So is the big problem here the DA and they have no one to answer to ? They can go after anyone with BS and send them to jail or bankrupt them with legal fees ? So what is missing here is a review of what the DA is doing ? It seems the author here is implying that we the voter created these monsters somehow ? Or that this is how the law is just accept it ? Total BS ! This needs to be fixed for anyone caught is this convict by any means idea , this is not law, this is not justice . If we were to accept this that makes all laws a joke and us complicit in the joke.
You forgot to mention that Bragg ran for office based on the premise that he was going to get Trump. That the judge in the Trump case had donated to the Democrats and that his daughter actually worked for the Democrats. You also forgot to mention how Biden disposed of his illegally gotten gun. Aside from that, I don't find it trivial that a drug addict had an illegal firearm and how it was disposed.
This piece is almost flippant in how little attention it pays to prevent-violating behavior if Bragg. Trump is a former president and current candidate but yeah sure this happened to some CEO you know so why not Trump as well? Really stunningly shallow. Come on FP do better
Like with the piece on the border, this reads like something thrown together to meet a deadline which gets by because there is a byline. "Everybody does it" is a poor excuse for substance.
"Special Procecutors" are supposed to be . . . Special. They are appointed by the Attorney General, and strictly subject to federal Dept of Justice rules. When Weiss's office was willing to make a deal, it was Biden who refused when a judge starting asking legitimate questions about the deal. At that point, Weiss's office was spanked and he was given both the authority and responsibility of a "Special" Prosecutor. Garland's only alternative was to replace Weiss as federal attorney for the District, and perhaps he should have. But the point is that what Weiss is doing now is entirely consistent with DOJ rules.
The Trump case in NYC couldn't be more different. It was rejected by two federal prosecutors. It wasn't even going to be prosecuted by Bragg until he got heat from Democrats. As the former Federal Elections Committee head has said, it wasn't even a campaign violation. The timing could not have had any impact on 2016. It's a misdemeanor outside the statute of limitations made into a federal crime that wasn't a crime It has been a shill case from the start with the obvious intent of hamstring a presidential candidate's campaign in more ways than one. Now, it very well may be that Smith's prosecution regarding Trump interfering with the EC vote may be valid, and if proved, Trump deserves what he gets. But this???
For the record, I have been an Independent for decades and have an intense dislike for both Parties and Candidates.
This piece is a terrible over-generalization and ignorant smear on all prosecutors, and the Justice Dept. The notion that it's "just how the system works" is defamatory and unsupported, unless one case the writer knows and the opinion of a politician magically is dispositive. This kind of shallowness is one reason many have become disgusted with the media. Between this and the also very weak piece re the border, it is starting to look like The FP is trying to become another HuffPost. That would be so sad. C'mon Bari, don't waste our time with shoddy cheap work passing for journalism.
I do concur the tone is a bit flippant...that was my visceral initial reaction as I read it (I concluded the tone was a hook to grab attention and make a point). And, yes, all prosecutors don't behave this way. But it does happen all the time with Federal prosecutors. Just go read Three Felonies a Day. And look at the federal conviction rates (Wikipedia says "In the United States federal court system, the conviction rate rose from approximately 75 percent to approximately 85% between 1972 and 1992. For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate.") I think he's right...that's just what federal prosecutors generally do, and they have the full force of the federal registry and government behind them. I don't like it one bit, but it sure looks factually accurate based on what I've been reading and watching.
It all circles around to the polarization of society and politicization of everything. When a judge rules on something, what does it matter who appointed him or her? Cuz if you think that alone makes him or her impartial, then our checks and balances are no longer so balanced.
Sadly, with DA’s, it IS political. These guys are elected, after all (or hired by the elected person). They’re going to be biased by their political affiliation, coupled with inherent tendencies of wanting scalps by their nature. I would decry those aspects of the system, as a whole. It would be great if prosecution was based solely on the merits, rather than the spectre of satisfying voters.
The point of Nocera’s article to me is to highlight the hypocrisy of so many people who complain about the DT case while cheering the HB case. And as expected for a topic like this, the comments section here does not disappoint, in rigorously making Nocera’s point.
Who is cheerleading the Hunter Biden case? I wasn’t even aware of it until the MSM highlighted it. Bragg campaigned on going after Trump. Then he invited Matt Colangelo from DOJ to come be his lead prosecutor. Joe said in his piece there was no connection between Bragg & DOJ. This is false and incorrect. And he’s rightfully getting his just rewards in below comments for gaslighting us.
Lots of very helpful critiques of the substance of the article (not that the article actually has substance). So I’ll go to the big picture:
This article is emblematic of a problem that has been with the FP since it changed its name from “Common Sense:” inconsistency. There are often some great, thoughtful long form pieces, such as the one by Ayaan Ali Hirsi, earlier this week. And then we get pieces that are thought-averse filler, like this one.
This isn’t a newspaper- we don’t need filler pieces to make up space and wrap our fish and chips in. I would much rather see fewer articles that are better researched and written.
The idea these cases are equivalent is ridiculous. Hunter was offered a plea deal but refused it . Trump was offered no such thing. Also, what hunter did is a verifiable crime. What trump was charged with can barely be explained by the prosecutors.
What a trash article. I expect better from the Free Press.
A very sad attempt to put lipstick on the pig of Hunter Biden.
The gun charge plea fell apart because they wanted immunity from the tax fraud which was money received from…influence peddling! Yup, I wonder why the Judge (not the GOP) did not allow the sweep-it-all under the rug plea deal.
Carrying the water for the Bidens? This author has even more work on his hands….
This is how I see it: Hunter Biden's conviction will be the quid pro quo for Donald Trump's conviction, which is the quid pro quo for Hunter Biden's conviction. We are living in the Twilight Zone.
Hey Bari, why'd you bring the NYT here if you left because of guys like this? Garbage and insulting piece of pretend journalism. We live in the post-modern, post-moral hellscape of the lefts making.
I don’t think it fosters good citizenship, these trials that invite the voters to nullify in their minds the conviction of prominent people for what many see as dismissible offenses. A guy pays a prostitute to keep her mouth shut? Makes the government look like a posse of petty blue noses. The clammy grip of moral reform is not a welcome sensation.
The prostitute in this case denied that it ever happened...repeatably over the years. She started to ask for money when it became clear Trump was running. It is lawful to create a NDA and pay hush money. Trump did not use campaign funds. Bragg never said what the "other" crime was until closing arguments. The statute of limitations had passed for a business expense misdemeanor mischaracterization. Why didn't the FEC, Bragg's predecessor (Cy Vance) and DOJ pass on any charges. I wish the Republican party had another candidate, but I believe the Bragg trial was totally political.
Get used to it? Therein lies the problem in that any prosecutor can go after anyone and probably find a reason to convict and jail us. If scalp collecting is the goal, our justice system is beyond repair.
I came straight to the comments. Skip the drivel, enjoy the quibble. This is an unserious article with serious commentary/rebuttals and I’m here for it.
No. You have to READ the drivel to understand the quibble (your line is a great line by the way). I agree the comments are much better than the article though.
And these articles/opinion posts must be written and published. We must understand that there are people who believe the drivel. There are a few commentors that have said so. I have a feeling there are many more out there, they are just afraid to post in the comment section because they know they will get piled on and called all sorts of names, etc. The fact that there are still people who agree with Nocera is why we are in this position. People who can rationally think through a situation cannot wrap our minds around the fact that people like him exist. We must be able to intelligentially counter their thoughts with facts. And we need to resist name calling, etc.
Ok, so let’s take a look at all the factual and contextual flaws in Mr. Nocera’s argument.
“It was never used in a crime.” This is completely irrelevant. The law prohibits drug addicts from owning purchasing or owning guns. The law does not say anything about whether or not they were used in a crime. BTW, this is a gun restriction law favored by DEMOCRATS. I have to admit, I favor it, too. But Mr. Nocera introduces a red herring. The matter at law is this: was the defendant a drug addict at the time he filled out the application. By Hunter Biden’s own admission, he was a drug addict when he filled out the FEDERAL form. And he lied on a FEDERAL form.
“He is not taking drugs anymore.” Again, completely irrelevant. What matters is what he wrote at the time. Imagine this. Judge: Sir, did you hold up the liquor store on that night? Defendant: Your honor, I’m innocent because I’m not robbing liquor stores at this time.
No, it is not the case that both prosecutions are based on weak charges. Hunter Biden is a drug addict who violated gun laws. Mr. Trump was charged for an accounting decision made by his accounting firm. There is no correspondence, no equivalence.
“Bragg and his team were prosecuting Trump simply because that’s what they do.” Really? Bragg campaigned for the job promising to put Trump in jail. That is a violation of jurist ethics. NO! Except in NY and GA, lawyers do not campaign on a platform of putting a PARTICULAR person in jail.
And this is the worst lie by Mr. Nocera. “Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney (sic) – who has NO CONNECTION TO THE FEDERAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT (my emphasis). One of the prosecuting attorneys was Matthew Colangelo. Before the Trump trial, Colangelo was the third highest ranking figure in Biden’s Department of Justice. Imagine that! The third highest ranking member of the Biden DOJ resigns his position to become an assistant prosecutor for a local district attorney. Oh, no, absolutely no collusion there.
Michael Milken? Michael Milken was a fraudster who cost millions of Americans billions of dollars. Mr. Trump has never manipulated stocks or bonds. And during his presidency, the economy flourished. Where is there any equivalency?
Mr. Nocera tacitly admits that this case never should have gone to trial. “Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place.” Mr. Nocera, by his own argument, admits that this was a case that should not have been brought to trial. Indeed, federal prosecutors declined to take the case. And initially, Mr. Bragg declined the case.
We could go on and on about this flawed piece. But what it comes down to is this. Mr. Trump is no ordinary, obscure defendant. He is a former President of the United States of America. He also is likely, without weaponization of the courts by Democrats, to be the next President of the United States of America. This entire charade is designed to interfere with a national election. Everyone knows it. Some are in favor of the charade. Many are not. Mr. Nocera should be honest. And Bari et. al., must be very careful about the line between reporting and deception.
I love you all, and I thank you for this platform.
So is the big problem here the DA and they have no one to answer to ? They can go after anyone with BS and send them to jail or bankrupt them with legal fees ? So what is missing here is a review of what the DA is doing ? It seems the author here is implying that we the voter created these monsters somehow ? Or that this is how the law is just accept it ? Total BS ! This needs to be fixed for anyone caught is this convict by any means idea , this is not law, this is not justice . If we were to accept this that makes all laws a joke and us complicit in the joke.
You forgot to mention that Bragg ran for office based on the premise that he was going to get Trump. That the judge in the Trump case had donated to the Democrats and that his daughter actually worked for the Democrats. You also forgot to mention how Biden disposed of his illegally gotten gun. Aside from that, I don't find it trivial that a drug addict had an illegal firearm and how it was disposed.
This piece is almost flippant in how little attention it pays to prevent-violating behavior if Bragg. Trump is a former president and current candidate but yeah sure this happened to some CEO you know so why not Trump as well? Really stunningly shallow. Come on FP do better
Like with the piece on the border, this reads like something thrown together to meet a deadline which gets by because there is a byline. "Everybody does it" is a poor excuse for substance.
"Special Procecutors" are supposed to be . . . Special. They are appointed by the Attorney General, and strictly subject to federal Dept of Justice rules. When Weiss's office was willing to make a deal, it was Biden who refused when a judge starting asking legitimate questions about the deal. At that point, Weiss's office was spanked and he was given both the authority and responsibility of a "Special" Prosecutor. Garland's only alternative was to replace Weiss as federal attorney for the District, and perhaps he should have. But the point is that what Weiss is doing now is entirely consistent with DOJ rules.
The Trump case in NYC couldn't be more different. It was rejected by two federal prosecutors. It wasn't even going to be prosecuted by Bragg until he got heat from Democrats. As the former Federal Elections Committee head has said, it wasn't even a campaign violation. The timing could not have had any impact on 2016. It's a misdemeanor outside the statute of limitations made into a federal crime that wasn't a crime It has been a shill case from the start with the obvious intent of hamstring a presidential candidate's campaign in more ways than one. Now, it very well may be that Smith's prosecution regarding Trump interfering with the EC vote may be valid, and if proved, Trump deserves what he gets. But this???
For the record, I have been an Independent for decades and have an intense dislike for both Parties and Candidates.
This piece is a terrible over-generalization and ignorant smear on all prosecutors, and the Justice Dept. The notion that it's "just how the system works" is defamatory and unsupported, unless one case the writer knows and the opinion of a politician magically is dispositive. This kind of shallowness is one reason many have become disgusted with the media. Between this and the also very weak piece re the border, it is starting to look like The FP is trying to become another HuffPost. That would be so sad. C'mon Bari, don't waste our time with shoddy cheap work passing for journalism.
I do concur the tone is a bit flippant...that was my visceral initial reaction as I read it (I concluded the tone was a hook to grab attention and make a point). And, yes, all prosecutors don't behave this way. But it does happen all the time with Federal prosecutors. Just go read Three Felonies a Day. And look at the federal conviction rates (Wikipedia says "In the United States federal court system, the conviction rate rose from approximately 75 percent to approximately 85% between 1972 and 1992. For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate.") I think he's right...that's just what federal prosecutors generally do, and they have the full force of the federal registry and government behind them. I don't like it one bit, but it sure looks factually accurate based on what I've been reading and watching.
It all circles around to the polarization of society and politicization of everything. When a judge rules on something, what does it matter who appointed him or her? Cuz if you think that alone makes him or her impartial, then our checks and balances are no longer so balanced.
Sadly, with DA’s, it IS political. These guys are elected, after all (or hired by the elected person). They’re going to be biased by their political affiliation, coupled with inherent tendencies of wanting scalps by their nature. I would decry those aspects of the system, as a whole. It would be great if prosecution was based solely on the merits, rather than the spectre of satisfying voters.
The point of Nocera’s article to me is to highlight the hypocrisy of so many people who complain about the DT case while cheering the HB case. And as expected for a topic like this, the comments section here does not disappoint, in rigorously making Nocera’s point.
Who is cheerleading the Hunter Biden case? I wasn’t even aware of it until the MSM highlighted it. Bragg campaigned on going after Trump. Then he invited Matt Colangelo from DOJ to come be his lead prosecutor. Joe said in his piece there was no connection between Bragg & DOJ. This is false and incorrect. And he’s rightfully getting his just rewards in below comments for gaslighting us.
Lots of very helpful critiques of the substance of the article (not that the article actually has substance). So I’ll go to the big picture:
This article is emblematic of a problem that has been with the FP since it changed its name from “Common Sense:” inconsistency. There are often some great, thoughtful long form pieces, such as the one by Ayaan Ali Hirsi, earlier this week. And then we get pieces that are thought-averse filler, like this one.
This isn’t a newspaper- we don’t need filler pieces to make up space and wrap our fish and chips in. I would much rather see fewer articles that are better researched and written.
Thank you thank you thank you. Mr Nocera!
This is another reason why I love The Free Press.
I expect the people in the comments section are going to hate this story. :-)
The idea these cases are equivalent is ridiculous. Hunter was offered a plea deal but refused it . Trump was offered no such thing. Also, what hunter did is a verifiable crime. What trump was charged with can barely be explained by the prosecutors.
What a trash article. I expect better from the Free Press.
This is the sorriest piece of drivel ever published by the FP.
I could go on but I've wasted enough of my time already...
A very sad attempt to put lipstick on the pig of Hunter Biden.
The gun charge plea fell apart because they wanted immunity from the tax fraud which was money received from…influence peddling! Yup, I wonder why the Judge (not the GOP) did not allow the sweep-it-all under the rug plea deal.
Carrying the water for the Bidens? This author has even more work on his hands….
This is how I see it: Hunter Biden's conviction will be the quid pro quo for Donald Trump's conviction, which is the quid pro quo for Hunter Biden's conviction. We are living in the Twilight Zone.
Hey Bari, why'd you bring the NYT here if you left because of guys like this? Garbage and insulting piece of pretend journalism. We live in the post-modern, post-moral hellscape of the lefts making.
And just to be clear, I think Trump is a garbage human.
I don’t think it fosters good citizenship, these trials that invite the voters to nullify in their minds the conviction of prominent people for what many see as dismissible offenses. A guy pays a prostitute to keep her mouth shut? Makes the government look like a posse of petty blue noses. The clammy grip of moral reform is not a welcome sensation.
The prostitute in this case denied that it ever happened...repeatably over the years. She started to ask for money when it became clear Trump was running. It is lawful to create a NDA and pay hush money. Trump did not use campaign funds. Bragg never said what the "other" crime was until closing arguments. The statute of limitations had passed for a business expense misdemeanor mischaracterization. Why didn't the FEC, Bragg's predecessor (Cy Vance) and DOJ pass on any charges. I wish the Republican party had another candidate, but I believe the Bragg trial was totally political.
Can't we say whore anymore? Or will Bari ban us all?
Get used to it? Therein lies the problem in that any prosecutor can go after anyone and probably find a reason to convict and jail us. If scalp collecting is the goal, our justice system is beyond repair.
I came straight to the comments. Skip the drivel, enjoy the quibble. This is an unserious article with serious commentary/rebuttals and I’m here for it.
No. You have to READ the drivel to understand the quibble (your line is a great line by the way). I agree the comments are much better than the article though.
And these articles/opinion posts must be written and published. We must understand that there are people who believe the drivel. There are a few commentors that have said so. I have a feeling there are many more out there, they are just afraid to post in the comment section because they know they will get piled on and called all sorts of names, etc. The fact that there are still people who agree with Nocera is why we are in this position. People who can rationally think through a situation cannot wrap our minds around the fact that people like him exist. We must be able to intelligentially counter their thoughts with facts. And we need to resist name calling, etc.
Agree completely.
Ok, so let’s take a look at all the factual and contextual flaws in Mr. Nocera’s argument.
“It was never used in a crime.” This is completely irrelevant. The law prohibits drug addicts from owning purchasing or owning guns. The law does not say anything about whether or not they were used in a crime. BTW, this is a gun restriction law favored by DEMOCRATS. I have to admit, I favor it, too. But Mr. Nocera introduces a red herring. The matter at law is this: was the defendant a drug addict at the time he filled out the application. By Hunter Biden’s own admission, he was a drug addict when he filled out the FEDERAL form. And he lied on a FEDERAL form.
“He is not taking drugs anymore.” Again, completely irrelevant. What matters is what he wrote at the time. Imagine this. Judge: Sir, did you hold up the liquor store on that night? Defendant: Your honor, I’m innocent because I’m not robbing liquor stores at this time.
No, it is not the case that both prosecutions are based on weak charges. Hunter Biden is a drug addict who violated gun laws. Mr. Trump was charged for an accounting decision made by his accounting firm. There is no correspondence, no equivalence.
“Bragg and his team were prosecuting Trump simply because that’s what they do.” Really? Bragg campaigned for the job promising to put Trump in jail. That is a violation of jurist ethics. NO! Except in NY and GA, lawyers do not campaign on a platform of putting a PARTICULAR person in jail.
And this is the worst lie by Mr. Nocera. “Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney (sic) – who has NO CONNECTION TO THE FEDERAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT (my emphasis). One of the prosecuting attorneys was Matthew Colangelo. Before the Trump trial, Colangelo was the third highest ranking figure in Biden’s Department of Justice. Imagine that! The third highest ranking member of the Biden DOJ resigns his position to become an assistant prosecutor for a local district attorney. Oh, no, absolutely no collusion there.
Michael Milken? Michael Milken was a fraudster who cost millions of Americans billions of dollars. Mr. Trump has never manipulated stocks or bonds. And during his presidency, the economy flourished. Where is there any equivalency?
Mr. Nocera tacitly admits that this case never should have gone to trial. “Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place.” Mr. Nocera, by his own argument, admits that this was a case that should not have been brought to trial. Indeed, federal prosecutors declined to take the case. And initially, Mr. Bragg declined the case.
We could go on and on about this flawed piece. But what it comes down to is this. Mr. Trump is no ordinary, obscure defendant. He is a former President of the United States of America. He also is likely, without weaponization of the courts by Democrats, to be the next President of the United States of America. This entire charade is designed to interfere with a national election. Everyone knows it. Some are in favor of the charade. Many are not. Mr. Nocera should be honest. And Bari et. al., must be very careful about the line between reporting and deception.
I love you all, and I thank you for this platform.