I have had occasion to rethink the Manhattan project and my previous posts of March 31, last night, April 4, and the reposting of the conclusion to the March 31 post today under Ari Fleischer's comments in the immediately preceding post. I would still like to know if Alvin Bragg sought or received any guidance on how and whether to proceed from classified documents and Jan. 6 special counsel Jack Smith or from the branch of the Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York. The last of those requested that Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr. pause his investigation, which Vance did, although it was near completion and which the outside prosecutor brought in to assist believed had established a clear case of Trump's guilt. Upon assuming office Bragg discharged Vance's grand jury and convened his own on the narrower Stormy Daniels part. So I would like to know of any guidance but I would like to know a great many things that I am not entitled to know, at least not timely. I write by available light.
I have termed the Manhattan project one over "small potatoes". It is, for a former, and perhaps future, president, the latter of which presents some cross-cutting concerns. On the one hand it may be a roadblock to Trump’s attempt to regain office. On the other, Trump’s earlier-than-early announcement of candidacy was attempt to re-cloak himself in the discretionary immunity afforded presidential candidates close to an election. That is not the case here. In Peggy Noonan's opinion prosecuting an ex-president for hush money paid a porn star is "beneath" the United States nation. But is it beneath the office of District Attorney in one of five boroughs of New York City in the state of New York? It is not. Comparatively small potatoes prosecutions are "the bread and butter" in Alvin Bragg's words of comparatively small prosecutor's office. They are in fact local D.A.'s offices only sustenance. Due to our federal system the locals are prohibited from dining on large steak.
From that perspective what would the feds, the high and low chattering classes, have the District Attorney of Manhattan County New York do? Alvin Bragg wholeheartedly and in good faith believes that he has a provable case of small potatoes on which a reasonable jury will convict Donald Trump. The prosecution of a politician is by definition a political prosecution. Ari Fleischer encourages the threat of retaliatory prosecutions by "conservative" local D.A.'s of sitting president Biden, Biden's son Hunter, former president Bill Clinton who has been out of office over twenty years, and his wife, former Secretary of State and losing (to Donald Trump) presidential candidate Hilary Clinton. I don't see how any of those threatened prosecutions could be made in legal good faith and good faith is the sine qua non of all those who participate in a representative democracy. More so, good faith is the sine qua non of citizens in a representative democracy, with the rule of law, regardless of political passion, above all. Bad money must not be permitted in our legal system to drive good money out and the threat or actualization of bad faith prosecutions must not be permitted to prevent good faith prosecutions, on small potatoes or porterhouse steaks. I have zero doubt in the legal good faith of Alvin Bragg. If he is wrong on the legal underpinnings of his case I have zero doubt that trial Judge Juan Merchan or the appellate courts will grant a motion to dismiss, and if Bragg is wrong on the strength of his case and its jury appeal then the jury will acquit the defendant or the appellate courts on review will reverse the conviction for insufficient evidence. In government of, by and for the people under law we must trust the good faith of people of who write and enforce our laws for without it we have a mobocracy.
Forward, Alvin Bragg.