncallawayOP3y ago

> 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).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse