Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits.
Similarly the DOJ looked at the Trump hush money case and declined to prosecute.
Campaign finance laws in the US are a land mine and need reform. There is too much prosecutorial discretion and not enough clarity for people to know whether they are breaking the law. Campaign finance laws have become a way to fish for a crime against political enemies.
To wit: Bragg actively campaigned for his position promising to investigate Trump.
Rule of law should be about observing and then prosecuting crimes, not about spending years and millions investigating people looking for a crime that they committed.
But I'd still say that we need to see more details of the case than have been released yet before drawing any conclusions.
We haven't seen the indictment yet so it may be well justified but the scuttlebutt so far does not seem to strongly indicate that.
> Degree of severity and attempts to conceal a crime are both considered serious factors in punishment a crime merits.
Which do you consider a more direct violation of campaign finance law with direct intent to benefit a campaign?
1. Paying a lawyer to pay a woman to not speak about an elicit affair from a decade prior.
2. Paying a lawyer to pay a private investigator to compile a negative dossier about your political opponent in the, at the time, current US general election.
Maybe reflect then on why one campaign settled a law suit, and Trump is being indicted at the moment, if again, neither is actually illegal under campaign finance law.
Hint: it's legal to pay for opposition research, but a violation to not disclose that you're doing it.
It's also legal to pay for an NDA, but not legal for the NDA to be created by direction of one's private lawyer, and then subsequently to use campaign finances to reimburse and list bonuses to that lawyer for legal services they never rendered to the campaign.