Omg I had no idea and now I want to know everything. Wtf. Vega was a really prominent ADA pre-Krasner this is a big deal.

I think a lot of people assume that when there is no obvious discrimination claim, the person asserting discrimination is a fraud. And when the plaintiff just finished a failed political campaign filled with lies and misrepresentation, that assumption gets reinforced.

Also, the end of the Senate race means people still have a lot of Citizens for Sanity fatigue. "KRASNER AND FETTERMAN HANDED OUT GUNS AT THE PRISON EXIT WAAAAHGGHHH"

Removed, unsourced.

If you would like to submit https://www.law.com/radar/card/at-trial-krasner-says-he-fired-ex-prosecutor-carlos-vega-based-on-shocking-conduct-not-age-402-120133/ for discussion feel free to do so

That's an absurd response when I'm commenting on the fact that the media isn't covering the trial

"Krasner had represented one of two defendants in a capital homicide case Vega prosecuted, which went to a three-week trial in 2016 after several years of ongoing litigation. The jury returned a guilty verdict. However, the verdict did not result in a death sentence."

"During those proceedings, Krasner alleged, Vega tampered with witnesses, lied to the judge, and sexually harassed a paralegal."

"Several months after that trial ended, Krasner announced his candidacy for district attorney."

"During cross-examination, Gold asked why Krasner had not mentioned the alleged misconduct when he responded in a verified statement to Vega’s age discrimination complaint to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission."

"In that statement, Krasner claimed he fired Vega after a “30-year job interview,” referring to Krasner’s observation of Philadelphia prosecutors in the time he worked as a defense attorney."

https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/11/17/at-trial-krasner-says-he-fired-ex-prosecutor-carlos-vega-based-on-shocking-conduct-not-age/

https://twitter.com/SearchWarrant1

I gave you a link that's reporting it

As I mentioned in my original post, I saw that law.com article and it's behind a paywall that I couldn't read. The point of my post is that local media isn't reporting on the trial. Isn't that worthy of discussion?