You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_jdrechi wrote



grubas t1_jds3hov wrote

Don't forget the absolutely INSANE federal overreach. The lower house of a bicameral legislature is pestering a DA over a case that doesn't involve federal laws, or a sitting or even former member of the house.

But a grand jury looking into systemic sexual abuse? Nah. That's ridiculous.


The_CerealDefense t1_jdrjp4e wrote

That staffer and their office has no jurisdiction there. It’s all for show.


Gaytaino OP t1_jdrjvno wrote

Yeah republicans are all for state rights until it’s inconvenient.


The_CerealDefense t1_jdrkvsg wrote

I think if the case was opposite you’d have Dems calling instead.

It’s just for show, nothing else.


Gaytaino OP t1_jdrm7k3 wrote

Oh you’re one of those both sides guys.


sutisuc t1_jdsws7k wrote

Both sides tried to overthrow a democratically elected government right? Right?


Gaytaino OP t1_jdsx53t wrote

Well they did try to blame Antifa, so I wouldn’t doubt that there’s MAGAts that still believes that.


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdsus3c wrote

Your argument doesn’t invalidate the truth of this opinion


LurkerTroll t1_jdtdo0d wrote

There is no truth as it's never happened


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdtjjkz wrote

Both sides suck. Still don’t change the truth of their opinion. It is as shitty an argument as one could come up with, and you just tried it again


LurkerTroll t1_jdtkgdq wrote

You're welcome to provide evidence instead of arguing non-existent hypotheticals in your head


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdtsa6i wrote

The response was “oh you’re one of those both sides guys”. There was nothing more. That in and of itself is a shit argument that proves nothing, and you agreed with it, which makes your argument shit.
but, since you want evidence you can look at Hillary Clinton, paid a fine for the exact same thing they’re trying to nail Trump for just replace a porn star with people giving her campaign bogus info on Russian ties for Trump.

Both sides suck, you can play this game all day, it’s just moronic to even think the dems are any better than the reps.


LurkerTroll t1_jdtvoz9 wrote

I'm going to side with the team that doesn't ban books, doesn't deny the results of an election, and doesn't have Nazis and KKK members siding with them. If you think this applies to both sides then you need to get your head checked


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jduu0d2 wrote

Lol, you asked for proof and then when given some evidence you just change to something else. Again, a low quality argument. None of what you said is actually true though.


LurkerTroll t1_jduw3le wrote

You're obviously delusional for thinking so.


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jduwosq wrote

Delusion is asking for some evidence and then when provided just calling names. Nazis and KKK members? You realize the Democrat party elected an actual KKK leader, right?


LurkerTroll t1_jduxb2g wrote

It's almost like things change over time. You realize they only show up for one political party now right?


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jduypg8 wrote

The Democrats elected one of his biggest supporters, Joe Biden. You realize as much as you think things change, they really don't. Both sides suck, quit being a jackass.


LurkerTroll t1_jduz7ge wrote

I've never seen KKK or Nazis at a Biden rally, Trump on the other hand ...

There's no other reason than being dense to think both sides are the same.


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdv3hbf wrote

I think I would be more concerned with KKK supporters in the government (see Biden and Hillary Clinton) than a small fringe voting block.

Again, let me make this simple for you since this is obviously what you need, BOTH SIDES SUCK!


LurkerTroll t1_jdv72qf wrote

You're welcome to provide evidence that they support the KKK.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong they are. Dems aren't perfect but by far they are the ones enacting policy that benefit the most people.


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdvgd7c wrote

I provided you with evidence earlier and you ignored it. Why would I do it again? They elected a leader of the KKK, Hillary and Biden (among many others) called him a friend. It is indisputable. The Democrats are the party of slavery, it is in their history. It is their lineage.


LurkerTroll t1_jdvwyli wrote

Like I said, it's like things change over time. Republicans used to root for unions. Democrats are the ones taking down confederate monuments. It's shocking how little you understand or just choose to be with willfully ignorant on politics


[deleted] t1_jdvyawv wrote



nyc-ModTeam t1_jdvyl65 wrote

Rule 1 - No intolerance, dog whistles, violence or petty behavior

(a). Intolerance will result in a permanent ban. Toxic language including referring to others as animals, subhuman, trash or any similar variation is not allowed.

(b). No dog whistles.

(c). No inciting violence, advocating the destruction of property or encouragement of theft.

(d). No petty behavior. This includes announcing that you have down-voted or reported someone, picking fights, name calling, insulting, bullying or calling out bad grammar.


The_CerealDefense t1_jdrmjlw wrote

No. Not at all. But you gotta recognize that these guys are all about the show. That’s how the system works for everyone. Everyone needs their sound bites, clips, PR, stance, etc. Its showmanship at a circus not reality.


3little_Winklers t1_jdrx63j wrote

How dare you make a cogent point! /s

It’s all theatre. I vote democrat and I think if Republicans got their way we’d live in a dystopian Police state, but it’s the same tactics on both sides. Your getting downvoted just shows that the tactics are effective.


savageo6 t1_jds6euy wrote

Such a stupid argument, the GOP has done shit at the state and city level where they have legislative and judicial control. That the federally elected democratic government fundamentally disagrees with say voter ID laws. But you didn't have Democratic reps calling DAs or state legislature to piss and moan and say they have the right to stop it. Because they don't, they appeal the rulings to the higher courts. This is fascists covering for their fascist leader to save face until they see which way the primaries break. Then the rats will swim to the ship that isn't sinking like all of the Ted Cruz lackeys did in 2016


NYCFIO t1_jdssl7h wrote

If it’s so clear to you all that democrats are all good and republicans are all bad and there’s never any nuance then we certainly shouldn’t need elections, right? Sounds like there’s really no point from your perspective. We have good guys (democrats) and bad guys (republicans) so why do we even bother with elections? Why don’t we just assert our moral righteousness and clear away any friction as necessary so we can achieve our societal goals of tolerance, equality, and freedom of (certain acceptable) expression? Since democrats never engage in tribalism or partisan political theater, I would be quite happy to just hand the reins over to whichever cuomo relative’s turn it is to bleed us dry to their benefit in light of all your conviction; so inspiring /s

There’s a difference between centrism and just being honest that these hyper-intense, dogmatic political loyalties are obviously not it. The world is too complex. Different politicians across all kinds of systems with different parties and ideological landscapes engage in similar tactics in similar situations. You can argue about the degree and who is worse and insist that your team is the less bad cheater if you think that kind of feckless discussion has a point (“at least the blue guys spit on theirs before shoving it up my ass!”) It is truly terrifying to see how stubbornly and ignorantly dogmatic so many of you are and it is abundantly clear where that self righteous stupidity and willful ignorance/arrogance is taking us. You’re all just mouth shitting what you think you’re supposed to say and it’s truly tragic.


Xendarq t1_jdstndk wrote

If you had even an iota of self awareness you'd see that you're engaging in classic whataboutism, as unproductive an argument as is possible to make.


NYCFIO t1_jdsue09 wrote

Help me understand how what I’ve said is whataboutism. It is literally a criticism of whataboutism.

If you are a politician who breaks the law, you should be prosecuted. If someone in a party is being legitimately prosecuted, others in that party shouldn’t interfere. Period. Both parties have done it. I don’t care which is worse because in any event it falls below the threshold of what is acceptable.


RayseApex t1_jdt0lic wrote

> If someone in a party is being legitimately prosecuted, others in that party shouldn’t interfere. Period. Both parties have done it.



NYCFIO t1_jdt2h4s wrote

If you actually need a source to believe something very much qed, then you’ll obviously just reject whatever source is put in front of you, further entrenching your childish heuristic. Also, if you actually have a sincere interest in determining whether there are instances of democrats interfering in prosecutions of democrats, you can look yourself or enroll in a U.S. history course of some kind since that is all it would really take. But you don’t and so an argument is futile. You’ve reached your conclusion and the threshold to change that doesn’t exist. I’m an experienced debater against authoritarians and know you’re tricks!

You’ve all wasted a bunch of time responding to a person who thinks this view you all hold that being loyal to something slightly less unacceptable (though part of the same broken machine) somehow gives you a moral high ground is moronic; you’re sinking time and text into a person who thinks you are actively lying to and deluding yourself for bullshit feel good points. I posted so that the other people whose jaws were dropping as they scrolled through just how simpleminded, irrational, hypocritical, and gullible your points are know that there are other sane people out there willing to embrace the downvotes of the hive mind and call out the infantile stupidity for what it is. I’m not even American lol.


RayseApex t1_jdt2mqq wrote

> then you’ll obviously just reject whatever source is put in front of you,

Brother, have you tried simply putting a source in front of me? You typed all that shit out (that I’m not gonna read) when I simply asked you to provide a source. One source.


NYCFIO t1_jdt4pc4 wrote

You are not asking for a source in good faith, but for fun I’ll let you waste some time explaining to me why Nancy pelosi shouldn’t have been charged for insider trading or maybe how Ted Kennedy ended up with a suspended sentence for murdering someone. But I have zero respect for you because you would line me up against a wall and put a bullet in my head for not failing in line. Your brain is broken and it’s not my job to fix it.


RayseApex t1_jdt50dc wrote

> You are not asking for a source in good faith,

My only comment in this entire thread was me asking for a source so I’d love to know how you came to that conclusion…

> I’ll let you waste some time explaining to me why Nancy pelosi shouldn’t have been charged for insider trading or maybe how Ted Kennedy ended up with a suspended sentence for murdering someone.

This is what I was asking for, just a more verifiable source…


[deleted] t1_jdt6prz wrote



RayseApex t1_jdt6t3s wrote

That was after I asked for a source and you wrote a goddamn novel instead of just sending me a link or two like I asked… and that only applied to your novel, I read your previous paragraph and I’m still confused as to how you know so much about me based on me asking for a source.


NYCFIO t1_jdt75um wrote

It took me 3 minutes to write. It’s not a novel, you’re just outmatched.


RayseApex t1_jdt7jo3 wrote

It’s called hyperbole.

> you’re just outmatched.

I was unaware this was a competition..


NYCFIO t1_jdt7g6e wrote

A link or two lol??? You’re a dud, pal.


RayseApex t1_jdt7mi9 wrote

Yes.. I would’ve happily looked at a few links to verify what you were saying..


NYCFIO t1_jdt8q0d wrote

Re- read this back. I said you’d wack a mole if I engaged and that’s what you’re doing. Google is your friend. Then you don’t have to trust (and you can’t just dismiss) my sources. I have you two of the most obvious and basic examples. Google them and actually do something diligent on your own if you give a half a fuck. If you don’t give a shit and have no room to change your opinion (I.e. asking for a source in bad faith) then you’d do exactly what you’re doing right now.

It is the exception to the rule when parties DONT interfere with their people being investigated.

Here’s a big federal list. If you were sincere in wanting to answer the question “have democrats interfered with investigations of democrats?”, you can use your own brain and your own judgement by googling these instances yourself. I am not credible to you and therefore the more productive approach is to just give you instances. But you don’t have a sincere interest in answering the question, you already know the answer is “no”, and you’ve demonstrated that here just as anticipated.


RayseApex t1_jdt9bqj wrote

> I said you’d wack a mole if I engaged and that’s what you’re doing.

No, you said I wouldn’t take your sources in good faith. You’ve yet to provide a source.. I’m still only interacting in hopes that you do.

> Google is your friend.

Surely you realize that it would be a biased google search, right? I’m asking you to provide me with information outside the echo chamber I’m trying to avoid. Yet here you are arguing with me about whether or not I’m engaging in good faith when all I did was ask for a source for your claims.

> If you were sincere in wanting to answer the question “have democrats interfered with investigations of democrats?”,

I didn’t ask that question, just give me a source to support your claims.


RayseApex t1_jdt9nor wrote

I hate when people edit comments after I respond already…

I didn’t ask for a list of convicted politicians, I asked for a source that proves Democrats interfered in the prosecution of another Democrat. If I’m as biased as you think I am then why don’t you think my google search would be biased?


NYCFIO t1_jdtaxaq wrote

You are truly not comprehending anything going on in this conversation. And I didn’t edit anything after you responded - certainly no material edits. I forgot to actually include the link the first time, that’s it and I added within 30 seconds; not sure what you’re suggesting there since you haven’t even attempted to articulate it. At this point your insincerity (or maybe you’re just really really dumb or very young) is confirmed.


RayseApex t1_jdtbcge wrote

Are we having the same conversation? Because I simply asked for a source and have yet to receive one.

I have no point to articulate because I only just wanted a source, I’m not here to “dunk on you” or some shit. I just wanted to read more about the shit you were saying from some source other than a Reddit commenter. You made this a whole thing because from the start you assumed I wasn’t “on your side.”

I have ZERO comments on this topic or on this post aside from me asking you for a source.


savageo6 t1_jdsukgd wrote

That there is some exemplary self fellating projection.

So as someone else in this thread mentioned...both sides bad right? So you can just jabber on from the sidelines bitching about how everyone is trying to fuck all of us and do absolutely nothing about it.

Because my friend the truth is you nor I can't do a fucking thing about it. It's too deep into people who have pockets and influence deeper than either of us will likely ever truly know.

Are they both fucking people over to get theirs absolutely. But I also live in the real world outside your dystopian soliloquy. Our choice is between the GOP full of literal white supremacist christo fascists funded by fundamental billionaires who want everyone in the world to be subservient to them and have zero rights to be who they are or do what we want unless we're in their club, which we will never be.

Or the Democrats, now a right of center party full of old as fuck white dudes who want to maintain their status quo power funded by the largest corporations. They don't want to shake the boat and quickly suppress anybody even in their party who they see as that. But generally they let people go about their lives and have implemented some generally good social platforms in the past. Is the same corruption and bullshit there absolutely. But there's at least a slight glimmer of potential progress. There isn't anywhere else outside of violently tearing it ALL down and hoping whatever survives is an improvement.

So I support the side for what tiny sliver of impact I have in order to keep that slight glimmer of potential progress alive. Because if the GOP rolls back into complete control they'll NEVER give it up again because it's the only way they can stay in power. Then we'll see real complete dystopia...


NYCFIO t1_jdsw457 wrote

I’m not telling you not to take a side, I’m saying hold your side accountable and don’t be a hypocrite. Both sides realize they have a bunch of useful idiots ready to die over their half baked incoherent platforms.

And most importantly - and people used to be more aware of this before 2016 - the conflict you observe between the two party system is synthetic and the power pillars you talk about are equally plugged into “both sides” to keep poor people arguing about pronouns and PTO.

It’s hilarious to be criticized in this way by someone who would actually put that last paragraph in writing.


3little_Winklers t1_jdsbr0m wrote

I’m not making a 1:1 comparison regarding making phone calls to city/state officials. I’m saying that the republicans are carrying out a performance to pander to their base. So their base can look at this and feel outraged about democratic officials hanging up on congress when, in reality, congress has no business making those phone calls in the first place. Democrats do the same shit. At the end of the day, it’s all just theatre meant to get already entrenched partisans riled up and yelling at the other side. It’s two different camps with different talking points but the same blinders on.

Personally, I think all of the attention Trump is getting bc of this is a good thing. It’s making him relevant again. Hopefully he holds on to enough momentum long enough to siphon support away from a more viable candidate and the republicans have a looong, devastating primary.


notanangel_25 t1_jdshd00 wrote

>So their base can look at this and feel outraged about democratic officials hanging up on congress when, in reality, congress has no business making those phone calls in the first place. Democrats do the same shit.

I don't think this is accurate because the GOP does it because they know their base generally doesn't know that they're lying or making something out of nothing.

Dems, otoh, know their base tends to have a better understanding of how government works.

Dems tend to do a very poor job of messaging to their base and to voters in general. Republicans have mastered this because they make stuff up or shorten things into "slogans" or other rhyming phrases so their base can just repeat it and it's easier to say/kinda understand. The GOP also tends to straight up lie about stuff or say things without needed context, which allows for those small soundbites/slogans.


hau5keeping t1_jdsklra wrote

Take your “both sides” noise to r/enlightenedcentrism


Charming-Fig-2544 t1_jdsobjp wrote

Except for it hasn't. Andrew Cuomo, a true cog in the Democrat establishment machine, was ousted and investigated by his own party in his own state for sexual harassment. You didn't see Dems in Congress calling Tish to get involved and interfere. Dems trip over themselves to call each other out and punish each other, to the point where it's a little embarrassing and I wish they'd let some things slide because we're pushing out good people for small affronts (looking at Al Franken here). This isn't a both sides issue. Dems fuck each other up for even minor things, Reps are supporting literal fucking traitors.


mhsx t1_jdsgupy wrote

Talk about how it would be if the roles were reversed, if it was a Democrat who was facing indictment. If…

But that’s not the case.


GettingPhysicl t1_jdsk773 wrote

well..this evil thing...that my party did...and keeps doing. I bet the demoCRAPs would do it too! in theory!


Yetimang t1_jdsydie wrote

I guess we'll never know because Democrats don't elect criminals to be president.


ifiwereaplatypus t1_jdsq6h0 wrote

I’m curious as to whether you actually understand the issue.

What is the particular situation that the other political party would do in the reverse?


roguemedic62 t1_jdvmjei wrote

They're throwing shat at a wall and hoping it sticks. Left or right, this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. But don't try to have an adult conversation on this page with these mutants. They live in a blue bubble that going to pop if this weaponizd court gets Trump reelected. A failed prosecution will gain victim hood points. Even old school democrats know this is a bad political move.


wabashcanonball t1_jds5piu wrote

Exactly, state’s are sovereign entities and, as such, are entitled to enforce their own laws without interference from the federal government.


ctindel t1_jdtqapf wrote

I think none of you know what the word "sovereign" means. It means there is no higher power. States do have a higher power, its literally what the federal government is.


pioxs t1_jdwryu9 wrote

Its a separate sovereign though. See:

The federal government isn't a higher power than the states, its just a different power. Some stuff, like interstate commerce it was given the power to regulate. But all power not given to the federal goverment is reserved by the states.


ctindel t1_jdxbce1 wrote

Some powers are reserved for the states but the supremacy clause makes clear that the federal constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws and constitutions.

If we can use the interstate commerce clause to regulate commerce that stays completely within one state as SCOTUS says we can, then in reality the rest of it all bullshit.


pioxs t1_jdxgw3g wrote

Nope, reverse that. Some powers are given to the feds, but the states have all the power not given to the feds.


ctindel t1_jdxn957 wrote

Yeah I know the theory I’m talking about real life here. The feds tax us more and control the vast majority of the things that affect us everyday.

The fact that interstate commerce clause allows the feds to control commerce that never leaves a states boundaries is all you need to know for who is really in control.


werdnak84 t1_jdsvh35 wrote

which actually makes no sense. Why label states as sovereign entities and yet still have a federal government!?!?


wabashcanonball t1_jdswa66 wrote

From the U.S. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


casanovaelrey t1_jdt1430 wrote

Simply put it was because the colonies were separate entities that banded together to form a country and the southern colonies preferred a confederation similar to how the colonies were rather than a federalized country. The northern colonies preferred a federalized country, mostly.

They tried the confederacy for about 10 years and it didn't work so they created the Constitution and a federal republic. The South has ever since been trying to create a confederacy once through war and now through laws weakening the federal government. The Constitution is a compromise of those ideals.

I personally think the Federal government should have the majority of the power that they then devolve to states. Being that I'm a non-white person, historically that makes sense, since state's rights have almost always been the antithesis to civil rights and it's been in the federal government's interest most of the time to, at least nominally, promote equal civil rights..


werdnak84 t1_jdt21bq wrote

Well the South lost. They need to get over it.


casanovaelrey t1_jdt6036 wrote

No. Don't get me. Fuck the confederates. Fuck the "state's rights" crowd. You're ABSOLUTELY right.


NotAnnieBot t1_jdt2vr5 wrote

Because they are ‘sovereign’ in so far as the powers that are not delegated to the federal government in the constitution. That’s why they are sovereign states and not nations.


unndunn t1_jdv8un6 wrote

Simply put, because the federal government’s power comes from how it allocates money, not from any document that actually gives it power.

The federal government is responsible for a) foreign relations (including national defense), b) handling interstate disputes (including interstate crimes) and c) implementing a national budget. There are a few other things it does, but those are the big three.

Of course, the last one allows it to say things like “pass this law to let us handle xyz or you get no money for it”, and most of the time, states will pass the law, as long as it’s for fundamental shit like roads, bridges, hospitals, food safety, etc. But for things like prosecuting crimes within a single state (which this is), the feds can’t do shit.


kokisucks t1_jds7n1v wrote

To prevent this kind of shit, the grand jury is supposed to meet behind closed doors. Whoever the witness was who gave information to Trump must be beat in the ass.


RChickenMan t1_jdt1kjc wrote

Wait, there was a witness who spoke to Trump? Last I'd heard, Trump just completely fabricated the whole thing. Yes, it's known that an indictment is likely due to the fact that the grand jury offered for him to testify (standard practice at that point in the procedure), but Trump pulled that whole "this Tuesday" thing completely out of his ass, whipped up the media, and congressional Republicans took the bait.


CivilInspector4 t1_jdrqft4 wrote

Gotta love how NYPost frames the story, completely glossing over why house republicans would want to obstruct a criminal investigation into Donald trump


CritterNYC t1_jdsp34y wrote

It's Fox News Print Edition, it's to be expected.


NatLawson t1_jds0aqv wrote

Record the phone calls.

A case can be made for obstruction of justice and meddling with an ongoing investigation.

Ask the starter if he or she is aware the conversation is being recorded? Ask who directed the phone call?

Ask if the caller is aware they may be interfering with a formal investigation and that the caller may be subject to law enforcement?

Ask if the subject is an attorney or if an attorney is available to advise the caller to obey the law and lawful intent to perform investigations in a lawful manner?

Ask if the caller understands the constitutional requirement that Grand Jury proceedings are secret. Attempting to pierce the veil of security surrounding the grand Jury proceeding may be an obstruction of justice in itself.

Inform the caller, continuing the call could result in a referral to the department of justice agency.

Then leave the line open.


cleverpunnyname t1_jds1152 wrote

NY is a single party consent state. You don’t have to inform that you are recording the call. Fun fact


NatLawson t1_jdsebm3 wrote

Agreed. Not the point.

Explain the elements of obstruction of justice.

If the caller continues they can't later say their intent was not to obstruct.

Further, if the caller denied an intent to obstruct then continues to ask questions, the caller can't use the fifth amendment protection against self incrimination since a prosecutor will be able to refer to the call.

Republicans are short sighted. Interference with elections, interference with government proceedings, interference with grand jury proceedings are all forbidden by law.

Doubling down on forbidden actions will lead to a collapse of leadership and put whoever steps up will be an apologist.


GettingPhysicl t1_jdsjr57 wrote

> NY is a single party consent state.

its ridiculous this needs to be specified :)


savageo6 t1_jds5px8 wrote

God the Post is a shit soaked rag. Listen to that Murdoch funded GOP gobbling tone. The DAs office is doing EXACTLY what they should be doing telling the house reps to get fucked. They have ZERO jurisdiction over a state/city case. States rights only apply when it applies only to guns and crushing the rights of minorities right conservatives?


flipsandstuff t1_jdselav wrote

NY Post is trying to get Bragg re-elected in Manhattan. This is chad staffer behavior.


k1lk1 t1_jdrkyxl wrote

Republicans love the 10th Amendment until they don't.


squindar t1_jdsqowz wrote

"They are SO RUDE!", congressional staffer whines, while clutching their pearls.

Yes, sweetheart, you dialed New York City. Come visit sometime.


Western_Past t1_jdssgco wrote

This entire call was prompted by false leaked information on Trump getting arrested on a certain date. One has to wonder whether this is a set up to put pressure on the DA through public aggression. He probably thought it was another Maga threat or crank call. I'm sure his answering service is always full of extreme threats.


ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jdvv785 wrote

There us bo wonder. Trump learned long ago feom Roy Cohen the way to deal with government investigators is to attack them.


LoneStarTallBoi t1_jdug03a wrote

Congratulations to this dipshit and the writers at the post for coming up with a story that makes r/nyc side with Alvin Bragg


reddit_dwhyer t1_jdsxcge wrote

Meanwhile Bragg letting repeat offenders back on the streets so they can commit more crimes. what a loser.


sutisuc t1_jdsw7bn wrote

To be fair I can’t even imagine the calls from all over the country they’re getting right now.


Splungers t1_jduudye wrote

All the pseudo-experts here can zip it up. In some areas, states have sovereignty, and others, the federal government supersedes. Either/or thinking isn't welcome here. Neither is ignorance.

Here, the House has no superseding authority.


SeaworthinessOne2114 t1_je0hyth wrote

Good for Bragg and his staffers. Republican congressmen and women seem to think that they are the law. I guess we could just call republican congress members "Karen".

I guess states' sovereignty like freedom of speech only applies to republicans.


AutoModerator t1_jdrceup wrote

Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


BubblesUp t1_jdsp6uc wrote

The staff there take no BS. They're knowledgeable, experienced, and have been through it all. Kudos for them for knowing the right response and acting on it.


mowotlarx t1_jdsrxer wrote

Good for them. Anyone in customer service has wanted to do this at work at least once.


youjustdontgetitdoya t1_jdtanzw wrote

If this is all the right-wing propaganda can muster... hanging up on someone... I think Trump might actually be in trouble here.


gerd50501 t1_jdsl73z wrote

i wonder if the DOJ will enforce subpoenas against Bragg if the republicans subpoena them?


The_Original_Gronkie t1_jdt0jdw wrote

More people should tell treasonous Republican politicians to fuck off. If they want to fish for sound bites the can exploit, they can get a subpoena.


Crynoticpyro t1_jdrzvdi wrote

America, take a page out of that staff member's playbook. Hold on to GOP nonsense.


GettingPhysicl t1_jdsjl9i wrote


Fuck the Republicans - theyve got no business here


collegedropoutclub t1_jdsjnrs wrote

I would do the same thing and include extra words if they were from GA or CO


sickbabe t1_jdsgi1y wrote

I must begrudgingly admit, I absolutely love DA Bragg and everyone I've heard who he's hired. I've had discussions with people who aren't even from this country but are fans too, for the way he actually actually WANTS to prosecute rich people who do wrong. love how he's going after buyers of stolen artifacts, love how his people don't entertain intimidation. he might actually be the one person in politics in NYC I haven't found fault in.


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdsu5mo wrote

This has to be a troll, right? Nobody really likes this dude.


tyen0 t1_jdt0sbv wrote

I had to doublecheck that I was in /r/nyc when I read that! hah


[deleted] t1_jdt37b9 wrote



CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdt4sk8 wrote

I mean, say what you want positive about Bragg, I am sure there are plenty of things. But to say there is nothing negative about him? I mean cmon, he doesn't apply the law equally, or in some cases AT ALL. That is a negative. It just feels so disingenuous.

Then the whole "people who aren't even from this country," like who actually gives a fuck about their opinion and why would they be following what in reality is a low level political person in the US? I could not name one judge from another country off the top of my head, and don't care to. Not my lane, does not matter at all.


sickbabe t1_jdu6bww wrote

just because you don't give a shit about material culture and holding the powerful to account doesn't mean anybody else does. within the realm of anthropology, museums and cultural work, the man has an extremely good reputation right now. I'm all for decriminalization of sex work and the end of cash bail though, I guess if you like people getting locked up before even getting to see a jury or "crimes" that don't hurt anyone, we're not gonna see eye to eye.


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdutv53 wrote

Tell me you don’t understand without telling me you don’t understand.

Super excited that all twelve of the anthropologists are happy with him. That probably makes you very happy while Bragg shirks his duties on real crimes including things like DWI and murder. Those are quality of life crimes that impact the day to day lives of folks. Most people could not care less about some item from Egypt that might have been stolen a hundred years ago.


sickbabe t1_jdu5w95 wrote

it not just going after trump, it's how he actually follows through on his promises better than any other boroughs' DA. It's how he prosecutes artifact theft to an extent unprecedented in virtually any other jurisdiction. if you're gonna be prosecuting in one of the richest court districts in the country, why shouldn't you be going after those who have money to lose who've been able to buy themselves out of trouble in the meantime?I got heat for most any politician in this city and I live to complain, but I don't have any for him and none of these responses has given me any reason to doubt him.


CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdt5a27 wrote

Not saying you have to hate Bragg, but nobody I have ever talked to has that big of a hard on for the dude.


HangerSteak1 t1_jdtbp9e wrote

People in NYC are not fans of Bragg since day 1. Maybe Bragg is gaming for a federal role? US Attorney?


Sun_Devilish t1_jdsik4i wrote

This is how the Roman Republic failed.


ImJackieNoff t1_jdszkcp wrote

I'm not presently a NYC resident, but I was when the hush money payment occurred.

I don't have a valid opinion on whether or not Bragg should do this, as he doesn't work for me. If you live in NYC presently, is this endeavor worth the resources that will go into it considering the alternatives - such as prosecuting other crimes, especially violent crime?


Hrekires t1_jdt511z wrote

Is there evidence that Bragg isn't "prosecuting other crimes, especially violent crime" because of this investigation?


ImJackieNoff t1_jdtfqje wrote

Um....that's a weird question, and the answer is so obvious that I'm not sure where to start.

If Bragg's office prosecutes Trump, there will be other crimes they can't prosecute. Bragg's office - like every organization on Earth - has a finite set of resources to use.

If he prosecutes Trump, that prosecution will use way up more resources than the average case. Again, because the resources of the New York DAs office is finite, there will be choices that have to be made as to what to let go and not pursue for lack of resources. They make that choice today.

So, yes, if Bragg prosecutes Trump there will be other cases which can't be prosecuted.

Do you not understand that intuitively without that explanation?


Hrekires t1_jdtg6f8 wrote

It looks from my perspective that Bragg has made choices not to prosecute cases long before this Trump case ramped up, so it feels disingenuous to blame this development for something that had been happening already.


ImJackieNoff t1_jdtgth0 wrote

Exactly - every prosecutor across the country every day makes those choices. That's why they plea cases down. It takes a lot of effort to go to a jury trial. If the defendant has a competent lawyer, it takes much much more effort. If the defendant will have a team of lawyers to stall at every takes that much more.

>so it feels disingenuous to blame this development

I'm not being disingenuous at all, nor blaming anything. I'm pointing out that Bragg has limited resources for a "novel legal theory" against a man with an army of lawyers. There is a good chance that if this prosecution goes forward, it could take literal years and could result in an acquittal.

I've not heard a single legal pundit say this a good case. With all that - is the potential juice worth the monumental squeeze?

What else could a team of four or five lawyers pursue over the course of 2-6 years aside from this? That's the tradeoff.


Gaytaino OP t1_jdt0ezh wrote

People here seem to think that Mr. Bragg runs the office alone, have you heard of ADA’s. NYC has a budget like any other city and as a tax paying citizen, I want all crime to be prosecuted.


ImJackieNoff t1_jdt1iwl wrote

> have you heard of ADA’s.

Of course, and I don't think anyone thinks it's Bragg that's prosecuting every case himself. You're aware that the DAs office has finite resources, and because those resources are finite they can't prosecute all crime. That's why they have to make deals like offering a lesser charge to get some kind of conviction.

If this moves forward it will be a big use of those finite resources. Surely you understand that prosecuting Trump means those resources aren't prosecuting other crimes.


Crustydonout t1_jdttc45 wrote

Not a problem, crime per Capita is still lower in NYC then IN most other places. If a grand jury decides there is enough evidence for an indictment trump has all the benefits a rich person has to defend themselves.


cybersharque247 t1_jdt5wlj wrote

Every high crime must be prosecuted zealously and Trump’s crimes ARE high crimes because if unpunished they will consume our souls.


ImJackieNoff t1_jdtj1it wrote

There is a very good point to be made that this is so high profile and publicized that not prosecuting it sends a message that some people because of their status are free from consequences.


TeamMisha t1_jdro8st wrote

This seems like a who cares kind of deal lol. If this was a democrat led committee trying to peek into red state DA offices we know what the headlines would be like


HashtagDadWatts t1_jds7o4u wrote

Love these efforts to make up an alternate reality to be upset about. Lmao. Right wing grievance has completely lost the plot.


After-Bowler5491 t1_jdszbuc wrote

If they indict Trump, then the Biden’s, Clinton’s and Bush’s will be indicted soon thereafter.

Slippery slope ahead.


Crustydonout t1_jdtssoc wrote

No one's above the law, grand juries will decide not politicians.


After-Bowler5491 t1_jdupisj wrote

Well actually DA’s decide. There’s a saying, “any DA could indict a ham sandwich”. If you don’t think this will set off a series of political retribution indictments then you’re crazy.


Crustydonout t1_jduppvs wrote

That's right, but a jury still decides. A jury of his peers, too bad for trump he's burned so many bridges in NYC.


After-Bowler5491 t1_jdus5zi wrote

If this goes down then my guess is everyone’s fair game. You know that, you just hate Trump so much your blinded by the consequences. AOC and Obama have both run afoul of campaign finance laws and not faced prosecution. There will be a call to indict them as well, equal application of the law would demand it. Right?

Trumps a dirt bag, but this obsession with trying to get him on something just emboldens his followers. This will be disastrous.


Crustydonout t1_jduvd0a wrote

Everyone is fair game, break the law and you are fair game. Being president only gets you immunity while in office. Hold your legislators responsible for the laws they create with the influence of PAC money. It will be disastrous if the law is not applied to everyone, presidents included. The country can not be held hostage because of trumps cult.


After-Bowler5491 t1_jduwr4c wrote

You do realize that the laws aren’t being applied to everyone…right? AOC would be indicted then, so would Obama, so would a Hunter Biden, etc. This is political, this isn’t about the law. This is just opening up a can of worms but you get that …you just hate Trump. He’s a loser, let it go.

In NYS 3000 campaign’s violated the same laws Trump violated….indictments? ZERO

It’s so obvious. It’s a witch hunt, which will beget more witch hunts. Soon it will the canidate you like. Slippery slope coming.


Crustydonout t1_jduxbs0 wrote

I guess they have better lawyers then Trump, or they don't lie to their lawyers. I'm all for indicting any politician, the thing is there has to be some proof presented in court by penalty of perjury.


After-Bowler5491 t1_jdv26bu wrote

They never got to court because they are of the same political persuasion


Crustydonout t1_jdv3e89 wrote

That's because they don't have a case. There are many Republican appointed judges trump's lawyers tried his appeals on and many of them also shot him down. To take down a corrupt politician is a D.A. dream if the evidence presents itself, it doesn't matter if they are democrat or republican.


Gaytaino OP t1_jdszz44 wrote

That’s such a bullshit argument and you know if they broke the law then they should be indicted. Presidents should not be above the law.


After-Bowler5491 t1_jdt0mmq wrote

Cool. Then every President is going down. I’m no fan of Trump, tired if that idiot but this is a can of worms. If he’s indicted I would imagine Biden will be soon thereafter. I’m sure they have all committed crimes. Obama for 850k in campaign finance fraud. Bush committed war crimes w fake evidence. The Clintons, well that could be a lot of indictments.

You get the picture. But whatever, let’s light this candle and watch it burn. I guess.


[deleted] t1_jdrwaec wrote



lostindarkdays t1_jdrzmea wrote

Wow, literally every single thing you've said is bullshit. Impressive!


[deleted] t1_jds0jku wrote



ssdrum2007 t1_jdslsot wrote

Then surely you've got some examples of murderers not being prosecuted/jailed, right?


[deleted] t1_jdsyn07 wrote



ssdrum2007 t1_jdu9g5t wrote

Hey, so google told me everything you said was a lie. Thanks for playing. Out of curiosity, how many accounts do you have where you repost one big post and one big comment to make it look like a legit account?


savageo6 t1_jds766z wrote

Look at this cock gobbling whatsboutism. Everything you said has ZERO to fucking do with anything on this article. The federal government has ZERO jurisdiction over the enforcement of state and city laws. So they and you can get fucked chief. Who the DA is, that's completely unrelated to these GOP reps blatantly shitting on the constitution they seem to love


[deleted] t1_jdsavhg wrote



savageo6 t1_jdsf876 wrote

You try driving by him and flipping him off? Maybe it will go better than last time mr law and order


GettingPhysicl t1_jdsk0s8 wrote

The congress still has 0 oversight powers over him and are hoping they can just circumvent that by being bullies to staffers. I dont care if you dont like bragg, feds dont suddenly get oversight authority over shit you dont like