Note that this is not hypothetical. Trump toadies like Paul Gosar have explicitly promised pardons for insurrectionists who commit illegal acts on behalf of Trump.
Trump prosecution moves a step closer.
Notice how the “play” arrow looks somewhat like Hitler’s mustache?
And a step back (they cite the DA’s reluctance to push forward)…
Now I want him to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight. The law clearly does not apply to this man no matter what he does. An entire “justice system” existing for no other purpose than for him to make a mockery of it.
We’re already had some discussion of this, along with additional article links, over in the Citizen Trump thread in the Pit.
Bragg does nothing to fight the caricature that he does not care to prosecute anything that is not, in fact, a murder in broad daylight, or involves firearms.
Just playing devil’s advocate to try and make this make sense… Bragg is an elected official. If he wants to keep his job, he needs to focus on efforts that are most important to the voters of New York County and New York City.
Does New York City care about nailing Trump? There are probably many who do. But do they care about it at the expense of pursuing quality-of-life issues like violent crime and so forth? I suspect that if this is framed as a choice between having gangs on your corner and prosecuting the former President, then nailing Trump becomes a harder sell. Especially given that there are other multiple active investigations at higher levels of government.
I can see why a prosecutor might take the position that there are more important problems for New York County to take on, when nailing a former President really should be the purview of the DOJ (who has the resources and national political support to do so). I think Bragg should really follow through on this, but then again I don’t live in NYC and I don’t know what’s important to their voters (or wealthy political donors).
As I said, I don’t like any of it. I’m just spitballing and trying to make it make sense.
There will always be violent crime in New York because there’s 8 million humans there, and there will always be financial crimes in New York because it’s a major business and financial center. A New York prosecutor who can’t go after both at the same time sounds like something out of the “Ford to City: Drop Dead” era of the 1970s. 
From a practical standpoint, anything less - when you’re prosecuting the former President of the nation - is unlikely to prevail in court. And, in the case of Trump, any failed prosecution is just evidence to throw into his other prosecutions to show that he’s being attacked by political hacks and not for any justified reason.
I’d suggest trusting Bragg on this, unless someone has reason to believe that he’s been paid off or whatever.
I have no idea of the soundness of the various positions on prosecuting Trump for these particular crimes.
But I do think it’s worth noting WRT to the two lead prosecutors resigning, that it’s not like these two guys are career DA prosecutors who are resigning in protest over this travesty. These guys were high powered lawyers in private practice, who were recruited to temporarily join the DA’s office for the specific purpose of investigating/prosecuting Trump. If Bragg decided to not move ahead, then these guys have no further business in the DA’s office anyway.
On another note, I think there may be a significant difference between the DA officially dropping the case, and just letting it lag as they appear to be doing. One key conundrum that Trump and his people have had is that they are simultaneously being sued civilly by the NY State AG and being investigated for possible criminal charges by the Manhattan DA. This causes problems WRT possibly pleading the 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. If there was just a criminal trial, then they could plead the 5th and that could not be used against them. But there are no 5th Amendment rights WRT civil prosecutions. And while they could plead the 5th and refuse to answer in the civil case based on concerns about how that might be used against them in the potential criminal case, the jury in the civil case could then use those non-responses against them and infer civil liability. So they are between a rock and a hard place; if they answer they risk criminal prosecution, and if they don’t then they risk losing out in the civil case. (Trump’s lawyers argued in court that the civil case was deliberately engineered for this reason, but they were unsuccessful in quashing the subpoena.)
So if the criminal case was officially closed, then the Trumpers would be more confident in answering the civil case questions. But as long as it’s hanging over them, the conundrum remains.
So if the criminal case is delayed while the civil case goes forward, could his answers in the civil case be used against him if the criminal case was reopened later?
Theoretically, yes. This is what got Bill Cosby convicted and then freed, after all. An agreement to not prosecute for any testimony given in the civil case, which was then used in the criminal case. Trump could take the Fifth in the civil case to help protect himself from criminal prosecution, but that also means he’d be more likely to lose a civil suit because the jury in a civil suit is under no obligation not to assume the worst of such a refusal to testify.
If it was a simple matter of those two prosecutors having finished their job and it was time to move on this would not be a story and they would not be “resigning” and telling the papers it is because they disagree with the DA.
Obviously.
New reporting from the NYT indicates that it’s not just the DA who was opposed to prosecuting Trump, overruling the two guys who resigned. Rather, sentiment among the career prosecutors in the DA’s office was also opposed, and the only people cited as being in favor were these two guys (who, again, were specifically brought in for the purpose of this investigation).
Report Details ‘Unraveling’ of Trump Probe That Led Prosecutors to Resign (commondreams.org)
Yeah, true that. Sigh Though I still wish there were a better way of putting it forth for public consumption, exactly for the reason you point out. It ends up being either “it was a witch-hunt all along” or “Bragg’s weak” and Donald and his minions come out smiling either way.
As with the other thread on the debts, to a great extent this is also reflective of a serious problem we’ve had with facing Trump since back when he was still a would-be candidate: the building up of a narrative/expectation based on a “conviction” that out there, somewhere, for sure there has got to be something, some one Great Big Thing that when it comes out for reckoning will just simply absolutely destroy Trump, smash him, send him to jail/drive him to the poorhouse/enlighten the deplorables/send him on the run/make Melania cut his junk off/etc.
That was not happening in 2015-16 and it’s not happening now…
There is such a basic, fundamental disconnect in the minds of Trumpists and of Trump, of course that I still can’t make my mind accept:
me: OK, accept for a moment breaking the norms and basing your entire campaign on locking your opponent up for nebulous crimes she supposedly committed, don’t you see that this opens the door to your opponents calling for you to be arrested for far more material crimes? How does this help you, if it’s a fair and reasonable process to be demanding your opponents be locked up, especially since you yourself are taking chances with your own criminal behavior?
MAGA: “Lock her up!”
It’s classic Republican strategy. Your man is a draft dodging coward against a decorated veteran? Accuse the veteran of cowardice.
Your opponent is an amazing American success story? Accuse him of not being American
Your man is dumb as a box of crackers, and barely passed an Alzheimer’s test? Accuse your opponent of being senile.
Your man is a criminal scam artist? Accuse your opponent of nebulous “crimes” and bleat to lock her up.
And it’s also uncannily like the practices of Putinist propaganda.