I didn't say she chose not to bring a criminal case. — NOS4A2

I didn’t say you said it. I said you suggested it. Much like with Trump there’s much implicit in what you say.

How is that possible when the sentence you quoted refer to other people? It’s clear to me where the distortion lies. At any rate, that’s my public service for the day.

The full quote is:

“Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? “Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. New York is a banana republic. See what SCOTUS says. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯“

Any reasonable person can infer from this that you are suggesting that James lacks the evidence to prove guilt and so didn’t pursue a criminal case, resorting only to a civil case where the standard of proof is lower.

However, if your “I wonder why?” wasn’t rhetorical and if the subsequent sentence was not you answering your own question then I answered your question for you: she doesn’t have authority to pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, which is why she didn’t pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, instead referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing to the relevant authorities.

When dealing with Fooloso be prepared nonsensical analogies and other sophistries. — NOS4A2

Let me try to explain this to you. Just as there are things that a baseball team can and cannot do, there are things the NY Attorney General can and cannot do. Just as the claim that a baseball team refuses to play basketball demonstrates ignorance of the game of baseball, claiming that the NY Attorney General refused to bring criminal charges demonstrates ignorance of the office.

Now, when called out, you attempt to hide behind the vagueness of your claims. Despite the fact that it is this case that is in the news, and despite the fact that it was in this case that it was found that he committed fraud, you say you were not referring to the prosecutor in this case, but to some unidentified other prosecutors. So who are these other prosecutors who refused to pursue the case?

I was writing about the prosecutors in the district attorney's office (note: "the prosecutors", "the criminal prosecutors", not "the attorney general") investigating Trump for the exact same thing. If you do not recall two of them quit earlier this year. This was because, to their chagrin, "There was nothing to indict", ie, no crime, no evidence of any crime. They had nothing and were angry the DA refused go along with it. Obviously, you know nothing of this, nor should I be required to fill in the holes of your knowledge, but hopefully this clears it up for you.

This was because, to their chagrin, "There was nothing to indict" — NOS4A2

Who are you quoting?

What evidence do you have that the district attorney's office is no longer pursuing criminal charges? The so called "Hush Money" case is ongoing and includes criminal charges. Or do you have reliable evidence to the contrary?

I was quoting one of Ankush Khardori's sources from his article in New York Magazine.

“That was never conveyed to the team,” one of the sources told me, while cautioning that it was at least conceivable that there were discussions among Vance, Pomerantz, and Dunne that were not shared with others in the office. “The authorization,” at least so far as the source could summarize, was to continue investigating. “It was never, ‘All right, go forth and indict,’” the source continued, “because there was nothing, there just wasn’t anything … There was nothing to indict.” If anything was expressed during this period, it was that “this would be a great civil case.’” Indeed, Attorney General Letitia James’s office brought such a civil case last year that largely followed the same outline.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/mark-pomerantzs-revealing-fight-with-alvin-bragg-over-trump.html

I was quoting one of Ankush Khardori's sources from his article in New York Magazine. — NOS4A2

This seems to be another article you did not read. Pomerantz was a prosecutor, he thought he had a strong case against Trump and wanted to bring criminal charges against him. He was a prosecutor and did not refuse to bring charges. Quite the opposite. This is why he resigned.

The author of the article makes it clear that there was still more work to do. This does not mean the district attorney's office refused to bring criminal charges. Again, quite the opposite. Bragg did not think the case was ready at that point. Subsequently, based on the further work that was done he conclude that their case against Trump was now strong enough and he brought criminal charges against him.

I already said that Pomerantz and another prosecutor resigned. As you have clearly read from the article, there are more prosecutors involved, including Bragg himself.

Mr. Trump is his own most dedicated promoter and for years has acted as a booster for the value of his buildings and his brand. The possibility that Mr. Trump’s exaggerations could be criminal has long intrigued prosecutors, and the Manhattan district attorney’s office at one point came close to indicting Mr. Trump on charges that he had misrepresented their value.

The current district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, declined to pursue that case, but later indicted the former president in connection with a hush money payment to a porn star.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/nyregion/trump-james-fraud-trial.html

What happened to the baseball team analogies?

"Thanks, unnamed source."

What happened to the baseball team analogies? — NOS4A2

Here you go:

Team A plays baseball. A discussion arises when team A scores a home run. NOS, that tireless defender of all things Trump, joins in and says that the players, who he calls "prosecutors", refuse to score a basket. When it is pointed out that the rules of baseball do not include scoring baskets, NOS then says that he is not talking about these players/prosecutors
but some as yet unidentified players/prosecutors who, when their identity is disclosed, it turns out play a different game by different rules.

Perhaps he is confused because both teams play in New York. Or perhaps in his attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain, he intentionally conflates these different games.

The current district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, declined to pursue that case, but later indicted the former president in connection with a hush money payment to a porn star.

More obfuscation. You said:

Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? “Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. New York is a banana republic. See what SCOTUS says. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — NOS4A2

There is a difference between not pursuing one case and refusing to prosecute Trump for fraud. Bragg is prosecuting him for fraud. [added: in a criminal trial to establish guilt]

You struck out!

A "worthless clause." Now I've heard everything. What an appropriate name, though, for any kind of business dealings with a guy like Trump! "You can't hold me responsible because there is a clause here that says don't trust what I say." Got it!!!

Overvalues his properties when seeking loans and undervalues the same properties when he is seeking to defraud the IRS.

Yes, that's exactly what he's been doing for decades. And he has the gall to say he's legally covered by what he calls the "worthless clause" which essentially says his property valuations can't trusted! The great criminal clown show must go on!

Unless his ever increasing rotating army of lawyers are able to exploit loopholes he is going to find that this defense will be worthless.

What bothers me about the property fraud case is that none of the banks lost any money. Sure it's inflated property values but if the banks took the claims at face value without their own due diligence, and still made money on them, then aren't they co-conspirators? I hope and believe that Trump will be convicted in the election fraud and insurrection cases, and be jailed for them, but dunno about this one. Could easily get tossed on appeal, and it's not as if the DoJ can afford misfires. Too much at stake.

Gotta say, though, Jamie Raskin and others are just knocking it out of the park at the sham hearings. It's beyond ridiculous.

Could easily get tossed on appeal, and it's not as if the DoJ can afford misfires. — Wayfarer

As a civil case, where the purported fraud points to getting an unfair advantage within a set of legislated conditions designed to deny that to business owners, an appeal reversal based upon a faulty declaration of facts would be much different than the limits of standard practices. The Trump defense, so far, seems to be angling for the latter. For James to lose on that basis is more of a reflection of New York City and State law than upon the prosecutors. Shysters ride free.

I hope Trump looses! But I think the election fraud and subversion cases are far more important and substantial.

The criminal cases are more substantial. Personal liberty is never something you want to lose. Losing all your money is pretty big too.

I hope mostly that our institutions persist. Trump will be on the wrong side of the sod soon enough. I worry more about the virgins, treasure, and electoral maps that will be buried with him.

All true. And I also remind myself that the prosecutors and judges in the case have access to far more detailed information that what is published in the media. Anyway, apparently it's kicking off Monday - sooner it proceeds the better.

Speaking in Iowa (at a rally) about electric cars, Trump declared he’d rather be electrocuted than eaten by a shark if he was in a shipwreck caused by an electric boat engine—clearly bewildering the audience, which was largely mum. “If I’m sitting down and that boat’s going down and I’m on top of a battery, and the water starts flooding in, I’m getting concerned,” Trump said. “But then I look 10 yards to my left and there’s a shark over there. So I have a choice of electrocution or a shark—you know what I’m going to take? Electrocution. I will take electrocution every single time. Do we agree?” — TheDailyBeast

What do you say, Dr Freud? Possible signs of anxiety poking through the facade, eh?

Dude's getting more and more senile by the minute.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-us-service-members-veterans

Trump's attitude on full display here. "What's in it for them?" is the top question on his mind when he thinks of a soldier that died for his country. That should make it unambiguously clear to everyone: Trump would never imagine doing what's good for other people if he doesn't personally get something out of it.

He never even in his own mind intended to serve America. He is only capable of serving himself.

Disgrace of a human being.

At least neocon Goldberg can now admit who Trump called losers: John McCain and George Bush. Goldberg is one of their cheerleaders, famous for his propaganda regarding the Iraq war.

Before they spun it in the usual way, by removing context and inserting their own. “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’”, and people still believe it. Dupes passed it around in this very thread even after it was refuted.

Disgraceful propaganda.

what context for you makes Trump look good given this paragraph?

In the statement, Kelly is confirming, on the record, a number of details in a 2020 story in The Atlantic by editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, including Trump turning to Kelly on Memorial Day 2017, as they stood among those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, and saying, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”

Those who were there and who went on record saying none of it happened.

Trump, the same guy who said

“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

I mean, it all fits the kind of way he talks about veterans. I don't find it unbelievable.

He’s talking about John McCain, a warmonger, not “veterans”.

Before they spun it in the usual way, by removing context and inserting their own. “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’”, and people still believe it. Dupes passed it around in this very thread even after it was refuted.

Disgraceful propaganda. — NOS4A2

Yesterday John Kelly, the longest-serving White House chief of staff for Trump confirmed that it's true.

Just out of curiosity, in what context is calling Americans who died in war "Losers" and "Suckers" okay?

No he didn’t. He went on butt-hurt tirade, stringing a loose gathering of words Trump reportedly used in media reports without any reference to anything else.