Ahem...
Criminal and civil cases that lack sufficient evidence usually aren't pursued, but occasionally criminal charges or civil lawsuits are maliciously filed in order to intimidate, harass, defame, or otherwise injure the other party. Learn more at Findlaw.
www.findlaw.com
You realize that link has absolutely zero to do with what was being discussed -- which was the Ku Klux Klan Act. As such, your reference is irrelevant to that discussion. Additionally, your link doesn't actually go to a particular law, much less a federal law. It is a catch all to help people who feel they have been "maliciously prosecuted" to find a lawyer, so they can find out if they have a case in their state.
Additionally, there is little chance that a malicious prosecution charge could be brought against Bragg -- for the simple fact that the indictment came through a Grand Jury. In this case, a Grand Jury believed there was enough probable cause to indict Trump, which largely insulates Bragg from any type of malicious prosecution lawsuits.
You got a woke DA, out for Trump's blood, gets a seat in an office that already decided that they didn't have enough to pursue charges on....
You need to look again. As I previously have pointed out, the decision "not to prosecute" was not the previous DA. Instead, Bragg. From the previously linked NY Times article, "Mr. Pomerantz described his view of Mr. Trump’s actions as plainly criminal, as well as his frustrations with Mr. Bragg when he took office in 2022 and did not charge Mr. Trump. That decision led Mr. Pomerantz and another of the investigation’s leaders, Carey Dunne, to resign."
So the "woke DA" previously chose not to prosecute former Pres. Trump, so once he finds better evidence to create his case he shouldn't be allowed to bring it? That seems to be what you are arguing. And I fail to see how that makes him "woke."
And now suddenly he's throwing the book and any other book in reach at Trump for what seems like may be personal ambitions. That's a pretty decent case for malicious prosecution.
Again, as I noted above, it really isn't. As I understand the process in NY state for Felony charges, if the DA had just brought the charges himself (not presented the case to a Grand Jury) there would be a probable cause hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to the trial stage. It is only after a probable cause hearing, if it is found there is not enough evidence to proceed to trial, that a DA could be sued for malicious prosecution.
Again, DA Bragg went through a Grand Jury -- it is the Grand Jury that produced the indictment. As such, former Pres. Trump will not get a probable cause hearing as the Grand Jury already decided that there is. As such, DA Bragg cannot be "guilty" of Malicious Prosecution (I put guilty in quotes because it is a civil offense, not a criminal one in NY) since it was found by the Grand Jury that probable cause exists.
The person who Jordan called to testify was under the old DA and left when they wouldn't bring charges against Trump....and now quit a private practice to work under Bragg.
This accusation of interference would hold more weight if the guy didn't already write a book about it.
Congress isn't charging him with anything, but if they're pursuing this rather inflated set of charges against Trump while letting armed robbers off light....yeah, it seems likely that this is malicious prosecution, and Bragg should be disbarred.
As I noted above, and in a previous post on this thread, it was not the "previous DA," it was DA Bragg that didn't bring charges. While I speculate it is because he found better evidence, that is a guess. Again, the Federal Government allegedly (no actual reasons were given on the record, just unnamed sources) did not prosecute because they felt the verdict would rest on the testimony of Trump's Former Lawyer Michael Cohen; and with his previous lies and conviction, they did not believe the jury would find him credible. Allegedly, (again, no on the record sources), DA Bragg has various records and recordings that he believes will support the case, so the case will not rest solely on the testimony of Cohen -- so while he previously declined to prosecute, fearing the jury would not believe Cohen, he now believes with the extra records he can get a conviction.
Now there may be a different reason why Bragg declined earlier and is proceeding now, regardless, the fact remains he didn't prosecute Trump previously, so something has apparently changed such that he is proceeding now -- it doesn't make him "woke" nor does it mean that the charges are "inflated."
