The question as why Bragg is pushing now is headlines. He wants the "distinction" of being first to indict now that he perceives tfg is wounded and weakened.
Before he just wanted to show the very rich that Manhatten was a consequent free zone for the very rich but now there is blood in the water he can no longer ignore.
Another point as to whether they cuff and perp walk him is that considering he has bragged that he never goes anywhere with out a gun (waved it at a rally ) standard practice would be having a swat team to take down an admittedly armed individual engaged in violeent rhetoric.
They will probably lean heavily on a "selective prosecution" defense, in the media even if that is not given very wide scope in the courtroom.
The idea is that that all sorts of prosecutable business short cuts in the NYC real estate business have been winked at for decades by law enforcement, so singling out Trump for selective enforcement of the law is obviously far from fair and impartial. There is a stereotype already to that effect, how accurate I cannot say. How legally relevant I can say even less, but count on the other side's media campaign at least to be all over this idea.
Ides of March
The question as why Bragg is pushing now is headlines. He wants the "distinction" of being first to indict now that he perceives tfg is wounded and weakened.
Before he just wanted to show the very rich that Manhatten was a consequent free zone for the very rich but now there is blood in the water he can no longer ignore.
Another point as to whether they cuff and perp walk him is that considering he has bragged that he never goes anywhere with out a gun (waved it at a rally ) standard practice would be having a swat team to take down an admittedly armed individual engaged in violeent rhetoric.
They will probably lean heavily on a "selective prosecution" defense, in the media even if that is not given very wide scope in the courtroom.
The idea is that that all sorts of prosecutable business short cuts in the NYC real estate business have been winked at for decades by law enforcement, so singling out Trump for selective enforcement of the law is obviously far from fair and impartial. There is a stereotype already to that effect, how accurate I cannot say. How legally relevant I can say even less, but count on the other side's media campaign at least to be all over this idea.
Even if that is true, one must be the first. Let it be Trump.
The argument would not take you far in court if it was any non financial crime.