Comments by "Setta" (@settame1) on "New York DA Braggs BRAGS About Convicting Trump in Resurfaced Video." video.

  1. A bottle of water could get elected in New York if it had a D behind its name, or get indicted if it was an R
    11
  2. Americas been through much worse than this. This is just it acting silly.
    2
  3. He’s pointing out that it seems odd that Brag said he would indict, didn’t indict because they couldn’t find evidence, then when it became more politically charged (when trump announced he was running) that then he found enough evidence despite trying several times before to find the exact same evidence. Either laws are being misinterpreted to allow for what the actual evidence says or there is new evidence that no one else has. Neither of which seem likely. The only other option is that it is politically motivated. So he’s just saying that out of the three likely outcomes only two are based in law and don’t seem to be correct.
    2
  4.  @ReturnOfHeresy  it’s when the grand jury says “there’s a greater than 50% chance something is there having no evidence to the contrary and only hearing the good stuff”. That’s why people get indicted for murder despite the fact they have air tight alibis. Occasionally they get convicted of those too because of unethical prosecutors (see Zach Anderson and Michael Keetley) for recent examples.
    1
  5. When you don’t have access to the actual information regarding that criminal activity you are assuming that they are a criminal and trying to find evidence to fit a crime. That is not how it is supposed to work in America. Trump university is hardly what is going on here, and everything Brag knew at the time of the interview was everyone who had access to the evidence declined to prosecute because there was no evidence to. Brag was asserting without knowing what evidence existed that there had been a crime that was committed and he would prosecute.
    1